221–230 of 367 posts
Can someone tell me, with a straight face, how this won't cause inflation at one of the worst points to have such?
That is the idea, anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. You say that like both parties are trying to deny testing and are refusing to provide the social safety net for workers to stay home when they're sick. This is very much not a "both sides" discussion. This is: the GOP needs to stop trying to pretend like nothing is wrong and actually DO SOMETHING to prevent this from becoming an even bigge…
Lamar Alexander was not against providing this support. He blocked it based on how it was going to be paid for. It's very much a partisan issue because the Democrats want companies to foot the bill. The GOP thinks that if Washington DC thinks companies should do something then Washington DC should foot the bill. Neither side disagrees that people should have this support. All the Democrats had to do is introduce the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lamar Alexander was not against providing this support. He blocked it based on how it was going to be paid for. It's very much a partisan issue because the Democrats want companies to foot the bill. The GOP thinks that if Washington DC thinks companies should do something then Washington DC should foot the bill. Neither side disagrees that people should have this support. All the Democrats had to do is introduce the…
As a non-American that's somewhat ignorant of the current states of the US legislative houses on this matter, could someone provide some context as to why the comment directly parent to $self is being maligned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a non-American that's somewhat ignorant of the current states of the US legislative houses on this matter, could someone provide some context as to why the comment directly parent to $self is being maligned?
When you say parent comment are you referring to my comment or the one I replied to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to note, the full interview transcript is here[1] and the reply to > It comes to your desk. Do you veto it? he replied with > I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of healthcare being available now. If they got that through in by some miracle or there`s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, OK, it`s passed. Then you got to look at the cost. Unlike on…
On the contrary, reading your side's politicians the way you expect (charitably) and the other side's politicians the way you expect (uncharitably), you end up with the divisions we have now. I'd suggest reading both charitably regarding interpretation, then being cynical regarding whether it'll really happen/whether it's honest. [edit: (charitably) and (uncharitably), not (charitably) and (charitably)]
Additionally, I don't take the words I hear from politicians on my side (if that's really an accurate term) charitably either. I err on reading both interpretations cynically, and one needs look no further than the "hyperbole" of trump's primary rallies to see where a charitable reading fell far short of the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to note, the full interview transcript is here[1] and the reply to > It comes to your desk. Do you veto it? he replied with > I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of healthcare being available now. If they got that through in by some miracle or there`s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, OK, it`s passed. Then you got to look at the cost. Unlike on…
On the contrary, reading your side's politicians the way you expect (charitably) and the other side's politicians the way you expect (uncharitably), you end up with the divisions we have now. I'd suggest reading both charitably regarding interpretation, then being cynical regarding whether it'll really happen/whether it's honest. [edit: (charitably) and (uncharitably), not (charitably) and (charitably)]
Biden would veto the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> They are providing short-term loans If I want to give my friend a loan, I need to earn that money first by working hard. FED does not conduct any profitable activity that would earn them any money, they DO PRINT that money from thin air.
If you want to compare apple to oranges, then you would need to be able to print money from thin air in order to be consistent in your metaphor where you are the Federal Reserve and your friend is a cohort of "financial institutions providing high-quality collateral" in exchange. Personal finance and monetary policy are not similar even though they both involve money. Money in your bank account is not the same as mon…
That's what central banks want you to believe: that what they are doing is something special, "God's work" - as some drunk Goldman Sachs executive put it. Truth is: law of economics are pretty much like laws of physics - they work the same in small and large scale. It is no coincidence that Great Depression happened in 1929, mere 16 years after FED was created - that was just a first of many consequences of central bank's irresponsible actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say parent comment are you referring to my comment or the one I replied to?
I was referring to yours. I edited the original in the hopes of improving clarity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure you'll get partisan political comments, but you're correct. I will note that I don't agree with "we" doing anything... our government is rather thoroughly insulated from the will of the citizens of the US by its own design. The dysfunction in our government is due to years of slow decay that have culminated in the present situation. This crisis will hopefully force enough people to realize the problem exists…
We can start by not having a president that continues to peddle disinformation in a time of national crisis. I don't remember any other president in my lifetime being this factually incorrect this many times. Also as a matter of fact both sides are not at the same level in terms of corruption (number of criminal indictments and convictions) in modern white house administrations.