placeholder

Not anymore.

If it was a fact that 15% of all mined metal is nickel, would you say nickel is rare? Most people would not say 15% qualifies as a rare percentage.

The harm is that sometimes pregnancies go bad in the third trimeter and then a doctor may have to abort a fetus. One thing a doctor shouldn't have to consider is whether or not he will be stripped of his license and even imprisoned for that. And your gallup poll is dated from may. A lot has changed in the public attitude since then especially as regards the effect of abortion restrictions on medical practice.

And it's not just affecting pregnant woman. Misoprostol has other medical uses besides inducing abortion. People who need it for those reasons are being turned down thanks to anti-abortion laws.

Can you give me a link to that gallup poll? Was it taken after the Supreme Court decision was officially released? A realistic compromise decision is to leave it up to the woman and her doctor. All this handwringing about late term abortions that will be very rare is just a way of restricting abortions. As long as ob/gyns fear possible loss of license and even imprisonment, the system will continue to harm women.

So that's what you were on about? Why did you introduce an irrelevant comment as a rebuttal? I never broached this issue. I only referred to cuts. You can't cut taxes from people who don't pay them.

He was disagreeing with me. I mentioned only tax cuts.

Really? You called giving tax cuts to people who earn less "hand outs".

Raising interest rates attracts overseas investors to invest in gilt (government bonds)s. If anything, it discourages other investments since the value of the pound would presumably rise rise in tandem with a rise in interest rates making investments more expensive.

Well, according to what I've read, the average member of the Conservative Party who got to vote on Johnson's replacement, is far wealthier than the average citizen. So maybe they should give themselves a round of applause and a pat on the back.

Nowhere have I written that all wealth is accumulated and stored. But in a situation where there is already so much liquidity, why is more necessary. If you want business to do better direct tax cuts to those who will spend. And I fail to understand why, as you remarked in your earlier comments, giving tax cuts to those who earn less is a bad thing because they don't deserve it whereas giving tax cuts to the wealthy is a good thing because they deserve it. If the goal is to stimulate demand, then giving disproportionate tax cuts to those who earn the least makes eminent sense.

Yes, there are investors looking for places to invest. Including investors in the UK. Why would they necessarily invest in the UK with the extra cash they've received due to tax cuts? And as alway, the big issue re: buying at the bottom is how does one know when the bottom has been reached?

First off, the problem with this position is that it doesn't let physicians decide when an abortion is medically necessary. States with strong anti-abortion laws make nods in the direction of specifying they're allowed in the case of saving the life of the mother or protecting her from serious harm, but they aren't specific enough. And they can't be specific enough since there are so many eventualities that can arise. Ob/gyn practicioners can't do their job properly if they're worrying that they might go to prison if the government disagrees with what they've done. And now that the Dobbs decision has focused attention on what abortion bans mean in respect to how they can affect the health of the mother, opposition has increased to bans Support for Legalized Abortion Grows Since Dobbs Ruling, WSJ Poll Shows More than half of voters said the issue made them more likely to cast ballots in the midterm elections; majorities oppose 6-week and 15-week abortion bans https://www.wsj.com/articles/support-for-legalized-abortion-grows-since-dobbs-ruling-wsj-poll-shows-11662210020

Unfortunately, there's plenty of history that proves you wrong, and precious little that proves you right. One of the reasons interest rates got so low is that as the wealthy acquired an increasing large portion of the economy, they accumulated more cash than they could reasonably invest. That's why countries like Germany and the US were actually able to charge negative interest rates for their bonds. In effect, investors wound up with less money than they invested. That's also why assets like unique real estate and art and such shot up in value to such extraordinary lengths. The rich have more liquidity than they can sensibly invest.

But you claimed that raising the interest rates would encourage investment. Why would that encourage investment? To invest in the UK would cost foreign investors more, not less, if the pound rises.

The problem is that tax cuts, are a very ineffective way to stimulate growth. That path has been touted again and again. It only works if tax rates are so prohibitively high like 75 or 80 percent. It makes more sense to give cuts to lower income people since they are far more likely to spend it and stimulate the economy. Of course that will push up inflation but the benefits for those with lower income should outweigh the inflationary effects.

If someone is buying sterling as an investment that means they're're buying gilts (treasury bonds) and hoping that it appreciates in value while it also yields interest. It has nothing to do with investing in a business.

Higher interest rates may make sterling more attractive but why would it make investing in the UK private sector more attractive?

Comments like this continue reveal the arithmetical challenges facing Brexit supporters. The EU economy is about 5.5 times the size of the UK's. (Quite a bit higher calculateded as PPP) Yet it's the Europeans that some reckon are going to suffer more because of Brexit. Bizarre.

It's also fallen to below 40 against the Baht.

Well if she's as corrupt as Orban and, like him, enacts laws that make genuine democratic elections virtually impossible, and guts opposition media, then, yes, they will have issues with her.

The problem is that Liz Cheney lost all credibiltiy long ago because of her support for the Iraq war. As deputy assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs during the run-up to the Iraq war, she played a central role in promoting the lies that led to that war. As far as I could find she still defends it. Her sister who is gay won't have anything to do with her because of her public opposition to gay marriage. I think Cheney bet that Trump would crash and burn. When that didn't happen she found herself in a politically untenable position and tried to recast herself as the principled opposition. LIke her father, she's a lowlife and is best shunned by the Democrats.

Amazing how the falsehoods you post exactly match those offered by RT.

Please share with us these independent sources. Because they read exactly like the reports coming from rt.com.

From what I've read, the judge made the correct, if repugnant, decision. It's also great news for the Democrats in Arizona.