gatomontes99

So 12 X 1500 = 38000?

Where do you even find a plan that is that expensive? You have to be lying.

Well, I actually gave you an abbreviated rundown of how it came to be. It took only a few minutes to locate the information on the internet. Maybe if you hadn't been so eager to find fault and spent just a moment of time getting educated on the subject, you could have avoided looking foolish. The reality is the name Americans is not an official decree but rather a colloquial reference that "stuck" and then morphed. So, no, they did not name themselves after the continent.

Yeah, it goes up as a percentage. Read the first post you quoted. This time, try following along.

Ok...I wasn't talking about what caused inflation. I was talking about why businesses show higher profits during inflationary periods.

What does that say about you when factual data (i.e. 198% increase in wait times) is considered an extreme right wing bias. To put it another way, you consider the facts (aka reality) to have an extreme right wing bias.

In 2023, physicians report a median wait time of 27.7 weeks between a referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment. This represents the longest delay in the survey’s history and is 198% longer than the 9.3 weeks Canadian patients could expect to wait in 1993. Supply v Demand will always prevail. If cost can't be changed, something else must be sacrificed. The sacrifice is going to be availability or quality. The country's health-care system is suffering from an acute shortage of doctors — even as hundreds of qualified Canadian physicians trained abroad are turned away each year because of a tangle of red-tape and bias, experts say. Sure, you can say that it doesn't cost much to have healthcare in Canada...but do you have health care? There is a severe shortage of doctors. Over the summer, physicians, politicians and policy experts have rang the alarm bells, warning Canadians about the beleaguered state of our health-care system. While many of the proposed solutions focus on individual issues (the physician shortage, for example), few address the systemic nature of the problem. In reality, Canada’s health-care system has been on the verge of collapse for years, and its long past time to consider the sort of meaningful reforms needed to repair it, if not outright save it.

You are thinking logically though. You arent her base. Her base is the people that are emotionally centric.

Trump out negotiated her. She wanted one debate. He forced her into two. The Alpha dog is clearly Trump.

They just need a bad guy to attach the emo response that libs have. That way they can claim to be the saviors riding in on their culturally diverse, non binary horse of color (but not so much color that white people get scared) and pretend to save the day with an emotionally charged solution.

It occurs to me that Harris isn't proposing smart economic policies because that doesn't suit her base. Her base is looking for an emotional response with direct impact and control. Where as conservatives and economists understand that price controls (the most important tool in communism) are enacted m, they have dire consequences: supply shortages, black markets, quality loss. Liberals/progressives view the control as a solution to a problem. If the problem is things are too expensive, just mandate that they aren't expensive. Consequences be dawned, they feel good that they helped. Harris isn't playing to the smart. She alienating them and playing to the emotional.

You probably haven't worked in retail or you wouldn't post such a meaningless stat. That's OK, let's use this a teaching point. Let's say you have a widget store. You sell the finest widgets on your block. Every month, the widgets you sell out you $10 a piece. For easy numbers, let's say you sell 100 widgets a month. For the purposes of demonstration, we will ignore overhead, taxes and all other costs. If you sell the widgets for $10 a piece, at the end of the month you would have $1000. You could replace the widgets but you would make no money. So you sell the widgets for $15 a piece. You put $1500 in your register. However, you habe to replace the widgets to have something to sell next month. At the end of the month you have $500 profit. You rich bastard. This month, your supplier notifies you that the cost of the widget must go up to $15 on your next order. If you buy this order at $10, sell at $15, you will have just enough for resupply, but nothing for you. You decide to raise your prices to $20. You make $2000. When you make your next order, though, you spend $1500. Does that mean your profit was $500? Absolutely not. You made a profit based on your original cost of $1000. So your profit (2000 - 1000) is $1000 or a 100% increase. You still have $500 in your pocket, but the profit was far higher. Now, let's reinduce taxes. If you make $1000 profit, you pay taxes on $1000. When you compare actual cash in hand from before the cost increase to after, you actually have less money even though you doubled your profit. You poor bastard. There may be some corporate greed. I'm not in their books. I also don't know if they are using LIFO or FIFO for tax purposes and how that may have impacted their profit. But, inflation and replacement costs are the primary driver here. The democrats, however, see an opportunity to capitalize on the emo responses of their Goerbels. They want to increase taxes to increase control and move the ball closer to authoritarian socialism/communism.

They all did the same stupid sh1t.

Direct Quote from Kamala Harris: "I will unf*** what I and Joe f***ed up!"

Really? How so? Pointing out the policy positions of candidates that want to run the country is a waste of time?

It was unveiled today. The policy was quoted in parts of the article I didn't quote. Go read it.

Do you have a reputable link that shows that to be true? No. Because you made it up and just want it to be true. And you definitely don't want to talk about all the facts about what happens with price controls. ABC: "It's economics 101 that if you stimulate demand while simultaneously deterring supply, your equilibrium will be significantly higher prices," Michael Faulkender, a professor of finance at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business, told ABC News. In turn, Faulkender dismissed any potential benefit from a federal price-gouging ban. "It just sounds to me that we're creating even more burdensome regulations that will actually raise prices for consumers," Faulkender said.

Nice conspiracy theory.

You posted this very early in the morning. Given the speech patterns and the lack of supporting evidence for this thesis, I have to wonder ifnthis wasn't the result of a drunk post following an all night bender. If not, ok, but wow! If you looked up the history of the term, you would note that American was originally the term for all the natives that lived here. As time progressed and Europeans made north America their home, the term slowly morphed into anyone living in North America. Now, when the Constituion was written and the official name of the union became The United States but there still wasn't consistent usage of the name. Sometimes it was the United States. Sometimes it was the United States of North America. It eventually settled to the United States of America. The term American predates the country and was used to refer to people in North America. That term has stuck. We didn't name ourselves that, it was given to us.

She's lost WaPo, one of the most left wing rags in the country. They called her out for putting out a horrible economic plan. Anyone that took econ in high school knows that price controls are never going to work.

Same place?

Your fantasy world takes precedence over reality, doesn't it?

Passed in August 22 but most payments started going out in Jan 23. Most of the Inflation Reduction happened before that and then there was a mini spike after payments started going out. So thank you for providing a chart to show how I'm correct again.

That is not what the ruling was about. The ruling was about the fertility clinic not properly securing embryos that were ruined because a patient tried to steal them. The plaintiffs IVF treatments led to the creation of several embryos , some of which were implanted and resulted in the births of healthy babies . The plaintiffs contracted to have their remaining embryos kept in the Center's cryogenic nursery , which was located within the same building as the local hospital, the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center ( the Hospital"). The Hospital is owned and operated by the Mobile Infirmary Association (" the Association"). The plaintiffs allege that the Center was obligated to keep the cryogenic nursery secured and monitored at all times . But, in December 2020 , a patient at the Hospital managed to wander into the Center's fertility clinic through an unsecured doorway . The patient then entered the cryogenic nursery and removed several embryos . The subzero temperatures at which the embryos had been stored freeze -burned the patient's hand, causing the patient to drop the embryos on the floor , killing them . You guys really need to go to the source. Don't believe the lies the media tells you. They will make grotesque accusations, with no basis in reality, because it will advance an agenda and get viewership.

Nobody ever said they were.