Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The “New Economy”

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 4, 2012, 7:16 a.m. EST by flip (6447)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The “New Economy” moniker is bubbling around lately, with a meaning recast far from President Bill Clinton’s neoliberal usage 20 years ago. The venerable Washington DC-based Institute for Policy Studies has its New Economy Working Group, a partnership with Yes! magazine and the 22,000-member Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE). At the core of the call for a New Economy is an effort to come up with practical alternatives that democratize the control of the economy—including workplaces, finance, and the structure of the firm—in ways that are ecologically sustainable.

The focus on finance—on shrinking a dangerously unstable, extractive banking sector and nurturing an alternative one—is powered by such people as John Fullerton, the former JPMorgan managing director who launched Capital Institute to promote the idea of finance “not as master but as servant” and sees a role for “social impact” investing in the New Economy.

It is in the New Economy movement that you’ll hear people talk about how to build a “no-growth” economy that shares more and taxes the earth less, a view promoted in the United States most notably by Boston College professor Juliet Schor. On the board of the new NEI are thinkers like Peter Victor of York University in Toronto, author of 2008’s Managing Without Growth: Smaller by Design Not Disaster, and Stewart Wallis, head of London’s New Economics Foundation, which has been popularizing the no-growth idea for years.

“Even if everybody was to rediscover Keynes, that’s not the answer,” Wallis told the NEI crowd, referring to the British economist who popularized government investment in the economy during downturns, even if it means running deficits, in order to boost demand and employment. “We can have an economy with high well-being, high social justice” that destroys the planet. “We need a new model, an economy that runs on very different metrics, maximizing returns to scarce ecological resources, maximizing returns [to] human well-being, good jobs.”

“We have to move from talking about ourselves as consumers to [regarding ourselves as] stewards.” But the New Economy movement is a big tent, and for some growth isn’t the question. For Marjorie Kelly, author of Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution, and a fellow of the Tellus Institute, the Boston-based think tank focused on sustainability, growth isn’t the focus. In a chat at the conference “bookstore,” she said,

The problem is not growth but too much finance. You have the overlap of debt, unemployment, lack of jobs for youth. ... We can’t have capital markets run the economy. It has a destructive focus. It’s starting to fall apart. That’s terrifying. You hold on desperately to what you have as it collapses. But no, you have an alternative. You have the Right, cutting taxes, deregulating. No serious thinker believes that those are the solutions. ...There’s an inevitable sorting process. There’s some loony ideas and we haven’t sorted that out yet. But they said that about democracy.

Following the NEF and Schumacher, the New Economy umbrella also covers those promoting more realistic economic indicators that measure people’s well-being and ecological costs, including the Green GDP. It considers which business forms—not just worker-owned companies but also so-called B-Corporations that consider social impact—might be compatible with a just, sustainable economy. It covers those challenging the decontextualized, value-free world of neoclassical economics because, as Massie said, “our current theories have blinded us.” In late June, this was the agenda of Juliet Schor’s week-long Summer Institute in New Economics at Boston College, where graduate students sat at the feet of Gar Alperovitz of the University of Maryland, James Boyce of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Duncan Foley of the New School, and others.

It’s a big tent, and feels a bit like the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century, when many elites and middle-class people began questioning and even challenging how capitalism was organized. Partly because of its high price tag, the Bard gathering was almost entirely white and highly educated, deploring poverty but not necessarily touched by it, yet highly motivated to build a more communal, cooperative economy. How these middle-class reformers will share leadership with low-income immigrants, progressive unions, and co-ops—key social bases for the movement—is a bit of a mystery. It’s no mystery, however, that any massive change in the U.S. political economy needs all these sectors pulling toward change.

49 Comments

49 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

I'm totally blown away by the following paragraph from original post...."It is in the New Economy movement that you’ll hear people talk about how to build a “no-growth” economy that shares more and taxes the earth less, a view promoted in the United States most notably by Boston College professor Juliet Schor. On the board of the new NEI are thinkers like Peter Victor of York University in Toronto, author of 2008’s Managing Without Growth: Smaller by Design Not Disaster, and Stewart Wallis, head of London’s New Economics Foundation, which has been popularizing the no-growth idea for years."

I came to that conclusion a while ago and it's kind of cool to see a think tank come up with a similar conclusion.

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

if you read buckminster fuller's "spaceship earth" he was promoting that idea in 1969 - it is common sense but try to get someone in power to say it!

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/04-3 Abby Scher

Please always give proper credit to the authors who write such articles. :-)

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 1 year ago

thank you for the link.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Good post

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (115) 1 year ago

Imagine trillions of dollars in cash that is held in secret around the world. Add to that hundreds of trillions of dollars on paper that dictate the obligations of the global economy. The scope of financial network dependency is unknown. No power on earth can accurately calculate the value or worth of the global economy.

The real microeconomic supply/demand considerations have always been out of the equation. The Federal Reserve, consumer price index, GDP, salary index, cost of living, unemployment rate, and even the census are crude approximations.

Wall St computers systems crash for a number of reasons including but not limited to complexity, speed, volume, data quality, fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption. The task of linking global government computing power is a project for the distant future considering the recent grid failure in India plunged 600 million people into darkness and shut down half of the country.

Max Keiser Reports http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiaax9GHFL0&list=PL2CC7F497C04A8A1B&feature=view_all

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Two generations of indolent, under-educated, and gadget-addicted children, are poised to take over our world.

The one percent have nurtured them to be passive consumers, and dilligent slackers, who have no concept of cause and effect.

They will drink the Kool-aid.

The de-population agenda is still on course.

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

all true but even before that our economic system was unsustainable - and still is

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

Don't you think you knuckleheads ought to go back to the drawing table as your economic policies aren't working. 1.4% GDP???

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Economic growth is not the answer. Working less hours for the same level of productivity is the answer.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

Without economic growth, we don't innovate or grow as a society. That is pretty simple.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Economic growth means more consumption. Economic efficiency is what is needed. Instead of sending printed documents across town five times by messenger during the same day because of revisions, the revisions are instead sent by email.

That is actually economic efficiency, not growth.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

You only get efficiency by incentivizing people with rewards, which means growth. Consumption is just a by product of supply. The more supply you have, the more consumption you will have. Price is the ultimate regulator.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Right now, americans pay 1 billion dollars a day on interest rate charges for 3 trillion dollars of consumer debt. If the entire 1 billion dollars a day was used to seed 100,000 projects at 10,000 dollars each, PER DAY, there would be no growth, yet every month 3 million projects could be funded at 10,000 dollars each.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

It would be great to not have debt, but those decisions are made by individual Americans not you as a dictator. That is called liberty.

There is no shortage of funding for projects.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

I think your response is either stupid or grossly insensitive.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

In your scenario, the $1 billion a day of interest charges either would be forgiven or not spent at all therefore the goods that consumers bought to incur that $1 billion a day would not have happened. In your scenario, somebody (government/dictator) would tell the consumer that they cannot make that purchase instead that money should be used to seed 100,000 projects. I am not sure what these projects are but maybe the goverment or the UN could make that decision. Of course there would be no corruption or self dealing (Solyndra) and these projects would be better and smarter than the average American or consumer making that decision.

Of course, there are numerous examples where this has worked - Soviet Union, Cuba, France, India, China. All of these countries are bastions of choice and liberty and provide full employment for their populations. Why not copy them?

Now who is insensitive?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

I think you are misunderstanding. The debt ALREADY EXISTS. The interest rate payment on that debt no longer assists in the purchase of that item.

If anything, it precludes the consumer from spending on current necessities, aka, the reverse of growth.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

So what do you want to do, wipe away interest charges?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

On existing debt yes. Then the idea is to not borrow as much.

One huge disadvantage the consumer has is that the media tends to report rising consumer debt as a good thing if it is accompanied by an increase in credit.

Consumer debt in my opinion should revolve between 500 billion and 1 trillion dollars. There is 3 trillion dollars in consumer debt that is eroding the wealth of literally tens of millions of consumers.

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Keep in mind their fundamentals. The 1% have completely rewritten the entire monetary system and force us to use it. In the US, each dollar is a debt. They force interest payments on top of that debt and counterfeit more money into their system so that we have something to pay their interest. They counterfeit the money, inject it into our pockets as debt, and we pay interest on top of that to boot. They've exported their system the world over corrupting corporations, governments, academia, media, on and on. No one is untouched by their scheme with most of us as their servants for life.

The fundamental radical idea is to eliminate both their debt and interest by abolishing their entire system. Their colossal fraud took them centuries to implement. Why so long? Because it IS a fraud and they had to jam down the throats of unwilling generations before getting their way. And here we are, the 99%, at the crossroad of our lives while you continually measure the effects of their machinations. It's been done. We get it because we're living our lives enslaved to them day in and day out. Hashing through the numbers again and again and again while living with their boot on our throats is horseshit. Writing about the new monetary system that we'll choose for the new society that we are creating, now that's priceless.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

The one thing I don't agree with is the idea that it is all debt. The reason being is that stuff has been created and stuff continues to be created.

What keeps the tyranny alive is debt that can never be paid off because of interest rate charges, no?

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Debt and interest on debt can only be justified if money exists in the first place. In our societies, money proper does not exist because it has been forcibly removed from us. What we have in its void are obligations to repay loans. All euphemisms aside, a small community or a large nation who forces people to accept debt as money is criminal gang, even if the gang acquiesces and decrees it to be interest free.

Real money is property, not debt. Only an individual (or societies of individuals) can create property. No government can. But by their laws, government can create debt and force us to use it as if it were money. The advocates of reform want their governments (not commercial banks) to issue the debt as money. In doing so, they want us to pretend that their debt issue is money and never challenge them on what real money is. As long as we accept their tenets, we'll be playing along with them. However, if we slowed down enough to see clearly how these advocates are nothing more than thieves out to bilk us, then reforms will come swiftly to our economies and justice to our laws. They, like the money elite and their banking schemes, don't have morality on their side.

The history of commodity money is highly instructive. Meaningful reform will be served well by our reading it because it identifies that real money is property. It demonstrates how people went about preserving their property (while others went about trying to steal it) and it characterizes what the proper ways of lending it were. Of all the discoveries we are making about the current system's evils and woes (and the discussions about reform), the basic discovery for uprooting it still lies hidden. That is a rediscovery that real money is property and money proper can never be anything but property. In this reform, if we continue to allow real money to be outlawed instead of having it vigorously protected just like our other belongings, then we can expect no meaningful reform at all.

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Money comes into existence, in their system, as debt. That is all that it is. We pay the debt with our stuff. (They get something for nothing.) What keeps their tyrannical system alive is interest. But in order to pay the interest, they inject more debt into the system.

I am running to a train (to work to pay my debts to work to pay interest on my debts). When you can take a look at these short clips. One follows the other and each is short (but powerful too). The intro in the first one is a little hookie but it is a brief intro. Talk with you later about it?

money as debt http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=AgKFLk9xffA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=4wQWVxk49ts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BFMqsBAP4Q4

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

my economic policies have not produced 1.4% gdp - are you aware of the economic history of the last decade or are you just some quisling throwing stones?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

Democrats have been in office for 4 years now. You got your health care bill, you got your stimulus, you have got your no XL pipeline, you have gotten all you wanted, and you have produced 1.4% GDP growth with above 8% inflation.

Your demand side policies don't work and that coupled with a Socialist in the WH makes everybody scared and they are protecting their money. What happened, your models says this shouldn't happen. Are the models wrong?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

corpoRATist's happened. An open rebellion of the current corpoRATist pawns in government the majority of whom are maskarading as Repubs.

[-] 0 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

seems that you do not know much about anything - you must watch fox

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

Well, you folks are the ones who produced 8% unemployment and <2% GDP growth...

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

oh come on, is that what you really think - if it is then you are not thinking. i didn't vote for that corporate schill (obama in case you weren't sure) and won't this time but you do not seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground. let me know if you need help understanding that phrase

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

I might be simple but your government controlled spending plan is not working.

[-] 2 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

since we both agree that you are simple - well i think stupid is more like it but anyway - i don't expect you to understand this but show it to a smart friend and see if you get the drift - from j m keynes - "If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

So according to Mr. Keynes, we have our make work projects how come it hasn't worked. We invested in Solyndra, what happened? Where are the animal spirits, where is the confidence?

So according to you we should just spend money on make work projects that are useless and this should spur the economy. That money has to come from somewhere, where does it come from?

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

like i guessed you cannot understand the concepts being discussed - find a friend who can explain it - it may take a while. do you understand to what he is referring when he talks about burying money in bottles? i will give you a hint - it is gold. does that help in anyway?

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

Yes, I know Keynes didn't believe in neither monetary inflation nor Say's Lay. You still haven't answered my question, how come his demand function hasn't worked? Come on Flip, you Dems got your spending but oh darn, business is not cooperating, why not?

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

which spending are you talking about? very weak stimulus if that is what you meant. stiglitz and krugman etc thought at the time that it should be 3 or 4 times the size! all those people who saw the crisis coming - those people who were shut out of the obama republican administration (no that is not a typo - he is to the right of ike and nixon so from my point of view he is a center right republican). they predicted that this would happen - they were right. and why is business holding on to their trillions (yes trillions - you know that right) - no demand for their products (please don't say taxes - that is the 2nd dumbest thing one could say)- and why no demand - people have no money to buy their shit (and it is mostly shit). how do we change that - get money into the hands of the bottom 80% of the population since they have to spend every dime they get. you do know the average income (household) for the bottom 80% don't you? sweden exitied the great depression in 1934 (the first country) - using keynes methods! and what got us out of the depression - that is a good question - no? come on - now we all know how to do this but the 1% doesn't like it! just so you know keynes is not talking about inflation or says law - now the real question - do you want to have a discussion that attempts to get at the truth or are you simply trying to casue trouble and annoy people?

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

The stimulus spending was close to a trillion dollars. That is most of the annual deficit and a significant amount of GDP. So if you want it to be 4 times as large you would double our total debt. At the 1 trillion figure it was a high enough percentage of GDP to make an impact.

Businesses aren't investing because there is no confidence in the environment both fiscally and monetarily. People know that we have to pay back the debt, that the Fed is printing money and that Obama wants to redistribute income. That all adds up to uncertainty.

Yes taxes matter because it changed incentives. Yes Say's Law matters and producing goods will create demand. This has been proven over and over again.

The world didn't come out of the Great Depression until the war. And they bought all of their arms from the US.

Sweden and many European countries did not suffer as much during the Great Depression due to various reasons. Sweden specifically maintained a loose monetary system, reduced taxes and increased spending on infrastructure. No one policy works in a vacuum as it s countered by others. However monetary policy is the overriding factor in all economic success. And we re-learned that fact recently.

So what truth am I missing. I know that classical economics works and it has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. You forget the 70s. Did you make any money then?

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

are you 12 yrs old - have you ever held a job or made an investment? do you know how stupid what you said was.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

I have made many investments - both private and public - in my life. I have never seen an investment that produces a 2000% return. Since the public market has historically returned around 12% and private equity in the high teens, for you to think that a 2000% return is normal, to quote you shows how stupid you are. Even more so to say that you don't factor in tax rates in your investments. Do you not create a spreadsheet for what you do or is this more "hope"

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

not surprised but you did not understand what i said. as to the chicken man he is having trouble paying the rent - reducing his prices is not an option. you must be one of those young ron paul kids with little experience in the real world. as to investment and taxes - what i said was that one does not take taxes into account when making an investment - if i can show you how to invest $100 in a stock and turn it in to $2000 - will you ask me about the tax - no, fool. this comment is silly - "Banks don't hate inflation, since they work off the spread. They hate sudden increases in inflation. Bond holder hate inflation and borrowers love inflation because you are literally reducing the amount you have to pay back." do you think the bank is happy with my 30 yr mortgage at 3.7% when inflation goes to 7% - how does their spread look then. the same goes for someone holding a 30yr treasury bond paying 3% - go ahead - buy a few 100k worth of 30 yr treasuries - see how you like inflation. the only correct statement you made was about the borrower - yes inflation redistributes wealth. money does not have to come from anywhere - just like the new discovery of gold in the ground - it can be printed - if i have a printing press and print up a few million $ (as the gov't of course) and offer it to you - would you want it. yes - and who would we have taken it from? and when you spend it would it help the economy - yes! as to the rest of your nonsense - time to wise up - stop making assertions about things you don't understand - ask questions.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

If the chicken man is paying rent he either is not bringing in enough revenue or spending to much money. If its the former, he can undercut the competition by lowering price. This also creates demand as somebody is more likely to trade their good for a lower priced piece of chicken. As to the expense side, maybe he is paying everybody else and not paying you. Should you lease out to KFC?

My comment about taxes is silly? I am the fool? You are the one who has an investment that returns 2000%. You must come across many of those in your lifetime. Your chicken investment must really be paying off.

Yes, investors take into account taxes in all things they do. Just look at what is happening in France in the past two weeks since they have announced a possible increase in the highest bracket.

The money they lend out to you at 3.7% they brought in at a much lower rate. The money they lend out at 7% is brought in at a higher rate. It is the spread between the two that matter. Money can only be printed until the public stops accepting it as a form of value. The money that was printed in Weimar Germany was worthless and did not produce growth. Big words from somebody who clearly doesn't know either their history nor their economics. I shudder to think that you don't know how a bank works. No one the rookie in the White House has no clue since people like you are voting for him.

[-] 1 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

ok, we can talk stimulus in a bit - i will send you some info on it. as to the rest - all of your assumptions are in correct in my opinion. we own 4 businesses and your thinking on business is nonsense. we have a solar instalation business - if we get more contracts we will buy more machines and hire more people. we own a building with a fast food chicken business in it - he is behind 4 months on the rent and works 70 hour weeks - he has cut staff and expenses to the bone - if he sells more chicken he will hire more workers but people do not have money to buy his product the way they did before the economy crashed (and why did it crash?) - the tax and the deficit and money printing have nothing to do our thinking on the subject. ask any investment advisor - your make the decision to buy or sell and worry about the tax later! yes i started my own small business in 1973 and life was never better. i raised my prices every year - my mortgage decreased and my house increased in value. your thinking on inflation is wrong - the banks hate inflation - the bond holders hate inflation since it redistributes income. i am afraid this is a waste of time - i suggets we pick one of your misunderstandings and go at it. says law is obvious silliness - people do not have money to buy the products that you say should be produced. ok, i would like an answer to keynes observation about money in bottles since that puts the lie to all the classical economics thinking. do you understand what he is saying - please explain! by the way, fossil fuel has changed the world on capitalism and classical economics - open your eyes? if we were still riding horse and buggies like the amish you would not be saying that! i am not going to waste any more time trying to find good info for you on the stimulus - you need to demonstrate to me that you can have a reasonable conversation and an open mind - if you do and you want info i will get it to you.

[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

Don't believe in paragraphs?

Great you own a solar installation business. I don't know which state you are located in, but probably are receiving state subsidies to make solar profitable. That is a perfect example of the state trying to force their or somebody's idea of how the market should work into the marketplace. And like history has shown us, government decisions on allocations do not work.

As to the owner of the fast food chicken place, I have no idea where it is located or who his competition is. KFC is proving that they sell a lot of chicken. However, to prove Say's Law, if you man lowered his price to $.01 would he sell all of his chicken, probably. Now should he be in the chicken business or should he allocate his efforts somewhere else, probably.

Taxes influence incentives and profit. I don't know of any investment that is not made with taxes included. How could you not take into account an expense of 30%? That's the difference between profit and loss.

Banks don't hate inflation, since they work off the spread. They hate sudden increases in inflation. Bond holder hate inflation and borrowers love inflation because you are literally reducing the amount you have to pay back.

Regarding Keynes observation, when the government spends money that money has to come from somewhere - either created by the Fed or taxed. Either way the money goes to the same place - taken away from the public and into the hands of the government. Problem 1, is now the government is making the asset allocation decision. Instead of you buying the building that holds the fast food franchise, the government is spending it building a tank. Where is the better allocation of money?

When the government spends the money, the public knows that the government is spending that money so the people who have to pay it, will reduce their investment inorder to pay it. Problem 2 is their no confidence in creating new product because investors do not know how much the government will take from them.

If Keynes' observatin was correct, then socialism or government controlled economies would work. You would not be allowed to invest in a chicken place.

[-] 0 points by flip (6447) 1 year ago

you need help - and more than a spreadsheet. my point was - as any good investment advisor would tell you - you do not worry about the tax when making an investment. you worry if it can make money - this is pointless. anyway you made my point that ww2 ended the depression - deficit spending created the jobs and infrastructure that led to the greatest expansion in modern history. we need something similar today

[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

I need help? You still haven't told me how your 2000% investment is normal.

So who bought the arms that the US produced and what happen't to supply?

Who is going to pay for your stimulus. You just had one for a 1/4 of the total economy. How big do you want this especially since 47% of the people don't pay income taxes.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

20% don't have an income

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

It comes from Ben and Tim, the bartender:

http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No shit Sherlock - BTW - the only thing controlled about it is the CorpoRATS controlling it.

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 1 year ago

BS, the money went to Obama supporters; did you forget Solyndra. Corruption at its finest.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

:knuckleheads"?- name calling equals weak arguments.

our policies lifted us out of the negative quarterly growth, and 740K job loss per month that your repubs/Bush brought us.

The Dem policies have been watered down by traitorous repubs who can't stand seeing a recovery while a dem is in office. get rid of repubs and have the dem policies implemented and the economy will take off.

The conservative policies of tax cuts for the ewealthy and cutting regulations, as well as expensive illegal wars, along with tinkle down economics have created our problems.

Republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressives.

[Removed]