by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 172 - 202 of 202 Search these comments
Anyone bothered to look at the job cuts website recently ?
errc saysShow any graph of the metric Trump is claiming as his own win, and it’s the exact same trend line. You can hardly tell that the presidency changed hands.
Wow, just wow. OK, once again.
The last TWO years of Obama (after the QE flow was turned off)
Sniper says
Now compare that to the trend line of Trump's ONE year (WITHOUT any QE)
Sniper says
If those two trend line look the same, well, ....
errc saysThis is getting tiring, i can’t tell if you guys are being honest ...
Why would you compare the last two years of Obamas presidency to the first one of Trumps. Do an apples to apples comparison then.
Either show the trend line from jan 20 2009 to present (you won’t because it blows your narrative to shreds) or post Obamas first year 1/20/09 to Trumps first year 1/20/17. Your attempt to cherry pick further proves my point
Why would you compare the last two years of Obamas presidency to the first one of Trumps. Do an apples to apples comparison then.
I don't play race politics, that's all. I think Democrats playing race politics show just how weak their platform is.
Why would you compare the last two years of Obamas presidency to the first one of Trumps.
or post Obamas first year 1/20/09 to Trumps first year 1/20/17. Your attempt to cherry pick further proves my point
Why ignore the FACT that without the $4.5 TRILLION of QE injected into the market during Obama,
height="328" width="600">
What did he do?
I don't play race politics, that's all. I think Democrats playing race politics show just how weak their platform is.
It's really sad. That speech was fairly centrist, but you can't get any decent discussion going. Mentioned on facetwat that the Dems need the (poorer) common working citizens to win and it went right to "oh those rays cyst people, it's rays cyst to assume we need them". Yawn.
that could never be because minorities are lazy and just feed off the government teat not to mention incompetent.
Don't need safety and environmental protections
anonymous saysDon't need safety and environmental protections
Well of course we need safety and environmental protections, but unfortunately the way these laws usually get made is this:
* Big company realizes that the cost of complying with various regulations is a problem for smaller competitors.
* Big company gets super-virtuous in public about "saving the environment" with new regulations which may or may not actually be effective at saving the environment.
* Small company cannot pay the cost of complying with the regulations and still stay in business.
* Small company dies.
* Big company raises prices because there is less competition. CEO puts feet up on desk and smokes cigar, chuckling to self.
So mere "environmental regulation" by itself is not necessarily a good thing. It has to actually protect the environment in some significant way, without ju...
Anyway the other day the owner of the largest East Coast oil-refining complex is filing for bankruptcy and blaming an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biofuel mandate.
This is actually an excellent example of Patrick's statement above. Biofuels are in most cases less environmentally friendly than oil-derived gasoline. They are pushed by big Agro, which, it turns out, not only gobbles up taxpayers' money, but also increases CO2 emissions. True capitalism, where small investment in legislature gives oversized returns.
« First « Previous Comments 172 - 202 of 202 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,198,626 comments by 14,137 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, Hmoral online now