There also seems to be a lot of confusion over the 2015 JFAs that were offered to both campaigns (according to Tom Perez - and he claims they were identical) and the 2016 JFA after Clinton had locked up the nomination - at which point normal procedure is for the nominee to take control of the party apparatus.
It sounded last night like the leak was NOT from the IC. It was from somebody at the meeting who was so alarmed he notified both NSA and CIA. This morning Trump confirmed that he had revealed classified information in a couple of twitter messages around 4AM. (Although they were probably written for him - a couple of big words and actual sentences.)
I saw it on-line yesterday and the Seattle Times has an article that (with picture) takes up almost half of page 3. Since it's attributed to the NY Times, it's getting attention.
There's a precedent for this from the State of Hawaii.
Almost nobody in Hawaii actually owned the land under their houses. They only leased the land from one of the 22 holding companies formed by early missionaries to the islands ("they came to do good and they done right well"). Five of those owned much of the privately held land in the islands. Sometime in the 70s (IIRC) the state realized that most of those leases were going to expire starting in the 90s and the holding companies had no intention of renewing on the original $1 for 99 years terms - they were going for some serious "revenue enhancement".
The state decided to require that the holding companies allow homeowners to buy the land under the houses for a reasonable rate (considering the companies got the land free from local kings who had no concept of ownership or contract law). The stick was that if the holding companies didn't allow purchase, the state would take the land by eminent domain and sell it to the homeowners with the proceeds covering the compensation to the holding companies.
It went all the way up to the Supreme Court who basically said "unusual remedy that we'd normally not allow, but the situation itself is unprecedented on this scale" and ruled for the state. Case was Hawaii Housing Authority vs. Midkiff.
All the cases Prof. Cole cites impose costs (or significant risks) on me regardless of how well I take care of myself or how carefully I drive (since I actually do need to go out in the world in order to make a living). I wouldn't be all that concerned if people made "their own decisions on how to kill THEMSELVES". Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite that way...
The policies of the current (insane) Republican party are intended to make sure "the poor you will always have" AND increase their ranks by destroying the middle class.
The war in Afghanistan might be considered justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a monumentally stupid decision, carried out badly, and dropped on the back burner the moment the Bush Administration could figure out an even flimsier rationale for going in to Iraq.
Yeah, pretty obvious that the Isrealites are being sent on a mission to invade an already inhabited land. I'd say it's pretty damned scary in context of what they did later (Joshhua 6:21).
And the vast resources of a company in the "free market" will not, of course, influence the courts or other government officials in any way. It must be very comforting to live in that fantasy world of yours.
Juan, you just restated what Jesse was saying. Yes, inflation means the creditors get paid back with money that has less value than what they loaned. That's pretty much inflation in a nutshell.
It's also an almost classic response used by lots of countries over time as part of a strategy to improve competitiveness and work down protentially crushing debt loads. It does cause some pain for domestic creditors, increases the cost of imports, and drives up the interest rate demanded for future loans.
Done right - which means rebuilding reserves after you get people back to work and paying taxes, it's an excellent response.
But as has been pointed out - the US does NOT have a DEBT crisis. Interest rates are at historic lows, big companies (and the very rich) are making huge profits and sitting on the money while the US Government, with most of the Republican party office holders and too many of the Democratic office holders under the control of the corporations and uber-rich, has a totally self inflicted and very easily solved REVENUE crisis.
Eliminate the Bush administration tax cuts, (re)close a lot of loopholes for business (you make a profit, you pay taxes on that profit), slowly trim back the US military budget to the level required for a more reasonable mission (no ruling the entire world), etc. Of course, that may make the uber-rich "go Galt" - which should result in an immediate boost in the US standard of living.
There also seems to be a lot of confusion over the 2015 JFAs that were offered to both campaigns (according to Tom Perez - and he claims they were identical) and the 2016 JFA after Clinton had locked up the nomination - at which point normal procedure is for the nominee to take control of the party apparatus.
It sounded last night like the leak was NOT from the IC. It was from somebody at the meeting who was so alarmed he notified both NSA and CIA. This morning Trump confirmed that he had revealed classified information in a couple of twitter messages around 4AM. (Although they were probably written for him - a couple of big words and actual sentences.)
Gee, they sound almost "Christian" in that practice.
He sounds like a Republican from the days before they went collectively insane.
More like taking the bull by the tail and facing the situation.
I saw it on-line yesterday and the Seattle Times has an article that (with picture) takes up almost half of page 3. Since it's attributed to the NY Times, it's getting attention.
It's an archaic phrasing. "Reveals his legal training" would be a more common way to put it these days.
That the same trained ape that would have done a better job than Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? That's one multi-faceted ape.
Oil, gas, and nuclear power are all heavily subsidized by the US government today. Why insist that wind and solar be different??
Good Marx Brothers reference!
There's a precedent for this from the State of Hawaii.
Almost nobody in Hawaii actually owned the land under their houses. They only leased the land from one of the 22 holding companies formed by early missionaries to the islands ("they came to do good and they done right well"). Five of those owned much of the privately held land in the islands. Sometime in the 70s (IIRC) the state realized that most of those leases were going to expire starting in the 90s and the holding companies had no intention of renewing on the original $1 for 99 years terms - they were going for some serious "revenue enhancement".
The state decided to require that the holding companies allow homeowners to buy the land under the houses for a reasonable rate (considering the companies got the land free from local kings who had no concept of ownership or contract law). The stick was that if the holding companies didn't allow purchase, the state would take the land by eminent domain and sell it to the homeowners with the proceeds covering the compensation to the holding companies.
It went all the way up to the Supreme Court who basically said "unusual remedy that we'd normally not allow, but the situation itself is unprecedented on this scale" and ruled for the state. Case was Hawaii Housing Authority vs. Midkiff.
Re: James
All the cases Prof. Cole cites impose costs (or significant risks) on me regardless of how well I take care of myself or how carefully I drive (since I actually do need to go out in the world in order to make a living). I wouldn't be all that concerned if people made "their own decisions on how to kill THEMSELVES". Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite that way...
If "many studies" have shown that cannabis increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, perhaps a cite is in order??
A little education might help you, Bill...
The policies of the current (insane) Republican party are intended to make sure "the poor you will always have" AND increase their ranks by destroying the middle class.
The war in Afghanistan might be considered justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a monumentally stupid decision, carried out badly, and dropped on the back burner the moment the Bush Administration could figure out an even flimsier rationale for going in to Iraq.
Yeah, pretty obvious that the Isrealites are being sent on a mission to invade an already inhabited land. I'd say it's pretty damned scary in context of what they did later (Joshhua 6:21).
And the vast resources of a company in the "free market" will not, of course, influence the courts or other government officials in any way. It must be very comforting to live in that fantasy world of yours.
Juan, you just restated what Jesse was saying. Yes, inflation means the creditors get paid back with money that has less value than what they loaned. That's pretty much inflation in a nutshell.
It's also an almost classic response used by lots of countries over time as part of a strategy to improve competitiveness and work down protentially crushing debt loads. It does cause some pain for domestic creditors, increases the cost of imports, and drives up the interest rate demanded for future loans.
Done right - which means rebuilding reserves after you get people back to work and paying taxes, it's an excellent response.
But as has been pointed out - the US does NOT have a DEBT crisis. Interest rates are at historic lows, big companies (and the very rich) are making huge profits and sitting on the money while the US Government, with most of the Republican party office holders and too many of the Democratic office holders under the control of the corporations and uber-rich, has a totally self inflicted and very easily solved REVENUE crisis.
Eliminate the Bush administration tax cuts, (re)close a lot of loopholes for business (you make a profit, you pay taxes on that profit), slowly trim back the US military budget to the level required for a more reasonable mission (no ruling the entire world), etc. Of course, that may make the uber-rich "go Galt" - which should result in an immediate boost in the US standard of living.