because they paid for those benefits already, and should have their savings preserved. those two programs are not in serious danger if medical cost can be lowered.
anyway here's a talk from the classical supply demand equilibrium approach showing how bargaining power loss by the working class contributed to the crisis. a feedback loop of unsustainable borrowing/loan selling depending on your moral angle. as usual the causal direction is the weakest part of this kind of analysis but the point is, weakness in the real demand of the economy necessitated credit expansion as a way of keeping previous level of circulation.
I don't know what an "Obamba" or "graff" is, but considering Wall Street was pretty openly supporting Romney, I'm not surprised at what the graph is showing. It doesn't actually say anything about Obama except that Wall Street responded unfavorably to his re-election. A more telling graph will be what it does over the next four years.
It doesn't even show that. Obama's election actually led to markets opening upwards. Other news then had a negative impact.
I don't know what an "Obamba" or "graff" is, but considering Wall Street was pretty openly supporting Romney, I'm not surprised at what the graph is showing. It doesn't actually say anything about Obama except that Wall Street responded unfavorably to his re-election. A more telling graph will be what it does over the next four years.
It doesn't even show that. Obama's election actually led to markets opening upwards. Other news then had a negative impact.
Hey, I linked both the US and UK markets together just for people like you. Now go look at it again. Also, "markets opening" is not a statistically relevant factor.
I don't know what an "Obamba" or "graff" is, but considering Wall Street was pretty openly supporting Romney, I'm not surprised at what the graph is showing. It doesn't actually say anything about Obama except that Wall Street responded unfavorably to his re-election. A more telling graph will be what it does over the next four years.
It's not a response from "Wall Street;" it's a response from the free market in general. You know, the same one that Obama supposedly has a "mandate" from.
I don't know what an "Obamba" or "graff" is, but considering Wall Street was pretty openly supporting Romney, I'm not surprised at what the graph is showing. It doesn't actually say anything about Obama except that Wall Street responded unfavorably to his re-election. A more telling graph will be what it does over the next four years.
It doesn't even show that. Obama's election actually led to markets opening upwards. Other news then had a negative impact.
Hey, I linked both the US and UK markets together just for people like you. Now go look at it again. Also, "markets opening" is not a statistically relevant factor.
Oh okay so obama must have been elected sometime in MAY according to your theories.
I don't know what an "Obamba" or "graff" is, but considering Wall Street was pretty openly supporting Romney, I'm not surprised at what the graph is showing. It doesn't actually say anything about Obama except that Wall Street responded unfavorably to his re-election. A more telling graph will be what it does over the next four years.
It doesn't even show that. Obama's election actually led to markets opening upwards. Other news then had a negative impact.
Hey, I linked both the US and UK markets together just for people like you. Now go look at it again. Also, "markets opening" is not a statistically relevant factor.
And you failed to respond to my post. Your "graff" doesn't demonstrate anything except that the market dipped around the time he was elected. Not only does correlation not equal causation, but let's wait and see what it does over the next 4 years before we bring out the pitchforks again.
I don't know what an "Obamba" or "graff" is, but considering Wall Street was pretty openly supporting Romney, I'm not surprised at what the graph is showing. It doesn't actually say anything about Obama except that Wall Street responded unfavorably to his re-election. A more telling graph will be what it does over the next four years.
It doesn't even show that. Obama's election actually led to markets opening upwards. Other news then had a negative impact.
Hey, I linked both the US and UK markets together just for people like you. Now go look at it again. Also, "markets opening" is not a statistically relevant factor.
I don't think you understand markets. Here's a Washington Post article that explains why markets did not look very good post-election.
Well, if it's Ginsburg and Breyer retiring (likely) then the SCOTUS won't really change. Gotta pray Kennedy retires. I doubt Scalia will while Obama is still President.
If Kennedy retires though they'll most likely appoint a moderate, so... things still might not change much, but at least we don't have to deal with a conservative-dominated bench for the next couple decades.
so yea petraeus' testimony was pretty expected. the administration had the CIA tell them to avoid mention of the attacks as terrorist attacks to avoid tipping the groups off of ongoing surveillance on them. there was an active CIA operation down there so less exposure the better. apparently it was fool's gold for republicans.
I hope that Obama is a bit more assertive in his second term, now that he is no longer running for President. I felt like he was too timid in his first term.
On November 17 2012 16:49 Sumahi wrote: I hope that Obama is a bit more assertive in his second term, now that he is no longer running for President. I felt like he was too timid in his first term.
I assume he expected less "opposition" coming in. He wanted to come in and be the leader of the country, bringing the 2 sides together. What he got instead was a party that rallied against him, and his own party that lacked any real leadership that wasn't him. I doubt he will make the same mistake, but it might be too late.
On November 17 2012 16:35 oneofthem wrote: so yea petraeus' testimony was pretty expected. the administration had the CIA tell them to avoid mention of the attacks as terrorist attacks to avoid tipping the groups off of ongoing surveillance on them. there was an active CIA operation down there so less exposure the better. apparently it was fool's gold for republicans.
It seems that the republicans are moving towards a new way to catch young voters: In a Republican study report on copyright they are going very far in the direction of limiting it, arguing that it is not a free market mechanism, it was created to benifit the public and not just the artist and that copyright doesn't create the best regime for innovation and productivity.
It suggests very interesting policies to pursue an improvement; Statutory damage reform - I thought they had fought this adamently earlier? Expanding fair use Punishing false infringement claims Limit the terms of copyright and possibility for renewal
It is far too early to judge how much influence this will have on the actual republican policy in the area, but it is definately an issue many young people care a lot about and the suggestions are pretty much up the same alley as the pirate parties in the rest of the world!