These are completely counterfactual. Speed mac. The fed used to have reserves and one of the changes is that now they can pay it and they look at the new tool of the interest rate. And number of people to put this in context a number of people have been arguing one of the problems in terms of Funding Investment in the private sector is that the fed is taking the money out of the system by paying interest on reserves. I think there is very little evidence that that is the case created the design of the policy was primarily to make sure that there was control over the rate to keep the fund rate is much narrower than they had been. Remember that as a time when it was all over the place. It seemed to have worked quite effectively, and i think the evidence to that policy is pretty positive. The evidence against it in terms of its longterm effect is minimal. That doesnt mean that it couldnt be used to harm the private sector by taking the money out of the economy because they have discretion
Expulsion of native americans an inevitability. And you a lot of evidence of political and economic motivations. So how much land first did indians own the southeast in the decades before. The 1830s, they owned a huge amount. Half of alabama two thirds as what became mississippi, about a fifth of georgia. And its not just how much land owned, but how valuable that land was. It was among the most valuable but howow valuable that land wa. Was among the most valuable agricultural lands probably in the entire world at the time. And removal covered the entire United States, we think largely as a southern story and most was a seven story but the word indian peoples in the north and old northwestward moved s as wel but they are much smaller plots of land. You to cover a number of other tribes a who were also expelled from new york and ohio. I know it is different from tribe to tribe and state to state but generally whator kindf rights or autonomy did indians have let say in the south . Youre
That letter of solidarity for israel. The same. The same thing as a clearing the rain and revolution guard a terrorist group. He was one of only four who did that. So i would only say, this is not a filibuster. Everybody knows its not a filibuster. I hope the media is listing that they are. This is the same thing required by the democrats and the cases john doe tim steve johnson, the case of rob portman. It is the prerogative of the senate. Its not a filibuster. They nearly won a 60vote margin. I commented earlier that we had a republican in the white house in a majority in the senate. I was here and never objected to that. Then of course you had Kathleen Sebelius right now, cabinet position. Secretary of commerce john brace and objected to him. So the only issue here is the 60vote margin. Its not a filibuster on the last thing i say is i will read again to their last speaker and are very good friend is the chairman of the committee when he said the other day and i wholeheartedly agree
The Supreme Court s Chaotic Commerce Clause Decision theepochtimes.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from theepochtimes.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Federal law's preference for placing American Indian children with Indian caretakers is consistent with the Constitution, a divided Supreme Court held on Thursday.