stevenash

[Hidden Content]

Or we could elect someone who would install some pro growth policies and try to limit the growth of free stuff. But don't take my word for it because Big Girls "friend" says I don't understand macroeconomics.

Do you think he likes, Orange, Cherry, or Grape?

No doubt about it. But maybe if I can keep the conversation going, I can learn something.

Absolutely. Especially in economics. But then again, it seems you also "believed" that "hands up, don't shoot" was also credible.

Yea, sure. I dont understand economics and you do. And your "friend" is an economic genius. Why not bring your "friend" on this board and let him put me where you think I belong? I am certainly ready for that. By the way, here are some credentials of my "friend" ( a very close one incidentally that I have known since childhood) A visiting faculty member at Yale, The University of Chicago, Ecole Des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC) in France, The Australian Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales, and City University Business School In London. He has lectured many executive educations programs including the Wharton Executive MBA Program, Kiel World Institute, Swiss Finance Instituete, J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan Bank, ABN- AMRO, and Bankers Trust. Also served as a consultant or visitng scholar at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the International Monetary Fun, and the World Bank. He has also publilshed over fifty articles that deal with international Finance. Additionally, he is a Research Associate with hte National Bureau of Economic Research and a founding editor of The Journal of International FInancial Management and Accounting. My "friend" thinks I understand the economy fairly well. How do his qualifications compare to your "friend"?

Big Girl- DOnt go there- He is more conversant with criminal law than most any lawyer is going to be.

And where are they not better?

Just curious why the Fed isn't rushing in to analyze everything " in depth" like they did in Baltimore and Ferguson?

In this instance, I agree with you. She essentially made her statement, and then came back and said to ignore it. Similar to a judge instructing a jury to ignore something after they have heard it. The damage has been done.

Since another S.C. Justice was criticized on this board for falling asleep, I couldn't resist. [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

Since we are talking about the debt, the status of the deficit is not relevant in this thread. Maybe you are not aware of the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Then you are saying that things are considerably improved these days?

But if we are going ( by virtue of the article you posted) give Bush credit for Obamas debt, isn't it only right to give the elder Bush credit for Clintons results?

According to the Congressional Budget office these Presidents left office with an amount of debt expressed as a percentage of GDP: Ronald Reagan 40.9% George H.W. Bush 48.3% Bill Clinton 34.5% George W. Bush 39.3% Barack Obama (Through 2014 calendar year) 74.1% Since there are two variables there ( GDP AND AMOUNT OF DEBT) I can only conclude that either the debt is extraordinarily high or the GDP sucks. If you want to somehow credit Bush for the current amount of debt, it will be interesting to see what the internet offers in the way of criticizing him for the last 7 years of GDP.

amazing hypocrisy

Did someone on this board suggest that hypocrisy only applies to one side? Did someone suggest that only one side was "throwing stones"?

Before you and TxHoops get all excited over your powerful retort, please point to a link that shows that Mr. Trump personally borrowed money and failed to repay it. In the case of indirectly borrowing the money, I will once again state that any business that he was associated that went bankrupt had that bankruptcy adjudicated through our legal system. By doing so, the problem terminated as was the financial harm that was done. If Mr. Trump had had the ability to write a check to cover another check ( even though there was nothing behind the covering check but another IOU) I am sure he would have happily done so. I would also point both of you toward the "government assisted GM bankruptcy" where bondholders lost money, some of which was given to the unions in the form of ownership in the new company. Somehow, I am pretty confident that this would not have taken place in a conventional bankruptcy. In light of the integrity laden Clinton Foundation and the commodities activities of Mrs. Clinton, I would further suggest that Mr. Trump is not the one who deserves to be scrutinized so heavily on his financial activities. The Federal Government issued Treasury bonds (aka borrowed money) in order to provide the Department of Energy with the ability to make loans to Solyndra. The U.S Postal Service has been technically bankrupt for a very long time and defaulted on obligations more than once. The difference is, simply issuing another IOU in order to continue operating a loser. If you are troubled by the alleged financial irresponsibility of Trump and/or trump affiiated businesses, surely you must be considerably more upset on the well documented financial activities of the Federal Government or Detroit, Chicago, San Bernardino, California, Stockton,, California, Jefferson County Alabama, Central Falls Rhode Island, etc etc etc.

So you disagree with Mrs. CLinton/Obama policy but support her anyway?

tobie- do you think we need to bring in a million more Muslim refugees?

Translation- This kool aid really tastes good

Sorry for reposting something somebody else already posted. Dont know how i missed it

try this one: