Time Magazine and the Big Lie in economics

The Big Lie in economics, very simply, is: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.”

Nearly all the popular misunderstandings in economics devolve from that five-word statement, or rather, misstatement.

While state taxes fund state spending, and city taxes fund city spending and euro-nation taxes fund euro-nation spending, U.S. federal taxes most assuredly do not fund federal spending.

In fact, even if all federal tax collections ceased, and not one tax dollar was sent by the private sector to the federal government, the government still could continue spending, forever.

The reason: The U.S. federal government, unlike the states, cities, and euro nations, uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign.

It has the unlimited ability to create any amount of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It never can run short of dollars.

Faced with an invoice of a trillion dollars or even a trillion, trillion, trillion dollars, the U.S. government could pay it today, simply by creating dollars, ad hoc.

Because tax collections have zero effect on the federal government’s ability to pay, we taxpayers are not liable for federal debts.

Even if the government were faced with that above-mentioned, theoretical bill of a trillion, trillion, trillion dollars, we U.S. taxpayers would not owe one cent. Nor would our children and grandchildren have any liability whatsoever.

Yes, you and your kin, and all your neighbors and friends, and everyone in your state, and in the entire country could cease paying federal taxes today, and that would have no effect on the federal government’s ability to pay its bills. (You’d have to keep paying state, county and city taxes, however. They are monetarily non-sovereign.)

Those are the facts, the absolute facts of economics. How then can you explain the persistence of such misleading articles as this one by James Grant and Time Magazine:

The Big Lie Time Magazine

The United States of Insolvency
James Grant, the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer
$13,903,107,629,266. Can the nation afford this much debt? James Grant offers his view

This much I have learned about debt after 40 years of writing and study: It is better not to incur it. Once it is incurred, it is better to pay it off. America, we have a problem.

We owe more than we can easily repay. We spend too much and borrow too much. Worse, we promise too much. We conjure dollar bills by the trillions–pull them right out of thin air. I won’t insist that this can’t go on, because it has. I only say that it will eventually stop.

I don’t know the date, but I believe that I know the reason. It will stop when the world loses confidence in the dollars we owe.

Come that moment of truth, the nation will resemble Chicago, a once prosperous polity now trying to persuade its once trusting creditors that it is actually solvent.

There, in a couple of short paragraphs, you see the commonly promulgated Big Lie about our economy — some half truths leavened with a giant dollop of lies.

Begin with the misleading title of the article: “The United States of Insolvency.” Grant and Time immediately tell you a lie.

The United States never can become insolvent — i.e. unable to pay its bills — unless Congress and the President want it (via the misleading “debt limit” game they play to confuse you).

Grant/Time said, “It is better to pay (the debt) off.” They lied to you.

The debt is nothing more than the total of T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. In short, bank deposits. There is no reason to pay off these bank deposits, though the federal government could do it tomorrow, if it wished.

The purpose of the so-called “debt,” i.e. T-securities, is to twofold: To help the Fed control interest rates and the money supply, and to provide a safe investment for the private sector.

Grant/Time said, “. . . more than we can easily repay.” They lied to you. We could repay those deposits today, simply by transferring them back to the owners’ checking accounts. No new dollars needed.

Grant/Time said, “We conjure dollar bills by the trillions–pull them right out of thin air,” which is absolutely true. It’s what we always have done, for the past 240 years of our existence. It is what all Monetarily Sovereign nations, like Canada, China, Australia, Japan, the UK, et al do. Creating money from thin air is what grows our economy.

In the past, whenever we stopped “conjuring” dollars, the economy stopped growing and we went into recessions and depressions.

Grant/Time said, “It (growing debt) will stop when the world loses confidence in the dollars we owe.”

This is a more subtle form of the Big Lie. The world simultaneously would have to lose confidence in China’s, Australia’s, Canada’s, the UK’s, and Japan’s money, as well as the euro and the money of all other governments for the U.S., the wealthiest nation on earth, to have difficulty issuing dollars.

Grant/Time said, “. . . the nation will resemble Chicago . . . ” They lied to you.

The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. Chicago’s government is monetarily non-sovereign. The former has the unlimited ability to create dollars. The latter does not.

It’s as though Grant/Time don’t understand the difference between butter and a butterfly. The false comparison between federal financing and personal financing is an often-used lie.

Through wars, recessions, depressions, and inflations the U.S. government never has run short of dollars, and indeed, cannot run short of dollars.

You have been lied to for years and years. President Obama lied to you back in 2011, by making the same false comparison between federal financing and personal financing. He said:

“It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount — by $4 trillion.

“So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.

“Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.

“This is not class warfare. It’s math. The money is going to have to come from someplace.

He lied to you then, and he continues to lie to you now, boldface, absolute lies.

Yes, the money has to come from someplace. The federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill. Obama knows it. His advisors know it. Stephanie Kelton, the chief Democratic economist on the Senate Budget Committee knows it (though she is prevented from revealing it).

Why did Obama lie to you in 2011? Why did Grant and Time Magazine lie to you last April? Why have the media, the politicians and the university economists lied to you for decades?

Because they are paid by and controlled by the very rich, and the very rich want to control you by levying unnecessary taxes, and by restricting your benefits.

Obama is paid by rich contributors who will support him and his family after he leaves office. Grant was paid by Time which is owned and controlled by the very rich.

The rich control America. The Gap between the rich and the rest is what makes them rich (without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.)

The rich widen the Gap by limiting the amount of healthcare you receive — refusing the free healthcare the government easily could provide.

They widen the Gap by limiting your Social Security — taxing it and by starting it later and later.

They widen the Gap by limiting your educational possibilities (via via the disgraceful student loan program).

They steal your money to impoverish you so you will need to beg them for help, and then you will send them contributions in hopes of getting that help.

You, the people of America are the victims of The Big Lie. You have been so brainwashed by our thought-leaders, that you angrily will defend The Big Lie. Consider the irony of the victims defending the victimizers.

If you understand Monetary Sovereignty, and try to explain it, eventually you will encounter this retort: “Yes the government always can print money, but that will cause inflation; look at Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.”

The people, who tell you that, seldom understand they tacitly have admitted the federal government never can run short of money (“. . . always can print money. . . “), so they have dissolved their entire argument about taxes being necessary, and all they have left is their argument about hyperinflation.

They base their concern on the false belief that Dollar Value = 1/Supply, that is, the greater the Supply of dollars, the less their Value (i.e inflation). That is what the rich want you to believe

However, the real formula is Dollar Value = Demand/Supply. The greater the Demand for dollars, the greater the Value of dollars.

And Demand is based on Reward/Risk. And Reward is interest. That is why, for the past century, the Fed has controlled inflation at close to its target rate of 2%, by controlling interest rates.

And as for the bogeyman of Zimbabwe/Weimar hyperinflation:

  1. The U.S. never has had a hyperinflation, despite two centuries of “debt” growth — even today, while Time publishes scare articles, inflation is quite low, and
  2. Hyperinflations are not caused by money creation. They are caused by specific economic factors. Zimbabwe’s was caused by Robert Mugabe’s stealing of farm land from farmers and giving to people who didn’t know how to farm. The resultant food shortage caused hyperinflation. Weimar’s hyperinflation was caused by onerous repayment requirements put on Germany by the Allies.

Excessive money creation is a common response to hyperinflation. In short, hyperinflations cause excessive money creation and not the other way around.

The Big Lie — Federal taxes fund federal spending — has been used for centuries to control you.

So long as you continue to believe the Big Lie, the very rich and powerful will continue to control every aspect of your and your family’s lives, their health, their education, and their finances — from birth to death.

The rich want you to believe resistance is futile, but it’s not. You merely first must understand you are being lied to by The Big Lie.

Then demand the truth and close the Gap.

Begin with the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.


17 thoughts on “Time Magazine and the Big Lie in economics

  1. I’ve been saying it for three years now. The only way to solve this control the wealthy have is the Constitutional Amendment. In it we must outlaw all usury on loans of money and end private creation of money. The only purposes for which money can be created to keep the money sovereign are to pay for government operations, social programs and public infrastructure. Such an amendment can succeed.

    Tell Stephen Zarlenga and any other reformers for me that anything less will result again in failure. Rev. Coughlin said it in 1937, “Relief that Fails to Relieve”.


    1. In 2008 a WSJ article asserted that the Fed can create all the FRNs it wants to.

      Related to this we can safely assert that Elizabeth Harris is not telling the whole story. Treasury, at present, issues bonds which the Fed purchases and upon which Treasury mostly pays interest (except for a few of the recent bond issues after 2008). The Fed also places a lot of the T-bonds at the Open Market Committee which can then be purchased by the private sector. Those which do not sell are held by the Fed.

      So we know that at present the Fed issues FRNs (as either paper currency or cyberspace digits). We also know that the only money Treasury issues is comprised of bonds. This money is debt, which is consistent with the Godless definition of modern money.

      When the Federal Government does not collect sufficient revenue through taxation to pay for public dues, it borrows FRNs from the Fed when it issues T-bonds. So all American money (currency and credit) is presently deflationary debt, except for coins. The process is quite simple. So why confuse the people with circular argumentation that obfuscates the true nature of this Godless system of dishonest money. I call it theft.

      At least Zarlenga sees the banking legerdemain. I would therefore throw my support to him rather than anyone at this web forum. Lincoln and Chase were the wisest yet, even though they only had half of the solution.


      1. 1. God has nothing to do with it, so kindly don’t attempt to buttress your argument with religious references.

        2. It is true that the federal government keeps books.

        3. It also is true that its bookkeeping is quite convoluted, with credits and debits to a multitude of balance sheets.

        4. And finally, it is true that this complexity can disguise this fundamental fact of U.S. economics:

        –Dollars are created in two ways: By private borrowing (mostly from banks) and by the federal payment of bills to the non-federal sectors.

        –Dollars are destroyed in two ways: By the repayment of loans and by federal taxes

        One can be confused by the Byzantine course of federal Rube Goldbergesque bookkeeping in a multitude of directions.

        It might seem that one federal agency lends to another, and then lends yet again to another, but none of this record keeping affects money creation, unless one believes that transferring dollars from the left pocket to the right pocket constitutes money creation.

        The Treasury’s issuance of bonds, which eventually may be purchased by the Fed, creates zero dollars. Dollars exist only in the non-federal sector (including dollars in T-security accounts stored at the Fed).

        The Federal government keeps records, but itself has no dollars. If you disagree, let me know how many dollars the federal government has.


        1. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell wrote: “The Federal government keeps records, but itself has no dollars. If you disagree, let me know how many dollars the federal government has.”

          Daniel Krynicki has learned the following: If the Federal government has issued $18 Trillion in bonds for which it is liable to pay back to whomever holds the bonds, then there must exist $18 Trillion in FRNs somewhere at large that Treasury has disbursed in payment of the public dues. But it appears that out of the $500 Billion in interest that presently goes to annually service the national debt, not one penny of it is used to lower the principal of the bonds. The national debt (bond principal) is instead increasing.

          Now if the Federal government is the representative of, for and by the people – if the people of the United States of America are sovereign – then why under heaven would either the people or their representatives issue one T-bond.

          Thomas Edison Explains Money
          (Transcribed from The Spotlight, Liberty Lobby from an August 1983 Issue. The Spotlight is now known as American Free Press)
          This is what America’s populist inventor, Thomas Edison, had to say about our impossible monetary system. He made the remarks while discussing the proposed Mussel Shoals Dam electric power project.

          By Thomas A. Edison
          People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project, nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest… But here is the point: If the nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent. Whereas the currency – the honest sort provided by the Constitution – pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the people were not good, then the bonds would be not good either. It is a terrible situation when the government, to insure the national wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan.

          (Please note that Edison’s article did not even address, when he wrote it, that the bankers were already printing fiat money by the bale. The gold they held in reserves constituted only one thirtieth of the currency they were issuing [both printing press currency and credit].)


  2. Treasury borrows FRNs from the Fed to spend into circulation. In addition to paying back the principal amount (of the bonds), interest must also be paid. But the interest has not yet been created. More must be borrowed in order to obtain the amount needed to pay the interest. More money thus disappears from circulation than existed in the principal of the original bond. The process is therefore deflationary removing more money from circulation than that which exists.

    Until the people become creators of their own currency and credit we are debt slaves to the usurers. Outlawing usury solves the problems of monetary deflation and price inflation.


    1. [1] “Treasury borrows FRNs from the Fed to spend into circulation.”

      That is Ellen Brown and the “positive money” people talking. They falsely believe that all money is created by banks as loans.

      Banks do indeed create money when banks make loans, but the U.S. government likewise creates money when it spends. The U.S. government does not borrow its spending money from the Fed, or from bankers, from China, or from anyone else.

      [2] “In addition to paying back the principal amount (of the bonds), interest must also be paid. But the interest has not yet been created. More must be borrowed in order to obtain the amount needed to pay the interest.”

      No. When you buy a T-security, your purchase money is debited from your checking account, and is credited to a Fed savings account in your name. When your T-security matures, the process is reversed. Your Fed savings account is debited, and your personal checking account is credited by the amount of the security, plus the interest. In this way the Fed creates interest money out of thin air.

      Consider a sports scoreboard. Its points have no physical existence, and therefore have no physical limit. By changing the numbers on the scoreboard, we create points out of thin air, and we send points back into thin air. The U.S. government creates and destroys money in exactly the same way.

      In addition to this, banks create money out of thin air by making loans. Loan money is sent back into thin air (i.e. zeroed out) when the loan is paid off. Banks make their profit off the interest paid on the loan.

      Many people falsely believe that bank lending is the ONLY way that money is created

      [3] “More money thus disappears from circulation than existed in the principal of the original bond. The process is therefore deflationary removing more money from circulation than that which exists. Until the people become creators of their own currency and credit we are debt slaves to the usurers. Outlawing usury solves the problems of monetary deflation and price inflation.”

      The people (or at least their representatives) already create their own currency. It is called U.S. government spending.


      Incidentally, currency is not money. Currency merely represents money. Currency can be spent or saved like money, but actual money (true money) only exists in the human mind, and can be represented by numbers on bank ledgers, or by tokens that we call currency.

      Likewise on a scoreboard, the numbers are not points. The numbers merely represent points. Actual points only exist in the human mind.

      The reason why bankers, rich people, and their puppet politicians have power is that we stupidly let them control the scoreboard.


        1. The word “Christian” is mentioned an astounding 55 times in the document. Anyone who repeatedly refers to religion in trying to make points about economics, simply does not know what he/she is talking about.


          1. Aside from the prohibition of all domestic usury in ancient Israel there are also several other secular documents cited in my paper demonstrating the vacuous moral intent that is embodied in usury lending. Among them are the following:

            Thomas Jefferson’s three letters to John Wayles Eppes in 1813.

            “Financial History of the United States” by Davis Rich Dewey, Professor of Economics and Statistics – MIT. ibid

            Money Creators by Gertrude M. Coogan, Master’s Degree in Economics and Finance by Northwestern University. She also did eight years as a Security Analyst for The Northern Trust Company of Chicago.

            Today, one needs only to look into Stephen Zarlenga’s tome to find some support for the arguments against allowing the private sector the privilege of creating any money.

            And by the way, the religious and ceremonial aspects of ancient Israel’s religion had nothing to do with the civil law aspects in the Torah. The Torah itself included in it ancient Israel’s national civil laws. So to invoke religious bias by using this body of civil laws is indeed a disingenuous, flawed objection.


          2. So, you don’t want the private sector to create money?

            Every time you borrow from a bank, you create money.
            Every time you make a deposit into your bank account, you create money.
            Every time you buy a traveler’s check, you create money.
            Every time you take out a car loan, you create money.
            Every time you use your credit card, you create money.

            When you bought your house with a mortgage and when you bought your car with a loan, and when you paid for your groceries with a credit card, you created money.

            Are you sure you don’t want the private sector to create money?

            By the way, what is your definition of “usury”?


  3. Stephanie Kelton knows the truth but she is not allowed to tell the public.. I do not understand why she is not allowed to say so. For her to say so lies at the heart of the “First Amendment” Authorizing the government to decide what is true or false in government speech opens the door to partisan abuse. Her (Stephanie Kelton) has the right to say so. It is her First Amendment Right.First Amendment Right.

    Our own homegrown utopians in America may not put their ideology in such stark terms as those in other countries, but the instinct is unmistakably in direction of social control. The utopians cannot bear freedom. They cannot trust that most individuals, if left alone, will make the right choices, Utopians are the “Elite 1 percent:” who know best how people should live and order their lives. They are wiser, smarter, more caring that the rest of us—–or they believe. They see themselves as superior both morally and ethically, If the utopians cannot persuade people to voluntarily embrace their notions about how society should be structured, they are prepared to use coercion to achieve their objectives.


    1. “Her (Stephanie Kelton) has the right to say so. It is her First Amendment Right.”

      Hmmm . . . you sound like a utopian.

      The first rule in politics: Win the next election. I suspect Stephanie’s employers believe that exposing the Big Lie to the ignorant voting public would cost too many votes.

      I also suspect she is working behind the scenes to change things one small step at a time.

      It is your First Amendment right to call your boss a sh*thead, but would you do it to your boss’s face?

      Be honest.


      1. Maybe I took your “Stephanie Kelton,the chief Democratic economist out of context and maybe you took my reply out of context. You said she was prevented from saying so. (that is why I said she had right –“ First Amendment”

        There is a word in the English language, though not used very often, that is very important when it comes to achieving personal success in our lives. The word is “Context” and it means “to weave together.”

        No way I’m utopian.

        No one could possibly accuse me of being anti-capitalist, or socialist, or utopian. I’m in total solidarity with the 99%.

        I’m not disagreeing with you that exposing the Big Lie to ignorant voting public would cost to many votes. Not all but a lot are now starting to wake up—not as many as you and me would like to see—

        Our society is made up many different groups representing special interest, such as racial-ethnic groups, women, farmers, factory workers, bankers,bosses,and retired, to name a few. In this system, power is widely dispersed: as each group pursues its interest, it is blanced by others pursuing theirs. According to conflict perspective, lobbyists and even Congress are not at the center of decision-making: rather, the power elite makes the decisions that direct the country and shake the world.

        I spent 27 years in military service and been retired for 28 years. I achieved the rank of Sgt.Maj.-in the Marine Corps.

        We are taught what they call “TACT” a very polite way of telling and officer that he is Mess-up. in a tactful way. Which I have had do from time to time in my career especially with junior officers…same as Sh-thead

        Again Roger sorry for the taking out context—Keep up the good work!!!

        Semp Fi


        1. The most right-wing guy I know is an 85-year-old marine. His father voted only Republican, and he himself voted only Republican his whole life.

          Yesterday, this rock-ribbed Republican said to me, “What kind of idiot would vote for a con artist like Trump?”

          My response was, “The idiots who say they ‘don’t trust Hillary,’ but do trust Donald.”

          The times indeed are strange.


  4. All these “Fact Checkers” out there are concluding that Trump’s tax cutting proposals will increase the National Debt. It is ironic that they don’t realize that the National Debt is the Fiction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s