Will the Von Sanders Plan to Nearly Double Public Debt Work?

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has announced a new plan to add 16 trillion dollars to U.S.public debt. Will it work though?

Nearly doubling the U.S. public debt with $16 trillion dollars in new public spending might achieve making the interest on the debt not only a trillion dollars annually; it could possibly rise to near two trillion dollars annually and that would be something to brag about.

British public debt of financing the counter-revolutionary war wasn’t retired until just before the start of the First World War. Debt repayment to the moneyed class diverted much potential spending in the domestic public sector impoverishing the lower class more so than they would have been otherwise. The United States today hasn’t learned the British lesson of vast left and right wing sourced public indebtedness.

Some people would like to achieve elements of national ecological economic policy with new laws and regulations that would direct the free market to achieve the goals the public consider vital interests concerning environmental decline and global warming. Those reforms to shape free enterprise would not add anything to the U.S. public debt, yet what fun would that be?

It is possible that the ideas of political philosophy and political economy are so strange and politicians so uncreative that they are clueless about the opportunity for a democracy to direct the free market to work toward the public good intentionally. Thankfully no educated and intelligent souls are running for the Presidency in the Democrat party who could threaten to put off the increase of public debt. The rich enjoy the interest payments and making the nation owe them. Large tax increases could be relied upon ostensibly to pay off some of the interest. One need only vote for it to discover what's really in it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html

Election Year 2020 and Pres Trump Hasn't Started a War Yet

President Trump faces some tough prospects because of his growing record as a peace monger. He is the first President since Ronald Reagan that hasn't got the U.S. involved in a new foreign conflict. That kind of reputation will make him an easy target for Democrats who traditionally know how to get international conflicts started.

The economy is good yet Democrats are agitating for doom and the chance of recession in order to fix it themselves with a Democrat President. The public debt is great and Greenland won't bail out the U.S. Government with undiscovered gold veins and diamond pipes under the ice amidst volcanic flows.

The President does seem to rate a flunk at environmentalism yet the public itself should do more to design business and construction activity that restores a healthy wild ecosphere rather than displace and erase it. That requires intelligent thought- and the public should not rely on the illusion that spoiled crats would do much in office besides host celebrity galas at the White House and create homosexual hegemony to help erase boundaries and any good sense in the nation.

Because the Democrat Party is all in with illegal migration to the United States the population actually could double in 30 years from 320 million to 640 million putting the lie to the idea of conserving the ecosphere.

At least staying out of a new protracted war may be one benefit (of course Iran, China, or Canada could attack at any moment requiring national defense) of re-electing the President in 2020. It is kind of an interesting thing to have the chance to watch Donald Trump to see if he can keep up his activity level and tweeting four years more. I would rather be sailing that interacting with the media in his position.

'Disloyal Jews' and President Trump

President Trump commented about Jewish voters being 'disloyal' because more than 80% voted for Democrats in the 2016 and 2018 elections. Republicans support Israel much more so than Democrats who harbor anti-Semites such as Representatives Omar and Tlaib. President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. embassy there; a bold move of support for the Jewish state. President Trump is correct in his sentiment, yet he fails to recognize that Jews are somewhat paranoid globalists that distrust white people as a result of European history. Jews haven't good sense when it comes to political matters outside Israel. They are good at making money.

Jewish support in the United States is largely from white Christians; a group that make up the core of the evangelical branch of the Republican Party. Without White evangelical support Israel hasn't enough support in the U.S.A. to perhaps continue to exist. The Democrat Party really would cut off aid to Israel eventually if it becomes too powerful, non-white, anti-Christian and Muslim.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-loyalty-comment-german-attack-jews

Many American voters continue in a 1960s era paradigm. Jews were liberals joining the Hippie-era Democrat party in opposition to the Jim Crowe South and southern conservatism generally. Needless to say that is a very different and somewhat historically remote paradigm from the political facts of life, Demographics and income allocation regarding races and time-in-country now.

Jews trust globalism, Wall Street and the power of Hollywood propaganda embedded in contemporary corporatism, democratic socialism and globalism wherein they can thrive through investments. Some of the historical mistakes that led to two world wars devastated European Jews are repeated in the United States insofar as the political facts differ from the beliefs of political social reality. The differences lead to results out of phase with what was expected.

If ever there was a nation besides Israel that Jews could be loyal to, it is the United States. It is a nation founded on the principle that all men are equal, and upon ideas rather than a racial tribe or royalty such as one finds in most of the world including stilted Europe with pride in degradation and allowing Muslim moral leadership to develop within their dark abyss.

Media slander of conservative white Americans associating them with NAZIs is disgusting for those of us with a parent who served in the Second World War. Without white Americans the NAZIs would have won. Without white Americans the constitution would not have been written. White Americans have conserved a semblance of world peace such as was possible the better part of a century. A peace with as much freedom as possible. It is difficult to imagine any other racial group or nation that would have even been interested in anything besides domination, repression and corruption as was usual most of human history.

With Jewish liberalism reinforcing migration of Muslims to the United States and atheism, flooding the nation with illegal aliens to reduce the imagined threat of white Americans being a latent NAZI  element who would force them into crematoria, that historically wrong judgment brings real emergent threats that exist in Democrat and global corporatist-socialist trends into effect.

Nuking Mars Deserves Recognition as the One of the Century's Stupidest Ideas

Nuking Mars even before mankind has set foot there is a breathtakingly stupid idea. It is one of the dumbest ideas ever set forward and is worthy of an Ignoble Prize. That the otherwise intelligent and creative billionaire engineer corporate innovator (Space X) made the gaff is the wondrous paradox. It is a kind of bi-polar intellectual product that is the antipode of Elon Musk’s good ideas.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-terraforming-mars-nukes

That any human being would suggest nuking one of Earth’s nearest neighbors even before Democrats declare it too friendly to Russians says something about the human condition. What about nuking GJ 357 d  that is orbiting a small star just 31 light years away and is a super-earth in size? Nuking that planet could become a great human project, and it would require a fast propulsion system leading to derivative tech benefits. That world could be nuked within a century if humans put their backs to it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/potentially-habitable-super-earth-discovered-just-31-light-years-away-ncna1037491

N.A.S.A. discovered other planets that might merit a good nuking
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1598/discovery-alert-rocky-planet-swelters-under-three-red-suns/

https://www.space.com/42512-trappist-1-planet-could-host-life.html

The star Proxima Centauri has a few good worlds that just may need nukular carpet-bombing to become paradises fit for billionaires- these little gems are merely a few light years distant and can be given special delivery packages dirt cheap. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2019/04/11/four-earth-like-planets-close-to-solar-system-could-all-host-alien-life/#2076503162ba

Terraforming a planet would require some substantial amount of intelligent thought. Star Trek had a terraform bomb in one of its films yet that is probably quite a way out.

Mars need be carefully studied in its natural condition and kept in a natural condition as much as possible except where humans live under domes and other artificial constructs- even artificial mountains and underground. Scientists need study it any way, in detail for centuries to learn what can be learned about it. Nuking Mars would F it all up and probably pollute the water and ice such as does exist. 

Warming Mars up artificially is another bad idea. It would etherialize water that would be lost into space. Space-heaters for Mars with mirrors is a devastatingly bad idea. Water and ice on Mars and the Moon should be conserved and regarded as important as water to a desert dweller.

What About Buying Greenland?

President Trump recently expressed an interest in  buying Greenland. There are 50,000 people living in Greenland, and each might decide to sell if given two or three million dollars. Just 100 billion or 150 billion to the United States. Would they actually want to sell for that so industry could mine it after the glaciers meltdown thanks to global warming and fossil fuel vehicle exhaust?

Initially I was thinking that Greenlanders might want a trillion or two for Greenland- maybe 20 million apiece from a trillion. I suppose it's a reasonable offer rather than giving them California if all of the Californians were to move to Boston.

Royal Danes of Hamlet could then refer to people that live in the former city of San Francisco. They could worry about pollution and over-population more comfortably while Greenland is being savaged by rapacious developers. Going north may be the future, yet some sort of ecological economic program for a national economy within a free-enterprise reformed version of capitalism directed through regulations to intelligent design for sustainable economics could be more cost effective.

Greenlanders might want to be recalcitrant about asking too much from America- I can't be sure that a debt marker for a trillion or more from the U.S.A. really ever would be paid off; if you decide to accept, take the cash payment up front and invest in something stable like bitecoin.

Racism is Core of the New Democratic Party

Racism is the core of the reformed Democratic Party. It is a logical and inevitable development following the demographic lines and corporate preferences for mass marketing sales and a dumb consumer society. Support for illegal immigration reinforces Democrat Party racist demographics.

The Democrats are not alone in being a party fundamentally antipathetic to white middle class males and traditional American social values. Wall Street also is globalist and a complete disrespecting manipulator through the mass media and Hollywood agencies of socialization. All of those classes and internal and external proletariats that are not the historically white middle class or white rural Americans vote against white candidates and in preference for non-whites whenever they can. In the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections black Americans voted more than 95% for the black candidate and President Barrack Obama.

Wall Street is happy enough to practice creative destruction on white Middle America and to promote values that work best for billionaires. Creative destruction of the white middle class redistributes wealth upward to the rich networks with fingers in every pie. Any economic chaos loosens properties and securities with some going into those global service networks, refinancing, and duplicate purchases of replacements. Though rich white people lead in practical measures the direction of the Republican Party they are fundamentally antipathetic to the interests of white Middle America too. The long term outlook for white people in America is not good.

Republican leadership on the high court worked together with Democrat appointees to force homosexual marriage upon the nation. Homosexuals and non-whites are the long term Democratic Party core. Of course they have a majority of white American women too, yet just a simple majority, for not all are so historically illiterate as to comprehend contemporary history.

It is interesting that the first two Muslims elected to the House of Representatives are outspokenly against Israel. Muslims are also, in the long run, and anti-white middle America element who will work with Democrats to change the nation to a rather confusing yet ignorant global populace mixed up with a zillion entertainment items and tech. Averageness intellectually will prevail through ubiquitous reinforcement of entertainment content instead of intellectual content that is a threat to absolute political control of the nation in the unified corporatist-socialist consumer society. Independent ideas are inconvenient.

In an intensely populated mass demography with invasive, pervasive mass communication and fairly easy money for most citizens (yes many are left out-maybe 50 to 75 million from don't earn easy money) that is consumerist what is left out is individualism and intellectual excellence in the social sceinces and humanities. Wall Street values dominate and the Democrat brand is anti-white and homosexual. Those values are reinforced with pejorative use-truths and anti-nationalism, incessantly.

Thus the Democratic party is no longer one of ideas- that is good ideas. It is superficial and gives some token interest toward environmental issues yet ties those in to socialist redistributionism at the same time. The party is one pursuing cultural change to promote their constituency to insider position in politics even if they are devoid of good ideas and intelligent thought.

There isn't anything that would change the long term direction as far as I can foresee. Practical ideas are unpopular with Democrats too. President Obama did make the Bush II tax cuts permanent after all.

Democrat Pres Candidates Can't Fix a Single Dmn Thing

Democrat Presidential candidates are generally, vastly clueless about how to fix anything wrong with the country. Instead of fixing a single important item they advance grandiose schemes with the devil in the details; they just want vast powers to spend more money on a dozen large issues without having a clue how to fix a single one.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/la-residents-fed-up-with-officials-demand-change-after-homeless-crisis-spirals-in-city

Democratic approaches increase size of government, ossify economics toward a socialist and corporatist mileau, and degrade individual liberty under socialist power. Democrat party directed thought and speech control is reinforced through Hollywood and media propaganda conditioning of the public.

The cash bail problem is one such issue. Bernie Sanders brought it up as a part of his grandiose prison overhaul agenda. Fixing the cash bail problem is an important and worthwhile venture; if only anyone had an idea about how to actually eliminate cash bail and find some better replacement.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/18/bernie-sanders-criminal-justice-overhaul-proposal-1466995

Democrats in the House plainly have the power to pass some reform of cash bail bill. The problem is they seem to have no interest in actually doing so-why?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/bernie-sanders-criminal-justice-plan-based-on-false-premise-of-racism/

Take Rikers Island for example. As I understand it, people arrested for something might not be able to afford cash bail. So they stay at Rikers Island for maybe six long months being victimized by prison gangs, while they are awaiting trial. That isn't justice and it also costs money and takes up space to incarcerate citizens needlessly. What is the solution to that? It requires quite a bit more than pompous abstract schemes, it needs specific remedies.

I wrote a little already about another concern of Democrats- private prisons...they want to abolish them.*

Another issue is patent reform. Patent exclusivity for decades limits competition. It makes drugs too expensive; it slows human technological progress in a time when that is really needed to overcome demographic swelling and eco-habitat degradation. During the Obama administration I wrote about patent reform numerous times, as well as suggesting they pass a law to give tax incentives to hire those out of work first, and of course nothing was done.

Patent reform would enable inventors to continue to receive profit from their invention after it became public domain in three years from patent award. Existing patents would grandfather in and remain exclusive for twenty years after the law was reformed. 

Inventors would receive a 10% royalty from anyone manufacturing and selling the new invention thereafter- even drug companies would profit from generic production of their expensive to develop drug. The more companies that produce it, the more people that buy it, the greater would be the profit from royalties. There would be an incentive to produce the drugs most for the most prevalent illnesses first.

The Green New Deal was another grandiose and wrong Democrat plan. It would tie up trillions of dollars of public money in a wrong investment and preclude investing in alternative plans that would be useful. Free enterprise is the best tool for solving economic problems. Capital is a byproduct of free enterprise. Democratic socialists seek to redistribute resources at government fiat, and implement wrong environmental policies while ossifying the economy and making it difficult for free enterprise ventures to adapt to cohere within ecological economic rationality. How often do Democrat candidates use the phrase 'environmental capital'?

Free enterprise is a great tool, and capital is a good byproduct, and all that is need to direct it toward resolving ecological economic challenges is good regulatory management by intelligent politicians. A political leader should understand environmental economics, classical economics and social philosophy and value theory well enough to be a capable of advancing the reform of capitalism through measure that would provide incentives for sustainable programs, good land use, intelligent building design and efficient resource use while restoring the health of the environment.

That may sound difficult. Yet there are some that are qualified. Looking to hoary socialism or putting manacles on free enterprise will simple advance repressive government despotism, tyranny and eventually dictatorship of some authority while the world falls into more desperate times.



* For Profit Prisons- Corrupt or Not?

Fundamentally arresting the innocent or violating constitutional rights of individuals for the economic advantage of the corrupt seems to be the largest problem. Yet I disagree that privately operated prisons are inherently evil, though I am no expert.

If the Judiciary were privately run then there would be an enormous problem that ends democracy I would think. Yet private contractors responding to government contracts should create efficiency, and the contracts need not be extended if their performance was poor.

Maybe the largest problem is that the government writes poor contracts that don't reward private prisons for performance or take away money for high recidivism rates. Prisons that produce excellent 'graduates' should be rewarded.

The private sector is supposed to produce better products or services through competition and the profit motive. If government officials writing contracts are stupid or corrupt they wouldn't even know what sort of results to reward or penalize.

Governments like to expand in size too. Government jobs are fundamentally the best-paying and safest bet for ordinary people to work for with good retirement and health benefits, good pay and easy hours. Building more public prisons staffed by union workers is very expensive and difficult to change or close too-probably more difficult to shut down than a private prison.

The corruption of the old south before the end of peonage, involuntary servitude, share cropping, work gangs and reconstruction era neo-slavery in for-profit subjugation was a terrible offense against democracy. Plainly history shows that different cultures merging can be brutal and slow to change. Before modern technology it was challenging even to communicate well from city to city for many people. That social isolation allowed the corrupt to flourish and corrupt organizations to prosper. Nearly all human social organizations seek to increase in size and power. People occupy roles in organizations with inertial drive seeking to be materially rewarded and secure.

Free enterprise given some liberty to experiment with the means and methods to deliver select reform criteria may produce better results than government thinkers that have largely failed to generate satisfactory results so far.

Many have noted that drug dealers often called low level go to jail a lot. No one has commented that illegal mind-altering drugs cause brain damage in people, and that altered brains and thought can drive people to commit crimes-even if they are not drug sales crimes. Stopping the epidemic of brain damage; opioid use cause brain damage and even marijuana is believed to damage white matter-the corpus callosum connecting the haves of the brain together.

If Dissidents of Hong Kong Owned Guns Would Freedom Reign?

Hong Kong has had a spate of civil unrest with dissidents protesting mainland Chinese imposition of right of extraordinary rendition of citizens of Hong Kong to distant prison and black sites. I suppose it could be held as an example of state tyranny when citizens are disarmed and have no real capacity for armed resistance against state corruption.

In the United States 10,000 people are killed annually by drunk drivers versus 100 killed by 'mass shooters'. The media and Democrats flail about seeking to disarm American citizens to prevent the death of 100 yet say nothing about taking away cars and booze to save the 10,000. That is because tyrants and dictatorships prefer passive cattle without ability to protest the feed lot conditions that peers with guns that support democracy and a fair tax rate on the rich so they cannot become oligarchs or royals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_anti-extradition_bill_protests

U.S. Reps that are Foes of Israel Shouldn't Expect Free Pass to Visit

When a pair of Muslim malcontents were denied admission to visit Israel recently some Democrats were upset. Some thing happened to some people and they cared about it. They had no good reason to be miffed except for stupidity and the expectation of U.S. privilege to trample on any nation's interests they desire.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ted-lieu-david-friedman-israel

Obviously not all U.S. politicians are hacks and enemies of select nations itching for opportunities to stir up evil if they can get inside, yet some may be.

Michigan and Minnesota are as much to blame for electing radicals that are out of touch with the historical stance of Americans as friends of Israel as the Representatives themselves for seeming anti-American as well as anti-Israel.

When Israel relented and gave permission to Rep. Tlaib to visit her grandmother if she promised not to organize terrorism or intifadas, the representative decided not to visit.

As a practical matter U.S. Representatives should not expect to be well received if even allowed to visit nations they have expressed obvious hatred and malevolence to. The eagle and stars and stripes do have some prestige, well, a little except maybe in the Democrat party in some places, yet wrapping themselves in a flag so they can have a chance to subvert foreign nations isn't a reasonable expectation.

During the Reagan administration the subversive Canadian author Farley Mowatt was banned from visiting the United States. Actually I like Mowatt's writing such as I have read of it (Never Cry Wolf and Before the Norse. One must wonder though, in comparison to Talib and Omar, he seems fairly tame. Would many nations actually want Tlaib and Omar to visit? Perhaps Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un would roll out the red carpet for them?

Why the US Women's Soccer Team Should Not Get Equal Pay

Equal pay is a phony concept for pro sports; teams should get paid what they're worth for winning as a percent of company profit. Equal pay with the plumber's union or some other abstract body of people out there is unrealistic. If women's soccer brings in more people to watch than the men's team they should be paid more.

Former Vice President Biden has said there are many more genders than two out there. Some might reasonably be worth more in working some particular task, yet in others the matter is not relevant to what the pot boils down to. As one mucks over the fine residue at the bottom, one discovers equality is not determined by abstract performance. Instead production is determined in show business sports through revenues for the organizing and managing body.

The women's team apparently brought in more viewers than the men's team by far. Equality is just silly- they evidently are worth more. Pay should be tied in to production that for show business is viewer-consumers buying the product. If some women's soccer star walks in to a bar and punches an old man in the side of the head who is sitting down minding his own business, then her pay should suffer as viewers are turned off. Yet if she is a good role model, the business value should rise.

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2019/8/15/20807066/uswnt-equal-pay-lawsuit-us-soccer-federation-mediation

Sometimes it is a bad idea to gouge as much as one can. Dak Prescott, the Cowboys brilliant young quarterback recently turned down a $30 million a year contract. He should have taken it yet limited it to three years. Tom Brady once took a pay cut for the team and Prescott should have been a leader and done that too, If the Cowboys win a title or the Superbowl his next contract could be worth $50 million annually. Neither is it a good idea to shrimp the women's team and pay them less than the perennial loser male team. It's the box office that counts; women's soccer is far more valuable in some venues than than men's soccer.