With our money no doubt....How will they pay for this, though?
How will they pay for this, though?
With money, I assume. As for where they're going to get said money; they can always print more. Well, until they suddenly can't anymore; but that's a problem for the future.How will they pay for this, though?
The "they can always print more" is similar to what a college Econ professor who also worked for the Federal Reserve once said during a lecture in response to a question. "It's only money, we can always print more". He made it a point to emphasize the word "always".With money, I assume. As for where they're going to get said money; they can always print more. Well, until they suddenly can't anymore; but that's a problem for the future.
Because they know that they are in the wrong and know that the right wing people will stop thier rioters. So arrest and punish those that would and let your terror group run free to keep you in powerThe infuriating thing about the "domestic extremism" crap is how paper thin the pretense is, and how quickly it would collapse if it was faced with any rel scrutiny.
The left is correct when they claim that the vast majority of violent extremists that reach the level of murder and other severe crimes are racist white dudes, far more so than any other group. What they are lying about is the actual scale of the problem, or at the most hi eat, briefly acknowledge the scale before breathless speculating about how it could totally get worse.
Per the ADL, hardly a bastion of right wing thought, right wing extremists killed 17 people last year. No, I did not mistype that. Seventeen. In the past 10 years, exteremists of all stripes killed a mere 429 people.
The level of resources and attention being given to this issue, vs the level of threat that those resources are being marshaled to oppose, is almost disgusting. There's talk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fight "domestic extremism", and that level of waste is criminal. The government could probably save more people if it just dumped the money in a big pile and set it on fire, since we probably have at war a few dozen homeless people freeze to death each winter.
More friendly to Russia than anything Trump did. This has especially strong strategic ramifications since Germany did its retarded abolition of coal and nuclear power, rendering itself reliant on Russian natural gas.
I would not trust this statistic further than i could throw its authors, no one except them knows how much advanced statistical wizardry was involved in creating it, like counting everything that even remotely fits the category that they want inflated, and discounting possible competition as another category. Sometimes on several different organizational levels.The left is correct when they claim that the vast majority of violent extremists that reach the level of murder and other severe crimes are racist white dudes, far more so than any other group.
Yeah, that's similar to the number of deaths by lightning strikes.Ok, but even with all that fudging and playing games with motives and who counts and who doesn’t, they can only scrounge up 30 or so incidents a year. It doesn't matter how they slice it, because even an exaggerated and distorted incident count results in a pathetically small threat.
You ever lean backwards in a chair? It feels like a safe enough thing to do at first, but if you lean back far enough (and it's difficult to tell what's too far until you get to that point), the angle becomes so extreme that you start to fall. That's basically the situation with out government printing money; you can do it to a point without causing much issue, but it's hard to know what that point is (since it involves people's confidence in the currency), and they've convinced themselves it will never be a problem.The "they can always print more" is similar to what a college Econ professor who also worked for the Federal Reserve once said during a lecture in response to a question. "It's only money, we can always print more". He made it a point to emphasize the word "always".
The "they can always print more" is similar to what a college Econ professor who also worked for the Federal Reserve once said during a lecture in response to a question. "It's only money, we can always print more". He made it a point to emphasize the word "always".
He was making a point. When he needed a substitute teacher for the night class he taught here's who we got: William Poole.That doesn't sounds like what someone who worked in either the fed or econ would say, unless he's being obnoxiously pedantic and pointing out that it's always going to be physically possible to run the printers and churn out more money.
You absolutely cannot just keep increasing the money supply indefinitely, or else you will start to have problems with inflation undermining the entire economy.
The infuriating thing about the "domestic extremism" crap is how paper thin the pretense is, and how quickly it would collapse if it was faced with any rel scrutiny.
The left is correct when they claim that the vast majority of violent extremists that reach the level of murder and other severe crimes are racist white dudes, far more so than any other group. What they are lying about is the actual scale of the problem, or at the most honest, briefly acknowledge the scale before breathless speculating about how it could totally get worse.
Per the ADL, hardly a bastion of right wing thought, right wing extremists killed 17 people last year. No, I did not mistype that. Seventeen. In the past 10 years, exteremists of all stripes killed a mere 429 people.
The level of resources and attention being given to this issue, vs the level of threat that those resources are being marshaled to oppose, is almost disgusting. There's talk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fight "domestic extremism", and that level of waste is criminal. The government could probably save more people if it just dumped the money in a big pile and set it on fire, since we probably have at least few dozen homeless people freeze to death each winter.
That doesn't sounds like what someone who worked in either the fed or econ would say, unless he's being obnoxiously pedantic and pointing out that it's always going to be physically possible to run the printers and churn out more money.
You absolutely cannot just keep increasing the money supply indefinitely, or else you will start to have problems with inflation undermining the entire economy.
He was making a point. When he needed a substitute teacher for the night class he taught here's who we got: William Poole.
Bill Poole was the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis at the time.
The guy was a bank regulator. He introduced himself by setting his briefcase down and saying, "I could have you lead away in handcuffs. Don't fuck with me."Yeah I read that as being tongue in cheek. Especially if the guy was buddies with Poole. That is seriously impressive.
Modern monetary theory claims you can shrink the deficit...somehow...without causing massive hyperinflation. The details, as with most such progressive pronouncements, are kind of fuzzy on the math and details.