Liberals cannot stand the fact that Republican policy is giving people more money. Liberals believe only the government should be able to give to workers. Not one Democrat has said a positive word about the wage increases or the bonuses. Pelosi looked so pissed at her news conference, I guess so, she called it armageddon and a scam, which is turning out to be a fallacy.
You see Amarel, he believes a business should continue to operate stores at a loss. He has no idea how to run a company. That is the liberal way, keep racking up debt til you have to declare bankruptcy or go out of business completely.
Al, I assume since you are so concerned about this that you are sending in all of your extra money to "the fund" to save the planet. If you are still working, how about you work two or three jobs and send all that extra money also. This climate change thing for you is very serious, so I am assuming you are living in a small, run down apartment so all of your money can go to save the planet. If not, I question how much you actually believe it. I mean, what can be more important to you alarmists than saving 7 billion people. Giving up your free time and financial security has to outweigh the certain destruction of the planet, does it not?
People say he is unfit because he is not a politician and does things differently from the establishment. He says what is on his mind, and that is a no no in Washington. He attacks people who are out to get him, something that has never really been done before.
What is shameful are the Democrats who are threatening to shut down the government over the illegal invaders known as DACA. It is so sad when a party puts illegals over American citizens. Now you know where their priorities lie.
You are absolutely correct with the mental health angle. The Democrats know that this will allow any abortion at any time. All a woman has to do is walk in at nine months and say I am going to have a mental breakdown if I have this baby. Boom, abortion allowed and performed.
It is only Christian violence if they commit these crimes in the name of Jesus. If not, they are crimes by people who happen to be Christians who oppose something they adamantly oppose, in this case abortion. Many Christians are pro choice, so you can't use Christians as an excuse unless they say they did it in the name of Jesus.
In the next ten years without the tax bill we will add 8.5 trillion dollars to the debt. So what is adding 1.5 trillion more? The 8.5 trillion is from too much spending. If liberals have such a problem with adding 1.5 trillion to the debt maybe they should work with Republicans to come up with a true balanced budget. The deficit is already going to go through the roof, just not how Democrats want it, which is entirely through too much spending.
Actually, I have read where there was a couple of instances where the fire department did NOT put out fires due to lack of payment. It is rare. Why they would let a house burn down just for non payment is beyond me, but they did. Here is the article.
Illegals can't be eligible to see a doctor, unless they are going to pay the full price out of pocket, which is then okay, otherwise you are inviting disaster as people sneak across the border for free health care. Going to the emergency room is different, no one should be denied access to a serious injury. If an illegal goes to the emergency room and cannot pay then the USA should get reimbursed from the government they are from.
It seems that your plan is different from other countries where the government makes decisions on who gets what treatment. As long as the government makes no decisions than that is a step in the right direction compared to other countries.
I am assuming you will not allow the government to pay for abortions, transgender surgery, and cosmetic surgery to look better. Those are not health care related.
Should we not first get rid of the fraud and abuse in Medicare before we entertain allowing the government to run things. If the government can't first save money by cleaning up Medicare abuse than I don't see how it can be trusted running everyone's health care costs. Billions are wasted every year because the oversight is horrendous.
How about people on Medicaid right now. As you say it costs a lot, do you make everyone contribute to their health care? You could save a ton of money if everyone must pay something. I am not talking about people who CLEARLY can't contribute, those people can be exempt. What do you do with the people who can work but don't? Do you deny them health care? If not, how do you get them to pay up? When they get a job you take it from their paycheck or if they do not get a job do you cut off their food stamps, welfare checks to make up the difference. If so, then you are on to something.
So you are saying that you want to get rid of employer provided health insurance. If so, then I would like to know how much you plan on charging people for their health care. Is it a set amount of their income? Are you also going to set price controls to keep health care costs from skyrocketing? Do doctors have 100% decision making without any interference from any government agency? I am interested in your answers.
Almost every economist has said that 2% economic growth is here to stay. It is very difficult to find one that believes we can return to 3-4% growth rate. This current economic "boom" is mostly due to the markets already figuring in that the tax cuts were going to happen.
Another reason why the economy is doing well right now is the massive regulations that Trump is rescinding. Obama put tens of thousands of new regulations on everything. That is what stifled economic growth for the past eight years. Thankfully Trump is a business man and realizes that regulations can only hurt the economy.
Sure, excon, I will like to hear what you have to say, but remember your original post had nothing to do with health insurance. This debate is about the economy, tax cuts, Social Security and Medicare.
I will make this very simple so everyone can understand this. We are NEVER going to pay down the 20 trillion in debt, so the number going higher is irrelevant. Without the 1.5 trillion added to the debt through these tax cuts we are going to add 8.6 trillion more through too much spending. Democrats do not seem to have a problem with this, as does many Republicans. Where does all this spending come from. Medicare and Social Security mostly! The article below outlines everything you need to understand how our deficits work compared to GDP.
As long as the deficit compared to GDP stays at or below 3% the US economy is fine. Only when it goes above 3% is there cause for concern. IF the tax cuts spur big economic growth, the 1.5 trillion added means nothing as long as the deficit to GDP stays at or below 3%.
If the tax cuts were to NOT go through and the economy stays at its economic growth rate of 2% which it has done for a decade then we are in big trouble due to overspending on Medicare and Social Security. There is going to come a point when Congress is going to have to address these two. We simply cannot stay on the course we are on right now as baby boomers retire. The problem is neither Republicans or Democrats will touch Medicare or Social Security.
Economic growth is projected at 1.9% for the next ten years, that number is simply far too low for our future spending needs. Obama could not grow the economy above 2%, so now it is Trumps turn. The tax cuts may or may not get us to the magical 3-4 percent growth that we will need to not have to make major cuts to Medicare and Social Security. However, one thing is certain, NOT doing the tax cuts will certainly keep economic growth at 2% or below for the next decade, which will eventually lead to massive cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and if we do not cut them eventually we will default.
If anyone is still confused let me know, I will explain it another way.
So what. The USA influences elections all around the world all the time. We just don't ever hear about it. Obama influenced Israels election trying to defeat Netanyahu, which was unsuccessful. You really think Russia does not try to influence elections around the world also? It doesn't matter if Trump knew about it, there is no crime there. Collusion, meddling, and influencing is not against the law. The only way Trump can get into trouble is if he conspired with Putin in a way that broke US laws, like rigging election machines, etc. Getting info on an opponent is nothing new, every politician does it.
If Trump knew about Russia hacking the Democrats emails that is not against the law either. Only if Trump participated in it personally do we have a problem. No evidence so far suggest he has.
Excellent post! Probably the best I have read in weeks. Franken and Conyers were when they were in office, while Moore and Trump were before. I also believe Moore did some things, however, there is no evidence other than these woman's accusations. The yearbook thing could have been easily verified by experts, but she chose not to take that route.
Bronto, you did not mention the Democrats using the mentally unfit for president that they have been screaming about. They claim numerous psychiatrists say he should be removed from office, being mentally unstable. The Democrats go back and forth on how to get Trump. Many of these alleged allegations by these women against Trump have massive holes in their stories or have been proven discredited by eyewitnesses or having the facts state otherwise, like the woman who said Trump groped her at a concert and the date she said there was no concert anywhere near that day.
You have liberals screaming and crying that the white man stole the Indians land because they were here first, well the land in dispute was in Jewish possession 3000 years ago, proven through archaeological evidence. Now liberals are crying that the land doesn't belong to the Jews, even though they were their first. No other group today can date back that far and claim the land. It is the Jews land. Liberals need to get over it. The Palestinians have no desire for peace, they want Israel destroyed, so this may make them negotiate in good faith. If not, let Israel keep taking more land and drive them out of the region completely.
We do know all of the chemicals that were present when the Earth was formed and in its early stages, so doing combinations of them should over time allow us to determine if life can start from nothing. How much time is the question. I guess if we started now we will have our answer in a few million years. I have to be shown that it can be done, which at present the answer is no.
RNA has arose, you are correct, but RNA is nowhere remotely close to life.
