Goldener Bar said:
sycasey said:
Goldener Bar said:
sycasey said:
Goldener Bar said:
sycasey said:
Goldener Bar said:
dimitrig said:
Goldener Bar said:
Goldener Bar said:
Let's see who on this forum can accurately explain what's wrong with Kevin McCarthy's second sentence here.
Since nobody took me up on my offer and since the debt ceiling standoff ended exactly the way every other one did (despite the Chicken Little narrative), this is the problem with the national debt discussion.
The United States doesn't borrow money from anyone in the sense of how regular people view lending because they don't have to. They own the printing press. They essentially create their own "credit card" out of thin air in the form of government bonds and other securities. When the bonds and securities purchased by the Chinese come due, the United States credits their reserve account and then China decides what they want to do with that money (they could buy more securities or spend it somewhere else).
The notion that the United States is indebted to any nation is poppycock. Federal government checks don't bounce and never will, which is why Social Security will never be insolvent and why national health care is the best solution to that perpetual problem.
You might still get your Social Security payments but after the devaluation of the dollar they might just buy you a roll of toilet paper or two.
It's incompatible to be both pro-Ukrainian war and anti-inflation.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-causes-inflation/22616
Except it wasn't the US government who started the war.
What position did John Pilger hold within the US government and how many troops did he send in to Ukraine?
What position did Rachel Maddow hold within the Trump Administration and how many contacts did she have with Russian government officials?
Who cares? What does this have to do with the war in Ukraine?
I figured as long as you were smearing a journalist for their opinion, I'd join in on the fun. However, it would have saved a lot of time if you just admitted you couldn't counter the argument that the U.S. did everything they could to make this war happened and moved on.
The irony of your smear is that there is far more factual support for John Pilger's reporting than Rachel Maddow's reporting.
Pretty sure I didn't "smear" John Pilger, just pointed out that he is not American and never held any position in US government, and so is not an example of the US "admitting" anything. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you were unable to follow the line of argument and just went to partisan tit-for-tat.