Well, I'm not happy, just was concerned because Phillip Van Natter went back to the crime scene with a vile of OJ's blood in his shirt pocket and latter there was 1.5 cc missing from it. Guilty or not he should have got off, that's the law.
My old tricks again? your old tricks, Copied off a mutual friend of ours I ask you to be specific, then I get the run around. Then I get "inability or unwillingness to comprehend inconvenient truths is somebody else's fault" just because I dont agree with you? Maybe I should read the post again, then somehow the vagueness will magically disappear and they will be "sufficiently precise"
Maybe you should. While you're at it, maybe you could explain to us the bottom line to your ramblings, and what it means for Fed policy: "Chinas side of the coin Subscribe to read | Financial Times State sponsored lending to smaller companies regardless of their ability to pay the debt back. What could go wrong? Bonds with no maturation date so its banks can meet capital requirements for public lending Chinas private debt has nearly tripled in the 10 years since the GFC. They had a whole bunch of silly rules about foreign ownership and domestic tariffs" What does this have to do with the price of tea in the U.S.? Or more to the point, with Fed policy and the appropriateness of monetary stimulus during "good times".
You critisized easing even though its a tactic currently being used by the rest of the developed world, China will get itself in trouble doing so in the long term if its economy doesnt pick up again The chief of the Fed reserve doesnt answer to the Pres, so unsure what you mean by "seems responding to Pressure from" ...the pressure of a few tweets on Twitter I assume. Then we get "If the Fed continues on this course, it uses up the principal tool it has at its disposal when (and it will happen) we hit a real economic downturn" What current course is that? Not lowering the interest rate enough...is using up its "principal tool"...when we hit a "real economic downturn" ???
There you go again, what Fed policy? Monetary Stimulus? What stimulus Specifics gardammit Are you just like copying and pasting phrases from somewhere?
"The Pentagon last week sent Congress a list that included $12.8 billion of military construction projects that funds could be pulled from for a wall, but has not yet said which projects could be postponed if funding is shifted."
I don't criticize easing per se. I'm all for it when appropriate, as it was during our recovery from the Bush recession. I don't see the point under current U.S. conditions. The U.S. should follow policies appropriate to U.S. economic conditions. China will get itself in trouble doing so in the long term if its economy doesnt pick up again [/QUOTE] So what? The Fed chair shouldn't answer to the Pres, nor should the Pres be trying to influence him. Trump has been villifying Powell, calling him an enemy and compared him to China's Xi.. No, lowering them as much as it has.
So what? The Fed chair shouldn't answer to the Pres, nor should the Pres be trying to influence him. Trump has been villifying Powell, calling him an enemy and compared him to China's Xi.. No, lowering them as much as it has.[/QUOTE] Hey Brother Okie, I just thought this was a good chance to interject here. I just read Theodore Roosevelt saying, " No man is above the law and no man is below it. Nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." That great phrase just got me thinking about our current White House resident and all his under-educated supporters.
Does anyone on here know what became of the inquiry into the Trump Tower Server and its connection to Russia?
Trump appointed Powell and said this about him: “He’s strong, he’s committed, he’s smart. I am confident that with Jay as a wise steward of the Federal Reserve, it will have the leadership it needs in the years to come.”
I think post 14788 is a mistake. I only wrote the part which begins with "Hey Brother Okie" not anything above it which is from a prior post?
Fact-checking Trump officials: Most drugs enter US through legal ports of entry, not vast, open border Alan Gomez, USA TODAY Published 12:04 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2019 | Updated 2:24 Fact-checking Trump officials: Most drugs enter US through legal ports of entry, not vast, open border
Yeah, I don't know what happened there, I was the author of the rest of it, before the word QUOTE and I was replying to VG. In fact, it's a repeat of part of what I wrote in the preceding post. Probably, when you replied to that, you inadvertently included some of my post in your reply.
OJ was as famous as they get, and not merely rich, but a symbol of masculine superiority. Had he been short and dumpy, for example, he would have needed a lot more money. Donald Duck has been accused of forcing himself on women repeatedly, and walked away a free man, calling them all sluts.
That would be the post where he called Trump followers uneducated morons, but then couldnt work out how quote tags work
LOL, he will also be given immunity by whoever replaces him. The idea that a US president can be disgraced before the eyes of the entire international community and lower stock prices is not something the Pentagon or congress support. Tricky Dick committed theft and perjury, going so far as to lie to the public on national television, and went on to write his autobiography for a little extra cash. Reagan sold weapons to Iran, committing what is technically treason, his people lied flat out to congress, and went to make more money and host talk radio. Clinton flat out lied to the courts insisting "I have never had sexual relations with that woman" and would have been re-elected a third time, if not for it being forbidden by congress. The day you see a US president not only convicted, but prosecuted, will be the day they declare civil war. The banks committed massive widespread fraud worldwide, and almost none of them spent a day in jail, and the US and EU loudly protested tiny Iceland actually throwing the bastards in jail. In case it somehow escaped your attention, white collar crime might as well be legal, because we have the best justice money can buy. Martha Stewart is a symbol of American integrity and happy home makers everywhere, and was shocked and offended when a judge decided to actually put her in jail for insider trading. Of course, she got merely two years in a country club prison, because she can afford the best lawyers in the world. The idea of fair competition or equality under the law are jokes in bad taste.