Trump* pulls Brady from Super Bowl

[Pete F.]

Trump* will just file bankruptcy like he has previously, though he is very adept at printing money and has now gained control of the Fed.
You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?
You really should look at Trump*s business history.
Better than even odds he’s upside down now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump* will just file bankruptcy like he has previously, though he is very adept at printing money and has now gained control of the Fed.
You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?
You really should look at Trump*s business history.
Better than even odds he’s upside down now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you insist,Bitchslappedboy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?

No, I am not a debt don't matter guy. Not sure how you can know what I am if you don't read my posts or watch my videos. I am a Congress-is-responsible-for-the-debt guy. But more so, I'm a Federal-Government-is-constitutionally-limited guy.

There is no possibility that Congress will eliminate the national debt, nor keep it within reason, so long as Progressive policies, regulations, and programs remain in place, and are continuously added to. And I don't attach Progressivism only to Democrats. Republicans have created their own share of Progressive policy. The first Progressive President was a Republican. And there have followed others who were mostly or partially (enough to do the damage) Progressive. And just as bad, if not worse, SCOTUS has "interpreted" the Constitution out of its limited Federal Government shell and not held in check, as is its duty, the unconstitutional Progressivism which has been the driving force behind unhampered government spending.

I don't think you want to discuss any of that. From a lot of your writing, it is apparent that you favor a barely limited, if at all, central government to control much of the core civil functions including health care, welfare, the economy, and control most of all the essential individual responsibilities which can affect those broader issues, which ultimately can be Progressively interpreted to encompass every aspect of our lives.

At any rate, the steadily and constantly expanding needs of the people that progressives manufacture every election cycle, and which they claim the Federal Government must provide, regulate, and pay for, as well as the miraculous expansion of the current ones which never, somehow, actually ever get fixed but constantly, somehow, get worse, all require more programs, regulations, and to be paid for.

Now, a careful reading of the Constitution would reveal that it does not delegate any actual power to the Federal Government to create these programs. And if the Constitution were followed, they wouldn't do so and would not have done so. Which would mean that the major part of the Federal government spending would be, and would have been, eliminated. Which would mean that the debt would be minimal, if at all.

I think that it's the Progressive, socialistic, Marxist, Communist (they are varying degrees of the same thing) approach to governing that is the type which is not concerned with the notion of government debt. That approach does not limit how much money the government owns. It creates as much as it needs. It believes that, in reality, it controls (or should) pretty much everything and that it owns the money it prints and much (if not ultimately most) of what individuals think is theirs, ergo all transactions are under its sanctions, so the money it borrows is its own and the debt is to itself--the central banks being part of the scheme and profiting mightily. And if borrowed from another country, it can pay it back in the same way it pays itself ("borrow it" from itself). It never really even pays itself since, in our case, it never pays down the principle, just pays what interest is owed per month. And who gets to keep those interest payments, why the central banks, the Federal Reserve, who are part of the scheme.

We are assured, by the currently still expanding Progressive governance, that, no, the government truly is limited, is within constitutional bounds. And most want to believe that and are willingly persuaded by "reports" of Court opinions and decisions that they are come by proper constitutional "interpretation." Honest study and honest scholars know that is not true. But better, given where we have come (and where they want to take us), to let the fiction be "true."

The actual, true, trajectory is fully unlimited government power. And we're going to get there either by the ultimate financial crisis in which the government will have to grab total power in order to prevent catastrophe, or by the actual catastrophe which will have, per force, the same resolution. Creeping unsustainable debt may be the ultimate, peaceful, way to unlimited government.

That is, so long as there is not a revolution. Successful gun control can help prevent that. And an ever evolving socialization process in which each new generation accepts the government it has as how it should be will make the transition easier. And that evolution has already developed to the point where the existing younger generations no longer even have an attachment to the founding constitutional system of government. And they are losing any faith or belief in free market capitalism. Socialism has lost its stigma for them. It is even preferred by more and more of them. And, after all, if the Federal government didn't create and pay for all those presumably necessary programs, what would happen to the people. The states surely could not provide them. (Yeah they and their people, if free to do so, could provide better for themselves what is suited to their needs and in differing ways which create workable models or models to avoid.)

What does that all portend for the notion of an unsustainable national debt? I don't think the new generations, if this continues, will care about such a thing. They didn't create it. They won't want to squander what ever resources they have left to pay them off. They will be perfectly satisfied that the debt will simply be erased, and that the musty old institutions that are owed the money can just fold up shop and join them in the new world of benevolent government which will provide the structure for what society needs to be done and employ everyone, all paid relatively equally by government fiat money if money will still be used, in that endeavor.

[Pete F.]

You think Trump*, the man with “absolute power”, who thinks he can decide when and how states can use the powers not assigned to any branch of the federal government, has a clue what the Constitution says?

I think you’re on the right track but that big money and corporations have taken over the political process in the last 50 years, taking control of everything that is required and profitable while leaving the loss leaders to government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You think Trump*, the man with “absolute power”, who thinks he can decide when and how states can use the powers not assigned to any branch of the federal government, has a clue what the Constitution says?

I'm guessing that in the case of a national emergency which obviously spread beyond the borders of the several states, he might have some overriding authority. Whether he was right or wrong about it, he did fall back on the federated solution and left it up to the states with guidelines. I'm sure he has "some" clue what the Constitution says. Maybe not a lot. Maybe a lot. I don't know. Apparently you think you do. He does have legal advisers to correct him if necessary. Didn't amount to a crisis or any problem other than opportunity to try to bash him. You do seem to think it's a big deal.

I think you’re on the right track but that big money and corporations have taken over the political process in the last 50 years, taking control of everything that is required and profitable while leaving the loss leaders to government.

I think there is a historical process beginning in the Progressive era in which the Federal Government began reigning in the power of big business, the so-called Robber Barons, resulting in a growing regulatory environment and Supreme Court cases that started to give the Fed growing bits of power.

That mushroomed into the FDR administration's full assault on private enterprise and the creation of a large and continuously growing, since then, administrative state which was the first truly massive step in abandoning the constitutional order and replacing it with ideologically Progressive government.

Johnson's Great Society was the next big leap in that direction. And the Clinton and Obama Admins. took it to the edge of complete transformation.

The growing national regulatory state made it progressively more difficult for smaller businesses to function and compete with larger ones so there was an expanding consolidation of many smaller entities, manufacturers (including auto), insurance companies, banks, medical hospitals, grocery store chains, franchised restaurant chains,etc., into bigger nationwide rather than local ones. Wage regulations, workers rights, workplace safety, and a plethora of other government regulations made it harder and harder to stay small and far easier to corporatize into larger entities.

I think corporatization is more a defense against a powerful centralized government, which is less and less reigned in by constitutional limitations, than it is a taking control of that government.

As well, it is easier, more advantageous, for the Central Government to regulate and keep track of fewer, larger, more cooperative corporations, than many thousands of smaller independent ones. It is also easier to get big campaign contributions. It's a symbiotic relationship between big government and big business.

When companies like Walmart or Microsoft were too independent thinking in their practices, big gov made some threats and a more comfortable relationship was made. Government regulatory power has been an advantage for large corporations over smaller business, but also has been a bit of a Damocles Sword as well.

The relationship is somewhat fascistic. Those who think that Progressive government will save them from fascism have not been paying attention.

[Pete F.]

Follow the money
Don't count on Trump*, Orban or Bolsanaro to save you from fascism.
I'm sure you'll tell me I just don't understand Trump* or I misconstrued what he said when he praises totalitarian leaders.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Follow the money
Don't count on Trump*, Orban or Bolsanaro to save you from fascism.
I'm sure you'll tell me I just don't understand Trump* or I misconstrued what he said when he praises totalitarian leaders.

He praises a lot of people. Get over it.

[Pete F.]

He also lies a lot

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."

~ George Orwell

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

He is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device