Agreed.
But the cynic in me says that this was always due to happen, regardless of who happens to be POTUS at this particular time in the economic cycle.

As for the debt, as with the UK and many others, it can never be paid off due to every Dollar/Pound etc being loaded with DEBT in the form of interest.....which begs the question of why are you/we paying interest on funds released by what we are told is 'our' bank? Weird to say the least but very very few ever ask themselves why.

Lastly, the American economy ''boomed'' more in the 1900's than it did in the 20th century, ie before the creation (against the 2nd Ammendment i believe) of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Income Tax followed shortly after......for some reason?
Jekyll Island is worth a 'Google'.

Buy Litecoin.

No it really is about free speech. I'm honest when I say that I believe in the marketplace of ideas......Good ideas will survive over time in a free society and bad ideas won't. It is extremely important that the free aspect is continued with so that no current philosophy that is in charge can stop itself from being over taken.

Like I said, this freedom is how progressivism rose and I believe how it will fall...or at least its more ardent ideas.....but legally punishing and censoring anyone attacking those ideas or its tenets is not a free society.

So while I question why this model was hired in the first place with those views I wasn't one of those who supported her getting the sack nor called for it. Same for this 'white privilege' guy. Tell people to be professional and do the job they are hired to do....don't sack them and wimp out to the activists who bully on social media.....left or right. We are talking about people's rent and mortgages and families....people deserve chances.

Debate don't sack people outside of encouraging or pushing violence....it creates a dishonest and cowed society.

Complain....argue....but when it comes to attacking people's livelihoods I think that is a darkness too far.....It's an escalation that takes debate away from where it should be....a discussion and meeting point for opposing ideas into an arena of polarised distruct and hatred.

I get Jamie's point about employer contracts.....I see how companies aren't fans of controversy.....but I think it's wrong and unfortunate to punish companies for the words of employees....It would just be better if this didn't happen....but I know that this sentiment is unrealistic in these polarized activist heavy times.

I don't agree with people getting fired over twitter comments or statements they have made in their own time.

As for Milo...the twitter situation was ridiculous but having to resign over those comments on pederasty....I suppose there has to be a line somewhere and it's reasonable in society to discuss where that line should be.....I think that line is far too short at the moment but Milo deserved pushback for those words...even if his opponents were highly unfair in how they used them.

Milo is both wonderful and infuriating. He shows me why the American first amendment is better....but as for his personal views...I agree on some and not so much on others..like on God or net neutrality....But he's a funny guy....and by feck we need funny guys in these poe faced times.....and he hates progressive ideas so I'm obviously going to be on his side there.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Dec 2017 6.01am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I agree, I'm certainly not saying that we don't need any terror laws and in some cases they clearly do save lives. What I am saying is that many laws inevitably end up being used or expanded and abused in ways that impact the average person or simply someone with a view, whether left and right [Link] or to track or spy on journalists or the like which has happened numerous times without any legitimate need.

Most decisions made by government are to maintain control. We should be careful to factor that in when politicians bring in laws we intuitively feel we support, around issues that evoke a lot of emotion. Both sides do this and what we often end up with is restrictions on the average person. So people need to scrutinise and consider, as governments only ever seem to take away, not give back, so whether it's hate laws or attacks on online freedoms or creeping censorship or one form or another, once it's gone it's gone.

Yes all of this makes a lot of sense. I don't feel that anyone should be sacked unless their job takes a total back seat to their views. The idea of someones careers can be ended there and then for stating their opinion isn't healthy, unless as you say they are actively advocating violence or something of that nature.

I do feel that if people saw this issue as more of an attack on freedoms in general that can happen from both sides of the isle and always has rather than 'the right' or 'progressives' it would better protect everyones rights. If people become an advocate for one side of the issue, they inadvertently offer a free pass to the exact same thing happening in the opposite direction. That just results in everyones freedoms being attacked.

In addition to the examples I gave, just today in fact the Trump administration banned Centers for Disease Control from using the terms “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender”, “fetus” "evidence-based” and “science-based” [Link] These are now forbidden words on official documents. I mean this stuff is an attempt to diminish people and even science and really no different or less political than anything from the left like certain words being off limits as 'hate speech'. One group may well cheer the former action and one the latter, but no-one wins as they just meld together to restrict the population as a whole and put all of the power in the hands of those in government.

That's a very good point. I feel that politics has always attracted a certain kind of self interested person, big egos, but as you say intelligence used to factor in much more than personality. There also used to be a kind of understanding and contract that to gain respect you had to at least attempt to lift people up or offer something other than rhetoric.

Now though, politicians more often are essentially an instrument of location independent corporations, who fund their campaigns and shape laws while the average joe just watches from the sidelines. Corporations can run rings around countries because their influence can more readily transcend borders unless all countries work in unison, which never happens. There will always be tax havens and the like.

Even with something like Brexit, regardless of the side of the issue people were on, it wasn't really a genuine desire to offer people that choice, it was a calculated gamble by an arrogant leader who thought it was a cheap way of getting reelected.

Yes, a real cash bonanza for the poor. Not at all about easing even more $$$$$ into the hands of rich party donors.

Let's call this what the actual bill is. A very short term minor cut for many, and a huge one for the few and corporations . Perks for the donor class and perks for sitting representatives. The bill even heavily reward companies for offshoring their workforces. How patriotic. Enjoy the scraps.

Of course like all political parties, they also not thinking about how this will actually be paid for down the road.

Edited by wordup (20 Dec 2017 4.56pm)

Or poor.

As an aside, I didn't realise the average age of a fox viewer was over 70.

.........because money 'trickles down' doesn't it? Only in dreamland ffs
More of your money for those already richer than you and many more........and you support it!
You kinda deserve everything that you've had in the past few years along with what will follow in the future.

Buy Litecoin.

Yeah, the idea is that one of the benefits is wages would rise. A US report says that from 2012 to 2016 the 10 countries with the lowest corporate tax in the OECD had “dramatically higher” earnings gains than countries with high taxes on companies. [Link]

In this tax bill, the only people who see tax increases are high income-earners living in high-tax states such as California.

Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Dec 2017 9.41pm)

Did you use this calculator Ken? [Link]

A poll out this week says 50% of Americans think they will be paying more because the media are reporting it this way. Obviously, if you've worked it out I'm not going to argue with you.

Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Dec 2017 9.45pm)