The Right Side of the News

It's what happens when you throw a lot of money into the system in a way that it boosts the stock market. It's artificial growth.Enjoy

It is not possible for a sovereign nation -- one that prints its own money -- to be bankrupt. Of course this can cause inflation unless balanced by other fed behavior, such as changing interest rates.Sovereign nation legal definition of Sovereign nationEnjoy

All I meant was that we are so enormously in debt it's as good as being bankrupt. Bad choice of wording I guess.

See Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Definition

quote:

---

The central idea of MMT is that governments with a fiat currency system can and should print (or create with a few keystrokes in today's digital age) as much money as they need to spend because they cannot go broke or be insolvent unless a political decision to do so is taken.

​

MMT theorists explain that the national debt is simply money the government put into the economy and didn't tax back. They also argue that comparing a government's budgets to that of an average household is a mistake.

​

While supporters of the theory acknowledge that inflation is theoretically a possible outcome from such spending, they say it is highly unlikely, and can be fought with policy decisions in the future if required. They often cite the example of Japan which has much higher public debt than the U.S..

​

According to MMT, the only limit the government has when it comes to spending is the availability of real resources, like workers, construction supplies etc. When government spending is too great with respect to the resources available, inflation can surge if decision makers are not careful.

---

It seems anti-intuitive, but it also seems to accurately explain economic behavior.Enjoy

No, it's because the corporate elite DNC/DINO crowd is afraid that he CAN win. It's the billionaires and their minions in the party that are against him, because the real "battle" is between the rich rich and the working people.That's why Bloomberg entered the race.Enjoy

I wasn't clear what is meant by "Red baiting" so I looked it up. Seems to me it's just a way of saying all criticism of Communism or Marxism and the like is invalid. No point in ever discussing or debating it, you're just wrong before you start if you dare to criticize any of it. So if you point out that all Communist regimes have been murderous oppressive totalitarian systems, that's "red baiting." \All sorts of claims are made by people who are enamored of these utopian dream systems, but the reality always turns out to be something more like a nightmare, and still the enamored ones don't see it. I just recently read somewhere, where? Wish I knew, of someone's experience of the wonderful health care system in Cuba. Visitors from the US were there when their host's mother in law fell and broke her hip. They had to drive her to the hospital themselves because there weren't enough ambulances. They had to take their own bedding because the hospital wouldn't have any. They couldn't get her into the first two hospitals they tried, thenfinally the third would take her. They brought out a metal gurney with no padding on it. She had to wait a week before they could do surgery on her hip. When they finally did they were apparently incompetent and it took hours when it should only have taken one hour or so. She was under anesthesia that whole time, which caused brain damage.Great health care system in Cuba.

Is the intent to say so many absurd things that no one can keep up?--Percy

Could you please cite your source on that? We would want to see what it actually says. That way, we could tell whether your source is completely wrong (and/or right-wingnut) or whether you completely misunderstood and misconstrued what it actually says.Here is what Wikipedia says at Red-baiting:

quote:

---

Red-baiting, also referred to as reductio ad Stalinum (/stln’m/), is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of a political opponent and the opponent's logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting the target individual or group as anarchist, communist, Marxist, socialist, Stalinist, or sympathetic towards these ideologies. In the United States, the term red-baiting dates to as far back as 1927. In 1928, blacklisting by the Daughters of the American Revolution was characterized as a "red-baiting relic". A term commonly used in the United States, red-baiting in the US history is most famously associated with McCarthyism, a term which itself originated in the two historic Red Scare periods during the 1920s (First Red Scare) and 50s (Second Red Scare). In the 21st century, red-baiting does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to the fall of Communism, but some pundits have argued that notable events in current American politics indicate a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with the Cold War era . The word red in the phrase refers to the color that traditionally symbolized left-wing politics worldwide since the 19th century. The word baiting refers to persecution, torment or harassment as in dog-baiting.

---

So then red-baiting has absolutely nothing to do with invalidating "all criticism of Communism or Marxism and the like" (as you falsely claim), but rather it is basically denouncing and discrediting your opponent by denouncing him as a Communist. Like you do constantly against anyone who is not a Trumpista.BTW, there's also Reductio ad Hitlerum in which you agreeing with anything that Hitler or Nazis believed (eg, being a vegetarian, being against tobacco smoking, liking dogs) effectively makes you a Nazi too.Both the reductio ad Stalinum and reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies are commonly used in bogus attacks against evolution and against atheism.Edited by dwise1, : Added more explanation

Why are you singling me out? Everyone finds what you say twisted. No, that isn't what I said. I referred to your fiscal concerns, where you said that love for your fellow man would bankrupt the country. I said that you're just using fiscal concerns as a smokescreen and excuse for your hatred and contempt for your fellow man. Well, I guess we've found the witch hunt. You seem to be misinformed about McCarthyism. No one is favoring communism, you're just accusing them of it. The former is not McCarthyism, the latter is.--Percy

It's like you have a manic drive to be wrong. You have many, many more posts than me, both generally and in this thread: The length is dictated by what is required to make a given point, providing whatever evidence and rationale is necessary. The extreme brevity of most of your posts is due to the absence of any substance, relying almost exclusively on ad hominem. You overlook most of most posts. It explains the ignorance, a great deal of which is of the actual discussion itself. Your response to most posts pays no attention to what was said but instead just repeats your fact free boilerplate scolds. People's longer responses to you, the ones where people have taken the time and effort to provide facts and explanations, tend to be the most inconvenient to your point of view, so you just ignore them. So much easier. The brazenness of your lack of respect for the efforts of others working hard to provide facts and reasoned argument is breathtaking. You've responded to the side comment and completely ignored the main point. You claimed trickle down works. It doesn't. It *does* happen, but it's a minor effect.What *is* true is that workers will be exploited unless they band together to negotiate higher wages. Unions were largely responsible for the increasing wages of the twentieth century, a record of progress that halted during the Reagan administration and that was most memorably marked by the decertification of PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization). Unions have become progressively weaker and wage growth has stagnated ever since. You changed your story according to the point you were making. When you were explaining to JonF why you accepted Social Security and Medicare you explained that you needed the help. You provided your monthly Social Security income, and said you dreamed of ways to make money. Things were tough.But your story changed when you later claimed you were benefiting from Republican policies. Now suddenly the story was about your "really nice apartment" and how you have "all the food and medical help I need," and that you could apply for even more but that you don't need it. Things were wonderful.You still haven't explained your claim that you're benefiting from Republican policies. You were, I presume, in the same apartment collecting Social Security and using Medicare under Obama, and that hasn't changed under Trump.--Percy

This is dead wrong. In 1790 the divergence of city/rural attitudes was far in the future, so there was no fear of domination of the vote by citified opinions.Also, in 1790 cities were nowhere near as large as they are today. Back then the population of the country was more than a hundred times that of its largest city (New York), while today it's only 38 times.--Percy

You're wrong again: Voter suppression in the United States - Wikipedia This is true. Hopefully we agree that all gerrymandering is wrong and that district boundaries should be drawn by independent commissions. Republicans comprise 53% of the Senate but represent only 45% of the people. Each Republican senator represents about 2.8 million people, each Democrat about 3.8 million. Providing an example, this means that Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court was passed by representatives of 30 million fewer people than those opposed.--Percy

Well, I had no idea what you were referring to, so let me see if I can straighten out this miserable mangled mess. I was talking about a political utopia, not my fellow man but the Communist utopia that you called caring about one's fellow man. My point was it has nothing to do with caring for one's fellow man, it's a political system that destroys nations and of course people. It is certainly dangerous to talk to you as I said, and yhou probably still don't get what I meant.

Just because I talk about different aspects of my financial situation in different contexts doesn't mean I'm falsifying anything. You are very dangerous to talk to. You so rarely get anything right that I say.And of course you responded to my problem with your many long posts by producing some statistic that I actually write more posts, which completely misses the poinjt that you NORMALLY write half a dozen long long long posts all addressed to me, in one block. I can't deal with most of it, sorry. Especially when so much of what you say is the kind of ridiculous mangled mess you so often make of my messages.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Founders weren't exclusivedly interested in how many "people" were represented, they were interested in political entities being represented, such as states, which otherwise would be disenfranchised by the big population centers. Originally Senators were to be appointed by states and it had nothing to do with the population, each state or political unit had rthe same number of Senators no matter what its population because population was NOT the important issue in the Founders' minds.. So to criticize these things on the basis of population is to completely miss the whole point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.