"This is what the Bureau of Economic Analysis counts as economic growth: the government spending more taxpayer dollars."
If so, the BEA is definitely missing something. A huge portion of money spent is supplied from borrowings, not taxes. The deficit's growth is an important engine of so-called economic growth, and the amt reported as growth is, in fact, an indicator of redistribution, too, which is growing exponentially, like the dedicit.
Last week I happened to vsit the CBO's web site when checking another writer's alarmist claim about the budget deficit. I noticed that the deficit in the 1st qtr of FY 2024 had increased by about 21% from the same qtr of the prior FY. If that rate for the 1st qtr were constant (admittedly unlikely), the deficit would double in 3.6 yrs and triple in about 5.75. This situation is absurd.
Much of this redistribution and so-called growth goes to the plutocracy and to wealthy foreigners who own corporate beneficiaries of government borrowing. Another large portion goes to people who are far more likely to vote for D than for R. It's no wonder then that the middle class is being squeezed hard, but it's being squeezed by the uniparty, esp. the varsity faction, which is in charge of the Great Replacement, too.
Yes - ‘absurdity’ is the word for it! And there’s going to be such a reckoning for this absurdity.
In the past several decades, the field of economics, with all the fancy econometrics and so on, has strayed too far from the basics. A healthy economy is the result of private investment and PRODUCTIVITY - output per man-hour of work. Government spending essentially just redistributes, and increases the debt. How can they all be so blind!
Hey, on an unrelated note, Dr. Robert Malone posted his weekly “Friday Funnies’ column an hour ago, in which he included a couple of pro-Texas comics regarded your border stance against the Feds. I posted a one-sentence comment, “I stand with TEXAS!”, and the ‘likes’ have been rolling in by the dozen ever since. I believe nearly everyone who reads Malone’s Substack is agreeing with your principled stance. God bless you courageous Texans!
That principled stance is necessary--and dangerous. Governor Abbot is refusing to concede authority to the federal government, even when the Supreme Court backs the federal government (rather necessarily, given how the Constitution is worded when it comes to border security).
A refusal to bend the knee to Washington is the sort of defiance that led a few states to try their hand at secession in 1860.
My fear is that the Washington DC swamp does not realize what is actually at stake, and will not deal with the border security problems that are driving Governor Abbott's decisions until it is too late.
It's not just a question of "standing with Texas". It's a question of Texas and everyone else still being a part of a Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America when everything is said and done.
Yes, the Constitution is clear on the responsibility of the Feds to control the borders - but they are NOT doing so. Now the Supreme Court is going to have to decide further on this matter. We could indeed come close to another civil war, thanks to the idiocy of the current administration. Let’s hope that cooler heads and reason prevail!
If it does come to Civil War, there will be perverse irony in the symmetry of it.
In 1860/61, the Southern states seceded due to Democrat fears that the incoming Republican administration was going to put an end to the human trafficking--slavery--that was foundational to the plantation system.
Now we're seeing a Republican governor frustrated that a Democrat regime in Washington refuses to stop human trafficking at the southern border, and in fact is continuing to participate in it.
We should not forget that Dementia Joe, as Obama's VP, was part and parcel of an administration which knowingly trafficked unaccompanied minors detained at the southern border.
I’m surprised that article was in the liberal Washington Post (bet it wouldn’t be today)!
The complicating factor now regarding another civil war is that Red and Blue clumps of population are scattered all over and intermingled. The greater metropolitan area of Mpls/StPaul and suburbs, with a population of about 3.2 million, is around 75+% Democrat, while the rural areas of MN, population about 2 million, is pretty solidly Republican. There’s no way that they would ever agree on which side of a civil war to fight, and no way either side would acquiesce to to the other’s insistence. I would bet there would be similar situations in Portland vs Oregon, Seattle vs Washington, etc. So this impracticality alone might prevent a full-blown civil war - let’s hope.
By the way, never in all of my decades as a Minnesotan have I ever known anyone here who would consider themselves a ‘Yankee’. Those are the people out East. The debate here is whether we are ‘midwesterners’ or ‘northerners’. In either case, had I lived here in 1860, I would be the one pointing out passages in the founding documents about ‘state’s rights’ and ‘consent of the governed’.
"This is what the Bureau of Economic Analysis counts as economic growth: the government spending more taxpayer dollars."
If so, the BEA is definitely missing something. A huge portion of money spent is supplied from borrowings, not taxes. The deficit's growth is an important engine of so-called economic growth, and the amt reported as growth is, in fact, an indicator of redistribution, too, which is growing exponentially, like the dedicit.
Last week I happened to vsit the CBO's web site when checking another writer's alarmist claim about the budget deficit. I noticed that the deficit in the 1st qtr of FY 2024 had increased by about 21% from the same qtr of the prior FY. If that rate for the 1st qtr were constant (admittedly unlikely), the deficit would double in 3.6 yrs and triple in about 5.75. This situation is absurd.
Much of this redistribution and so-called growth goes to the plutocracy and to wealthy foreigners who own corporate beneficiaries of government borrowing. Another large portion goes to people who are far more likely to vote for D than for R. It's no wonder then that the middle class is being squeezed hard, but it's being squeezed by the uniparty, esp. the varsity faction, which is in charge of the Great Replacement, too.
Yes - ‘absurdity’ is the word for it! And there’s going to be such a reckoning for this absurdity.
In the past several decades, the field of economics, with all the fancy econometrics and so on, has strayed too far from the basics. A healthy economy is the result of private investment and PRODUCTIVITY - output per man-hour of work. Government spending essentially just redistributes, and increases the debt. How can they all be so blind!
Hey, on an unrelated note, Dr. Robert Malone posted his weekly “Friday Funnies’ column an hour ago, in which he included a couple of pro-Texas comics regarded your border stance against the Feds. I posted a one-sentence comment, “I stand with TEXAS!”, and the ‘likes’ have been rolling in by the dozen ever since. I believe nearly everyone who reads Malone’s Substack is agreeing with your principled stance. God bless you courageous Texans!
That principled stance is necessary--and dangerous. Governor Abbot is refusing to concede authority to the federal government, even when the Supreme Court backs the federal government (rather necessarily, given how the Constitution is worded when it comes to border security).
A refusal to bend the knee to Washington is the sort of defiance that led a few states to try their hand at secession in 1860.
My fear is that the Washington DC swamp does not realize what is actually at stake, and will not deal with the border security problems that are driving Governor Abbott's decisions until it is too late.
It's not just a question of "standing with Texas". It's a question of Texas and everyone else still being a part of a Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America when everything is said and done.
You are wise.
Yes, the Constitution is clear on the responsibility of the Feds to control the borders - but they are NOT doing so. Now the Supreme Court is going to have to decide further on this matter. We could indeed come close to another civil war, thanks to the idiocy of the current administration. Let’s hope that cooler heads and reason prevail!
If it does come to Civil War, there will be perverse irony in the symmetry of it.
In 1860/61, the Southern states seceded due to Democrat fears that the incoming Republican administration was going to put an end to the human trafficking--slavery--that was foundational to the plantation system.
Now we're seeing a Republican governor frustrated that a Democrat regime in Washington refuses to stop human trafficking at the southern border, and in fact is continuing to participate in it.
We should not forget that Dementia Joe, as Obama's VP, was part and parcel of an administration which knowingly trafficked unaccompanied minors detained at the southern border.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
I’m surprised that article was in the liberal Washington Post (bet it wouldn’t be today)!
The complicating factor now regarding another civil war is that Red and Blue clumps of population are scattered all over and intermingled. The greater metropolitan area of Mpls/StPaul and suburbs, with a population of about 3.2 million, is around 75+% Democrat, while the rural areas of MN, population about 2 million, is pretty solidly Republican. There’s no way that they would ever agree on which side of a civil war to fight, and no way either side would acquiesce to to the other’s insistence. I would bet there would be similar situations in Portland vs Oregon, Seattle vs Washington, etc. So this impracticality alone might prevent a full-blown civil war - let’s hope.
By the way, never in all of my decades as a Minnesotan have I ever known anyone here who would consider themselves a ‘Yankee’. Those are the people out East. The debate here is whether we are ‘midwesterners’ or ‘northerners’. In either case, had I lived here in 1860, I would be the one pointing out passages in the founding documents about ‘state’s rights’ and ‘consent of the governed’.