Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have every reason to doubt someone saying something. Fortunately, it is not in my own mind. I write a weekly newsletter and have done so since January 2007. All my newsletters are public, my mentions are public (before the fact) and my results are also public. Here is the chart of my stock market trading results from 3 weeks ago:Ain’t anonymous message boards great? You can be the hero you are in your own mind.
Again. I do not give a shit about the rest of the world. Next.We all live in the same world. The pandemic was a world problem and as such, comparisons of how things were handled has to be done.
View attachment 999610
Political parties do not create jobs.Bill Clinton stated this evening that since 1989, 51 million new jobs have been created and under the Democrats, of those 51, 49 million were created under Democratic presidents and only 2 million were created under Republican presidents.
Clinton said he had to check it 3 times but that it was confirmed.
Here is a link to one of the articles that confirms that information:
“Since 1989 and a new age of globalization began, 51 million jobs have been created in America. 49 million, 96%, have been created under Democratic presidents.”
This means that more Americans were working under Democratic rule than under Republican presidents. More people working means a better economy, better lives, and better life for all.
This is also something that is true and that has been confirmed 100%
View attachment 999299
What were the jobs? Did the jobs actually last or were they throw away jobs? How many were more useless government agencies created? There is a whole lot of lack of information there.
Nonetheless, there is this data:wall street is not main street
~S~
they don't create job but they do help to set up the scenarios where more or less jobs are created.Political parties do not create jobs.
What I take from your post, is that you are only interested in blaming who you want to blame no matter the facts involved, right?Again. I do not give a shit about the rest of the world. Next.
This is a chart you need to see
View attachment 999720
You are making one BIG mistake. The Democrats are not looking to be a socialist country. They believe in Democratic Socialism, such as Norway has. In addition, no one is trying to get rid of Capitalism. All that is being done is to have some controls and restrictions, so that it is not "unfettered" as the chart shows.
This is what our forefathers wanted when they made the Constitution. They wanted compromise between the parties so no extremes were able to be reached. Uncontrolled Socialism (Communism) is as bad and Uncontrolled Capitalism. Both have to be restricted and controlled so the good comes out and is used and the bad of each is not given a chance to come out.
Do you understand????? It is the center of politics. Not the Far Right or the Far Left.
I don't care if the government helps the private sector, provided it also serves, and meets the needs, of the working class. Republicans, mostly, are for socialism for the capitalist class exclusively, whether they know it or admit it or not. OK, we also need socialism for the working class. Socialism for both, not just one class at the expense of the other. At least the Dems are a bit more conscious of the needs of the working class, whereas Republicans hold workers in contempt. They're mostly the party of the rich and powerful.
Businesses need help, some assistance, OK, no problem. I'm for helping American businesses that create jobs and keep their businesses here in America. Especially American manufacturers who hire American labor. We currently have a market-capitalist system, and socialism mitigates its inherent contradictions, and flaws and addresses its needs. I'm for helping both employers and employees, not just the employers.
Help businesses, help workers too. Get it?
Thanks for the insult.
By the way, I have been an analyst in the stock market for 47 years and worked for the 2 top firms in the industry. As such, I know economics or I wouldn't have lasted 1 year doing that.
Why would we need to triple our fossil fuel production to have Universal Medicare or other social programs? I'm not necessarily against increasing fossil fuel production along with gradually transitioning to nuclear energy, but what does fossil fuel production have to do with social programs and public works?We could do a lot of what Norway does, if we tripled our fossil fuel production.
You have every reason to doubt someone saying something. Fortunately, it is not in my own mind. I write a weekly newsletter and have done so since January 2007. All my newsletters are public, my mentions are public (before the fact) and my results are also public. Here is the chart of my stock market trading results from 3 weeks ago:
Status of account for 2007: Profit of $9,758 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2008: Profit of $14,704 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2009: Profit of $7,523 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2010: Profit of $24,045 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2011: Profit of $3,616 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2012: Profit of $3,399 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2013: Profit of $15,886 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2014: Profit of $21,221 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2015: Profit of $19,190 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2016: Loss of $15,134 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2017: Loss of $9,666 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2018: Profit of $1,637 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted
Status of account for 2019: Profit of $13,051per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted
Status of account for 2020: Loss of $16,684 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2021: Profit of $527 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2022: Profit of $6,126 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2023: Profit of $20,877 per 100 shares after losses and commissions were subtracted.
Status of account for 2024, as of 7/1
Why would we need to triple our fossil fuel production to have Universal Medicare or other social programs? I'm not necessarily against increasing fossil fuel production along with gradually transitioning to nuclear energy, but what does fossil fuel production have to do with social programs and public works?
You completely ignored what I said. My issue is not with assisting the private sector but with the hypocrisy of Republicans who have no problem pouring billions, even trillions into the coffers of multibillion-dollar companies while making a stink about any social program that serves the working class. When the government spends money on infrastructure, or on social programs for working-class people, the Republicans start shouting "Who's going to pay for that?!", "We're broke, we don't have the money for that!", but they have no qualms or objections to serving the interests of the rich to the tune of trillions of dollars.At least the Dems are a bit more conscious of the needs of the working class,
Was the Washington state government controlled by the Republicans when they gave
Boeing $13.2 billion in subsidies?
We're Norway? DURRRRR.Where do you think Norway gets the money to do all the groovy things they do?
It's their filthy oil money.
DURR
I trade about 180 times a year. I am diversified into at least 6 different stocks with none of the stocks having more than 15% of the portfolio. When I say "per 100 shares", it means that it could be as little as 100 shares of a $300 stock or as much at 1000 shares of a $30 stock. As such, I give results based on 100 shares per stock, meaning at least a 30% profit on the entire portfolio for the year.Status of account for 2007: Profit of $9,758 per 100 shares
Per 100 shares of what?
Merrill Lynch and Pru-Bache. I worked for them in the 80's. They were the top two firms then.Which 2?