3rd Round of Stimulus - K-Shaped Recovery On Track to Get Economy Back to Normal By. . .2026.

@maverick1 wrote:

Yep, it's been fun shoptastic...unfortunately others are bored. Bored with the politics and financial matters that impact their lives. But we see reality as it is. smiling smiley

Looking ahead, herd immunity by May 2021. May-be herd immunity, get it?
We've likely officially broken forum rules on politics (albeit, we're more discussing economics and stimulus) - ishop123 would have our heads on a platter for this - but, I agree, it's been fun (even though I think you're totally one-sided like Shopetal and you both are completely wrong and I'm right...hehehe).

Feel free to stay on topic with stimulus chat. I shall try to do the same going forward.

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

Already a member? Log In.

Our current debt is what...20.3 trillion? If I add up your 16 trillion and 4.5 trillion amounts, then you are basically saying that the USA had no debt prior to or since 2009 other than the secret loans and QE? Sorry, but the numbers just don't add up...

"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl -- year after year..."
@msimon-2000 wrote:

Our current debt is what...20.3 trillion? If I add up your 16 trillion and 4.5 trillion amounts, then you are basically saying that the USA had no debt prior to or since 2009 other than the secret loans and QE? Sorry, but the numbers just don't add up...
The numbers are correct, msimon-2000.

The $16 trillion was in zero interest rate loans (loans = paid back), as stated above.

However, that number is slightly deceiving. That was the "scope" of the Fed's loan program, but not the base loan amount, which was something like $1.5 trillion (too lazy to look up the exact amount, but from memory it's very close). In other words, the most the Fed lent out at any ONE time was ~$1.5 trillion. The $16 trillion figure comes from the sum total of recurring loans over many years.

E.g., Company A borrows $1 trillion and Company B borrows $.5 trillion this month. Company B repays the loan next month, so $.5 trillion is freed up. Company C borrows $.5 trillion next month. That $.5 trillion by Company C is added to the running total. But, at any single given time, the Fed never had more than $1.5 trillion or so out. Still, these were zero interest rate loans. And they were given on demand to high level financial institutions and corporations during the 08/09 crisis. Imagine if YOU had access to such "free money" essentially. Any moron can take that and run it up. The easiest way? LEND on interest (your own interest is ZERO)!

The $16 trillion in zero interest rate loans (which were paid back), however, was different from QE. QE is essentially fancy talk for an asset swap. The Fed gives you cash (that it's printed) for whatever crappy toxic asset, Treasury, or asset-backed security you have on your books you want to get rid of. When institutions get that cash, it almost ALWAYS goes directly into the stock market for a quick and easy return vs. being used to invest in long-term projects. The Fed's balance sheet never really went down much from the $4.5 trillion it printed for QE. It started to sell off its book of assets in 2018 to try to reduce its debt, but the stock market crashed 19% and it stopped doing that. Keep in mind that the money that's printed essentially disappears when the Fed reduces its balance sheet. That has an effect on the stock market, as most of the printed money goes directly into the stock market (post-bank and primary dealer asset swaps). Then, in September of 2019, it started increasing its balance sheet again (i.e., QE), due to a lack of buyers of U.S. Treasuries and a spike in the repo market's overnight lending rate. And, finally, when COVID hit, its balance sheet just completely exploded. The Fed balance sheet currently stands at ~$7 trillion. In less than a year, it's almost doubled it's balance sheet from nearly a decade of QE (it's current run rate is $120 billion per month getting shoved into financial markets...there is no stated end in sight.......and it's approved endless QE - hence the "QE Infinity" phrase).

Hope that makes sense!

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2020 06:13AM by shoptastic.
@iagal wrote:

@maverick1 and shoptastic please continue. I found it quite interesting.
I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity for me to fight with the likes of Shopetal, maverick1, et. al - I love you, but you two are wrong! grinning smiley

Up on the radar now are:

i.) state/local aid
ii.) January 31st eviction moratorium (the latest bill only extends this 1 month from Dec. to Jan.)

After Biden takes office, it will be a rush to extend aid.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2020 06:46PM by shoptastic.
Shoptastic was "fighting?" Let's get back to the stimulus topic of $600 or possibly $2,000 now, or in multiple waves from Progressives like Shoptastic, it should be called stimuli. I'm gonna spend my stimuli on something stupid like a Progressive; such as a student loan for a worthless Art major degree, an EV car so I can virtue signal my care for the environment, or rile up my Social Media friends and turn my Progressive mob on expanding the cancel culture further past Abe Lincoln, Confederate Generals, and the prohibition of novels like Tom Sawyer in public schools and claim that I use "science!". Heck, why should I care about the next generation's finances and mental health. ????
*humorous material deleted*

That could incite a riot. The mere mention of A.B and his dictionary could be construed as religious, heaven forbid, and that would be bad.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
_____
I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. - Ronald Reagan
_____


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2020 04:52AM by Shop-et-al.
Civil discussion of ideas based on logic and reasoning are okay. Political group bashing is not okay (it's pointless and just foments tension) - esp., if based on caricatures.
@maverick1 wrote:

Let's get back to the stimulus topic of $600 or possibly $2,000 now, or in multiple waves from Progressives like Shoptastic, it should be called stimuli.
Okay - so what do you call $16 trillion in Fed zero interest loans and $7 trillion in QE then? stimulinfinity?

I do know of people who say we shouldn't have done the above either. I respect that. They are consistent. But, what is hypocritical is to criticize stimulus for the poor/middle-class and say nothing of the 20x greater stimulus for the wealthy/elites/corporations/Wall Street.

(p.s. I'm don't label myself a progressive.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2020 06:01AM by shoptastic.
@shoptastic wrote:

@maverick1 wrote:

Yep, it's been fun shoptastic...unfortunately others are bored. Bored with the politics and financial matters that impact their lives. But we see reality as it is. smiling smiley

Looking ahead, herd immunity by May 2021. May-be herd immunity, get it?
We've likely officially broken forum rules on politics (albeit, we're more discussing economics and stimulus) - ishop123 would have our heads on a platter for this - but, I agree, it's been fun (even though I think you're totally one-sided like Shopetal and you both are completely wrong and I'm right...hehehe).

Feel free to stay on topic with stimulus chat. I shall try to do the same going forward.


Wait.... What? There is a forum rule about politics???? I thought this (General Chat) was the political station (hosted by shoptastic and shop-et-al with special guest maverick1).

Anyway @ maverick1.... Yes, get the $600 and spend it right away. That would be the patriotic thing to do. And.... the list of items you mentioned that one might possibly purchase are noteworthy. Bravo! However, I don't understand the wintry attachment to the Art Degree major. A world without art would just be text and radio. A person with an Art degree could parlay that into something you might consider having real value like advertising, architecture, graphic designer, illustrator, or animator to name a few.

EV cars..... hum.... I remember walking into a "record" store to purchase an album. I was shocked. There were no records in this establishment... a place I shopped for years. Instead, there was nothing but CD's. I was shocked. Could it be one day, people will have a similar experience the next time they go to a car lot to purchase a car that has good "gas mileage" only to find...... EV's!!!!!

Progressive "mob?" mav mav mav...... Why the negative connotation? Psychology explains name calling. You should not do that. Be nice.

"Cancel culture"... that is the type of convenient verbiage that is primarily used to disregard another rational. We should be open to idea's that are different.

@maverick1...... Detox.... I mean... turn off the TV or change the channel. Take a break from, well, you know. Perhaps take one month off from your usual sources. You can always come back. Meanwhile, during your month away why don't you take an art class? Spend some of that stimulas on art supplies. Maybe go test drive a Nissan Leaf or Tesla too.
Right. We shouldn't use labels. (Pregnant pause) Now, you go tell that to the BLM founders. Tell that to the far Left liberals (known as Progressives; Progressivism, in the United States, a political and social-reform movement that brought major changes to American politics and government during the first two decades of the 20th century). Tell the Catholic Church to stop using labels, or any faith based religion who has labels (look in the Bible for example). How about "Lawnmower Parents" or "Helicopter parents?" is that labeling? People who like sports are jocks, and people who are smart are nerds. We think of a particular person as being a bully, a nerd, a musician, or an athlete. And, wait for it, if someone is an Art major, should we not label them an artist?

I believe some people need to lighten up. Get a job or start a hobby. Maybe painting? smiling smiley
Hmm. Spending tomorrow's dollars today. Using what we hope we will get to fund what we want now. We know what that looks like in print. But what would it look like in a sculpture? How do you paint here today, gone tomorrow?

*gazes at pastels, would rather produce lovely landscapes with lush flora and robust fauna*

Eureka! You spoof the artist's rendering of the development of man from little, hunched over animal to upright human and reverse the process, placing it all on a graph and indicating uprightness over time.From left to right, show scars, development of tools, and taller critters. At center, show the upright human. Now, show shrinking, furling creatures with ever increasing debt on their backs. Blend your cave/rock colors from left to center; highlight the lofty structures which parallel the upright human and produce the smoggy skies in the center; and fade to darker skies as you work to the future, remembering to bring back the cave and rock colors for the rubble from the decaying and fallen structures.

Mind you, no business minded artist would produce this because no one would buy it. Someone who is bored or fresh out of inspiration could test my hypothesis. Some clever artist with a good sense of humor would dream up something silly that would make us laugh at ourselves.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
_____
I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. - Ronald Reagan
_____
Does anyone else not understand what the heck Shop-et-el is saying? Or is it just me? SHOP.... you're killing me! Why do I have to read what you say more than once before I can start comprehending? To your point, I think, many artist, for example the early impressionist, did test your theory. Not necessarily out of boredom, but inspiration. Remember, they were initially ridiculed, the name "impressionist" was meant as a derogatory term, implying that their work was not real art, but an impression of art. Some died penniless, but try to purchase their work today.

@maverick1 .... detox..... I can tell you haven't started. I don't recall saying we shouldn't use labels. I said we should avoid attaching negative connotations or name calling. Labels in and of itself are not necessarily good or bad. Granted they can be depending on context. I think you are conflating labels with other words that are just nouns. For example, and athlete is not necessarily a label. An athlete is an athlete. It is what it is. What would be wrong is to attached a negative adjective like dumb athlete or dumb jock. Likewise, attaching adjectives like progressive "mob" or racist Republicons is counterproductive.

Now as far as telling this or that to the BLM founders, Catholic Church etc so on and so forth.... Sheesh.... we could go back and forth ad nauseam telling each other who or what group we need to tell that to. That tic for tac would never end. So, I will leave it alone.... just be aware.

You know, thinking about you and your road to recovery, maybe you can volunteer a couple of nights a week serving at a homeless shelter. Many churches have homeless ministries. Perhaps join one.

..edit... my grammar is declining....

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2020 11:38PM by 1forum1.
Speaking of stimmy (stimulus, stimuli, stimfinity?)...

Reminder, we only have one day left...
So how do we minimize taxes? All we need to do is follow 4 simple rules:
1) Choose leisure over labor
2) Live well for less
3) Leverage Roth IRA Conversions
4) Harvest Capital Losses AND Capital Gains
The tax laws in the US target people who work for a living. If you get a paycheck, the US government classifies that paycheck as Earned Income, with special payroll taxes just for you. This is one part of the reason that Warren Buffett says his secretary pays more tax than he does. Social Security and Medicare taxes are only applied to Earned Income, 15.3% tax in total for most people.
The only way to avoid paying these taxes is to not work. Now leisure comes with an added bonus.
Hurry up!

(I just completed my Roth conversion online today)
Whether Roth IRAs are worth it are not is an interesting topic. Traditionally, people have heavily advocated for them for lower-income folks. Dave Collum (Professor of Chemistry - Cornell University), who is an "amateur" financial markets pundit and popular on fintwit, wrote an article a few years ago arguing Roths were mathematically not a good idea. According TO HIM, no investment professional has ever disproven his math and thesis. *shrug* You can find his article and debate over the topic online.

My parents made conversions in March/April when the stock market crashed. They got to convert on cents on the dollar. That is usually the best time to convert. With the U.S. market at all-time highs and most markets around the world higher than pre-COVID, it's debatable whether now is a good time to convert. Really depends on your individual situation.

If one is worried about future tax hikes, then converting (some or all) THIS year is a must, I think. Trump's friendlier income tax brackets may not last (and corporate taxes may go up). We'll see what happens with the Georgia run-offs and if that has any impact on Congress. Pelosi has the smallest majority hold in the House in either history or decades (can't remember) I read. Many moderates and Blue Dogs in her own party aren't in favor of messing with Trump's tax environment just yet. They'll argue like they did in 2008-9 when Obama took office that the time to raise taxes is not during a recession.
@1forum1 wrote:

You know, thinking about you and your road to recovery, maybe you can volunteer a couple of nights a week serving at a homeless shelter. Many churches have homeless ministries. Perhaps join one.
It's a tough time to volunteer. I saw an article about the Salvation Army having much less people taking donations for the holidays this year.

My uncle volunteers for his church and soup kitchens locally. He's not particularly high risk. But, with COVID, the more infectious variant in the U.S. right now, and a deadly winter surge, I would think twice about volunteering if you're vulnerable. I've donated money, but have not volunteered myself. My local church has virtual service and many are still in (or have gone back to) this phase. Be careful if you do this. But, God Bless You if you do!smiling smiley

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2020 04:01AM by shoptastic.
Yes, I know. I was just planting a seed for consideration in the future. My church has suspended that part of the ministry (homeless shelter service). They still do other things.... drive by food bank 6 days a week. I personally don't do anything that involves congregating with groups of people indoors. I do lots of outdoor activities''' hiking, biking, and once in a while outdoor dining with friends. Yes, I give, and I do volunteer work twice a week, but our small group is consistently spaced 20-100 ft apart. Myself, I almost 100% of the time work alone in another building.
Speaking of stimmy (stimulus, stimuli, stimfinity?)...

Reminder, we only have one day left...
So how do we minimize taxes? All we need to do is follow 4 simple rules:
1) Choose leisure over labor
2) Live well for less
3) Leverage Roth IRA Conversions
4) Harvest Capital Losses AND Capital Gains
The tax laws in the US target people who work for a living. If you get a paycheck, the US government classifies that paycheck as Earned Income, with special payroll taxes just for you. This is one part of the reason that Warren Buffett says his secretary pays more tax than he does. Social Security and Medicare taxes are only applied to Earned Income, 15.3% tax in total for most people.
The only way to avoid paying these taxes is to not work. Now leisure comes with an added bonus.
Hurry up!

(I just completed my Roth conversion online today)
@1forum1 wrote:

Yes, I know. I was just planting a seed for consideration in the future. My church has suspended that part of the ministry (homeless shelter service). They still do other things.... drive by food bank 6 days a week. I personally don't do anything that involves congregating with groups of people indoors. I do lots of outdoor activities''' hiking, biking, and once in a while outdoor dining with friends. Yes, I give, and I do volunteer work twice a week, but our small group is consistently spaced 20-100 ft apart. Myself, I almost 100% of the time work alone in another building.
For those that can still give, praise God.

I know the need is huge this year and many have stopped giving at large gathering places, b/c they don't want the risk of COVID. This article from NYT this week made me think of an interesting point:
[www.nytimes.com]
@ wrote:

Americans also stopped broadly sharing libraries, movie theaters, train stations and public school classrooms, the spaces that still created common experience in increasingly unequal communities. Even the D.M.V., with its cross-section of life in a single room, wasn’t that anymore.

Instead, people who could afford it retreated into smaller, more secure worlds during the pandemic. And that has made it harder to see all the inequality that worsened this year: the unemployment that soared even as the stock market did, the eviction threats that grew as home prices hit new highs.

It discusses how inequality during COVID was made less conspicuous. Usually higher income groups see lower income groups on a daily basis. Businessmen walking to their downtown office can pass by the homeless/poor through several blocks, they rub shoulders on the subway, and they may see them serving them or hanging around their cafe for lunch.

COVID has emptied cities and those with means can work from home and stay in more. This has led to a physical separation of rich and poor more than ever. This leads to less physical giving opportunities as well: the panhandler cannot see the same people to ask for money. Less volunteers for Salvation Army-like donation programs also makes this divide less conspicuous this year. Things are just "extra" tough for the poor.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2021 12:40AM by shoptastic.
speaking of those rising home prices amid mass eviction threats:

From today's Bloomberg: [www.bloomberg.com]
This is what QE does - inflates asset prices (those who own them benefit, while those without them pay more).
Reminder, we only have one day left...
So how do we minimize taxes? All we need to do is follow 4 simple rules:
1) Choose leisure over labor
2) Live well for less
3) Leverage Roth IRA Conversions
4) Harvest Capital Losses AND Capital Gains
The tax laws in the US target people who work for a living. If you get a paycheck, the US government classifies that paycheck as Earned Income, with special payroll taxes just for you. This is one part of the reason that Warren Buffett says his secretary pays more tax than he does. Social Security and Medicare taxes are only applied to Earned Income, 15.3% tax in total for most people.
The only way to avoid paying these taxes is to not work. Now leisure comes with an added bonus.
Hurry up!
Shoptastic, I own REITs and I'm NOT benefiting from the increasing RE asset prices. Not yet anyway. Not until people can be evicted for failure to pay rent and new tenants are found willing to pay a higher price because QE, as you stated, caused inflation. That's what the new administration will be doing, although indirectly. And yet, the average renter doesn't understand this.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2020 08:52PM by maverick1.
@shoptastic wrote:

Okay - so what do you call $16 trillion in Fed zero interest loans and $7 trillion in QE then?

Shoptastic, you are really fixated on the steps taken by the Gov't after the financial meltdown in 2008. While I am not a fan of Gov't bailouts in general, had they not stepped in to prop up the house of cards that was our financial system, there was a very real chance of cascading failures imploding the entire financial system. Who really knows how that would have played out, but just about every scenario was very bad, perhaps armageddon type bad.

My concern from the financial crisis is I do not believe the Gov't has implemented safety controls and regulations to prevent it from happening again.

I believe that if you took all the money in the world and divided it evenly amongst the world's population, within 5 maybe 10 years you would have a similar distribution of wealth that we have today. Some people attract money and others (most) blow it quickly...think about it....

"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl -- year after year..."


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2021 06:09AM by msimon-2000.
@ wrote:

My concern from the financial crisis is I do not believe the Gov't has implemented safety controls and regulations to prevent it from happening again.
Dodd-Frank has helped a little bit, but has loopholes (because it was largely written by Wall Street lobbyists) and doesn't go far enough to protect us. For example, the large banks can get around trading-for-their-own-book limitations by saying they are simply market making for clients. Many advocates/activists want to reinstate Glass-Steagall as the ultimate solution, because it would separate investment banking from consumer/commercial banking.

Nonetheless, most agree that the best part of D-F was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB ). It did help keep a check on financial industry fraud and has returned lots of money to consumers since inception. On top of that, leverage ratios for the big banks have been reduced. Banks like Citigroup were levered 35-to-1 pre-2008, while it's at 10-to-1 and less nowadays. Additionally, the big banks have stress tests they have to go through to make sure they'd survive a calamity and have higher capital reserve requirements than 2008. Many argue the stress tests are useless, though, because the people devising them don't put in scenarios that are the worst case possible. Keep in mind, there is a lot of conflict of interest between regulator and big banks, as there's historically been a revolving door between the Federal Reserve (esp. the NY branch) and Treasury and those banks. The top officials at the Fed/Treasury have been a who's who list of Wall Streeters for the past few decades.

Interestingly, POTUS tried to gut D-F and the CFPB upon assuming office and managed to scale back some of its provisions.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2021 05:39PM by shoptastic.
This. New or improved regulations and practices might prevent some businesses from going under or permit them to fail. As to which should be helped with money and which should be helped with an opportunity to fail, that is for someone else to determine. As for individuals, it is true that some people enjoy money and others repel it. Some people have been taught or somehow learned that they do not deserve money, solvency, pleasure, ease, ownership, and other aspects of money. Just now, I am reading Kate Northrup's Money: A Love Story. This is not a paean to the love of money. Far from it! Kate tells her story of the relationship between self-love and issues with money. The same is probably true for any issue. When she began to behave as if she loved herself, she behaved well with money. She went from broke to prosperous-- but it was not fundamentally about the money. It was about herself and how she regarded money and its place in her life. Could it explain why some IC's work at high income levels while others scratch at poverty?

@msimon-2000 wrote:

@shoptastic wrote:

Okay - so what do you call $16 trillion in Fed zero interest loans and $7 trillion in QE then?

Shoptastic, you are really fixated on the steps taken by the Gov't after the financial meltdown in 2008. While I am not a fan of Gov't bailouts in general, had they not stepped in to prop up the house of cards that was our financial system, there was a very real chance of cascading failures imploding the entire financial system. Who really knows how that would have played out, but just about every scenario was very bad, perhaps armageddon type bad.

My concern from the financial crisis is I do not believe the Gov't has implemented safety controls and regulations to prevent it from happening again.

I believe that if you took all the money in the world and divided it evenly amongst the world's population, within 5 maybe 10 years you would have a similar distribution of wealth that we have today. Some people attract money and others (most) blow it quickly...think about it....

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
_____
I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. - Ronald Reagan
_____
@ wrote:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The homes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were vandalized over the weekend after Congress adjourned Friday without securing $2,000 stimulus checks.

Messages like "where's my money" and other expletives were written with spray paint across the front door and bricks of the Kentucky Republican's house in Louisville. Police spokesman Dwight Mitchell said the incident happened around 5 a.m. Saturday and there was "minor damage of graffiti on a window and door." The department has no suspects.

Meanwhile, at the San Francisco home of Pelosi, a Democrat, vandals painted graffiti on the garage door and left a pig's head on the sidewalk around 2 a.m. Friday morning, police said. Vandals also wrote messages like "$2k cancel rent" and left fake blood on Pelosi's driveway, according to local news reports. San Francisco Police said its Special Investigations Division was investigating.
[www.usatoday.com]
Not saying I endorse these actions, as I am merely reporting. People are desperate right now.
@msimon-2000 wrote:

While I am not a fan of Gov't bailouts in general, had they not stepped in to prop up the house of cards that was our financial system, there was a very real chance of cascading failures imploding the entire financial system. Who really knows how that would have played out, but just about every scenario was very bad, perhaps armageddon type bad.
The simple solution was to simply bail out the homeowners' roughly $500 billion in sub-prime mortgages.

The government could have bought them up (and put the owners on whatever repayment or other plan they wanted to). Done.

Instead, we bailed out Wall Street (notwithstanding letting Lehman fail - which they should have!). That was a political choice. We could have bailed out no one, some, or everyone - either before or after the crisis unfolded. We chose one of the worst choices, as we let the crisis unfold and selectively bailed out the top. Those $500 billion in sub-prime mortgages were securitized into CDOs that corrupt credit rating agencies (Moody's, Fitch and S&P) rated as AAA (there were tranches, but every tranche was mis-rated) and allowed to be sold off to investors (mostly pensioners). Credit default swaps acted as insurance on the debt for investors, but since the debt was wildly mis-rated to begin with, the big banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies holding those swaps were set to lose huge (a swap could be anywhere from 20 to 1...200 to 1, etc. against the mortgages failing). Some insured themselves against the losses by placing bets the other way using derivatives, while knowingly continuing to sell these crap CDOs to pensioner clients (i.e., defrauding them).

In the end, those $500 billion of sub-prime losses trigged 10's of trillions in financial losses that didn't have to happen if you bailed out the underlying toxic assets. That was one solution. There have been many others floated since the crisis, such as letting the big banks fail post-crisis and starting over with new ones, bailing them out and nationalizing them (putting them into conservatorship), etc.. The question has been why bail them out specifically? That was a political choice of favoritism. ...Next up, I'll talk about TARP's corruption. We didn't help homeowners in TARP's bailout. We tricked them and scammed them and hurt them a second time (in order to save the banks yet AGAIN).

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2021 11:07PM by shoptastic.
Mmmkaaaayyyyy....

Serious-minded citizens are discussing concepts such as business practices, homelessness, and health concerns.

Meanwhile, the House is talking about new language which should support inclusiveness and diversity even as it excludes identifying roles, sources of accomplishment and achievement, and overlooks-- literally and figuratively overlooks the fact that in 2021, there are more persons of multiple genders and skin colors than there ever have been in the history of this country. If they cannot or will not see the persons in front of them, how will they ever find* the legal and illegal votes? They, of course, include members of the House of Representatives and tptb in Georgia. I could not identify them or distinguish between them in any other way due to their proposed gender and role elimination.

*Finding all the votes is not the same as creating any votes. Just sayin'.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
_____
I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. - Ronald Reagan
_____


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2021 07:25PM by Shop-et-al.
@ Shop-et-al

"*Finding all the votes is not the same as creating any votes. Just sayin'."

Well, that depends on who's sayin'.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login