Ultra-wealthy Americans are preparing for an impending recession
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Photo credit: Reuters
“We are very cautious,” a survey respondent, who’s managing a multi-family office in North America, said. “Even now with the market we don’t feel very comfortable.” The report shed light on private wealth management advisory firms that serve ultra-wealthy investors.
U ncertainties surrounding Britain’s tumultuous exit from the European Union and the year-long trade war between the U.S. and China also rattled some families.
“Who knows what will happen with Brexit, what will happen in the EU, and what will happen between the U.S. and China,” another respondent, the CEO of a single-family office in Europe, said. “There are so many open questions, and this could have a dramatic impact on the market. In general, we think we have reached our peak.”
Tags
Who is online
29 visitors
“Who knows what will happen with Brexit, what will happen in the EU, and what will happen between the U.S. and China,” another respondent, the CEO of a single-family office in Europe, said. “There are so many open questions, and this could have a dramatic impact on the market. In general, we think we have reached our peak.”
Recently my work has indicated basically the same thing. I have been taking profits, sold off many of the stocks I've owned, gone to cash or what are relatively conservative equities ...paying good dividends.
The last few years I have bought a few index funds when the market has dropped precipitously and then promptly sold as soon as the market recovered. Right now I am way cash heavy. Stocks are grossly overpriced by historic standards based on worth and profits.
That seems like the smartest strategy in today's markets!
Actually I'm doing basically the same thing. Although I added another thing (which admittedly is very time-consuming-- doing it with index funds is quicker and easier.
Instead of index funds I do it with stocks. Mostly stocks that well off their highs and pay high dividends. (The research is necessary to increase the probability that they're solic companies-- which is not always the case with high dividend payers).
I did buy a chunk of a Chase Private Client FDIC Insured fund at 4% a while back. It is callable but so far so good. My brother does much better with bonds but I really like having a guarantee on a part of my nut. Staying liquid with another chunk is also part of my strategy. In addition to, "Buy low sell high", my best advise is to not be too greedy. Nothing wrong with pulling "only 4-5%" percent profit off the table on the way up. My tolerance for market volatility is less and less than when I was young. My gut is that there will be bargains to be had before very long...
Some people get wiser with age-- looks like you be one of them!
Note: this article appeared before Pelosi's speech tonight.
Relevant point.
So we should wait to comment? Will she say that Bernie will have the answer?
So we should wait to comment? Will she say that Bernie will have the answer?
No need to wait-- Bernie already has the answer:
Bernie Sanders wants to get rid of billionaires. All of them.
His approach reminds me of this famous quote:
"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me
And, what's relevant here, is that one way they are different is that they have lots of money! (Yugely so!).
When the average person see that their taxes are going to be raised (YUGELY), they would find it difficult to just pick up and leave the country. Especially if they're really settled with a wife and kids, house, job, etc. But the top 1 % of the top 1 % can just leave the country (they already have several mansions through the world, perhaps a Yuge yacht or two).
And then-- its not a Q of them paying in more taxes-- but rather, we would loose their tax money altogether!
Uh, only the billionaires who act like oligarchs.
Should we wait until Bernie gives up two of the three homes he owns?
Each of Sam Walton's six surviving primary heirs has a personal fortune estimated to be at least twenty five times that of The Queen of England. No matter ones political bent that is not a very effective or equitable divisive of resources if you want a vibrant economy. Tax laws enabled such extreme concentrations of wealth and tax laws can, at least partially, undo it...
Not all of them do. The co founder of Home Depot is leaving 90% of his billions to charity when he dies. One is paying off 40 million in student loans. The Giving Pledge group has recruited many of the ultra rich to donating large amounts of their fortunes to charities all over the world.
Skittishness is nothing new when it comes to Trump and his dealings. One thing I've learned from watching this joker is that he won't go down without a fight, and somehow I imagine that the dirt he has on Congress will be enough to buy him a pass which is why Pelosi didn't really want to open this can of worms to begin with. Here is a guy that has no compunction against dragging the entire Hill down with him--and has the money to do so. Sure, the Rich know this; which is why they are afraid he will open his mouth and create a much BIGGER scandal than the Dem's or Repub's are ready for. Of course this will lead to not only Social unrest, but possibly an actual collapse of the corrupt U.S. government. It won't take long for the Dem's to realize that they are in much more danger than T-Rump,. and somehow this will all magically melt away....or else! Hate to be a Politician if it doesn't, lol!
In the process though, they have almost certainly guaranteed his reelection and the almost certain collapse of the Democratic Party in general. Smart market players will take advantage of the temporary Bear Market and gobble up powerhouse stocks at highly discounted prices only to sell them at highly inflated prices once this shitshow is finished playing out. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if all of this is being masterminded by T-Rump and his cohorts just to get him reelected and make a "yuge" profit in the process while gutting his naysayers at the sametime.
Well, that's what I, for one, hope to do!
Or 'once this shit show' is safely ensconced in Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.
Yeah, we know how well that stops anyone from speaking out on corrupt politicians don't we.
Just another suicide waiting to happen, lol!
You must watch the Trump WH close, right. Dozens upon dozens of Trumpian court filings lodged to even keep the time of day from being revealed. That is rich indeed.
lol back at ya.
And yet no bodies turning up...unless we count Epstein. Not like Epstein had any ties to anyone else that has dozens of convenient deaths associated with their name...
Trump just threatened to execute the whistleblower witnesses for as spies or for treason.
Uhm spying on the President would indeed be Treason for which the Penalty proscribed by Law is _________?_______________
Uhm, treason is a crime against the UNITED STATES, not the President.
I know it's hard for some to grasp but there IS a difference.
Oh and the US must be at war for a citizen to be charged with treason.
WRONG!
Anyone supplying information to an Enemy of the State can be charged and executed for Treason. No Declaration of War is necessary.
Now since the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, spying on him is at best Sedition, and at worst Treason. Considering that his communiques with foreign Leaders are considered Top Secret, leaking this information without approval is considered Treason. Just ask Snowden! Or better yet, ask the Democrats who wanted to charge him with Treason .
Now if this NothingBurger had indeed led to T-Rump being removed from office and replaced by another person more inclined to say, end the tariff war with China, or allow N.Korea to play with their missles unchecked, then indeed they would have "aided" Enemies of the State. So attempting to have the President removed by spying on him and providing that information to the Media instead of going to the FBI or the Secret Service or the CIA, is indeed Treason!
So said the Democrats!
If you're going to encourage the prosecution and execution of someone for treason, one would think that you should know what treason means in this country.
Oh and as an aside, I'd love to see you provide a link that proves that ANYONE is guilty of 'supplying information to an Enemy of the State'. I won't hold my breath.
Referring to a 'what does...' source falls far short. We are talking about a LEGAL term here.
I much prefer to refer to the definition in the Consitution:
Here is the offense, US Code 2381:
Now I hope that we can both agree that the above proves that treason is a crime against the US, NOT the President.
Note that they both include 'adheres to their Enemies'. The definition of enemy in the US Code is: any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities. We have many 'adversaries' but in order for a county to be our Enemy, the Congress has to declare war on them.
I've done the work for you on Treason. How about you do your own on sedition. It doesn't mean what you think it means...
Trump is spewing hyperbolic rhetoric yet the FACT is, he does have the power the fuck people up. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence just sent him a letter telling him to knock it off.
How convenient that you missed this important part, because guess what? It has been used many times to arrest people and seize assets. Like with this guy !
Like this guy?
Or maybe someone a little more infamous???
Hell, they even charged Manning with it even though she didn't get convicted on it.
Riiight , because the POTUS is NOT part of the Government so it's okay to spy on him and leak that information to the media so it gets into the hands of our enemies. Go ahead and do it. I dare you to try!
You mean like tampering in elections, or hacking government computers, or....oh wait...NO, according to you we have to be in a Declared War to have a country be an enemy.
Oh my bad CK. I made the mistake of thinking that you actually wanted to have a substantive discussion about Trump's accusation of treason.
Instead, I see that you just want to deflect by posting a link about an Iraqi Imam who owes NO 'allegiance to the US' and wasn't charged with treason.
NEITHER of the people you cited were charged with TREASON so your links are irrelevant to this discussion. In short, they don't support your posit.
Note that both of the people you cite were charged under the UCMJ, NOT the US Code. The UCMJ has it's own definition of 'enemy'. There are a plethora of restrictions in the UCMJ are antithetical to the Bill of Rights. Everything from what you can wear where to what you can and can't say to whom.
You can't conflate the two Codes.
US jurisprudence is complicated and some are too lazy to study it before throwing out allegations of criminality.
CK, if you are incapable of acknowledging that there is a difference in the law between the GOVERNMENT of the US and the President, any attempt to have a discussion with you about US law is waste of my time.
It isn't about what I mean CK, it's about how the court interprets the LAW. If you're going to bandy about an allegation that has a LEGAL consequence, your allegation needs to meet the LEGAL definition of the crime.
Again, it's NOT 'according to' ME CK. It's according to the Constitution and the US Code.
And your unbiased discussion on this matter is ….. what ?
Applying "Equal Standards" is your mantra......right ?
As to what other "Presidents" and "Politicians" have done throughout the decades, is that just "Business as usual", or should "ALL" behavior from ALL politicians be discussed when it comes to WTF moments of theirs ?
Ones ….. "Nothing to see here", shouldn't fall on ALL folks in D.C. ?
Where did I mention bias? Strawman.
I don't have a mantra.
Another strawman. No one has said a fucking thing about 'what other "Presidents" and "Politicians" have done throughout the decades' in this thread.
WTF are you blathering about.
While you may enjoy jumping into discussions with irrelevant off topic bullshit, those of us trying to have a cogent discussion don't appreciate the deflection.
Reputations do follow one.
Now....
….....Using YOUR "Equal Standards" thingy (when it suites YOU)….
What did "PRESIDENT" Obama mean when he told Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more "Flexibility" in an open mic ?
Did anyone dig into that to find out what that "Really" meant....or was that just "Politics" as usual ?
If it was just "Politics" as usual and not worth reporting in depth about, I guess a normal person would think what Trump was asking from Volodymyr Zelensky, would be just business as usual, since Joe Biden isn't running against him for President anyway !
Deflection.
Where did I mention bias?
Since I've seen many use this term without censure, put up of shut up.
I'll answer, though it's irrelevant and I doubt that you really give a shit.
If that isn't clear enough, go to the snopes article and follow the links.
Again, go to the link and follow the links provided therein.
As you can see in the snopes article, it WAS reported in depth when it happened and recirculated in 2016, just like you're attempting to reculate it now.
Now...
First of all, Medvedev was the one doing the asking, NOT Obama.
Secondly, comparing Obama talking about negotiations with Russia about NATO missile defense systems and Trump withholding desperately needed aid to Ukraine for political reasons perfectly illustrates the disingenuousness on the part of sycophants who are desperate to defend Trump at all cost.
It's only "Irrelevant" if ones closet door is always "conveniently" closed when need be !
Obama caved to Russia's NEED, and abandoned Bush's "Missile Defense" systems Defense plan in Europe.
Obama was such a good little "Putin Puppet". He didn't want to Pressure the 80's Geo-political problem …….. that didn't exist.
No, it's irrelevant because it's a 'shinny object' deflection, as is the rest of your comment.
Now, where did I mention bias?
I'll remember that statement too.
"Now, where did I mention bias?"
"Oh my bad CK. I made the mistake of thinking that you actually wanted to have a substantive discussion about Trump's accusation of treason."
My comment/question was:
"And your unbiased discussion on this matter is ….. what ?"
"Reputation" !
I'll take that as an admission that I NEVER mentioned bias.
It's unfortunate that you're incapable of admitting your own mistakes but not surprising.
No where in the thread did I mention you did !
It's unfortunate that you're incapable of seeing that, but not surprising.
This is you right?
Since it seems "Comprehension" is LACKING, I asked if you could be unbiased. I didn't say you were.
Quick....get out of that house. Your going more "Bananas" !
Do you have anything to contribute to the actual subject being discussed ?
Did I say they were? No, I posted them as proof that there have been people charged with giving aid to the enemy even in cases where we are NOT in a declared war with that country. So whether YOU agree or not, they do indeed support my argument that a Declaration of War is not necessary to charge someone with aiding an Enemy of the State. As to why they weren't charged with actual Treason? Because MOST of the Public is ignorant of the fact that even though there is no Declaration of War, we do indeed have "enemies" and that giving them intel is still Treason !
For your edification:
Looks like the President is considered U.S. Government according to both the Constitution AND legal definition after all...
Trying to argue the President is NOT U.S. Government is as bad as arguing the ice in your freezer is not frozen water.
It’s always prudent to be somewhat cautious regarding debt and investments.
I imagine that the dirt he has on Congress will be enough to buy him a pass which is why Pelosi didn't really want to open this can of worms to begin with.
You might be right.
However there's also another possibility: its not that Pelosi didn't want to do it. Rather,it was a matter of timing-- she didn't want to do it so soon.,
Doubtful, but Maybe.
At this point, many of us Independents are looking at it as "Keep throwing shit until HOPEFULLY something sticks".
I, for one, am so sick and tired of the TDS that I actually will vote for him just as a finger to the Dem's just for wasting all their time and MY money trying to find a way to get rid of the guy they lost to instead of actually focusing on the very real problems he promised to address like the crumbling infrastructure, illegal immigration, cutting taxes for the Middle Class, and REAL healthcare reform...
It's hilarious to watch "independents" and libertarians who are actually Trump supporters try to booshwa everyone.
Not nearly as much fun as watching the TDS sufferers continually lapping up the Pelosi spittle while shooting their own foot with stars like AOC and her squads" stupidity on one hand, while regurgitating their love for a Party that pushes genocide via abortion of its most likely future supporters. Talk about idiocy!
You just listed several of his broken campaign promises!
Of course none of these are impeachable offenses-- but they do illustrate some of his broken promises...(and remeber-- when he took ofice republicans controlled not only the prersidency but also both houses of Congress....)
Of course his "base" doesn't seem to mind .....
How is abortion "genocide"?
Yes-- that's why Biden is ahead in the polls (because AOC, controlling the bparty as she does, has made sure a centrist like Biden is ahead of the more extreme Dems like Bernies and Elizabeth warren)>
AOC is powerful!
(Although a freshman-people-person...she controls the entire Democratic Party!)
I hate it when people use words for hyperbole.
The Armenians, the Jews, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur had genocides. Please don't diminish the term for the horror of what it really means.
Remember AOC is the boss she now runs the democratic party.
Yes-- that's why Biden is ahead in the polls (because AOC, controlling the bparty as she does, has made sure a centrist like Biden is ahead of the more extreme Dems like Bernies and Elizabeth warren)>
AOC is powerful!
(Although a freshman-people-person...she controls the entire Democratic Party!)
Here's proof!
I'd rather have her covering my back than McConnell. Any day. Any time. For any reason.
6 million Jews were killed during WWII and you call that genocide while 19 million blacks have been killed since 1973, and you call that a "choice". Black women represent a mere 14.9% of our population and yet account for 27.6% of abortions and you think that this isn't legalized and promoted GENOCIDE ! Not that it was ever intended that way ...
And why are they broken if every Republican and Democrat in Congress who said these were important issues lined up to actually solve them.../S
6 million Jews were HALF the number of Jews in the world at the time. I'm sure there are people even today who consider that it was a good start.
THAT is genocide.
Apply "one-half" to everyone else you consider to be victims of genocide.
And the Black population of America would be almost 50% larger if it weren't for the legalized genocide being promoted and perpetrated against African Americans.
I'm sorry Buzz, do I need to wait until we kill one out of every two black people being born before I can label it as government sanctioned and promoted " genocide "?
Sorry, CK, but I agree with Perrie on this.
Even the Cambridge Dictionary is more careful about the universality required in its definition of "genocide" - it relates a whole group more to ALL of a group than some, or even a large number of a group.
"the murder of a whole group of people , especially a whole nation , race , or religious group"
Here's the definition of genocide:
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic , national , racial , or religious group) in whole or in part.
The killing of Jews (and other groups considered by the Nazis to be "inferior") was a deliberate attempt to annihilate the entire group. That was the intention of the perps (the Nazis).
However when Black women chooses to abort a fetus, their intention is not to destroy the Black race.
Implicit in the notion of "genocide" is the intention of the perp(s). For example, if a large number of people of any specific racial religious or ethnic group is massacred by an earthquake-- that's not considered a genocide!
(I wonder-- Are you really that dimwitted-- or are you just faking it?)
How do you know when you've won the debate? When the opposition has to resort to insults!
Now let's take a look at your own words carefully shall we???
Sanger's goal was to eliminate the poor, the handicapped, and the mentally challenged,regardless of their color, it was their pocketbook which concerned her. Of course the majority of the poor who were assailing her delicate sensibilities were the immigrants and the Negroes. Were you aware of her eugenics? I suppose not or she wouldn't be such a hero to women at all. Since you mentioned Nazi's, it would be like calling them heroes for creating more vacancies--which lowered rent. Kind of stupid isn't it???
Fast forward to more modern times and let's take a look at where exactly are our poorest neighborhoods, and who occupies them. The majority of the residents are minorities. Whether intentional or not, she created a drive that would indeed kill 19 million black children. This is a fact! True, that single mother going in isn't the one who is practicing the genocide being perpetrated upon her people, rather it is those who are funding it and performing the so-called "procedure".
. We have a black population today of about 47 million. Add the 19 million lost to abortion and that number jumps to 66 million people. Now if I took an AK-47 and mowed down 19 million of them because they don't have enough money to suit me, would you call that an act of genocide? Or would it merely be a " choice "? But I guess it's okay since a vacuum tube is being used instead of bullets...
Uhm, what would you call these aborted children if not a "group" considering the sheer number alone Buzz? Oh wait, that's right, they aren't children until they are born...unless you happen to kill one in the womb without the mothers consent that is. THEN you are guilty of MURDERING A CHILD!
SMH.....
If you are aware of anyone murdering children you should immediately report it to law enforcement because murder is a capital crime. If on the other hand you are talking about women making the legal decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy then you should mind your own business. The demand for termination services is a result of unwanted pregnancies. Three things are proven to practically eliminate the demand for termination services.
1. Require comprehensive sex education for all children prior to puberty.
2. Make all forms of birth control easily available for everyone.
3. Provide easy access to women's health services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.
Oddly those most opposed to legal terminations are also those who oppose the very things proven to practically eliminate demand for abortions.
Sorry, CK, but when I was the President of a Charity that supported Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, the horror that will remain with me for the rest of the life was the tour of the ward on the top floor where they cared for the "monster" children who had not been aborted when it was determined what they were. You will never convince me to deny the right to abortion or consider it genocide.
Women have the choice to walk or not walk into PP. Most of those 6 million were not given the choice to enter the gas chambers.
Then count me as an exception to the rule. Apparently I have mis-communicated where I stand. YES, I consider unfettered access to abortion to be genocide practiced on those who have no voice. No, I don't want abortion to be totally banned. Exceptions should be allowed for health concerns of the mother and the child. Yes, we should not only teach our children about the impact of having a child will have upon their lives so that they will make informed decisions about whether or not to actually become pregnant, but we should also provide birth control as a matter of Public Interest to those who need it (preferably as a part of a Universal Healthcare Program...but that is a topic for another day). YES, I do oppose abortion as a form of birth control for those who act irresponsibly simply because they can get it free, or cheap, instead of us providing them with 5-10 year IUD's for free. Just makes economic sense to me.
What I want to know is WHY we haven't focused on a pill, or a shot, or even a reversible surgical procedure that renders men impotent??? I'd bet you a thousand dollars if we did, EVERY young guy would be "down for it".
Agreed...but if they were duped into it by being promised a hot meal and a warm bed, would that make it better? It's kind of why I hate this whole promoting of abortion because I see it as targeting the Poor, Disenfranchised, and Minorities in particular, as a "good thing" when in reality it isn't. We can spend BILLIONS every year trying to buy the love of people who hate us by providing housing, food, and medial care--and LOTS of guns too--to people who hate us, but we can't win the War on Poverty, or provide contraceptives, or find some other way to preserve life and someone's way of living without taking a Life in the process??? That's just messed up!
That actually isn't the dumbest comment I've seen on NT recently-- but it comes close.
Strange indeed.
[deleted]
Yes-- definitely genocide.
What would you call it? "Something they deserved?"
(Some of us remember your racist comments from Newsvine-- don't think you can get away with it here!!!)
Because it is just that.
Again with the Personal Attacks? I thought you were a capable debater so that resorting to such insults wasn't a necessary tactic? Next time you quote me, make sure you do it in such a way as to show the context...like quoting the whole sentence for instance:
It would appear that my mental capacities are far and above those who cannot see the forest for the trees.
19 million babies killed...and that is a choice. 6 million Jews killed, and that is a Holocaust. How good is your math? How many times does 6 go into 19??? And that is just Black children killed. Should we add in the missing colors and get to a real number?
HOW DOES 60 MILLION SOUND ? Ten times the number of Holocaust victims, but since they can't speak or vote, they don't count, right?
Once again, the War on Poverty apparently is easiest fought in the womb .
Look, I know we won't agree on the abortion issue because "it's her choice". What I am sure we ALL can agree on is that the need for abortions must end. The only way that can be accomplished is through actual birth control that works. Too bad we can't find a way to switch of the sperm making until the men are actually ready, willing, and able to have and raise the children they help produce.
The need for abortions MUST end - even if the mother's life is definitely endangered? even in the circumstances I indicated above? I agree that there must be limitations, but do you really prefer that abortions be banned in EVERY circumstance?
No, but I would like to see at least an attempt to eliminate the risk by transference to an incubator or maybe to a surrogate if possible before terminating the pregnancy.
Then grow a womb, Yes, let's risk a woman's health even more with this stupidity
WTF makes you think I wouldn't if I could? Hell, I would love to be able to carry a child!
It's going to be a long time, if it ever happens, before there's an incubator that can replace a uterus and placenta, or before we can transfer all the products of conception, which includes not just the fetus, but also the amniotic sac and placenta, to a surrogate without great risk to both the biological mother and the surrogate.
How many lives are we supposed to endanger in the name of being "pro-life"?
The question would be How many lives will we attempt to save before we suceed?
You disregard the ones you would endanger.
Alarming.
Maybe to you but what I am seeing is a fetus destined to be dismembered and killed on its way to a garbage dumpster, which is what you are alarmingly ignoring, being redirected to an attempt to actually save its life.
At the price of risking two lives. Logical.
Where do you see me advocating risking the mothers life? What I am advocating is trying to save the child's life by either an incubator or through a surrogate. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that due to my long lag in answering that you've lost track of the conversation Sandy, but in no way have I said we should risk the mothers life to try to save the baby.
By the time of implantation and placental development, which occurs well before a woman knows she's pregnant, the fetus can't just be moved to a surrogate. Implantation can no longer occur, and procedures to attempt to introduce the fetus to a surrogate's uterus would involve risk of infection, cervical laceration, hemorrhage, and death. That's how you're advocating for risking two women's lives - the biological mother, by attempting to remove an intact fetus, amniotic sac, and placenta all in one go, and the proposed surrogate. You might not see it that way, but medically speaking, that's what it is.
This is way too similar to the tripe being discussed by a medically-ignorant Ohio legislator about moving ectopic pregnancies to the womb.
You want to decrease the number of abortions? So do I. Advocate for sex ed and cheap, easily-available contraception.
Considering it was already successfully done once before back in 2014 , I'm going to assume that like all other transplants with other organs like the heart, liver and lungs, which were also once considered impossible, that as more of these transplants occur, they will become safer.
I have been. You can read that in my other comments on this thread. Matter of fact, I've gone a step further and advocated research that would create some type of drug or treatment to make men sterile until they are ready to become fathers. Now I may be wrong, but I think THAT is the single biggest advancement we could make because most boys want to have sex, but they don't want to be a father until very much later in life because for them, there isn't really a ticking biological clock...
Womb transplant. Not the same as transplanting a placenta, fetus and amniotic sac, so no, it hasn't been done. The uterus was not supporting a fetus at the time of the transplant.
I'm glad you support sex ed and contraception, because we don't have fetal incubators, and we can't take a feus out of one woman's uterus and pop it into another, nor should women be expected to risk their lives to try it.
My bad. I misunderstood the article. At least they are researching the possibility though . For a number of reasons, I wish them luck on achieving their goal.
Also not the same thing. For this to work, a woman experiencing an unwanted pregnancy would have to know before the embryo implants. She doesn't. This would occur well before a missed menstrual period. There aren't any pregnancy symptoms at that time, nor medical tests to reveal pregnancy. Both are linked to the induction of placental growth by implantation.
There are biological realities here, CK. Realities that involve real risk to the lives and health of living, breathing women. Even the uterus transplants were risky, to the donors (if living), the recipients, and the premature child resulting.
Ultra wealthy Americans preparing for a recession? Really? They afraid their wealth won't cover them?
Give me a break. Hell, They're raking to much off the top. It is their fault. Show a little patriotism for your country, ultra rich. To many have given their lives and limbs for this country. Ante up, you can afford it, right? Or don't you have 'the mettle?'
Reading a comment like that...makes ot obvious to me why ENVY is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins!
Envy can be aspiration. Hope for betterment. An adoration of moral good.
Envy a deadly sin? Well, sounds like something those with everything would say to those with nothing to make them feel guilty about their plight. Perhaps?
Greed on the other hand can be defined as...…………………?
As far as patriotism? Is blood and loss the only patriotic actions? And wealth considered not within the realm of sacrifice?
Thou shalt not covet....and the it’s is very extensive. Secular progressive socialism is born of envy and covetousness.
The Giving Pledge:
A COMMITMENT TO PHILANTHROPY
The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to giving back.
The Giving Pledge is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to commit more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or in their will. (Read it All)
Noticed Tom Steyer was on the list. And other names I recognized. Most I did not.
Did notice that the Kochs, Mercers, and Hunts were absent. Are there any notable right wing conservatives that signed for the pledge? You know, like Hannity or Limbaugh?
Do you think that Steyer should have his taxes increased?
Because, after all, he has a lot of money-- and the world would be much better off if people like Steyer had their power reined in-- by confiscating more of their money?
Confiscation? People like Steyer? The implication of that statement would be...………..?
Okay. So this is why 'the current president' lawyers up to hide his taxes? Confiscation?
I didn't see your comment about TGP before I posted two about them. Apologies.
As far as I'm concerned, even if the president's tax returns are made public and he is shown to evaded paying taxes (and therefore has to pay them) that would be justice served. However, whatever the amount he pays, in the larger shceme of things that amount ofmoney wouldn't really make any significant impact on America's national debt-- or even the amount the middle class owes.
And even if it would show he'd been cheating (i.e. breaking the law), his cheating on taxes probably wouldn't change many peoples' minds about him, as most people either hate him or love him and are fixed in their views.
(heck, after his cheating on his wife at least twice, the "hollywood Access Tape", and huis foul mouth haven't stopped these hypocritical Evangelical assholes from supporting him, I don't think revelations of defrauding the gov't on taxes would).
I didn't see your comment about TGP before I posted two about them. Apologies.
No problema! :^)
You might want to check out The Giving Pledge group before you paint all of the wealthy with the same broad brush.
True. Bernie Marcus, one of the founders of Home Depot and also a billionaire signed the pledge. He is a long supporter of conservative and right wing agendas. Although I do wonder what his 'benefactors' would be. Lots of organizations out there. Everything from The Sovereign Citizens to Doctors Without Borders.
And I did not use a 'broad brush.' Krishna opened that door when he used Steyer and am sure most understand where he stands on the political spectrum. The Koch, Mercer or Hunt families could have also been used for example, but....were not.
No 'dis' against Krishna at all. Agree with he or she almost always and vote up too.
I've been involved in Internet discussion forums for many, many years (even before NV-- and my NV membership was starting its 11th year when they folded!). Over that time I've noticed some patterns that many users have-- a few traits that are the cause of the sort of "fuzzy thinking" that's so prevalent on Social Media sites.
(I was going to write an article about that...but was too lazy
However, one of the main logical fallacies that is so prevalent on social media is over-generalization:
All Republicans are. All Democrats all. All Blacks are. All Whites are. All "believers" (belief ina god) are. All wealthy people are. All Hispanics are. etc. etc
Many people are often complex-- but I have found that the nature of this media itself (i.e. the Internet) leads to over-simplification (IIRC originally tweets were 140 characters). And over-simplification inherently leads to over-generalization.
With leads to "fuzzy thinking".
P.S; A related phenomenon: I've often seen people go on and on about the characteristics of some racial, religious, ethnic..or even political group. When I ask them if they've ever even known any members of that group they say "No"-- but still feel like they are experts on the traist of the group in question!
(Can you say "stuck on stupid"?)
You might want to check out The Giving Pledge group before you paint all of the wealthy with the same broad brush.
OK. No problem.
However if anyone wants to dis me-- by all means, go ahead.
In a recent discussion one of our local NT assholes accused me and Loretta of being liars because we said we believed psychic phenomena existed. Bizarre...as I've been studying Astrology and $ESP for some 40 years or so...
But as I mentioned, I've been on social media sites such as NT for years-- so the occurance of some moron determined to prove his stupidity no longer surprises me...
Of coarse they are we are overdue for a recession based on historical data.
True. The mitigating factor though is that growth was so slow, low, and choppy during Obama’s so called recovery that the economy never moved fast enough to create one later. Usually the deeper the recession the sharper the snap back as shown in 1980-83 and what followed right up to 1999-2000. The 2007-9 recession was almost as bad as the early 80’s and yet growth since never ever approached 1983-1999 levels so all our models are off.
Yet Wall Street firms keeping telling us that:
Past results are not indicative of future performance.
(Could they possibly be wrong???)
Actually my own personal Guru (a world famous Yogi no less!) has opined on the matter:
Prediction is difficult...especially about the future!
-Yogi Berra
Yeah, it's never over till it's over.