The stench of Rubio's 'gang of eight' pathway to citizenship
should never be forgotten; just take a look at his 7 alllies or
should I say partners in crime who halped form this doosy
of a supposed solution & you'll know what I mean. He caved quickly when
his immigration stance wasn't received as he had hoped for but we know
his true feelings on this most important subject
On top of that his foreign policy views put him in alignment with McCain &
Grahamnesty as a war monger, two of his fellow 'gang of eight' pals
by the way. Obama's Cuban policy was the only sane policy Obama ever
enacted & the Rubio guy even is against that.
His rehearsed answers are very similar to those of Fiorina the only
candidate I view worse than Rubio. In the unlikely event of Rubio being nominated
I'd stay home, if Fiorina was nominated I'd vote democrat for the first time ever.
10 trillion more debt (making it virtually impossible to raise interest rates thus affecting banks to lend money) , millions more in poverty and on food stamps, 93 million out of the workforce, annual median income down almost 5K, largest middle class tax increase in US history, Wages down, Obamacare premiums set to increase 40%, Black unemployment up, Latino unemployment up and overall unemployment way up despite what they would have you believe. This is what you want to continue? Please.
Yep. Obama voters are a unique breed.
voted in 2008 (Obama on the ballot)
stayed home in 2010 (Obama not on the ballot)
voted in 2012 (Obama on the ballot)
stayed home in 2014 (Obama not on the ballot)
Good luck getting Obama voters to the polls for an establishment candidate as unlikable as Hillary.
Electability: Trump beats Hillary in pa; bush, Kasich lose
A Fox News poll released Tuesday showed Trump beating Hillary nationally by +5, 45-40.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...y-trump-beats-hillary-in-pa-bush-kasich-lose/
Donald Trump (anti-establishment) against Hillary Clinton (establishment on steroids) would look something like this:
A Fox News poll released Tuesday showed Trump beating Hillary nationally by +5, 45-40.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...y-trump-beats-hillary-in-pa-bush-kasich-lose/
Donald Trump (anti-establishment) against Hillary Clinton (establishment on steroids) would look something like this:
Electability: Trump beats Hillary in pa; bush, Kasich lose
A Fox News poll released Tuesday showed Trump beating Hillary nationally by +5, 45-40.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...y-trump-beats-hillary-in-pa-bush-kasich-lose/
Donald Trump (anti-establishment) against Hillary Clinton (establishment on steroids) would look something like this:
Every four years repubs try to convince people that pa is in play. Just keep repeating the same thing over and over again....then by 8:02est on election night.....pa is blue.
it's a shit show;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...ion-reasons-why-interest-rates-will-stay-low/
[h=1]18 Trillion Reasons Why Interest Rates Will Stay Low[/h]
The Federal Reserve has continued to announce its intention to begin raising its interest rates sometime this spring, yet the market remains skeptical. U.S. government 10 year bonds have risen about 40 basis points in the last two weeks, so the bond market might believe the Fed a little. However, 30 year fixed rate mortgage rates are at or near six month lows and seem to be heading lower. That mortgage lenders are willing to lock in low rates for 30 years suggests they don’t believe the Fed will raise rates, or that higher Fed rates will not lead to any particular increase in inflation or their cost of funds for the foreseeable future. Given that the Fed has been as explicit as ever in its history about its intentions, why are the markets so unsure about interest rates rising? There are 18 trillion reasons.
In the decade since the last time the Federal Reserve started to tighten its monetary policy in June 2004, the national debt has more than doubled. Back then, the national debt stood at $7.3 trillion dollars. Today, it is more than $18.1 trillion. Politicians hate spending money on interest payments on the debt because it does not buy them any votes. That means the government has an enormous incentive to keep interest rates low, and while the Fed is officially independent it is not impervious to government pressure (particularly when the Fed chair hopes to be reappointed).
The effect of Fed policy on the national debt, the deficit, and the federal budget cannot be overestimated. The Fed has, in fact, served as the largest-scale enabler in history, assisting the President and Congress to run a series of the six largest budget deficits the nation has ever seen.
Historically, normal interest rates for U.S. government debt is in the range of 4 to 6%. In fact, before the recent recession both 2 and 10 year government bonds had been between 4.5 and 5.25% for the preceding two years. Rates now are approximately 0.5% for the 2 year note and 2% for the 10 year bond. The difference between the cost of the national debt at current rates and historically average ones is enormous.
For the fiscal year 2014 that ended last September, the federal government paid $430.8 billion in interest on the national debt. Back in 2004 with “only” $7.3 trillion in debt, the interest bill added up to $321.6 billion. With only 40% as much debt, the government was paying 75% as much in interest. If the federal government was currently paying an historically average interest rate on the debt, instead of $431 billion in interest the annual bill would be around $900 billion.
In other words, normal interest rates would double the current federal budget deficit and make any effort to contain the national debt far more difficult.
The Fed has enabled out-of-control federal spending and borrowing in a second way. As part of its quantitative easing policy (commonly known as QE) the Fed has bought up trillions of dollars in government bonds. While the federal government pays the Fed interest on these bonds, the Fed refunds its annual operating profit to the Treasury so essentially the interest on all those bonds is returned to the Treasury.
Because the Fed is basically allowing the government to borrow several trillion dollars interest free, the Fed’s QE programs have saved the government several hundred billion dollars, thereby lowering both the deficit and national debt. For example, in 2014 the Fed refunded $98.7 billion to the Treasury. At least for now the Fed has ended QE, but it has announced no plans to shrink its balance sheet. Thus, the Fed’s subsidy to the government apparently will continue to hold down the deficit for a while longer.
What all this means is that even if rates rise, they won’t rise much. The Washington politicians do not want to see deficits spike by $500 billion per year unless they get to spend that money on programs of their choice. There may be value in reading the Fed’s regular policy statements in order to properly position your investment portfolio, but when they promise higher interest rates I would take that part with a grain of salt.
So if you are a saver weary of the paltry interest you have been earning on bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and many bonds, you probably are looking forward to the Fed raising rates. Unfortunately, there are 18 trillion reasons why rates may never return to normal levels. Given the current economic condition and the potential impact on the deficit, if the Fed did actually put serious effort into raising interest rates, the President would likely tell them to stop.
Wall Street wisdom says never to fight the Fed, but on interest rates we have a battle the markets seem to think they will win.
.......
here's the Treasury Secretary this week;
Jack Lew said Thursday the U.S. debt limit will be exhausted Nov. 3, two days before previously estimated.
"Operating the United States government with no borrowing authority, and with only the cash on hand on a given day, would be profoundly irresponsible. '
irresponsible?!?!?! .....oh the irony.............
I guess I'm a lot more forgiving with respect to immigration
It's real simple IMHO, we're not deporting 20 million or 12 million or even 2 million illegals, it's not happening, nobody can make it happen, it's just not reality. So we need a path to citizenship for those people, that's part of the solution. Thinking we're going to deport them is actually kinda silly. It's like thinking we can make all abortions illegal, starting with the moment of conception. It's not happening, ever.
We need to normalize illegals, but before we do any of that we need to secure the borders to stop the hemorrhaging. Without secure borders, all talk of immigration reform is worthless, it's like putting your finger in the dike.
As for abortion, since I made the analogy, we need to fight to have third trimester abortions banned. At some point, like when the baby can survive outside the womb, it's protected by the Constitution. the unborn child has rights too, and the constitutional argument is the only one we can win and receive support from both sides of the isle (except from scum like Obama who condones infanticide and our resident abortionist that gets sexually aroused by abortions)
It's real simple IMHO, we're not deporting 20 million or 12 million or even 2 million illegals, it's not happening, nobody can make it happen, it's just not reality. So we need a path to citizenship for those people, that's part of the solution. Thinking we're going to deport them is actually kinda silly. It's like thinking we can make all abortions illegal, starting with the moment of conception. It's not happening, ever.
We need to normalize illegals, but before we do any of that we need to secure the borders to stop the hemorrhaging. Without secure borders, all talk of immigration reform is worthless, it's like putting your finger in the dike.
As for abortion, since I made the analogy, we need to fight to have third trimester abortions banned. At some point, like when the baby can survive outside the womb, it's protected by the Constitution. the unborn child has rights too, and the constitutional argument is the only one we can win and receive support from both sides of the isle (except from scum like Obama who condones infanticide and our resident abortionist that gets sexually aroused by abortions)
The Best chance Republicans have to beat Hillary is a ticket with either Kasich, by far their best shot, or Rubio who will be far easier to campaign against and damage, on top and Carly underneath. Unfortunately for the R's, their base is too dumb to realize it. When they don't get Trump, Cruz, or Carson, their disaffected base will stay home again. That and demographics almost insure a D win. If by some chance Hillary isn't the nomineee, those optics change. Biden would be tougher to beat, but I doubt he's getting in.
In general people overrate VP picks bigtime. You don't just put anyone out there but it really isn't that big of a difference maker. Just go with a safe, stable pick and call it a day.
You also never pick someone that has potential to overshadow you.
I don't really see any of these candidates picking one another for VP besides maybe Kasich. He seems like he would be solid in the backup role.
You also never pick someone that has potential to overshadow you.
I don't really see any of these candidates picking one another for VP besides maybe Kasich. He seems like he would be solid in the backup role.
Inner city black radio stations will put Hillary over the top. I hate even typing it and I hope somebody bumps it in 2017 to poke fun at me. But trust me, these radio station personalities and morning show hosts know how to get the hood to the polls. And they don't care how many bodies the bitch has buried. None of them vote R, ever, and they will be going door to door and driving people to vote in every hood in every swing state. Because "if you don't vote for Hillary more young black men will be shot, etc,etc."
