The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[indiucky]

I, for one, am glad to see the old Alpo back.

All his general agreement with the INGO status quo in some recent threads was unsettling to my world order.

Me too!!!!!

 

[Alpo]

Well, it is consistent...at least to me. I hate bullies and loudmouths. That includes radical feminists as well as brutes. Kavanaugh got shafted and I'm ready to put the boot up the posterior of anyone who says Ford was abused.

..................Plus, he's a cousin of sorts.

And all they had to do is ask any Irishman if he prefers beer to sex.

 

[EMDX6043]

You need a macro-economic primer.

I'll pass.

Keynesian (where macroeconomics began) economics has been criticized at length by Milton Friedman. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. He's much more eloquent than I would ever be.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll pass.

Keynesian (where macroeconomics began) economics has been criticized at length by Milton Friedman. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. He's much more eloquent than I would ever be.

Friedman would be a solid primer, too.

 

[EMDX6043]

Good point!

 

[nonobaddog]

Interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve, so why would they effectively shoot themselves in the foot by raising the cost of borrowing money? That doesn't just make the govt spend more on interest payments, but everyone else.

Seems like higher interest rates can result in declining home buying, business expansion, or basically any activity that requires borrowing.

I guess I'm thinking out loud.

I just hope the Fed isn't overly infiltrated or influenced by the anti-American, anti-Trump, obstructionist, socialist crap.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

 

[EMDX6043]

Yes.

More thinking out loud, but I wonder how an improved (federal) attitude towards cannabis would impact the national debt and other economic factors. Canada just took the plunge.

Would it result in increased economic growth, jobs, and tax revenue? I'm inclined to say yes.

It could probably take a bite out of that pesky debt, too...seems like a win-win-win-win.

Food for thought.

 

[KLB]

Yes.

More thinking out loud, but I wonder how an improved (federal) attitude towards cannabis would impact the national debt and other economic factors. Canada just took the plunge.

Would it result in increased economic growth, jobs, and tax revenue? I'm inclined to say yes.

It could probably take a bite out of that pesky debt, too...seems like a win-win-win-win.

Food for thought.

No no no. That would only create a horde of zombie pot heads that would be a drain on society.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No no no. That would only create a horde of zombie pot heads that would be a drain on society.

Exactly! Just like how alcohol ruined the country. Thank goodness for the 18th amendment.

 

[jamil]

I gather that you have a problem with the level of debt, so what would an acceptable level be?

I honestly don't know (percentage or otherwise), but gov't revenue is rising so I don't exactly see why that's necessarily bad. If revenue was plummeting, then yes, high levels of debt would be more concerning.

Oh, I dunno. I think when you project debt far into future generations, that's kinda ****ed up. But luckily, Donald Trump died on the cross for our sins of floating our nation's utopian whims with debt. So forget it. Ain't no big thing.

Until a Democrat is back in office. Then the national debt will be a sin again and all their fault. And it will be their fault for whatever they do to perpetuate it. But at least the right will be capable of seeing it again when it's not one of their own promulgating it.

 

[Alpo]

[video=youtube_share;j91Mgo1OGfg]http://youtu.be/j91Mgo1OGfg[/video]

 

[mmpsteve]

National debt is bad; all of it; no matter who signed off on it. But ... the increase in the Obama years really is a sin, shared by all who perpetuated it, be they Dem or Repubs.

Oh, I dunno. I think when you project debt far into future generations, that's kinda ****ed up. But luckily, Donald Trump died on the cross for our sins of floating our nation's utopian whims with debt. So forget it. Ain't no big thing.

Until a Democrat is back in office. Then the national debt will be a sin again and all their fault. And it will be their fault for whatever they do to perpetuate it. But at least the right will be capable of seeing it again when it's not one of their own promulgating it.

 

[KLB]

Why do we continue to blame the President for the deficit?

 

[nonobaddog]

Because obummer he gave $150,000,000,000 dollars to Iran.

 

[jbombelli]

Why do we continue to blame the President for the deficit?

Because 2 things : 1) people running for president make promises to fix the deficit, and 2) Congress is really good at shifting blame away from themselves.

 

[T.Lex]

And, well, POTUS can veto and force Congress to override.

POTUS is absolutely complicit.

 

[jbombelli]

And, well, POTUS can veto and force Congress to override.

POTUS is absolutely complicit.

Complicit? Okay. But Congress still controls spending. The buck stops with them. I also said that during Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.

 

[mmpsteve]

Why do we continue to blame the President for the deficit?

My comment was about the Obama Years, because we added as much debt in those years as all prior Presidents combined. I wasn't blaming Obama directly; obviously there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[nonobaddog]

I still blame obummer directly... for that and many other things. Worst President Ever.