The following data is obtained from here:https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/economic-growth-rateIt shows the economic growth during:the Obama yearsandthe Trump yearsHere's a quick visual recap:The unemployment rate for the years 2008 through 2020:https://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table/by-yearInflation:https://www.multpl.com/inflation
Obama is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Obama is following the plan of Cloward &Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. The plan is to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3935800/Days-losing-election-Hillary-Bill-Clinton-sceaming-match-blame-flagging-campaign-ex-president-angry-threw-phone-roof-Arkansas-penthouse.htmlDuring the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.'Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt,' the source explained. 'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame. Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the grounds that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37992573On Tuesday Trump insisted he would have still won a straight vote because he would have focused more on the big states won by Mrs Clinton."I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily" the president-elect said on Twitter. He lost New York and California. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/14/trump-lost-the-popular-vote-that-doesnt-mean-he-would-have-lost-a-popular-vote-election/The fact is that just because Trump lost the popular vote last week doesn't mean he would have lost a popular-vote election.What do I mean by that? Basically, losing the popular vote in an electoral-college election isn't the same as losing the popular vote in a popular-vote election. The former involves a very specific strategy that may cost you when it comes to winning the nationwide popular vote. But you pursue that strategy because the latter doesn't matter. You need to get to 270 electoral votes, not a majority or plurality of all votes.An el
It seems like whatever Obama touches turns to crap. He campaigns for fellow Democrats and they lose. He tries to help people with their mortgage and they lose their home.
Read about it here.
What's happening in Cyprus could happen here if we didn't have guns.
The European Union and the European Central Bank and the IMF have just advocated the confiscation of private property.
The European Union has confiscated the private property of the citizens in Cyprus without debate, legislation or Parliamentary agreement.
Nothing you have that you cannot (or will not) stand in front of with a gun and defend is yours. If you're either unable or unwilling to die to keep it the government will steal it to give your property to someone else, including someone else who did an irresponsible or even criminal thing.
If the IMF thinks that it is a great idea to steal from bank accounts to solve a financial crisis in Cyprus, why wouldn’t they impose a similar solution in other countries in the future?
Liberals want everyone to have a great life. For example, if you get sick, someone should pay for your health care. If you are unemployed, someone should pay you welfare. The list goes on and on but you get the idea.
So, for this scheme to work, someone has to pay for these benefits and the only way you can get people to pay for these benefits is if there are a hell of a lot more people with money than people without money or if one person has ALL the money. But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people. So why bother?
Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer. Unless, of course, you increase the population in order to have more people that you can tax. But liberals are for abortion!!! But even if they were against abortion, the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages (supply and demand) and the higher the number of people looking for a handout.
Another way to make it work is to get more people to go to work so that they can get taxed. But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?
It just doesn't make any sense. But liberals act like they are the intellectuals and everyone else is a red neck even though it is clear to see that liberals lack common sense.
One day last year a Texas Political Science Professor was teaching his class about the failures of Socialism in world governments. A bright young student arose to challenge the Professor and insisted that Socialism does work in certain areas of the world and indeed is working now in the good ole US of A as well!The Professor said "Ok class if you all agree we will conducted a live experiment in the merits of Socialism, but you must all agree to accept the results of this experiment". The class all agreed, they were very eager to precipitate in the Professor's experiment; which was:1. Quiz on Wednesday, Test on Friday, the grade will be on an average. If the average score in the class was an A then everyone gets an A. If the average score in the class was a B then everyone gets a B. If the average score in the class was a C then everyone gets a C. If the average score in the class was a D then everyone gets a D. If the average score in the class was an F then everyone gets a F2. This experiment in Socialism would last for one month.
The first grade on the Quiz was a B, so everyone in the class got a B. Some of the A students were complaining, but the C students were happy to get a B. The A students started to study less and complain more.The results of the Test on Friday was a C, now the A students were really complaining to the other students about studying and they were trying to encourage the C students to bring up their grades, but the C students did not respond.The next week the grades were a C and D, the former A students lost interest and did not bother to study because now there was no incentive for them to excel and the former C students were mad at the A students for not helping the C students with their studies, so the C students just quit studying.The result was that at the end of the month the whole class got a F. The Texas Professor said, "This is perfect example of how Socialism does not work and why Socialism fails people as a whole!"
I blame the liberals. They see themselves as tolerant but the reality is that they are only tolerant of people that think like they do. By not including certain people, they have created their own opposition. Because of their extremism, they have radicallized the other side. For every action there is an equal and oppoite reaction. That which you resist, persist.http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/PhilosopherpredictedTrumpsrisein1998andputstheblamesquarelyontheliberalshttp://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ The PartyofInclusionisnotfor_everyoneThe Democrats did not try to include the white, male, blue collar, worker who (regardless of leading economic indicators) is not doing well. Instead, the Democrats fought for the rights of people to chose what bathroom they want to use and ignored the plight of people strugling to put food on the table.
Legalizing marijuana would have four immediate effects:
1. Stimulate the economy through taxation and sales.
2. Make people not care ;)
3. Reduce the jail population thus saving money.
4. Increase the sale of snack foods.
obviously our (usa) judicial system is quite flawed...everything from capital punishment down to the marble/granite they build the court houses with.
but where do they get off giving guilty inmates time off their sentencing for being good in jail? who gives a fuck if they get along with the guards or other convicts...if they dont, keep them in there longer. but this letting them go early on a previous crime, because they didnt commit any other bad acts during their stay is complete BS.
but if you understand the business behind the corrupt system...you will know why they want murderers, rapist and theives back out on the street...its good for THEIR economy.
its also why they lock up dangerous weed dealers, only so they can come out with a doctrine in smuggling cocaine over the boarder...or getting the CIA hook up on afghan heroin.
or the guy that got caught drinking and driving too much...some day he will get out, but wont be a man...he will be an animal thanks to the "corrections" prison fullfilled him with.
Currently, a portion of our taxes goes towards funding welfare. Those people do not work (they just collect free money) and that brings the unemployment numbers up. However, if our individual share of welfare funding went into our own individual trust and we gave welfare recipients a bank account number that identified it as belonging to a welfare recipient, then individuals could hire welfare recipients and pay them from the funds in their trust. Once those funds run out, you can't hire any more welfare recipients. Any money in the trust that is not spend by the end of the year, goes to the welfare recipients as free money. This would get welfare recipients to perform actual services/work (bringing unemployment down) and get paid for doing said jobs. They would become contributing members of society and not a drain on society. We could still have minimum wage and maybe have specific wage assignments for certain jobs. Those who are physically unable to perform any work, could still get welfare.
The Earth's orbit and axis undergo cyclical changes, called Milankovitch cycles after the astronomer who first recognized them. These cycles cause changes to the amount and distribution of sunlight that strikes the Earth, changes that can raise or lower the average temperature of the planet. The result is what's called an "orbital forcing," which can drive long-term climate changes.
In recent history, orbital forcings have controlled the entry and exit to glacial periods. Although the amount of energy from the forcing itself is relatively small, it sets off a variety of feedbacks. Retreating ice sheets give way to open water and vegetation, which can absorb more sunlight and allow carbon dioxide to escape the deep ocean, ultimately causing a rise in greenhouse gasses. As the heating from orbital forcings slowly declines, these processes begin to reverse themselves. A recent study indicates that we were only about 1,500 years away from the onset of the next glacial period.