Good. You are catching on. He's a terrible "Deal Maker." That's why he's been a party to over 4,000 law suits. He'll announce anything that at the moment seems to be what his audience wants to hear. And a few hours later he may announce the opposite. It is whatever will make him popular with is immediate audience. Thus he announces on the spur of the moment, before the election, that he is going to give a 10% tax reduction to the middle class . He made it up on the spot and has no means of delivering such a cut without Congress's approval. Congress was not in session nor had anyone in Congress any idea of what he was talking about. It is just 100% bull shit out of his mouth 100% of the time. The man is mentally deranged. He is running around claiming to be making wonderful trade deals when in fact he is causing chaos among U.S. manufacturers and our trading partners. Then he announces "new" trade deals with a new name that are just the old trade deals with insignificant changes amounting to minor technicalities which in practice may amount to no real change whatsoever. All so he can take credit. He goes around creating messes that fall to the few competent people in his administration to clean up.
Exactly. He was was for Obamacare before he was against. He was for gun control before he was against it. He was Pro Choice before he was Pro Life. He was .... (on and on)
%% NO, on tarriffs; + told that to the powers that be, also. And also noted Mr Ross should have disclosed all his buddies in steel …………………………….As far as tax cuts, less, less gov regs,less oil gas regs,[more oil gas supply LOL] mostly-that's what I mean.
You won't get any argument from me on the question of two much regulation. What you will get is objection to a blanket remedy which amounts to elimination of regulation without discriminating between needed regulation and superfluous or counterproductive regulation. I am not one of those who thinks, because mistakes have been made, the best solution is to wreck government and start over. A far, far better way is to examine the regulations we've already got and eliminate those that are just extra baggage without any substantial benefit, or those that amount to regulatory capture. Fine tuning is better than "carpet bombing" and rebuilding from scratch in most instances.
Well, in the interest of comity, let me just state the obvious: this thread was posted in the Commodity Futures Forum, so in terms of world crude oil supplies Russia, Saudia Arabia, and the United States have the immediate capacity to replace any losses from Iranian production. CL has come off sharply from the Oct 03 high of 76.90 and we're at $63.14 now and appear to be headed to $60.00 for WTI. And the United States just set another crude oil production record. So sanctions on Iran are a political calculus - we are awash in crude oil. And Iran is a theocracy run by kleptocrats. They're not going to get their shit together as long as that status quo remains.
I can find no information published from the UN or the IAEA to confirm or at least corroborate your opinion.
And.....he’s gone with the waivers. U.S. allows eight importers to keep buying Iran oil for now http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...to-keep-buying-iran-oil-for-now-idUKKCN1N70LX
If we're not imposing sanctions on them because of their nuclear weapons program then why the heck are we? Because they're a backward Islamic country that murdered and dismembered a Washington Post journalist in Istanbul? Because they're where 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers were from? Because they're the home and sponsor of the Wahabi sect of the Muslim religion responsible for the last majority of Muslim terror attacks? Because they deny Israel's right to exist? Oh, sorry, I got mixed up with our "ally" Saudi Arabia. You can't have a well meaning intelligent discussion on Iran if you pretend that the majority of the U.S. concern around Iran isn't around thier nuclear program, sorry that's just not intellectually honest. Iran has literally been under sanctions since the revolution 40 years ago. That's a pretty good definition for the status quo. It hasn't resulted in much in the way of positive outcomes and there isn't any indication that this time will be any different?