As of 2012, the population of immigrants in the United States illegally is estimated to be approximately 11.43 million, roughly 3.7% of the entire US population. 59% of the immigrants in the country illegally are from Mexico, and 25% of all immigrants in the country illegally reside in California.
2000 2005* 2008 2012 Country Population Country Population Country Population Country Population 1. Mexico 4,680,000 1. Mexico 5,970,000 1. Mexico 7,030,000 1. Mexico 6,720,000 2. El Salvador 430,000 2. El Salvador 470,000 2. El Salvador 570,000 2. El Salvador 690,000 3. Guatemala 290,000 3. Guatemala 370,000 3. Guatemala 430,000 3. Guatemala 560,000 4. Philippines 200,000 4. India 280,000 4. Philippines 300,000 4. Honduras 360,000 5. China 190,000 5. China 230,000 5. Honduras 300,000 5. Philippines 310,000 6. Korea 180,000 6. Philippines 210,000 6. Korea 240,000 6. India 260,000 7. Honduras 160,000 7. Korea 210,000 7. China 220,000 7. Korea 230,000 8. India 120,000 8. Honduras 180,000 8. Brazil 180,000 8. China 210,000 9. Ecuador 110,000 9. Brazil 170,000 9. Ecuador 170,000 9. Ecuador 170,000 10. Brazil 100,000 10. Vietnam 160,000 10. India 160,000 10. Vietnam 160,000 All Countries 8,460,000 All Countries 10,500,000 All Countries 11,600,000 All Countries 11,430,000
I wonder if Obama will be invited to the inauguration. I'm guessing not. The transition will probably go a little like, "Hey Obama get your shit out!"
You mean like how the whole country said that to Bush in 08? I guess the difference is that Obama has a 55% approval rate right now. Wait until he gets on the campaign trail and eviscerates Trump.
I don't know if I am laughing because the majority of train members are shocked that Trump is soon to be their POTUS or that they genuinely did not foresee this coming.
I don't know if I am laughing because the majority of train members are shocked that Trump is soon to be their POTUS or that they genuinely did not foresee this coming.
As Canadian, you must be blissfully unaware of the electoral college. Tell me the swing states that Romney lost that he is winning, enough to get to to 270.
Well I hope your statement about the press wasn't serious.. I'm giving you the benefit that you're trolling rather than you that's what you think. It was quite generous I would say. You're welcome.
So seriously, why is Trump so orange now? He is getting more and more orange lately, it's not funny anymore, it's worrying. It's so out of hand that i'm thinking he either has some medical problem, eats an insane amount of carrots, or has a real mental problem if he is actually doing that on purpose.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As a socialist, I would personally not even vote before voting libertarian. I do appreciate some of their viewpoints and at least understand where they're coming from with the viewpoints I don't appreciate, but obviously I strongly support provincial and/or federal government regulation and intervention when it comes to banks, healthcare, certain social programs, and several other things. I think libertarianism would be a complete disaster overall.
I respectfully disagree. I certainly agree that there needs to be regulations that protect businesses and consumers. Federal government intervention with regards to banks,health care and some social programs have historically been unsuccessful. For example ( bank bailouts.... Many banks used these bailouts to purchase government bonds. These bonds guaranteed a 3% return and in some cases higher. So the US government borrowed money to banks and these banks in return purchased gov bonds and lined the pockets of CEO s. The feds lost out on the interest that was to be paid out. That said I know banks needed help but the fed gov should have set guidelines on the use of this money. Affordable care act helped many folks afford healthcare insurance but also there were adverse affects to our health care programs. Before pushing a government backed health care system, I'm unsure why the feds didn't use their power of regulation to fix the source of outragous medication cost. One pill to keep people suffering from Aids here in the US cost in upwards of $80 while in places such as Kenya that same pill is pennies. Both of those pills are made here in the states. I don't favor all libertarian views but many of these views are legitimate concerns.. Like the waste of tax payer money being thrown into special interest groups. Most are beneficial social programs but too many are bottomless pits of waste with no real need.
As a socialist, I would personally not even vote before voting libertarian. I do appreciate some of their viewpoints and at least understand where they're coming from with the viewpoints I don't appreciate, but obviously I strongly support provincial and/or federal government regulation and intervention when it comes to banks, healthcare, certain social programs, and several other things. I think libertarianism would be a complete disaster overall.
I respectfully disagree. I certainly agree that there needs to be regulations that protect businesses and consumers. Federal government intervention with regards to banks,health care and some social programs have historically been unsuccessful. For example ( bank bailouts.... Many banks used these bailouts to purchase government bonds. These bonds guaranteed a 3% return and in some cases higher. So the US government borrowed money to banks and these banks in return purchased gov bonds and lined the pockets of CEO s. The feds lost out on the interest that was to be paid out. That said I know banks needed help but the fed gov should have set guidelines on the use of this money. Affordable care act helped many folks afford healthcare insurance but also there were adverse affects to our health care programs. Before pushing a government backed health care system, I'm unsure why the feds didn't use their power of regulation to fix the source of outragous medication cost. One pill to keep people suffering from Aids here in the US cost in upwards of $80 while in places such as Kenya that same pill is pennies. Both of those pills are made here in the states. I don't favor all libertarian views but many of these views are legitimate concerns.. Like the waste of tax payer money being thrown into special interest groups. Most are beneficial social programs but too many are bottomless pits of waste with no real need.
These are educated and interesting points, but let me counter two of them:
1. At the time of the bank bailouts, I was in senior leadership at a bank that did not need the assistance. Our capital reserves were in good shape and our losses were reasonable. We didn't have a mortgage division. We were forced to take the TARP money. Why? Because the fed gov't did not want the market to perceive that some banks were 'weak' while others were strong, further de-stabilizing the weak ones. Second, we were then forced to massively increase our reserves using new, untested metrics. I don't actually have an issue with the metrics today, but at the time they were somewhat theoretical. Last, regarding the banks made $ on the whole deal, that is true but not necessarily in the way you describe. The Fed, for example, earned 25 billion in three years, on a $300B investment in TARP. That is a far better return than normal. Bernie somehow forgets this in his talking points. But the Banks did okay too. The very low, next to zero interest rates, created cheap money and therefore better income for the banks. So from that respect, Banks like Chase, Wells, Discover and others that were stable, made out pretty decent on the deal. But that was by design by the Fed.
So to your point, I am not saying any bank didn't do what you describe, but it doesn't make market sense. Buying back shares or other investments would have done far better than the bond yield during that period. If they did invest in bonds, it was not the best use of their cash.
2. Regarding the meds, this is tricky subject and one in which I'm conflicted. Pharm manufacturers have a business model where they make their profits on US citizens. If they relied on third world for profits, there would be no new investments in pharmacology. So what's the right answer? Should everyone in the US and abroad pay the same? If so, people in the third world or under developed nations would have no access to life saving drugs. We in the US are definitely funding those meds.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,456
you guy's really didn't see this coming ? my support for Trump is really simple, who the heck else is there to vote for ? the way I see it Hell'ary is a dirty politician and Burney is no different than Obama (softer than a sneaker full of shit) and Trump....he's just bat shit crazy and is willing to stand up to all enemies domestic and foreign and I'm not sure how that will work out ??? but I do agree with many of his idea's for our country, I don't know where he stands with unions and everybody has their 2 cents on that but really I haven't seen or heard anything from HIM on unions. the other two clowns Rubio and Cruz...my gut tells me they are bad news. so now it will surly come down to Trump or Clinton and she is the ultimate professional politician and that worries me but not as much as the dufus bro's Rubio and Cruz but with Clinton's dirty laundry thrown all over the media I don't think she has a chance. I'm hoping for the best if Trump win's the election but believe me I have concerns as well.
Godfather.
So you are voting for a guy you refer to as "bat shit crazy."
I don't know if I am laughing because the majority of train members are shocked that Trump is soon to be their POTUS or that they genuinely did not foresee this coming.
Majority? Not sure how you determine that.
I'm certainly surprised that Trump is the nominee. But the only reason I am surprised is that I had no idea the republican party was actually stupider than I thought.
Trump is going to go down in flames. That I am confident of.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
you guy's really didn't see this coming ? my support for Trump is really simple, who the heck else is there to vote for ? the way I see it Hell'ary is a dirty politician and Burney is no different than Obama (softer than a sneaker full of shit) and Trump....he's just bat shit crazy and is willing to stand up to all enemies domestic and foreign and I'm not sure how that will work out ??? but I do agree with many of his idea's for our country, I don't know where he stands with unions and everybody has their 2 cents on that but really I haven't seen or heard anything from HIM on unions. the other two clowns Rubio and Cruz...my gut tells me they are bad news. so now it will surly come down to Trump or Clinton and she is the ultimate professional politician and that worries me but not as much as the dufus bro's Rubio and Cruz but with Clinton's dirty laundry thrown all over the media I don't think she has a chance. I'm hoping for the best if Trump win's the election but believe me I have concerns as well.
Godfather.
So you are voting for a guy you refer to as "bat shit crazy."
As a socialist, I would personally not even vote before voting libertarian. I do appreciate some of their viewpoints and at least understand where they're coming from with the viewpoints I don't appreciate, but obviously I strongly support provincial and/or federal government regulation and intervention when it comes to banks, healthcare, certain social programs, and several other things. I think libertarianism would be a complete disaster overall.
I respectfully disagree. I certainly agree that there needs to be regulations that protect businesses and consumers. Federal government intervention with regards to banks,health care and some social programs have historically been unsuccessful. For example ( bank bailouts.... Many banks used these bailouts to purchase government bonds. These bonds guaranteed a 3% return and in some cases higher. So the US government borrowed money to banks and these banks in return purchased gov bonds and lined the pockets of CEO s. The feds lost out on the interest that was to be paid out. That said I know banks needed help but the fed gov should have set guidelines on the use of this money. Affordable care act helped many folks afford healthcare insurance but also there were adverse affects to our health care programs. Before pushing a government backed health care system, I'm unsure why the feds didn't use their power of regulation to fix the source of outragous medication cost. One pill to keep people suffering from Aids here in the US cost in upwards of $80 while in places such as Kenya that same pill is pennies. Both of those pills are made here in the states. I don't favor all libertarian views but many of these views are legitimate concerns.. Like the waste of tax payer money being thrown into special interest groups. Most are beneficial social programs but too many are bottomless pits of waste with no real need.
These are educated and interesting points, but let me counter two of them:
1. At the time of the bank bailouts, I was in senior leadership at a bank that did not need the assistance. Our capital reserves were in good shape and our losses were reasonable. We didn't have a mortgage division. We were forced to take the TARP money. Why? Because the fed gov't did not want the market to perceive that some banks were 'weak' while others were strong, further de-stabilizing the weak ones. Second, we were then forced to massively increase our reserves using new, untested metrics. I don't actually have an issue with the metrics today, but at the time they were somewhat theoretical. Last, regarding the banks made $ on the whole deal, that is true but not necessarily in the way you describe. The Fed, for example, earned 25 billion in three years, on a $300B investment in TARP. That is a far better return than normal. Bernie somehow forgets this in his talking points. But the Banks did okay too. The very low, next to zero interest rates, created cheap money and therefore better income for the banks. So from that respect, Banks like Chase, Wells, Discover and others that were stable, made out pretty decent on the deal. But that was by design by the Fed.
So to your point, I am not saying any bank didn't do what you describe, but it doesn't make market sense. Buying back shares or other investments would have done far better than the bond yield during that period. If they did invest in bonds, it was not the best use of their cash.
2. Regarding the meds, this is tricky subject and one in which I'm conflicted. Pharm manufacturers have a business model where they make their profits on US citizens. If they relied on third world for profits, there would be no new investments in pharmacology. So what's the right answer? Should everyone in the US and abroad pay the same? If so, people in the third world or under developed nations would have no access to life saving drugs. We in the US are definitely funding those meds.
You have a intelligent counter. You also have a better inside look at the banking institutions then I would. I can't really have a counter to that . I have only read and followed what was available to me. As for the meds, well I understand 3rd world countries would not be able to afford such cost but maybe medications can be produced and distributed without so many " hands in the cookie jar" so to speak. It is indeed a tricky subject. There are other health care topics that can be addressed (malpractice insurance, the extreme cost of education, hospital CEOs banking large salaries and bonuses. Here is a small instance. Last year I had lapse in my health care insurance. I had a prescription to fill. I was asked for my insurance documentation. I expressed I didn't have coverage at that time. They gave me a cash price.. $10. I asked what the cost would be if I was insured. The answer was $23... I see a problem there and this small problem is a miniscule part of health care cost..
you guy's really didn't see this coming ? my support for Trump is really simple, who the heck else is there to vote for ? the way I see it Hell'ary is a dirty politician and Burney is no different than Obama (softer than a sneaker full of shit) and Trump....he's just bat shit crazy and is willing to stand up to all enemies domestic and foreign and I'm not sure how that will work out ??? but I do agree with many of his idea's for our country, I don't know where he stands with unions and everybody has their 2 cents on that but really I haven't seen or heard anything from HIM on unions. the other two clowns Rubio and Cruz...my gut tells me they are bad news. so now it will surly come down to Trump or Clinton and she is the ultimate professional politician and that worries me but not as much as the dufus bro's Rubio and Cruz but with Clinton's dirty laundry thrown all over the media I don't think she has a chance. I'm hoping for the best if Trump win's the election but believe me I have concerns as well.
Godfather.
So you are voting for a guy you refer to as "bat shit crazy."
As a socialist, I would personally not even vote before voting libertarian. I do appreciate some of their viewpoints and at least understand where they're coming from with the viewpoints I don't appreciate, but obviously I strongly support provincial and/or federal government regulation and intervention when it comes to banks, healthcare, certain social programs, and several other things. I think libertarianism would be a complete disaster overall.
I respectfully disagree. I certainly agree that there needs to be regulations that protect businesses and consumers. Federal government intervention with regards to banks,health care and some social programs have historically been unsuccessful. For example ( bank bailouts.... Many banks used these bailouts to purchase government bonds. These bonds guaranteed a 3% return and in some cases higher. So the US government borrowed money to banks and these banks in return purchased gov bonds and lined the pockets of CEO s. The feds lost out on the interest that was to be paid out. That said I know banks needed help but the fed gov should have set guidelines on the use of this money. Affordable care act helped many folks afford healthcare insurance but also there were adverse affects to our health care programs. Before pushing a government backed health care system, I'm unsure why the feds didn't use their power of regulation to fix the source of outragous medication cost. One pill to keep people suffering from Aids here in the US cost in upwards of $80 while in places such as Kenya that same pill is pennies. Both of those pills are made here in the states. I don't favor all libertarian views but many of these views are legitimate concerns.. Like the waste of tax payer money being thrown into special interest groups. Most are beneficial social programs but too many are bottomless pits of waste with no real need.
These are educated and interesting points, but let me counter two of them:
1. At the time of the bank bailouts, I was in senior leadership at a bank that did not need the assistance. Our capital reserves were in good shape and our losses were reasonable. We didn't have a mortgage division. We were forced to take the TARP money. Why? Because the fed gov't did not want the market to perceive that some banks were 'weak' while others were strong, further de-stabilizing the weak ones. Second, we were then forced to massively increase our reserves using new, untested metrics. I don't actually have an issue with the metrics today, but at the time they were somewhat theoretical. Last, regarding the banks made $ on the whole deal, that is true but not necessarily in the way you describe. The Fed, for example, earned 25 billion in three years, on a $300B investment in TARP. That is a far better return than normal. Bernie somehow forgets this in his talking points. But the Banks did okay too. The very low, next to zero interest rates, created cheap money and therefore better income for the banks. So from that respect, Banks like Chase, Wells, Discover and others that were stable, made out pretty decent on the deal. But that was by design by the Fed.
So to your point, I am not saying any bank didn't do what you describe, but it doesn't make market sense. Buying back shares or other investments would have done far better than the bond yield during that period. If they did invest in bonds, it was not the best use of their cash.
2. Regarding the meds, this is tricky subject and one in which I'm conflicted. Pharm manufacturers have a business model where they make their profits on US citizens. If they relied on third world for profits, there would be no new investments in pharmacology. So what's the right answer? Should everyone in the US and abroad pay the same? If so, people in the third world or under developed nations would have no access to life saving drugs. We in the US are definitely funding those meds.
You have a intelligent counter. You also have a better inside look at the banking institutions then I would. I can't really have a counter to that . I have only read and followed what was available to me. As for the meds, well I understand 3rd world countries would not be able to afford such cost but maybe medications can be produced and distributed without so many " hands in the cookie jar" so to speak. It is indeed a tricky subject. There are other health care topics that can be addressed (malpractice insurance, the extreme cost of education, hospital CEOs banking large salaries and bonuses. Here is a small instance. Last year I had lapse in my health care insurance. I had a prescription to fill. I was asked for my insurance documentation. I expressed I didn't have coverage at that time. They gave me a cash price.. $10. I asked what the cost would be if I was insured. The answer was $23... I see a problem there and this small problem is a miniscule part of health care cost..
I've had similar experience with meds through our health care. I complained to our provider that in many cases the copay was the same as cash price, and in a few cases cash was even cheaper than the insurance copay. So what's the point of my employer and me paying a combined total of $1500/month to not use it since its cheaper not to. The response I got was "I is always smart to ask about the cash price." But that is just the insurance companies being greedy, you pay them more than the medication they are providing are worth. And ACA only helps provide people with the greedy insurance companies, doesn't really change that they are for profit and greedy though.
I totally get the point of charging a large sum for medication though. That's how new medicines are created/discovered. If companies couldn't get rich off medicine, they wouldn't spend the tens of millions developing it and decades researching and getting it approved and willing to carry the risk. If they only charge even 10 times what it costs to manufacture the pill it would be decades before they recover their cost of development. Sort of a catch 22, if the medicine is too expensive many cant afford it, if it's too cheap no one will develop it. Eventually their sole rights run out and generic versions are made at a fraction of the cost since they don't have the research cost invested.
^^ All of these are correct points. But greed (aka capitalism) is why we have such tremendous advances. There are definitely ways to reduce health care costs I'm sure, but that's not my area of expertise. I will say I like the fact that we have a time period that protects from generics to allow the pharms to make money on their investment, but not in perpetuity. That feels fair to me.
Regarding the banks, I'm not an investment banker and there is a big difference between investment banking and consumer/commercial banking. But I can tell you that the Banks get a terrible rap in the media. There are almost a million people that are employed by banks and the vast, vast majority are middle class people just like most of us. They aren't cigar smoking titans hanging out at the NY Men's Club. When they are demonized and threatened to be 'broken up', it's not going to hurt the people with "C's" in their title. It's going to hurt 99% that are paying their mortgages, saving for college, scrimping for vacation, etc. It really bothers me because I know these people and am one of them.
you guy's really didn't see this coming ? my support for Trump is really simple, who the heck else is there to vote for ? the way I see it Hell'ary is a dirty politician and Burney is no different than Obama (softer than a sneaker full of shit) and Trump....he's just bat shit crazy and is willing to stand up to all enemies domestic and foreign and I'm not sure how that will work out ??? but I do agree with many of his idea's for our country, I don't know where he stands with unions and everybody has their 2 cents on that but really I haven't seen or heard anything from HIM on unions. the other two clowns Rubio and Cruz...my gut tells me they are bad news. so now it will surly come down to Trump or Clinton and she is the ultimate professional politician and that worries me but not as much as the dufus bro's Rubio and Cruz but with Clinton's dirty laundry thrown all over the media I don't think she has a chance. I'm hoping for the best if Trump win's the election but believe me I have concerns as well.
Godfather.
So you are voting for a guy you refer to as "bat shit crazy."
RIP America...
It's been dead since Dubya was POTUS. Trump is just the zombie back from the dead. He's basically Jason Voorhees or that villain from that Chuck Norris movie, Silent Rage. Kick Trump down the well!
As a socialist, I would personally not even vote before voting libertarian. I do appreciate some of their viewpoints and at least understand where they're coming from with the viewpoints I don't appreciate, but obviously I strongly support provincial and/or federal government regulation and intervention when it comes to banks, healthcare, certain social programs, and several other things. I think libertarianism would be a complete disaster overall.
I respectfully disagree. I certainly agree that there needs to be regulations that protect businesses and consumers. Federal government intervention with regards to banks,health care and some social programs have historically been unsuccessful. For example ( bank bailouts.... Many banks used these bailouts to purchase government bonds. These bonds guaranteed a 3% return and in some cases higher. So the US government borrowed money to banks and these banks in return purchased gov bonds and lined the pockets of CEO s. The feds lost out on the interest that was to be paid out. That said I know banks needed help but the fed gov should have set guidelines on the use of this money. Affordable care act helped many folks afford healthcare insurance but also there were adverse affects to our health care programs. Before pushing a government backed health care system, I'm unsure why the feds didn't use their power of regulation to fix the source of outragous medication cost. One pill to keep people suffering from Aids here in the US cost in upwards of $80 while in places such as Kenya that same pill is pennies. Both of those pills are made here in the states. I don't favor all libertarian views but many of these views are legitimate concerns.. Like the waste of tax payer money being thrown into special interest groups. Most are beneficial social programs but too many are bottomless pits of waste with no real need.
It's not unsuccessful at all. Certainly not here in Canada. And i don't support bailouts. I support the regulations that would have made thise bailouts unnecessary. None of my beliefs support the fucking gong show that played out in the USA in 2008+. That has no relation to my views. On the contrary. That was really the fallout from the exact opposite of what i believe happening. As for the rest... i hold my beliefs under the idea that people aren't going to fuck everything up like the US tends to do these days.
But yeah, I know that people have different political philosophies. Mine is democratic socialist. Not libertarian.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Add Native American folks to the won't be voting for Trump movement !!! 1-Hispanics 2-Muslims 3- most women 4-the disabled 5-L&G community 6-transgender 7-black folks 8-veterans with any pride won't By the time it's done we should be up to 10 groups
Regarding the Sanders/Trump debate, this is just another case of Trump spouting off at the mouth without thinking things through. Of course he isn't going debate. There's no upside. But that didn't stop him from sounding like a jackass. Good thing he still took the opportunity to be a dickhead.
""Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be."
Comments
http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845
I know this is from 2012, but still:
As of 2012, the population of immigrants in the United States illegally is estimated to be approximately 11.43 million, roughly 3.7% of the entire US population. 59% of the immigrants in the country illegally are from Mexico, and 25% of all immigrants in the country illegally reside in California.
2000 2005* 2008 2012
Country Population Country Population Country Population Country Population
1. Mexico 4,680,000 1. Mexico 5,970,000 1. Mexico 7,030,000 1. Mexico 6,720,000
2. El Salvador 430,000 2. El Salvador 470,000 2. El Salvador 570,000 2. El Salvador 690,000
3. Guatemala 290,000 3. Guatemala 370,000 3. Guatemala 430,000 3. Guatemala 560,000
4. Philippines 200,000 4. India 280,000 4. Philippines 300,000 4. Honduras 360,000
5. China 190,000 5. China 230,000 5. Honduras 300,000 5. Philippines 310,000
6. Korea 180,000 6. Philippines 210,000 6. Korea 240,000 6. India 260,000
7. Honduras 160,000 7. Korea 210,000 7. China 220,000 7. Korea 230,000
8. India 120,000 8. Honduras 180,000 8. Brazil 180,000 8. China 210,000
9. Ecuador 110,000 9. Brazil 170,000 9. Ecuador 170,000 9. Ecuador 170,000
10. Brazil 100,000 10. Vietnam 160,000 10. India 160,000 10. Vietnam 160,000
All Countries 8,460,000 All Countries 10,500,000 All Countries 11,600,000 All Countries 11,430,000
SO WHERE'S WHITEY?
Doesn't matter.
According to your blissfully unaware press Trump has the nod.
Ok,
See, ya
Thanks,
Appreciate it.
1. At the time of the bank bailouts, I was in senior leadership at a bank that did not need the assistance. Our capital reserves were in good shape and our losses were reasonable. We didn't have a mortgage division. We were forced to take the TARP money. Why? Because the fed gov't did not want the market to perceive that some banks were 'weak' while others were strong, further de-stabilizing the weak ones. Second, we were then forced to massively increase our reserves using new, untested metrics. I don't actually have an issue with the metrics today, but at the time they were somewhat theoretical. Last, regarding the banks made $ on the whole deal, that is true but not necessarily in the way you describe. The Fed, for example, earned 25 billion in three years, on a $300B investment in TARP. That is a far better return than normal. Bernie somehow forgets this in his talking points. But the Banks did okay too. The very low, next to zero interest rates, created cheap money and therefore better income for the banks. So from that respect, Banks like Chase, Wells, Discover and others that were stable, made out pretty decent on the deal. But that was by design by the Fed.
So to your point, I am not saying any bank didn't do what you describe, but it doesn't make market sense. Buying back shares or other investments would have done far better than the bond yield during that period. If they did invest in bonds, it was not the best use of their cash.
2. Regarding the meds, this is tricky subject and one in which I'm conflicted. Pharm manufacturers have a business model where they make their profits on US citizens. If they relied on third world for profits, there would be no new investments in pharmacology. So what's the right answer? Should everyone in the US and abroad pay the same? If so, people in the third world or under developed nations would have no access to life saving drugs. We in the US are definitely funding those meds.
RIP America...
I'm certainly surprised that Trump is the nominee. But the only reason I am surprised is that I had no idea the republican party was actually stupider than I thought.
Trump is going to go down in flames. That I am confident of.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I totally get the point of charging a large sum for medication though. That's how new medicines are created/discovered. If companies couldn't get rich off medicine, they wouldn't spend the tens of millions developing it and decades researching and getting it approved and willing to carry the risk. If they only charge even 10 times what it costs to manufacture the pill it would be decades before they recover their cost of development. Sort of a catch 22, if the medicine is too expensive many cant afford it, if it's too cheap no one will develop it. Eventually their sole rights run out and generic versions are made at a fraction of the cost since they don't have the research cost invested.
Regarding the banks, I'm not an investment banker and there is a big difference between investment banking and consumer/commercial banking. But I can tell you that the Banks get a terrible rap in the media. There are almost a million people that are employed by banks and the vast, vast majority are middle class people just like most of us. They aren't cigar smoking titans hanging out at the NY Men's Club. When they are demonized and threatened to be 'broken up', it's not going to hurt the people with "C's" in their title. It's going to hurt 99% that are paying their mortgages, saving for college, scrimping for vacation, etc. It really bothers me because I know these people and am one of them.
But yeah, I know that people have different political philosophies. Mine is democratic socialist. Not libertarian.
1-Hispanics
2-Muslims
3- most women
4-the disabled
5-L&G community
6-transgender
7-black folks
8-veterans with any pride won't
By the time it's done we should be up to 10 groups
""Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/05/donald-trump-backs-out-of-debate-with-bernie-sanders-223674#ixzz49tIN1owG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook