|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 19, 2015 22:48:21 GMT -5
Couldn't the same be said for the hundred dollar bill though? Why not a coin? They save money in the long run. The lifespan of a $100 bill is around 15 years according the Federal Reserve. They are also used as a store of value. So they don't change hands nearly as frequently as other bills and storage of them is an issue which means that...no it wouldn't make sense for hundreds. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 0:22:59 GMT -5
Couldn't the same be said for the hundred dollar bill though? Why not a coin? They save money in the long run. The lifespan of a $100 bill is around 15 years according the Federal Reserve. They are also used as a store of value. So they don't change hands nearly as frequently as other bills and storage of them is an issue which means that...no it wouldn't make sense for hundreds. What about fives? Tens? What's the cut off? Why is 25 cents not a reasonable cut off but $1 is? As far as assuming people would use the dollar coin if there were no other option, we don't have a fifty cent bill and people still don't use that coin either. They'd rather use twice as many quarters. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 20, 2015 1:35:07 GMT -5
We have 1 and 2 € coins, and people use them a lot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 20, 2015 14:35:11 GMT -5
We have 1 and 2 € coins, and people use them a lot. But Americans are special. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 20, 2015 15:23:09 GMT -5
We have 1 and 2 € coins, and people use them a lot. But Americans are special. But instead of a short bus, we get a clown car. It appears that Carly Fiorina is driving right now. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 20, 2015 15:38:10 GMT -5
But Americans are special. But instead of a short bus, we get a clown car. It appears that Carly Fiorina is driving right now. New CNN poll today has her in 2nd place behind the Donald: Trump 24, Fiorina 15, Carson 14, Rubio 11, Bush 9, Cruz 6,Huckabee 6, Paul 4, Kasich 2, Christie 3, Walker 0, Perry, Santorum 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0
I love Nate Silver, but his "it's not gonna be Trump, Bush is still the real front runner" statistical models are looking increasingly like sticking his head in the sand. Bush is a very distant 4th runner-up. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 20, 2015 22:14:38 GMT -5
Very interesting the the top three are not politicians... I think it's really making the pundits heads explode. I think it's crazy Huckabee is doubling Christie.
I think CNN would very much like the story line of a Bush v. Clinton rematch, so they're trying to help that along.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 21, 2015 14:24:25 GMT -5
Jeb Bush upset about ad that points out that George W. Bush didn't keep anybody safe.He blamed Hillary Clinton and her supporters for the ad. Two things about blaming Hillary Clinton: 1. It's dumb to criticize Hillary Clinton for wanting a higher standard for "keeping us safe." By Jeb Bush's standard, 3,000 dead on September 11, 2001, is "keeping us safe." I'm going to vote for a president that thinks the U.S. can do better. 2. Hillary Clinton is not the only one with a motive to use facts to point out that 3,000 dead Americans on September 11, 2001, is a lousy standard for "keeping us safe." You don't have to be a candidate and you don't have to be a liberal to see how delusional it is to give George W. Bush a pass for September 11, 2001. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 21, 2015 14:59:04 GMT -5
Jeb Bush upset about ad that points out that George W. Bush didn't keep anybody safe.He blamed Hillary Clinton and her supporters for the ad. Two things about blaming Hillary Clinton: 1. It's dumb to criticize Hillary Clinton for wanting a higher standard for "keeping us safe." By Jeb Bush's standard, 3,000 dead on September 11, 2001, is "keeping us safe." I'm going to vote for a president that thinks the U.S. can do better. 2. Hillary Clinton is not the only one with a motive to use facts to point out that 3,000 dead Americans on September 11, 2001, is a lousy standard for "keeping us safe." You don't have to be a candidate and you don't have to be a liberal to see how delusional it is to give George W. Bush a pass for September 11, 2001. Jeb! has been in politics for a while, right? He still does not realize that he is keeping this in the news cycles longer by not ignoring it? Whatta maroon. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 21, 2015 15:20:54 GMT -5
Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future.
I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 21, 2015 15:21:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 21, 2015 15:26:12 GMT -5
Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future. I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation. The Republicans in general and the Bush family in particular have been using 9/11 for emotional manipulation as well as to invade foreign countries that weren't involved in 9/11 for 14 years. No it's probably not appropriate. But you reap what you sow. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 21, 2015 15:26:15 GMT -5
Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future. I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation. That is simply untrue: www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 21, 2015 15:36:36 GMT -5
Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future. I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation. Saying that George W. Bush did not keep us safe on Sept. 11, 2001, is not "emotional manipulation." It is a bare statement of fact. Jeb Bush is trying to say that his brother kept us safe on Sept. 11 when it is very clearly not true. His whole party is trying to act like Obama is so weak on national security, and yet the continually ignore the elephant in the room (Bush's lousy record on stopping terror) when they start another round of "Benghazi! Banghazi!" Whether or not there was anything Bush could do on Sept. 11 may be debatable. But to say he "kept us safe"? No way, no how. And Jeb looks delusional every time he makes the claim. Believe me, I wouldn't be bringing it up if Jeb had the sense to be a little more low-key on his brother's record. But there is no way he should get away with it when he tries to use his brother's woeful record on terrorism as some kind of a rallying cry for his own election. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 21, 2015 15:46:12 GMT -5
Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future. I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation. The Republicans in general and the Bush family in particular have been using 9/11 for emotional manipulation as well as to invade foreign countries that weren't involved in 9/11 for 14 years. No it's probably not appropriate. But you reap what you sow. I'm against it when the nutjobs in the right use it as well, it's a cheap move that adds nothing to the discussion any way you slice it and I don't think trowing it back because they need to reap what they sewed does anything to heighten the dialogue. Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future. I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation. That is simply untrue: www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.htmlYou'll note that even the scathing review of the actions of the Bush administration ends on a note of doubt as to whether it could have been avoided...which is pretty significant considering everything that preceded that statement. There's a huge difference between the threat of some guys hijacking plains and demanding ransom, which up until then was the assumed tactic and something we believed could be stopped or negated by the ordinary security measures of the time and some guys hijacking some planes and turning them into missiles targeted at high density civilian targets. The idea that someone would try that was unfathomable at the time and because of that I don't think that in hindsight we can really say that an effective counter measure to an unheard of source of attack could have reasonably been executed. There are plenty of legitimate failings that we can attribute to the Bush Presidency, but in the 14 years since it happened I have yet to see anything remotely approaching even a half way convincing argument that his inability to stop 9/11 was one of them...and barring some future declassified document that shows that Bush was given information that Bin Laden was experimenting with the explosive force of jet fuel on buildings in the year leading up to 9/11 I doubt that feeling will change. |
|
