@JunkScience My thought about the federal debt: Thank you, America, for providing me a risk-free security for parking my savings, for paying me my interest in full and on time without fail, and for rolling your debt over by offering me a new T-bill every time my old one matures. I love it.

@NBCNews Amazon is one of the best ever innovations in retail. Thank you, Jeff Bezos & Co., for a near-perfect service.

@MaileOnX @elonmusk @cremieuxrecueil No, we do NOT need a balanced budget. Here's why:

@elonmusk @cremieuxrecueil Balancing the budget is the wrong priority. Growth enhancement should be top of list. You should know this; I'm surprised you apparently don't.

@elonmusk Sorry, upholding the law sometimes runs counter to the will of the people. That's their job. Final authority on that: Supreme Court. So, no.

@AlecStapp Are subsidies still a major factor in the investment decisions, or are they self-sufficient by now?

@zerohedge @federalreserve @neelkashkari Please link to the evidence that the reason was to help Biden get re-elected. Thanks in advance.

@brithume

@bennyjohnson

Reminds me of The Onion headline from around 2002: "Lee Greenwood Advocates Invasion of Iraq."

@ChrisMartzWX ?. So, does it coincide with it?

The Panama Canal controversy will help me sort out the Trump sycophants from the Republicans with still-intact backbones. In that sense, this is good. (H/T Alan Reynolds.) If the lying to date by Trump and Rubio is just a so-called negotiating tactic to get lower rates, it's a stupid tactic. Here's the WSJ article:

Thanks for that ad hominem attack on economists by an economist. (I have read Keen's book cover to cover and enjoyed it immensely.) I've also paid attention to the climate topic for at least three decades, and have noticed that ad hominem is common to most participants in the "climate" discussion; i.e., it's not limited to the economists or the skeptics. Unfortunately, ad hominem -- which admittedly can be entertaining -- has no role in the scientific method. Climate-crisis "science" depends on the following hypothesis being true: "Human CO₂ emissions have caused most of the observed ᐃGMST." Therefore, anyone who understands the scientific method, and who honestly believes climate is (or soon will be) in a crisis, should either: 1. Define scientific observations which would falsify that hypothesis, as Einstein did regarding his general theory of relativity; or... 2. Stop calling it climate "science." Instead, call it climate "politics" or "religion" or "conjecture."

@TonyClimate Tony, ask any AI this and see what you think. "List some observations or experiments that would falsify the hypothesis that human-emitted CO2, as opposed to naturally-created CO2, causes most of the observed increase in GMST."

@bonchieredstate You're right; it's as predictable as you never finding anything questionable about anything Trump does ever. So predictable.

@RepDonBeyer A "ripoff" compared to what? Please explain.

@TonyClimate @Liz_Cheney Family money, maybe?

@ChrisMartzWX I really tried to understand what Kendrick was saying/singing. But I failed. Way back when, I could understand what Johnny Mathis was singing, and I liked it. Times have changed.

@mkhammer Maybe Sen Warren could explain the halftime show(?). I did not understand one word he said, and I was really trying. It's "art" -- correct?