Bloomberg claims he is the "victim" of Bernie bros for littering...as a progressive, I wholeheartedly condemn these "attacks":
Bloomberg claims he is the "victim" of Bernie bros for littering...as a progressive, I wholeheartedly condemn these "attacks":
You might be right, agip, but you might not. The U.S. has pretty good public-health measures in place.
Side note: Won't have much to do with DJT's re-election (or not), but if the coronavirus scare prompts more people to be vaccinated against the flu (an unrelated disease), we could actually end up losing fewer Americans overall. Flu is the *real* killer--amazing, the number of people who think that somehow it can't get them.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
I hope somebody brings up this part of Bloomberg's record tonight. I'm sure my moderate friends on here are not bothered:
Dow down over 1800 points in two days. Thanks Trump!
In many ways Mitch is the worse villain than trump. Trump is just a moron - he doesn't know he is evil. Mitch knows very well that he is failing and betraying the nation. He is supposed to stand up to the white house at times like this. He has instead led the senate's surrender to the WH.
Here, dozens of D and R senators say this. Maybe it will wake Mitch up. He has a chance to be a hero.
agip wrote:
Maybe it will wake Mitch up. He has a chance to be a hero.
Yeah, good luck with that. Maybe if you get Biden elected we will return to an era of bipartisan bliss...
Smorbun wrote:
Dow down over 1800 points in two days. Thanks Trump!
Thanks China!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-news-live-updates-february-25-2020-123516811.htmlRigged for Hillary wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Dow down over 1800 points in two days. Thanks Trump!
Thanks China!
Ahem . . . . did you know that the DJI is an American exchange?
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Dow down over 1800 points in two days. Thanks Trump!
Thanks China!
No, thanks, TRUMP. He's spent three years essentially saying that he's the reason for the stock market's performance--he doesn't get to weasel out now, and neither do his acolytes.
In any case, the market is now showing a bounce and may end the day down only 2% or so. I expect it to settle out and resume its climb upward by the end of the week.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&tbm=fin&q=INDEXDJX:+.DJI&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRozC3w8sc9YSmtSWtOXmNU4eIKzsgvd80rySypFBLjYoOyeKS4uDj0c_UNkgsry3kWsfJ5-rm4Rrh4RVgp6Ll4eQIAqJT5uUkAAAA&biw=1745&bih=881#scso=_NX1VXv6dMNKxtQaHiKOQBQ1:0Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Thanks China!
He's responsible when it goes up, someone else is responsible when it goes down, and you are an imbecile in either case.
Fat hurts wrote:
. . .
I don't know if you would consider me a scientist or not. And I don't see why it matters.
I am well-read on the subject of climate change . . .
1) My quals don't matter
followed by
2) Here are my quals
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Point of clarification.
Bernie is proposing a Wall St. transaction tax to pay for free college and trade school.
It's not an income tax.
Point of clarification, to you.
Money is fungible.
All of these taxes go into the general fund.
You cannot determine which tax is used to pay for which program.
This Wall St tax could be used to buy more nuclear submarines.
Bernie is playing a shell game here.
Not to single him out. All politicians play a shell game with tax revenues and government expenses.
Now - Mexico could actually pay for the wall by sending Mexicans over with materials to build the wall.
Sorry, but your point is not valid.
Yes, money is fungible. But that does not make meaningless the following:
Q) How will you be financing this new expensive program?
A) I will be instituting this particular tax to raise roughly the same amount of money.
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
If congress passes a bill that says the Wall St. tax goes to pay for education then that's what it will be used for. It would take another act of congress to move the money somewhere else.
Of course, they could pass a bill that is more flexible but that's not part of Bernie's plan.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
You're talking about treating it like social security and medicare.
And even in those cases, their funding are line items in a ledger and the actual cash is in the general fund with an IOU.
SS tax has been paying for other parts of the budget for years if you look at the cash flow.
NO WAY Congress does something like that.
As hard as it is, it is still much simpler for Congress to enact a new tax and a line in the budget for education than create a new fund.
It doesn't make any difference. Zero.
Whether they impose a tax that raises $100B to pay for a $100B program and specifially earmark that first $100B to cover the second $100B
OR
impose a tax that raises $100B to pay for a $100B program but do not earmark the money has ZERO IMPACT ON MONEYS RAISED, MONEYS SPENT AND RESULTS. ZERO. And why is this, you might ask? Because money is fungible. ;-)
kibitzer wrote:
[quote]Rigged for Hillary wrote:
No, thanks, TRUMP. He's spent three years essentially saying that he's the reason for the stock market's performance--he doesn't get to weasel out now, and neither do his acolytes.
In any case, the market is now showing a bounce and may end the day down only 2% or so. I expect it to settle out and resume its climb upward by the end of the week.
That's a funny expectation. You (along with everyone else) have no idea what the markets will do in the near future. And if you do not understand that then you do not understand what markets are.
1100 wrote:
Sorry, but your point is not valid.
Yes, money is fungible. But that does not make meaningless the following:
Q) How will you be financing this new expensive program?
A) I will be instituting this particular tax to raise roughly the same amount of money.
Show me an example of a particular new federal tax instituted for a new program since Medicare.
I get your idea.
But we don't use this financing of an investment when we procure new planes for the military.
When they created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, what particular tax did they institute to pay for it?
In fact, I believe it was followed by the Bush tax cuts.
I never see Republicans try to pay for anything they add.
moderates suck wrote:
I hope somebody brings up this part of Bloomberg's record tonight. I'm sure my moderate friends on here are not bothered:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/muslim-surveillance-michael-bloomerg-new-york-city-history.html
Oh. I’m bothered. Bloomberg is Trump-lite.
Now that he’s been eviscerated on stage once, I hope that the rest of the candidates go after Sanders instead of him.
L L wrote:
1100 wrote:
Sorry, but your point is not valid.
Yes, money is fungible. But that does not make meaningless the following:
Q) How will you be financing this new expensive program?
A) I will be instituting this particular tax to raise roughly the same amount of money.
. . .
I never see Republicans try to pay for anything they add.
Perhaps this ^ is your main point. In which case I agree with you.
I don't understand how Republicans get away with running on fiscal conservatism and Democrats never really campaign on fiscal responsibility, which they are proven to be much better at.
Dems keep getting tied up in the "how are you going to pay for it" talk, then give actual solutions for that, while Republicans blow right past that and only offer tax cuts for you, and cutting programs for others.
kibitzer wrote:
In any case, the market is now showing a bounce and may end the day down only 2% or so.
Yikes. Wrong >again<. The Dow ends the day down 3.15%.
Still, I'm seeing this as a correction and not a crash. (And I hope I'm not wrong about *that*!) I deal with many finance professionals, including my spouse, and most of them have thought the market was seriously overvalued for the last year or more.* But it's a colossal game of chicken: No one wants to be the first to sell, when the market has been climbing for most of the last decade.
Now that selling has begun, however, a lot of folks are going to feel like they finally have "permission" to join in. And as often happens, some will overdo it. The bargain hunters will be cleaning things up by the end of the week, I suspect, and this correction BY ITSELF should have little or no effect on President Trump's re-election chances.
*There are reasons, in particular the stock buybacks after the tax breaks, for thinking that the market was actually only mildly overvalued. Price/earnings ratios are not the only ways of judging a market's valuation.
This might be the end of Bernie ...
A top adviser to Mike Bloomberg said the former mayor would focus his attacks during Tuesday night’s debate on Bernie Sanders — including his bizarre writings from 1972 about women’s rape fantasies and kids fondling each other’s genitals.
“Bernie has loopy stuff in his background saying women get cancer from having too many orgasms or toddlers should run around naked and touch each other’s genitals to insulate themselves from porn?” Tim O’Brien told CNN’s “New Day,” prompting an incredulous anchor Alisyn Camerota to exclaim, “I’m sorry — what?”
“He has written about women’s rape fantasies, that hasn’t been surfaced. That’s the loony side of Bernie,” O’Brien replied.
The existence of the essay in the alternative newspaper the Vermont Freeman was first revealed by Mother Jones in 2015, when Sanders was making his first presidential run.
The Vermont senator, 78, was a regular contributor to the paper in the late 1960s and early 1970s and frequently wrote about sexual and cultural topics.
But it was the one essay from 1972 that caused the most controversy, despite Sanders’ later repudiation of his own words.
“Now, if children go around naked, they are liable to see each others sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing! If we [raise] children up like this it will probably ruin the whole pornography business, not to mention the large segment of the general economy which makes its money by playing on people’s sexual frustrations,” Sanders wrote.
He also shared his bizarre view of what goes on in people’s heads when they were having sex.
SEE ALSO
Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire primary in razor-thin victory over Pete Buttigieg
“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously,” he wrote.
“Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like ‘Girl 12 raped by 14 men’ sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?” he asked.
Sanders’ camp in 2015 dismissed the essay as something “stupid” Sanders wrote as a younger man and that didn’t reflect his views.
Campaign spokesman Michael Briggs called the essay a “dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication” in an interview with CNN, saying it “in no way reflects his views or record on women.”
Briggs added: “It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the ‘70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then.”
Sanders will likely have a huge target on his back for the debate in South Carolina since emerging as the clear front-runner in most polls and winning the New Hampshire primary and Nevada caucuses.