What episodes of Law and Order SVU feature Elliot or Liv going undercover?
I am more interested in when Elliot goes undercover, as I know a lot of the episodes that Liv does…
Okay here it goes :
Risk s4: Elliot , liv, fin, and i think munch go undercover for a drug bust i think
Debt s6: liv goes undercover for like, what?, 15 seconds?
Elliot goes undercover too. As a lady’s boyfriend.
Starved s7: liv goes undercover in a dating service
Demons s7or 8 : elliot goes undercover as a rapist O_o GASP.
Informed & Infiltrated s 8 : Liv goes undercover to find an eco terrorist group and it has my favorite munch quote. Ha
Undercover s9: Liv goes undercover in prison.
Wildlife s10: Elliot goes undercover. Liv ends up going undercover as a prostitute to save el’s cover=](As awesomely pointed out by the person below)
And im not sure if you would count “Shadow” as undercover but liv was still liv just a different liv. Haha
yes we all saw the promo .boot-licker LMAo
Who rates the credit rating agencies? You know the ones who rated junk mortgages as AAA in America in 2007?
I have been watching with astonishment recently as these credit rating agencies casually reduce the credit worthiness of countries and banks at a whim. What I want to know is – who rates the credit rating agencies?
You don’t need the Credit Ref. Agencies to work it out what’s happening ..
1) Greece is bust, they have already defaulted on 50% of their loans and the morons in the EU are lending them more money to pay back the rest (they will, of course, eventually default on all of it) – which means that, in effect, everyone who is lending them money will eventually go bust too ..
2) UK & USA are also bust, but their debts are all in waste-paper money and they can print as much of that as they like (UK just printed another £50 billion == whoppee !) ..
The EU could get out of the hole if the Germans would allow them to print money .. Of course the Germans know where that leads, so are (currently) refusing to allow it ..
How can I tell when a stock will go down or up?
Now I’m not talking about major stocks in companies like Mac, Windows, Coca-Cola, or any other big corporations, I’m wondering what makes penny stocks go up and down, because I want to invest in them. However, to do this effectively, I want to know the main factors that make penny stocks go up and down.
Novice investors make the very critical mistake that a penny stock is a company that is just starting out or immature and just waiting to bust out. In fact, most penny stocks are priced so cheaply because the value and fundamentals of the underlying company is basically junk. The companies normally have very high debt, negative retained earnings, bad management, etc. Most penny stock companies will not be around for the long term as they are mostly smaller cap stocks, which have an extremely high long term failure rate. A penny stock is MUCH more likely to lose all of its value over the long term, than to make money. They can be fun to play with using small amounts of money, but NOT a very wise investment tool.
You might want to read this article about penny stocks, they are highly speculative and risky.
http://www.pennynetwork.net Penny stock newsletter
Why did the Ronald Reagan economic recovery work so well by creating over 18 million jobs?
while not having any jobs program, bailouts, stimulus programs, without attacking the rich, or creating an enemies list work ?
Sorry Stan but the taxes under Reagan were lower. Much lower with only 3 tax brackets, 28% being the highest.
Reagan believed in America; He never raised taxes on individualists he just gave them more opportunities, Jean.
The Clinton administration’s central propaganda victory–the one that helped it enact the biggest tax hike in U.S. History and raise government spending to record levels ; has been to plant in American minds the idea that the unprecedented economic prosperity of the Reagan years was the result of fiscal irresponsibility and “greed.” I refer to the attempt to recast the most prosperous decade in American history–the 1980s–as a time when the rich made out like bandits while the poo and middle class had the economic rug pulled out from under them.
To hear liberals tell it, Ronald Reagan presided over the country with a devil-may-care attitude that took deficits and debt as much for granted as the new White House china. With the help of the major news media, this collective act of willful amnesia has become pervasive. It reminds me of the world created by novelist George Orwell in his anti-utopian classic “1984,” in which past history was altered on a daily basis to serve the interests of “The Party.” “He who controls the past controls the present,” the inner-party operative O’Brien explains to the main character, Winston Smith. “And he who controls the present controls the future.
Indeed, Washington’s liberal political establishment must reinterpret the Reagan economic boom as a bust to serve its own needs. A future that might credit Reagan threatens the establishment’s long-range hold on power, since his philosophy is so antithetical to its own. It must “control the past” so it can “control the future.” For starters, let’s remember what things were like when Reagan took over. In 1980, inflation was running at 13.5% percent, the prime lending rate stood at 21.5% percent, unemployment and poverty were rising, real income and productivity were falling, and real economic growth had ceased.
Enter Reagan, who implemented deep, across-the-board tax cuts, curbed Washington’s regulatory bureaucracy, and instituted sound monetary policies tha restrained inflation. ***The results: the largest peacetime economic boom in U.S. History and nearly 20 million net new jobs.*** How did Reagan accomplish it? Was it because his policies allowed people and businesses to keep more of their own money, thereby shifting power away from government and toward the people? Or did the Reagan administration deplete the federal treasury through tax cuts and then borrow its way to a sham prosperity, leaving the bill for future generations, as liberals contend? In 1984, at the end of Reagan’s first term, his tax-rate cuts stimulated economic activity enough to boost federal revenues by nearly $150 billion (in current dollars) more than their level in 1980 when he took office. At the end of his second term in 1988, revenues reached nearly half a trillion over the 1980 level. Throughout the 1980s, federal revenues exceeded all the projections of the naysayers. So where did those incredible deficits come from? Overspending. Although Reagan’s economic strategy coupled tax and spending cuts, Congress fought the spending restraints every step of the way. As a result, federal spending far outpaced revenues during the 1980s, more than doubling from $590.9 billion in 1980 to more than $1.25 trillion (current dollars) in 1990. The Democrat Congress only allowed Reagan to implement half of his program–the tax cuts–and then went on a spending spree that outpaced even the higher revenues his policies produced. By fiscal 1986, the deficit reached its highest level under Reagan: $221.2 billion. And what happened after that is something you’ll never read in The Washington Post: The Reagan economic program started wiping out the deficit.
When we look at the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product–the best measure, since it shows the deficit’s real size in relation to the size of the economy (which was expanding rapidly under Reagan)–we see an amazing thing. Under Reagan, the deficit reached a peak of 6.3% percent of GDP not in 1986, but in 1983, when the “stagflation” of the Carter era finally broke. Six years later, in 1989, Reagan had cut the deficit by more than half, to 2.9% percent of GDP.
This was enough to show up even in the straight dollar figures: From 1986’s $221.2 billion high, the deficit fell to $152.5 billion by Reagan’s final year in office, even as the economy grew at a brisk average rate of 3.5% percent. Had Reagan’s policies been left in place after he left office, my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation have calculated that the deficit would have been wiped out by the mid-1990s. But it was not to be. In 1990, Reagan’s successor made a “budget deal” with the Democrat Congress that sent the deficit soaring to a record $290.4 billion. Reagan’s policies of lower taxes, spending restraint, and curbs on regulation fueled a sustained economic boom lasting 92 months, from November 1982 to July 1990.
Do the British electorate now deeply regret the attitude they had towards Gordon Brown?
Poor Mr Gordon Brown received far too much criticism and was ridiculed constantly. Was he actually the political messiah that the people have now ruined.
You must be referring to that brief period when he was actually popular.
Brown was an unmitigated disaster for this country.
Keynsian economics says, pay down debt in the good times, borrow to support the economy in the bad times.
Idiot child Brown actually believed he had beaten the economic cycle – “No more boom and bust”. King Canute springs to mind. So He spent like a drunken sailor. Far more than he had, and borrowed to make up the difference.
When the bad times came (as they always do) we were already up to our ears in debt. Brown had to borrow even MORE.
Result: We have the highest debt in the EU. And are having to slash spending and increase taxes before the markets turn on us – as they have with Greece and Ireland.
Expecting Brown to fix it, is like employing a kleptomaniac to fix your shoplifting problem.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers