onomy.

Now some people have argued, yeah but what about the deficit? To which I say nobody even knows what a government deficit is. It's not like personal debt. Unlike you, the government doesn't actually have to pay its debt. And I know somebody just went, what? What do you mean the government doesn't have to pay its debt? If it doesn't it'll default. No, no. The government just has to pay the interest on the debt. You can't do that? Eventually if you have a business or personal loan as an individual or as a company, eventually you have to pay it off, right? After you've paid it down you can talk about refinancing and getting other loans. But even if you have a revolving credit you have to pay it down. The government doesn't need to do that. The government can simply pay the inflation interest rate and wait for inflation to take what is a gigantic number down to a small number. But of course it could only do that if it's not adding to the debt more than it's deflating. But the point is it's not like regular debt.

So people who are looking at the economy and saying this is terrible don't really understand how national debt works. The other thing people don't understand is that, I understand, my factual belief, subject to your fact-checking, that the percentage of debt is actually not as high as it's been in the past. So as a number it's the biggest number it's ever been. But as a percentage of GDP I believe it's been higher in the past. So there's that.

And the other thing people don't understand is that when interest rates are low that's a good time to borrow a bunch of money. And interest rates have been low for a while. So it's actually a pretty good time to rack up some debt if your intention is to stimulate the economy and if you think in the long run you have a way to trim that debt later. If you know if it's going to go up forever you've got problems. But you should be paying down the debt when the interest rate is high. And I think the interest rate was higher during the Bill Clinton years, wasn't it? So that would have been a time to pay down the debt as Clinton did. And under Obama and under Trump, even not Obama and Trump, yeah the interest rates were low. So it's probably a good time to run up some debt and use other people's money anyway.

The point is nobody really knows how much debt is too much. But we all feel like we're economists when we talk about this thing. Somebody says this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You left out your reasons. Hey it was probably an oversight. Did your criticism accidentally leave out the reason or is it just dumb because it's not what you think? Because if you and I are talking to each other and you think I'm an idiot and I think you're an idiot we can't tell which one is right. So I can't rule it out. I can't rule out that everything I say on these Periscopes or even just that one thing is completely stupid. Can't rule it out. But if you've ruled it down on your end we've already identified who's the dumb one here.

All right. So my point being that the factual stuff about the president is being disproven at a fairly regular clip. He hasn't blown up the world. He has not acted crazy. He has not gotten richer as far as we could tell. He's probably gotten poorer. So you have to, if all the facts are not lining up, you have to back up to mind-reading.

So CNN, the enemy of the people, and by the way you know the president has been saying that fake news is the enemy of the people. Well I don't think there's a distinction anymore. It feels to me that CNN has just gone over to the dark side and they're no longer even trying to present the news because most of the reporting is about the president. And the way they present the president is so obviously opinion dressed up as news that I don't know if you can make that distinction anymore about the fake news versus CNN. It feels like they've completely gone over to the darkest of the dark side. I mean this is literally evil. This is actual literal evil. But I almost wonder if they even know it. Like if you were to talk to somebody from CNN privately, you know, and any of the on-air talent, if you could get them in the room privately and talk to them, would they know what they're doing? Because I actually don't know the answer to that. And I try to be consistent about not reading minds of other people and just observing what's happening. You can observe that what they're promoting as news is clearly not true and clearly slanted for a narrative. I mean that part is obvious. It's obvious on both sides, right? Nobody's doubting that anymore. But we don't know exactly what they're thinking. And I'm actually genuinely curious.

There are some people, and I would say Ann Navarro, somebody mentioned her name, probably are in the category of, you know, if you're just going to bet without actually knowing, because again we can't read their minds, I would bet that there's a mixture of people who really believe what they're saying and some of them who don't but are sort of going along with it. You know I would love to know what that breakdown is. I feel like I can tell by looking at their demeanor but I think that's probably my imagination anyway.

So the enemy of the people is working hard this week. Look for the number of stories where mind-reading is the primary thing they have to buy into to buy the rest of the story.

All right. Will I go on Bill Maher again? I don't see the slightest chance that Bill Maher would invite me on his show again. Do you think there's even the smallest chance that I could ever be on Bill Maher's show again? Now keep in mind that my appearance there probably got pretty good rat