Essential Economics for Politicians

Bruddah IZ said:
Sometimes, a three-point celebration is just a three-point celebration. Sometimes, a pep rally is just a pep rally. Sometimes, a smile is just a smile. And sometimes, a hat is just a hat.

Only among the most deranged partisans could a universal sports ritual, a common high school activity, a typical teen face and patriotic headgear be construed as evil symbols of patriarchal oppression.

These, however, are the soul-sapping, lunacy-inducing times in which we live.--Malkin
Click to expand...

Sometimes a scarf is just a scarf.

Malkin's Crusade against a Sinister Scarf![edit]
In 2008, Malkin looked at an ad Rachael Ray did for Dunkin' Donuts and decided that the black-and-white paisley scarf she was wearing was a sly sign of support for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[16]

It is scientifically impossible to make that sound more ridiculous than it really is. Trust us, we tried.

Sometimes a crescent is just a shape.

Malkin and the Sinister Crescent![edit]
In 2005, Malkin took a pre-eminent role in an astoundingly dumb controversy regarding a proposed memorial for Flight 93. Dubbed "Crescent of Embrace," it consisted primarily of a stand of trees partially surrounding the crash site. The design was selected by a panel composed of design experts and victims' family members, and it was announced on September 7.[4]

Shortly after the announcement, a group of Internet obsessives—Malkin among them—came to the conclusion that the Memorial was actually a covert memorial to the terrorists.[5] Why? Because it's a big red crescent, a historic symbol of Islam![6] With such clear facts, all Malkin had to overcome were the families, all of whom were sure the claims were utter bunk.[7] Of course, Malkin is not one to let something as petty as the stated desires of the grieving get in her way.

The dreaded crescent was not a particularly long-term campaign, for Malkin or anyone else. Today, the only ones who want to talk about it are the mentally unstable sons of renowned political theorists.[8]

Sometimes an interment camp is Racist.

Malkin defends Japanese internment[edit]
In 2004, Malkin released a book defending Japanese internment during World War II (something that was ordered by Franklin D. Roosevelt). Apparently, she didn't like the fact that Japanese internment was brought up by those opposing racial profiling of terr'ists Muslims, so she decided to write a negationist history of Japanese internment. In fact, it was not racist. Nothing to do with racism, nothing at all.[3] The book is especially ironic considering that the leading conservative Republican during World War II was opposed to Japanese American Internment.
 
Booter said:
Sometimes a scarf is just a scarf.

Malkin's Crusade against a Sinister Scarf![edit]
In 2008, Malkin looked at an ad Rachael Ray did for Dunkin' Donuts and decided that the black-and-white paisley scarf she was wearing was a sly sign of support for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[16]

It is scientifically impossible to make that sound more ridiculous than it really is. Trust us, we tried.

Sometimes a crescent is just a shape.

Malkin and the Sinister Crescent![edit]
In 2005, Malkin took a pre-eminent role in an astoundingly dumb controversy regarding a proposed memorial for Flight 93. Dubbed "Crescent of Embrace," it consisted primarily of a stand of trees partially surrounding the crash site. The design was selected by a panel composed of design experts and victims' family members, and it was announced on September 7.[4]

Shortly after the announcement, a group of Internet obsessives—Malkin among them—came to the conclusion that the Memorial was actually a covert memorial to the terrorists.[5] Why? Because it's a big red crescent, a historic symbol of Islam![6] With such clear facts, all Malkin had to overcome were the families, all of whom were sure the claims were utter bunk.[7] Of course, Malkin is not one to let something as petty as the stated desires of the grieving get in her way.

The dreaded crescent was not a particularly long-term campaign, for Malkin or anyone else. Today, the only ones who want to talk about it are the mentally unstable sons of renowned political theorists.[8]

Sometimes an interment camp is Racist.

Malkin defends Japanese internment[edit]
In 2004, Malkin released a book defending Japanese internment during World War II (something that was ordered by Franklin D. Roosevelt). Apparently, she didn't like the fact that Japanese internment was brought up by those opposing racial profiling of terr'ists Muslims, so she decided to write a negationist history of Japanese internment. In fact, it was not racist. Nothing to do with racism, nothing at all.[3] The book is especially ironic considering that the leading conservative Republican during World War II was opposed to Japanese American Internment.
Click to expand...
Fake news.
 
The Truth about the Shutdown: Daily Federal Spending Fell Just 7% During "the Government Shutdown"
Calling the current budget impasse a shutdown is just another example of the political corruption of our language.

The Debt Factor
However, the federal government is rolling over a large amount of its debt. It is issuing new government securities and using the funds from the sale of these securities to pay for previous securities that have come due. These withdrawals are under the line item Public Debt Cash Redemptions (PDCR). It’s analogous to a firm borrowing money to make the principal payments on its debt.

The bulk of federal spending is this type of spending. The spending number is so high because of this debt service.

Most everyone, all households and businesses, would classify loan payments as spending even if they financed the loan payments by borrowing money. However, most analysts, when they discuss federal spending, omit this debt service. They usually only include the other types of spending. So let’s take a look at that.

In FY 2018, federal withdrawals (spending) not including the debt service (PDCR) totaled $4,757.8 billion. That’s a daily average of $13 billion. (As an aside, please note that two-thirds of federal spending in FY 2018 was debt payments. This should make us uneasy regarding the federal government’s long-term financial viability.)

For the first four weeks of the shutdown, December 22, 2018, to January 18 of this year, withdrawals less PDCR totaled $338.5 billion for a daily average of a little more than $12 billion.

So by this measure of federal spending, the feds are spending on average 7.3 percent less per day during this shutdown than they did in FY 2018.

Regardless of your position on the shutdown, we should recognize the deceit involved in calling this a shutdown. Spending $12 billion per day is not a shutdown. Spending 7 percent less than you spent last year is not a shutdown.

Calling the current budget impasse a shutdown is just another example of the political corruption of our language.
 
Trump and the National Debt
Instead of Eliminating the Debt, Trump Will Add $5.6 Trillion

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years. Instead, his budgets would add $8.3 trillion in four years. It would increase the U.S. debt to $25 trillion.

Trump has a cavalier attitude about the nation’s debt load. During the campaign, he said the nation could "borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He added, “The United States will never default because you can print the money."

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.
 
Booter said:
Trump and the National Debt
Instead of Eliminating the Debt, Trump Will Add $5.6 Trillion

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years. Instead, his budgets would add $8.3 trillion in four years. It would increase the U.S. debt to $25 trillion.

Trump has a cavalier attitude about the nation’s debt load. During the campaign, he said the nation could "borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He added, “The United States will never default because you can print the money."

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.
Click to expand...
Fake News.
 
Booter said:
Trump and the National Debt
Instead of Eliminating the Debt, Trump Will Add $5.6 Trillion

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years. Instead, his budgets would add $8.3 trillion in four years. It would increase the U.S. debt to $25 trillion.

Trump has a cavalier attitude about the nation’s debt load. During the campaign, he said the nation could "borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He added, “The United States will never default because you can print the money."

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.
Click to expand...
There’s no such thing as a fiscally conservative Republican. Not Bush, not W, not Trump. Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown have proven track records as fiscally conservative Democrats, which is why they both gave us budget surpluses.
 
messy said:
There’s no such thing as a fiscally conservative Republican. Not Bush, not W, not Trump. Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown have proven track records as fiscally conservative Democrats, which is why they both gave us budget surpluses.
Click to expand...
The Republican Congress gave Slick Margarita Crisis Bailout Willy his surplus after he and then Secretary of Treasury Bob Rubin conned the tax payers in to bailing out American Banks like Citi. Rubin pulled down 20 million from Citi bank when he went to work for them the following year as a lobbyist. Prety slick huh? Jerry Brown is going to be known for not funding pensions. Hence the surplus when you don't account for unfunded liabilities.
 
I love the Fox Talk radio ads.

Services for people drowning in debt who want to get out of their obligations.

“Mosquito Joe” franchises.

Health insurance collectives where you call like “1-800-Bible” to sign up.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
The Republican Congress gave Slick Margarita Crisis Bailout Willy his surplus after he and then Secretary of Treasury Bob Rubin conned the tax payers in to bailing out American Banks like Citi. Rubin pulled down 20 million from Citi bank when he went to work for them the following year as a lobbyist. Prety slick huh? Jerry Brown is going to be known for not funding pensions. Hence the surplus when you don't account for unfunded liabilities.
Click to expand...
Predicting again?
 
Booter said:
Trump and the National Debt
Instead of Eliminating the Debt, Trump Will Add $5.6 Trillion

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years. Instead, his budgets would add $8.3 trillion in four years. It would increase the U.S. debt to $25 trillion.

Trump has a cavalier attitude about the nation’s debt load. During the campaign, he said the nation could "borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He added, “The United States will never default because you can print the money."

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.
Click to expand...
Thanks for highlighting the long term effects of 6 straight years of QE to prop up Obama's two terms, nearly doubling the National Debt.
 
messy said:
I love the Fox Talk radio ads.

Services for people drowning in debt who want to get out of their obligations.

“Mosquito Joe” franchises.

Health insurance collectives where you call like “1-800-Bible” to sign up.
Click to expand...
Somebody has to offer real Health Insurance.
 
California’s New Governor Calls for a Tax on Drinking Water
Communities throughout the state struggle with dangerous pollutants in their supply, but opponents of the suggested tax say there is no need to tax residents in order to solve the problem.
Monday, January 28, 2019
water.jpg




Carey Wedler

Newsom’s push has received praise from environmental groups, but the Sacramento Bee reports that while the budget has an increased chance of passing since Democrats regained their supermajority in the legislature, some Democrats are hesitant to approve new taxes on drinking water.

Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that have already been allocated to fix the water problem, it seems the bigger issue isn’t a lack of funding but an excess of bureaucracy and intervention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top