-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
News Us politics - read first post before comment
- Post starter anthony
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 41765
^^^^100 "likes" to both of the above.
@cactus_jack growing up in the California farming district, I know they don't want to hire anyone who has a family or permanent address because they you have to be able to move around to different areas of the state or even country every few weeks. That is why illegals are perfect for it.
You harvest one area for a couple of weeks and then move on to a new area and so on and so on. They provide the lodging. Most American born people aren't willing to be constantly on the move. At least in California, the one thing they look for when they turn people away is a fixed address.
Honestly, thank goodness for illegals because other wise our food prices would skyrocket.
You harvest one area for a couple of weeks and then move on to a new area and so on and so on. They provide the lodging. Most American born people aren't willing to be constantly on the move. At least in California, the one thing they look for when they turn people away is a fixed address.
Honestly, thank goodness for illegals because other wise our food prices would skyrocket.
D
Deleted member 541
How wonderful.... Trump just released his new budget. ALL 4 TRILLION DOLLARS of it. Cutting domestic programs and boosting border security and the military. When did we stop trying to balance the budget???????
scout86
VIP Member
When we no longer had a Democratic president?
(This is actually kind of a "thing" with the Republican Party. They aren't that different, other than priorities. Except that, while the Democrats tax & spend, the Republicans just spend and give each other tax breaks.)
(This is actually kind of a "thing" with the Republican Party. They aren't that different, other than priorities. Except that, while the Democrats tax & spend, the Republicans just spend and give each other tax breaks.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Milo's papa
Gold Member
Yes, but only if they're rich enough not to need one.
Hey She Cat, you do realize that the only time we had a balanced budget in the past 40 years was when Clinton was in office. George Bush balanced it in 2001, that's the last time.
Hey She Cat, you do realize that the only time we had a balanced budget in the past 40 years was when Clinton was in office. George Bush balanced it in 2001, that's the last time.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have had a $100 billion dollar note in my shirt pocket before as part of a total wadge of $185, 000, 000, 500
The person who lowned that little lot to me, left Zimbabwe before the hundred trillion dollar note came out. He said that he realised things were getting stupid when a single chicken egg in the farm shop was $25,000,000
The budget might be $4G I numbers but that doesn't mean that it will pay for a single cop's donut and coffee in purchasing power.
The person who lowned that little lot to me, left Zimbabwe before the hundred trillion dollar note came out. He said that he realised things were getting stupid when a single chicken egg in the farm shop was $25,000,000
The budget might be $4G I numbers but that doesn't mean that it will pay for a single cop's donut and coffee in purchasing power.
D
Deleted member 541
I just don’t understand how our government can keep spending $$ that we DON’T have, and think that this is OK!!!!
You are facing the problem of short termism.
It's inherent wherever someone has control over property for a period of time, but doesn't own it.
A good analogy is the difference in the care people usually take of their own car, compared to how they'll treat a hire car or a pool car.
With your own car, you generally try to maximise the life that you're going to get out of it, and any resale value that it might still have when you're done with it.
It would be rare to see someone taking the works pool car home to wash and wax it, or vacuum it out. It typically gets driven hard, because, what the he'll, it probably won't give up when you're driving it.
Trump and any other 'residents has five years to rob the country to reward his cronies. So long as he can manage to keep kicking the can down the road, and complete collapse doesn't occur on his watch, it becomes someone else's problem after that.
The area I live in used to be owned by the church. Adjacent areas were largely owned by privete estates.
On the private estates there are substantial farm steadings and model villages for farm and mine workers, in order to attract the best tenants.
By contrast a Bishop had a few years to milk the estate for income to spend on fine dining and whores. He couldn't sell it or pass it on to heirs. So apart for houses for clergy, the buildings were small and poorly built, the strip system of farming continued in enclosed fields until... pretty much the present day. They had the worst tenants that no one else would have.
Don't get me wrong, you can get a very bad private landlord or monarch, but if he's threatening the inheritance, or the dynasty he (or she) is likely to find himself closely supervised, or meet with a car crash.
If everyone is a self owner, then it's up to them to take care of what is their'site, as they see fit.
It's inherent wherever someone has control over property for a period of time, but doesn't own it.
A good analogy is the difference in the care people usually take of their own car, compared to how they'll treat a hire car or a pool car.
With your own car, you generally try to maximise the life that you're going to get out of it, and any resale value that it might still have when you're done with it.
It would be rare to see someone taking the works pool car home to wash and wax it, or vacuum it out. It typically gets driven hard, because, what the he'll, it probably won't give up when you're driving it.
Trump and any other 'residents has five years to rob the country to reward his cronies. So long as he can manage to keep kicking the can down the road, and complete collapse doesn't occur on his watch, it becomes someone else's problem after that.
The area I live in used to be owned by the church. Adjacent areas were largely owned by privete estates.
On the private estates there are substantial farm steadings and model villages for farm and mine workers, in order to attract the best tenants.
By contrast a Bishop had a few years to milk the estate for income to spend on fine dining and whores. He couldn't sell it or pass it on to heirs. So apart for houses for clergy, the buildings were small and poorly built, the strip system of farming continued in enclosed fields until... pretty much the present day. They had the worst tenants that no one else would have.
Don't get me wrong, you can get a very bad private landlord or monarch, but if he's threatening the inheritance, or the dynasty he (or she) is likely to find himself closely supervised, or meet with a car crash.
If everyone is a self owner, then it's up to them to take care of what is their'site, as they see fit.
Justmehere
Sponsor
This isn’t about just a parade. There is no money for most of what people want the federal government to do.
Obamacare, the EPA, schools, the VA, etc. the US is printing money for all these things.
Obamacare, the EPA, schools, the VA, etc. the US is printing money for all these things.
OK, how is the deficit financed?
It's usually done in a disguised manner.
The government will issue bonds,
These are bought by, amongst others, banks
The banks then either lodge them as security with, or sell them to the central bank, which then credits the banks accounts with new based currency.
This is a round about way, that obfuscated what's happening: The central bank is printing new money to pay for the government's expenditure!
This dilutes the purchasing power of the existing money - more money is chasing the same amount of goods and services.
It also causes a redistribution of purchasing power away from the people who get the new money last, and towards those who get it first (government and cronies).
Those who get that new money first get to spend it before prices go up, those who get it last have to pay the higher prices before it gets to them.
State sector pensign funds also "buy" and hold government bonds. Again that disguises what's happening. People's pension payments go in, and the government spends any surplus over what is being paid out as actual pensions and replaces the money that it has taken with "bonds". Magic beans would have been more honest, at least you could eat them.
What are bonds?
They're promises to tax the people at some point in the future! For the principal and interest!
Because it is assumed that government won't default on its bonds, they tend to be attractive "investments" which has the effect of crowding out investment in actual productive ventures.
Personal opinion, they're not safe investments. If the government has to honour the bonds, it is likely to do it by printing even more money.
It's a scam, anyway you care to look at it.
It's usually done in a disguised manner.
The government will issue bonds,
These are bought by, amongst others, banks
The banks then either lodge them as security with, or sell them to the central bank, which then credits the banks accounts with new based currency.
This is a round about way, that obfuscated what's happening: The central bank is printing new money to pay for the government's expenditure!
This dilutes the purchasing power of the existing money - more money is chasing the same amount of goods and services.
It also causes a redistribution of purchasing power away from the people who get the new money last, and towards those who get it first (government and cronies).
Those who get that new money first get to spend it before prices go up, those who get it last have to pay the higher prices before it gets to them.
State sector pensign funds also "buy" and hold government bonds. Again that disguises what's happening. People's pension payments go in, and the government spends any surplus over what is being paid out as actual pensions and replaces the money that it has taken with "bonds". Magic beans would have been more honest, at least you could eat them.
What are bonds?
They're promises to tax the people at some point in the future! For the principal and interest!
Because it is assumed that government won't default on its bonds, they tend to be attractive "investments" which has the effect of crowding out investment in actual productive ventures.
Personal opinion, they're not safe investments. If the government has to honour the bonds, it is likely to do it by printing even more money.
It's a scam, anyway you care to look at it.
- Status
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
