placeholder

.Except you can't stop murder by passing a law whereas the prohibition on providing abortions in cases of rape or incest can be retracted in precisely that way.

So you're focusing on ranking rather than the net contribution? Really? So apparently, to your way of thinking the rank is more important than the actual net contribution? Also, this ranking is by nation and takes no account of population. Naturally the UK will have contributed more than the Netherland on a gross basis. It was the 2nd most populous country in the EU. But on a per capita basis?

How does that justify states forbidding abortion in the case of rape or incest or both.

You keep on banging that drum about the Justice Dept being reluctant to indict him. Your idea of how the justice system in the USA works must come from TV shows. It bears very little relation to reality. The Dept is now being run by serious by-the-book investigators. That means that they are being careful and cautious in the event that their investigations result in an indictment.Let's leave the errors and the amateurism to Trump's legal team. Which clearly includes Judge Cannon.

According to this expert, the last time the UK fed itself was probably in the early 19th century. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/dec/03/could-britain-feed-itself-we-ask-the-expert And the diet would be very dull. Although given the pace of global warming maybe in 20 years there could be banana plantations in Devonshire.

These figures are, of course, incomplete, since they take no account of how much each nation receives from the EU. In other words, is it a net contributor or net beneficiary. The net contributions would be much much lower than the numbesr you cite.. So why cite them? Also, it doesn't take into account contributions on a per capita basis. The UK has roughly 13 times the population of Finland. Did it contribute on 13 times as much on a net per capita basis?

Trump SPAC Digital World changes address to a PO box at a UPS store https://seekingalpha.com/news/3886117-trump-spac-digital-world-changes-address-to-a-po-box-at-a-ups-store That doesn't look good but the new address is still relatively prestigious compared to moving to, say, Trump Tower.

Well, Snowden did a great public service by releasing info on NSA illegal wiretapping of U.S. Citizens. He also released data on a lot of stuff that wasn't illegal. It was open for Obama's successor to pardon Snowden. I haven't seen any criticism of him on that account. Instead he used that power to pardon criminal lowlifes who could have implicated him in illegal activities.

As I pointed out repeatedly, sometimes a doctor judges a late term abortion to be necessary. The doctor should not have to run the risk of losing their license or even facing imprisonment. because of being second guessed by the government. It's especially a creepy situation in a state like Texas (others have followed) where private citizens have now been empowered to bring lawsuits against doctors doing abortions based on these private citizens' understanding of medical necessity.

My mistake. But if you think that's rare, what about 3rd trimester abortions? "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm And that figure of less than 1% is for pregnancies terminated after 21 weeks. That still leaves another 5 weeks for a second trimester abortion. So the figure is a lot lower than those for rape and incest.

It' says a lot about your way of thinking and nothing at all about economic reality that you think this is relevant or significant. It's a market that 5.5 times the size of the UK's. The whole point of the EU is that it doesn't matter how many countries are in it when it comes to buying and selling, because, to coin a phrase, it's a Common Market.

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.