Pretty easy these days.
Correct. I was very disappointed when Lori Loughlin did it for her daughter. She was one of my crushes when I was a teenager.
Pretty easy these days.
....such as?
It did.
t does. You can't buy it unless it's available.
It does. There is more money in the hands of private individuals.
They don't need to. Government needs to stop spending so much.
Failed? WTF. The signs are everywhere. The climatologists are being proven correct over and over. You can quibble degree if it makes you happy, but the warnings were correct.
Masks do not filter out viruses. Their pores are far too big and viruses are far too small.
No offense, but you need to get out of this discussion. It’s obvious you no clue about S-B . Stop embarrassing yourself.
He did do a physics degree, or so he claims!
Yes , one of the two biggest disappointments I had with the Trump administration.Not quite. He didn't disband it like he should have.
Other than improved economic activity after Reagan? Good enough proof for me. More wealth was created during that time than before.Trickle down.
No it didn't. Wealth did not trickle down, and you have no proof that it did.
Nope. If more cars are available, they are cheaper to make. The cars can sell for less. This kind of deflation is GOOD.No it doesn't. Increasing supply without demand to match it results in DEFLATION.
Yes. I reject Keneysian economic models. They don't work. I support the Austrian economic model. It has been shown to work time and time again, consistently.You have never taken an economics class in your life, have you?
I already showed you can. Whole industries get created that way.You can't manufacture demand by increasing supply...that's a real fast way to deflate your economy.
They don't hoard it. They put it into their businesses to improve their businesses. This allows them, among other things, to hire more people. That's wages, dude.Who hoard it; they don't invest it and we've just lived through three years of them declining their investment post-Tax cut, despite your promises:
Taxes are theft of wealth. Reducing theft of wealth means better economic activity....deleted Holy Link...
So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't lead to increased investment, then what is their purpose? Simple, fiscal terrorism.
Buzzword fallacy. Deficits are caused by the government borrowing too much. Nothing to do with taxes. The government spends too much. That's why it has to borrow and tax so much (and print money to try to pay for itself).Fiscal Terrorism is when Conservatives fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, creating massive deficits,
Tax cuts do not create deficits. Government spending too much and borrowing to do it creates deficits.then fake outrage at the deficits their tax cuts created
Communism is unconstitutional.and use that fake outrage to extract punitive cuts to social spending programs
Tax cuts ARE conventional legislation.to which they are ideologically opposed, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal through conventional legislation.
Other than improved economic activity after Reagan?
More wealth was created during that time than before.
Nope. If more cars are available, they are cheaper to make.
If they were, airplanes would be grounded, gasoline and other fossil fuels gone. It is just misdirection as crude oil is is the base for personal care products, materials we use/need, fuel, hell the NE still uses fuel oil, I mean that is like damn, back to the John Rockefeller years, holy shit.
So you begin your response with a lie, and expect others to believe you. Typical.
https://www.news10.com/news/science/49-scientific-studies-explain-why-face-masks-work/
Once every five years, the IPCC publishes its latest Assessment Report into the state of the climate. And every five years, governments get together to write their own scary version:
UN researchers are set to publish their strongest statement yet on the science of climate change.
The report will likely detail significant changes to the world’s oceans, ice caps and land in the coming decades.
Due out on Monday, the report has been compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It will be their first global assessment on the science of global heating since 2013.
It is expected the forthcoming Summary for Policymakers will be a key document for global leaders when they meet in November.
After two weeks of virtual negotiations between scientists and representatives of 195 governments, the IPCC will launch the first part of a three-pronged assessment of the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change.
It is the presence of these government officials that makes the IPCC different from other science bodies. After the report has been approved in agreement with governments, they effectively take ownership of it.
On Monday, a short, 40-page Summary for Policymakers will be released dealing with the physical science.
It may be brief, but the new report is expected to pack a punch.
"We’ve seen over a couple of months, and years actually, how climate change is unfolding; it’s really staring us in the face," said Dr Heleen de Coninck, from Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, who is a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Working Group III.
"It’s really showing what the impacts will be, and this is just the start. So I think what this report will add is a big update of the state of the science, what temperature increase are we looking at – and what are the physical impacts of that?"
One key question in the new summary will be about the 1.5C temperature target. The climate summit held in the French capital, Paris, in 2015, committed nations to try to limit the rise in global temperature from pre-industrial times to no more than 1.5 degrees.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58102953
McGrath, not for the first time, shows how poorly he understands the Paris Agreement, misleading readers by saying “The climate summit held in the French capital, Paris, in 2015, committed nations to try to limit the rise in global temperature from pre-industrial times to no more than 1.5 degrees.”
It did no such thing. While it aimed to keep temperature rise below 2C, and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C, the national pledges actually made in Paris meant that emissions would remorselessly increase, as of course they have done. The Agreement committed nobody to limit the rise.
We must wait for the report, but I have little doubt it will contain the usual threats about melting ice caps, sea levels, storms, floods, hurricanes, droughts, famines and wildfires. All of these will get much worse in years to come, it will say, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence to support this. When the full scientific report is eventually published, this will all be apparent.
Meanwhile global temperatures, following on from the record El Nino in 2015/16, are no higher now than they were two decades ago. Isn’t it strange that things like Germany’s floods this year have been based on global warming, when there has not been any for twenty years
This kind of deflation is GOOD.
WRONG. He ENDED the recession caused by Carter's wage and price controls.WTF are you talking about? Reagan started a recession in 1981 that didn't end until spending and taxes were increased in 1982.
The S&Ls collapsed because of Carter.Then, at the end of his Presidency, Reagan had the largest taxpayer bailout at the time for the collapse of the S&L's, which in turn also was the worst market collapse since 1929.
Not a recession.His successor, Bush the Elder, saw a recession start in 1990 that lasted until March 1991
Government does not create wealth. The only jobs Carter created were government jobs, paid for by stealing wealth.Carter also created more jobs per month than Reagan did.
It is the creation of wealth. THAT's the important factor here.
Yes. I reject Keneysian economic models. They don't work. I support the Austrian economic model. It has been shown to work time and time again, consistently.
I already showed you can. Whole industries get created that way.
Yes , one of the two biggest disappointments I had with the Trump administration.
The other was not prosecuting Hillary.