"entilted to free stuff" ......like the fossil fuel industries.
Fossil fuel subsidies were $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.
Birthers were/are the dumbest of the dumb. It is no surprise that conservatives are left to choose between of of these mental midgets or Lucifer in the Flesh.
Friday 25 March 2016 15.29 GMT
"ISIS second in command killed in US raid, Pentagon says. Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli, a high-profile Islamic State target for the US, was killed as part of US effort to ‘systematically eliminate Isis’s cabinet’.
Thats teliing 'em !
If you had a brain, you would attribute the Bush/Republican lies enabling them to commit atrocities in Islamic regions to current attacks.
The history (over the last 12 months) DOES show the Dow and gold being divergent. This means that your comment that "in spite of fundamental reasons for investors to protect their assets, precious metals continue on their downward path" is not up with reality. You seem to think some shenanigans is going on? A conspiracy maybe? Then where's YOUR evidence?
The evidence is that he said it. He hasn't denied it.
IT WAS ON TV YOU IDIOT.
You'd have to be living under a rock not to know that's what Paul said.
Trump is a dummy.
Undeniable proof of being a dummy is being a Birther, even for a short time.
Senate Republicans announced that they would refuse to consider any candidate nominated by President Obama for the Supreme Court, asserted that they are merely following historical precedent.
The Constitution gives the Senate the right to offer advice and consent on Court nominees. The two bodies have frequently quarreled over just how much power each is entitled over a nomination. Sometimes, senators have granted presidents wide latitude. At other times, they have insisted on forcing the president to nominate a jurist with mainstream views. But never before in American history has the Senate simply refused to let the president nominate anybody at all simply because it was an election year.
"....as Paul Krugman notes, that gold prices go up when the economy is overheating and when it's underperforming. So that means the gold standard would increase interest rates at both the best and worst possible moments, the latter of which is how a recession can get turned into a depression. Indeed, it's a pretty good description of what happened in the 1930s.
That's why none of the economists in the University of Chicago's ideologically diverse expert panel think that the gold standard would be better than what we have now. And that's putting it politely. Chicago professor Anil Kashyap went so far as to say that "love of the gold standard implies macroeconomic illiteracy."
Time for the Republicans to invoke another break in constitutional process.