The funding of the government, and deficit spending, does not necessarily cause inflation.
That isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of the late Milton Friedman. The article mentioned on Free Republic conflates government spending with inflation and it just isn't so, according to Friedman. According to Friedman, inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Consequently, there could be inflation when the gold supply increases and the country is on the gold standard.
Deficit spending climbed faster during the Reagan years, but inflation WENT DOWN from double digits to single digits. So, there is no connection to deficit spending.
What makes deficit spending so bad is that the government finances spending with DEBT. There is no need to finance government with so much DEBT. But that is how it is done, and the deficits are being aggravated by the high cost of debt.
Stop giving excuses for hating on Trump. Let him do the job he was elected to do, and wait until something happens before you start complaining about it. Inflation didn't go up because of tariffs, either. These people...
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Thursday, February 5, 2026
This is a crock, as usual
Ann Barnhardt
People seem to be clicking on that for some reason.
Is something going on with her that I don't know about?
I have no news on that subject.
If people want my reaction, there does seem to be quite a few posts on the subject of Ann Barnhardt on this blog.
If there's anything new besides what's already here, all I can mention is that I don't know exactly what to think about her.
Here's a link to one of the posts I dredged up on a search. Nothing much different today than it was back then in 2015.
She's got a relatively new page called BarnhardtMemes. You can try that link if you haven't tried it before.
Today's quick takes, 2/5/26
A Seinfeld drama extravaganza of nothingburgers; total waste of time and effort.
This looks like another defeat for the GOP to me. All predictable, but the GOP did it anyway.
The list is short. Just revving things up for today, bear with me.
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Quick take on the news, 2/4/26
Judicial coup posts
1) Townhall post --- The Judicial coup continues judge blocks ice from using tear gas on leftist agitators in Portland,
2) Zero-Hedge Boasberg,
3) Editorial on PowerLine blog: Comment: Yet GOP voters are heap big mad at Trump--why??? You can't show up for important special elections when a narrow majority in Congress is on the line? That one is on the voters AND the party. They keep letting Democrats off the hook. This should cost Democrats, but instead they get rewarded for outrageous behavior. All because the party and the people cannot stay on target.,
4) PowerLine post which shows things may not be THAT bad:
5) My reaction to all this: Why should we LOSE the message war when all the facts, and all the potential benefits should argue that we should win BIG TIME, and
6) Here's another way of putting it: If you let the Democrats back in, then you shoot yourselves in the foot. But perhaps there are those who would prefer a WAR. Maybe that's what it would take, but you MAY be able to avoid that. Indeed, everything possible should be done in order to prevent that. A war is what the Dems want. Why give it to them?
the good the bad and the ugly part 10
By the way, this is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Texas Special Election
Here's an op-ed that will be embedded as a web-page inside this post. This technique isn't always successful, so it will bear watching. If the New York Post blocks it, it will have to come down, but the link to it will remain.
So, I blog-splained enough for this post.
As for the content of the op-ed, there is a lot of hand-wringing of the poor turnout from the GOP for the special election. It also involved a Congressional seat that should've remained with the GOP. It was held in a "ruby-red" district. However, the turnout was terrible. The Dems on the other hand, showed up and snatched away the Federal seat in Congress, as well as a Texas Senatorial seat.
Not very encouraging ya'll. The news doesn't look good either, as the Democrats managed to win the budget battle that has just taken place in DC over the shutdown. No doubt this ridiculous showing has the GOP base in a tizzy.
If this keeps up, DC might as well fly the hammer and sickle flag soon. The GOP needs to get its poo-poo together and fast.
In the end, it may only serve the Dems as a temporary propaganda victory. If the GOP has the base fired up and willing to show for this special election, the Dems would've lost. Therefore, there's not necessarily all that much at stake here; however it is indeed a shot over the bow for the GOP. If they won't get it together, they're going to disappoint in the fall.
It won't embed, so never mind that. What's with that, anyway? What's the harm in embedding like that? The link is below:
Link
What does "mansplain" mean?
This sentence isn't "mansplain", but "blogsplain" instead. That means it is a reaction to what the audience is clicking on recently. Like this post, fer instance.
As for the "mansplain part, maybe there's a girlsplain, too. Uh, oh! That may have been a mansplain violation!
Girlsplain may be defined to the guys as: "you're in a heap of trouble, boy".
I've got another descriptive phrase in mind, but I won't go there.
I'd get girlsplain session, I do think.
Well, I don't know what brought it all on. Maybe I need someone to explain what all the splaining is about.
I know. Here's another idee. Maybe there's a liberalsplain. Liberalsplain means "shut up".
When a lib loses an argument, they will say "shut up" because that's all they know.
10/14/19:
Comment:
Quick update:
5:33 pm:
What do they call this "Bush-splaining"?
4:45 pm:
Navarro is quoted to have said "Don't mansplain me!" to Senator Paul.
I've seen the term before. It doesn't interest me, generally, to follow their weird vocabulary. But you have to understand the enemy. It does look more and more like they are committed enemies.
So what does this word mean?
:: Wikipedia "wikisplains" it to me: "the person being explained to knows more than the person explaining it." Aah!!! So, the only thing required is that the person being talked to is the feeling that she is being talked down to. It is condescending, in other words. Maybe she knows more than the guy does, maybe she doesn't. But all she needs to feel is that she knows more, and that is all that matters, evidently.
Another jewel I'll pluck here: New York Times labeled it as "words of the year". Yeah, the New York Times is one helluva authority now.
When it comes to the lefties, only they can talk down to anybody, since they know so much.
The problem is to identify it as a gender item, when it doesn't have to be. Anybody can talk beyond their knowledge level. Yeah, I'm sure I've done it too. Lots of times. The world is a tough place, what can I say? But if you hide behind something that is used as an excuse, maybe you are wrong.
I think it is shallow, and that is what determines so many things today. Maybe shallowness has always been the way of the world. But it never seemed to be so clear to me as it does today.
Anti-Socialism Brought Ana Navarro Into GOP. Now It’s Chasing Her Out https://t.co/A0vJyWAmpR— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 14, 2019