Muda69

It is definitely not as condescending. Don't you agree?

America's Long-Term Debt Crisis Is Now a Short-Term Problem https://reason.com/2020/05/13/americas-long-term-debt-crisis-is-now-a-short-term-problem/ The U.S. is poised to fall off of the fiscal cliff, and this latest spending boondoggle put forth by the the Democratic half of the uni-party will most likely tip us over the edge. The America we have left for our children and grandchildren.

? Anyway unless the POTUS become incapacitated he should be able to do his job while under quarantine. I don't think the British PM abdicated his office while he was fighting covid-19, did he?

You should know, right?

Wow, so you know what TrojanDad looks like in RL. You really are a stalker Gonzo. And a creep.

You really need to go see a doctor for those tremors, Gonzo.

It's good to have friends, gonzo. You should try it sometimes. But then again I can see why most other rational individuals would want to stay far away from you.............

The Next Coronavirus Stimulus Bill Is Here. It's a $3 Trillion Spending Plan That Bails Out States and the Post Office. https://reason.com/2020/05/12/the-next-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-is-here-its-a-3-trillion-spending-plan-that-bails-out-states-and-the-post-office/ "We now have a debt the size of our economy." Don't those words deeply frighten anybody who truly cares about this country, and it's future for our children and grandchildren?

Many here feel the same about "debating" with you, UW. Funny how you let loose with accusations of people performing fellatio on Mr. Trump if given the chance yet with your rhetoric it's clear you would blow any Democrat that crosses your path, especially one that promises you more "free stuff". And you conveniently ignore the facts surrounding the Democrats similar laissez-faire early reactions to the coronavirus, especially when the likes of Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders just used the news to criticize and score political points against Mr. Trump. Just more uni-party nonsense, and you cheer it on. Hypocrite.

Federal and State Governments Have Less Control Over Shutdowns Than They Think https://reason.com/2020/05/11/federal-and-state-governments-have-less-control-over-shutdowns-than-they-think/

Does Questioning Official COVID-19 Statistics Make This Doctor a 'Denialist'? https://reason.com/2020/05/11/does-questioning-official-covid-19-statistics-make-this-doctor-a-denialist/

Whichever you prefer.

Filmmaker Eugene Jarecki Creates A “Trump Death Clock,” Targeting White House Over Pandemic Response https://deadline.com/2020/05/coronavirus-donald-trump-death-clock-eugene-jarecki-1202927456/ What is that about hindsight? Total TDS.

But it's NPR, one of your liberal champions. And why do you hate the Catholic church?

? Please elaborate.

Some See Plot To Create 'World Government' In Coronavirus Restrictions https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/08/853110793/some-see-plot-to-create-world-government-in-coronavirus-restrictions There are a few here on the GID who I think would welcome a World Government............

Actor and comedian Jerry Stiller has died of natural causes, Ben Stiller says https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/us/jerry-stiller-death-natural-causes/index.html Truly an American Icon. He will be missed, especially by you fans of festivus.

The canard about U.S. Presidents somehow having power over the U.S. economy just won't die: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/ If you have a little basic mathematical literacy, you’ll see some problems. A little political literacy will lead to your detecting several more. But let’s consider it. Ten recessions back gets us to 1953. Since then, we have had 30 years of Democratic presidents and 35 years of Republican presidents; if recessions were randomly distributed, we’d still expect to see more of them coinciding with Republican presidencies simply because there have been more of them. In fact, most presidencies have coincided with one or more recessions. On the specifics, the argument is weak. But how much should we make of that coincidence in general? Democrats plead on behalf of Barack Obama that he came into office during a terrible economic crisis, and that he and his policies should not be blamed for the weak growth and disappointing labor-market performance that marked his time in office. That’s not unfair. But the same could be said of, e.g., Gerald Ford, who had to deal with an OPEC-inflicted quadrupling of oil prices in 1973. Does anybody think Gerald Ford’s policies caused that? John Kennedy came into office at the tail end of a recession, which officially ended in February of his first year in office. Does any serious person believe that in the course of less than a month President Kennedy implemented policies that ended the recession? That would be a deeply silly contention. Even more juvenile is assuming that business cycles are inextricably linked to election cycles — without offering a lick of evidence or even a plausible mechanism for that being the case. Recession-counting also ignores the fact that some recessions are the result of excellent public policy. The Reagan administration came into office with the country suffering from a serious inflation problem, and the tight monetary policy that the administration undertook to rein in that inflation produced a recession, as it was expected to. The recession was the price we paid for getting inflation under control. Inflation rose again toward the end of the Reagan-era boom, and once again, monetary tightening was used to control inflation at the cost of inflicting the mild recession that Bill Clinton rode to power. Oddly, Jere Glover ignores inflation. I wonder why. Besides the most obvious economic stupidity, there is some pretty deep political stupidity at work here, too. For one thing, presidents have to deal with Congress, which actually does things like set tax rates and appropriate money. People talk about “Reagan deficits” and the “Clinton surplus,” but it would be much more sensible to talk about the Tip O’Neill deficits and the Gingrich surplus: Reagan wanted substantial spending cuts that were never implemented, and Clinton resisted even modest fiscal reform until he couldn’t. These things get a little more complicated than the R-vs.-D, black-hats/white-hats mode of analysis would suggest. And, of course, there’s the hard-to-quantify fact that Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald J. Trump (“One of these things is not like the others / one of these things does not belong!”) pursued radically different economic policies. As, indeed, did Democratic presidents: There’s a great deal of daylight between Jack Kennedy’s economic thinking and Barack Obama’s. On the GOP side, Ike was a Republican throwback who pursued a policy agenda that he himself described as “progressive” while keeping an eye on the nickels and dimes, and he presided over a federal government that, in 1957, saw slightly lower taxes than we have today, three times the military spending, and a modest budget surplus. (Modern conservatives could live with a progressive like that, I think.) Nixon was a Wilsonian statist who imposed price controls on the economy. Reagan was a libertarian optimist who put growth over balanced budgets. Trump is an economic illiterate with no substantive policy agenda at all. But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term. Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. When you hear someone crediting a president with an economic boom or strong wage growth, ask them in some detail about the actual mechanism they believe to be at work, some plausible chain of causality. You’ll rarely get a satisfying answer. Regulatory reform is a good investment, but one with a long timeline for payoff. Presidents are one small piece of the public-policy picture — and public policy as a whole is only a small part of what shapes and moves a complex modern economy. We tend toward a destructively immature and ahistorical view: The regulatory reforms that made the Internet boom of the Clinton years began decades before; the confluence of terrible policies that created the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–09 began in the 1930s, with housing and banking reforms and regulatory development occurring under presidents and Congresses of both parties in ways that would frustrate any intellectually rigorous attempt at laying blame on a partisan basis. The Asian currency crisis of the Clinton years, Communist aggression and Mideast conflict in Eisenhower’s time, the terrorist attacks during George W. Bush’s first year in office: None of these was the result of some decision taken in the White House. George W. Bush wanted to be a school reformer and economic booster, not a president overseeing a long and thankless campaign against distant desert savages. But history doesn’t wait for anybody to vote on it. That affects everything, including the economy. The belief that GDP growth or this month’s jobs report provides a meaningful judgment on the performance of the president isn’t economics — it’s superstition. It is the modern version of the ancient belief that a crop failure means that the king has displeased the rain god or the wheat goddess. It is a primitive disposition from which we should liberate ourselves — and could, if we were willing to do the hard work of citizenship rather than take our ease in lazy partisanship.

Don't let yourself be muzzled, Mr. Fauci says so himself: http://nomasks.org

Robert Boucher, Jr. would have made an excellent soccer player, don't you think?

So you feel as if your religious preference was why you didn't get the position you interviewed for? After all the descriptions of the county in that article describe it as a virtual heaven on earth, a complete opposite of the hedonist environs of Las Vegas.