Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why we should NOT focus on the national debt (at least in the short-term)

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 20, 2012, 4:12 p.m. EST by TommyNYC (730)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Oldie but a goodie:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32748.html

"If spending is cut back, to tame the deficit, this jobs problem could only get worse."

"In short, more such spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs in the short run and promote growth and debt reduction in the long run."

288 Comments

288 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

There was a person here that I said that to once. That government spending for WWII ended the Depression. He told me that I was wrong. That war bonds were used to pay for the war. I was like 'wha??!!' He was like 'yeah, war bonds paid for the war'. I almost knocked myself over with a head slap. lol. That guy was on a whole separate universe of stupid.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

The Fat Cats and GOP fought it tooth and nail, it worked, GOP was out of power for a long time, the middle class and the country flourished.

Now the Fat Cats flourish, the middle class and the country is bankrupt, and the GOP has power. Stimulus, Voting and real news are suppressed. We're being rolled.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Maybe we could put them out of power again for a long time. If we can fight for the right improvements, they will be defeated by their own obstructionism.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Critical mass, exponential change, REVELATION!

If we just add Voter turnout we could see a perfect storm of Corp/GOP demise. Let's get Iceland on their Bankster asses!

Here's a handy guide to accomplish it: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10394961

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Nice link. I tried the iSideWith.com quiz, a little over-simplified but pretty cool actually.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Share the wealth, spread the link.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

What about e pluribus unum? It's right there, hiding in plain sight! We have a lot of things like that.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Sounds brilliant to me. How did we go so far away from such a simple truth?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

In god we trust.

We must share the blame when we allow dogma to trump reason.

fascia?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Your Mercury dime reminds me of the Wisconsin flag, click to enlarge it on the link below, too funny:

Reality is setting in

Obama addressed the AARP convention by video feed this morning to rousing applause. Paul Ryan addressed them in person an hour later. When he said the first thing they needed to do was repeal Obamacare, he was booed down. He tried to call it a mixed reaction and went on from there. It's not hypothetical anymore, Republicans consider the 47% expendable, and seniors, who are in that group, are catching on.

Paul Ryan has borrowed $2 million to try to keep his own Congressional seat in Wisconsin. Romney trails in Badger state by 14 points, after the Walker win Willard was chortling about that state being a lock for him. Not so much anymore. The motto on Wisconsin flag dating from the 19th century is "Forward". It's a blue flag with two working people on either side of the seal. It's not the Republican flag.

http://www.prairie2.com/2012/09/reality-is-setting-in.html

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

It was like a scene out of The Office! Lie'n is such a klutz. He said he would end Obama Care and the seniors cut loose, he said he expected that and doubled down, so did they! Can't find the link yet, YouTube, here are consolations:

http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/paul-ryan-called-ending-social-security-speech-ayn-rand-fans

This one is sweet: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-20-2012/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26971) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Gotta love it when that smarmy puke gets to hear what real people think of him.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

In 1943 the US ran a deficit of 30% of GDP.

Think of what you could do with $5T. There would be bullet trains and windmills everywhere. Public school student teacher ratio of 20:1.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Here's the Chinese version of Keynesian stimulus:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-04/08/c_13819685.htm

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Brenton Woods is what brought the prosperity. Which was brought due to massive spending to win WWII.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

You are rejecting basic economics and the scientific method. Preach your anti-science somewhere else, Austerian.

We need low taxes for the poor and middle class, as well as deficit spending on infrastructure NOW before things get more crappier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#Active_fiscal_policy

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

You are picking and choosing what aspects to follow. If the map says drive 5 miles then turn left, but you drive 2 miles then turn left, you will not reach your destination. People tout Keynes because they here Ezra Klein say it on MSNBC but have very little idea what it is or how it is applied.

From your link:

and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays.

Keynes was a believer in keeping inflation as flat as possible. Inflation is the undesirable side effect of disallowing deflation. The current government policy and the Fed's policy on inflation is much broader and the goals are far from flat. In fact, they set goals to prevent inflation from remaining flat and use it to advance other financial instruments.

You are trying to place a square peg in a round hole.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're not makin sense. Pegs? driving?

We need jobs bills/infrastructure/greentech to grow the economy, penalties for outsourcing, rewards for insourceing. Cut taxes/debt for working/middle class. Tax increase for wealthiest people/corps. Cut the defense budget.

Done. That's the driving directions you need, and you know what to do with the peg.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

For that post to get voted down below zero just because you're not saying what people want to hear says a lot about this online community.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

The importance they place on something so trivial says even more.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

We are hardly in a boom time! Here's the sentence before the one that you quoted:

"deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high"

  1. Recovery is long delayed
  2. Unemployment is persistently high

Conclusion: We need deficit spending.

How much more clear can I make it for you?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

The private sector is in a boom time. It's at our expense. Greed. Pure Greed!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

I'm under the impression that the recovery is fairly moderate (still a victory for Obama considering how bad things were). This quarter the real GDP annual rate is 1.7%. Meanwhile, yes unemployment is high and inequality is rising.

GDP is not always a good measure of prosperity:

http://open.salon.com/blog/jay_kimball/2009/02/20/nobel_laureate_joseph_stiglitz_on_sustainability_and_growth

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

No accident, all by design.

Economists Agree, Cutting Spending Now is Bad for Recovery; Why is Fox Still Lying?

Economic experts agree that cutting spending during weak economic growth damages recoveries and depresses employment. But Fox says they're "insane."

http://www.alternet.org/media/economists-agree-cutting-spending-now-bad-recovery-why-fox-still-lying

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Let's remember the last qtr of Bushs term GDP was -9%!!!

Maybe a record. But that is how the current numbers need to be seen.

It's a matter of perspective. Up is good. Also I submit GDP would be better if the jobs bills were not obstructed so....

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There is nothing austrian about what I said, where did you study that at?

I said we bullied our way into prosperity, just like we are bullying around still to this day.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

You were needlessly arguing with Zen's point about spending, bringing up a gold-standardy Ron Drawl talking point...

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Forcing the planet into Bretton Woods has nothing to do with a gold standard, where did you get THAT from?

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

The libertarians always bring it up because "Nixon took us off the gold standard" and "that was the beginning of the end".

"After the Second World War, a system similar to a Gold Standard and sometimes described as a "gold exchange standard" was established by the Bretton Woods Agreements."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Post-war_international_gold-dollar_standard_.281946.E2.80.931971.29

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The fact that it was gold backed didnt matter. What mattered was that all international traded was done in dollars. Thats the huge part. That what runs the show. World Reserve Currency. Backed by gold doesnt matter, as evidenced by our remaining #1 since 1978.

[-] -3 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

So if we didn't "bully" our way to prosperity. What would this nation be like?

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I guess it would depend on our willingness to embrace the won who won. Germany and Japan made out pretty decent. Russia, not so much.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

We restructured Germany and Japan with Social-Democratic governments and the idea of putting People ahead of Biz. And made Fascism anathema. All of which we could use here in the good old USA!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And they didn't spend anything on the MIC. like us!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

That was the trade off Eisenhower warned us about.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah. That speech of his at the end of his presidency has gotten some play in the last few years.

People need to take it to heart. We gotta cut defense by 50%. Or some other real number.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Massive entrenchment.

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

Why not cut it 90%? Just enough of a force to maybe defend the country.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The percent is less important to me than the demilitarization I want to see. We have troops in 1000 different places. Gotta bring 'em home. many any way.

I suppose we'll never see 50% but we gotta get real savings real fast!

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

I agree that we need to bring ALL of them home. But neither right or left will do it. Why?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yep!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It WILL be done. Because the progressive people of OWS and other groups will force real change as the movement grows and exerts pressure on all pols.

Right?

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

Nope.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

These two parties are fully committed to perpetual war. Its how most empires end.

The only way to move away from it is for the people to take charge, create their own, and the take the power.

Pandering to war mongers is a joke of an action.

[-] -2 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

The only reason that those nations have succeeded and still do is because we take care of their national defense.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Yes, all "those nations" would be occupied by commies if we didn't fight off the constant Red Threat! Look how we saved Vietnam, Central America, Iraq and Afghanistan from the evil doers!

I wish the UN would defend us from the Red Threat we have here! At least monitor our elections!

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

The red threat? What the ripe fuck are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Which one(s) are you referring to? Red Commies or Red state GOPers?

[-] -2 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

So you are advocating fighting another world war?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

I am not being dense. You are advocating spending ( in today's dollars) trillions more. Why do you think that would change the economy for the better?

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Because you're taking to somebody who would be on the receiving end of that spending.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

We would all be on the receiving end of the spending, you classist punk.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

When asked who wants to be rich in a poor country, the tiny pricks on the Reich say "me, me, me"!

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

My daughter wouldn't and that's all that I care about. You want her and my future grandchildren to pay for your stimulus.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

The causality is so obvious, yet they still argue. I really worry about how we can fight to improve our lot while the free-market dogma is so engrained.

I wonder if there is some way the OWS can go about "unteaching" the "economic truths" that have been mainstream since Raygun was in office. Maybe not such an immediate concern now that the election is near.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Facts are hard to ignore. They are reduced to complaining that PBS is a liberal conspiracy lol

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154910893/the-nation-obama-has-a-jobs-plan-romney-doesnt

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Don't let 'em get to ya, man.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

improved infrastructure should make the labor more efficient

[+] -4 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'd rather let her generation decide how to spend their money instead of watching you spend it for them. You want to take money out of their future pockets to put it into people's pockets today.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That's too nebulous of an idea to justify spending my daughter's future income to pay for social benefits today.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If we get the economy growing the deficit WILL disappear in a few years and the debt will begin being paid down.

We will be improving the country for you grandchildren, and cutting the deficit/debt you are trying to scare everyone with.

Cool?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your plan to cut the deficit and pay off the debt -- is to spend more?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

Will we pay off the debt by lowering tax rates?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

No and I'm not in favor of lowering tax rates. Don't fall into the trap that people here are setting where you assume that I'm a Tea Partier just because I'm not a rabid, partisan liberal.

I was opposed to the Bush tax cuts for pretty much the exact same reason that I was opposed to Obama's stimulus. Because IMHO, both of them spent government money for self-serving political posturing. Which made people feel good for a few minutes but it made our long-term problems worse.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Investing is done to make money. Yes. It would get Americans working, spending & economy would grow! That growth would feed on itself & would increase revenue enough so that coupled with the defense cuts/tax of the wealthiest the deficit would disappear like magic.

Poof!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Of course! Invest in money making activities. We can't cut money making activities.

Also cut fraud/waste/abuse, the defense nudget, & raise taxes on the wealthiest.

"Tha'll do pig"

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Stimulus spending is "money-making activity"?

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

I don't think taxes can go much lower. They are already at their lowest levels since 100 years ago. Which gave rise to the Gilded Age. Which was followed by the Great Depression.

Anyway, are you saying you would support deep cuts, austerity like cuts?

Would you say you support the Ryan Budget as a starting point for debt reduction, or Simpson Bowles?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I would say that answering the second question as you phrased it on this web site could only possibly lead to pointless partisan squabbling. Which makes me instinctively dodge the first question also.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

I think taxes need to be raised also.

But I see no evidence on the Right that they will accept raising taxes. At all. Especially for the wealthy. Because they think they are the 'job creators'. It's against their DNA. That's abundantly clear. Likewise, on the Left, it's against their DNA to reduce spending programs that benefit the needy.

So you don't agree with Stiglitz's argument - stimulus spending as a short term measure, which he argues would be a long term investment, helping future growth?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That's correct, I don't.

And there are many fiscal conservatives who believe more in cutting the deficit than in cutting taxes.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

The Bush tax cuts, which were supposed to create jobs, didn't. Pres. Obama's spending stimulus did.

The Bush tax cuts added $2T to the debt with little or no return. The stimulus cost half that, worked, and by some analysis, paid for itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/larry-summers-fiscal-stimulus_n_1375233.html

So do you think taxes should be raised, for instance, back to the Clinton levels?

I won't lump you in with TPers. If you won't lump me in with people lumping you in with TPers. : )

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Haha okay, fair deal. Yes, I think that taxes need to be higher and spending needs to be lower. Does that make me anti-Tea-Party? Anti-socialist? Or does that just make me a centrist hoping that we can do what's right for our country?

I'm not even going to participate in a conversation about which "side" is right, and I'm definitely not going to get trapped into being painted as a Bush supporter. The deficit-expanding policies of both Bush and Obama were both mistakes in my personal opinion.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

everybody trying to set up their own little Kingdoms instead of working together I hear you if you read my profile you will know I know where you're coming from I would do anything for my offspring too, that's why we need rules that limit what people can do for their offspring or one day one of them will own it all just like it was before the War...

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm talking about my daughter's entire generation, not my little kingdom made up only of my daughter. Her generation will be paying for all of this spending for the rest of their lives long after we're gone.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

not if we get some political will and levy taxes needed to pay it off, we did it in 1993 but there are more GOP in office now, the first thing that must be done is remove as many of the GOP cancer from office as possible then we can still get this fixed, I think....

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The more you spend, the less realistic it will be to ever pay it off. This is not a difficult concept. Do you manage your personal finances like this? Spend, spend, spend, and then let your kids worry about paying it off after you're dead?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

there must be balance in spending and taxing, right now it's the taxes that are at a all time low....

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Dems cut deficits (Clinton, Obama) Repubs have exploded it (Reagan, Bushes)

Sorry. One party is fiscally responsible, the other is trying to explode thedebt so they can scare everyone into "starving the beast" and cut the pgms/svcs of the 99%.

I'm not gonna pretend for you just because you are preoccupied with protecting the republicans.

You're wrong. We must stimulate the economy, cut the defense budget, & raise taxes on the wealthiest!

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nah. We will grow the economy and pay down deficit & get debt under control with a few years.

Your fear mongering is designed to pressure us to cut our pgms/svcs for the 99%.

THAT will destroy the economy and the next generation will have to pick up the pieces.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

To pay off the debt in a "few" years would cost us five trillion dollars per year. That's almost twice as much as the federal government makes in revenue per year. The numbers are so big that it took me some time to count all of the commas when I was calculating that.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah that'swhy I didn't say pay off the debt. I said get it under control. That's just another one of your dishonest twisting of words.

We cannot pay off the republican created debt in a few years. but we can get it under control with the right use of investment and defense cuts and tax increases on the wealthy.

Is that clear?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This was your quote: "We will grow the economy and pay down deficit & get debt under control with a few years."

Seems clear to me, yes.

And referring to the debt as "Republican-created" is pointless partisan squabbling. We all own that debt. The entire 100%, not just the 99% and not just one half of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Its only "nebulous" if you don't get basic economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#Active_fiscal_policy

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Understanding and agreeing with are two completely different things.

[-] -1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

If you "disagree" with something before you understand it, you will never understand it. That's the problem with being an ideologue.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your assumption that not agreeing with Keynes is the same as not understanding is tedious. It's a subtle way of calling people stupid for not having the same positions that you do.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Fish dinner or fishing pole, tackle and boat. "Cons"

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Obviously a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

TJ is quite the crabby VIP, wouldn't you say?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

My retirement? Are you talking about when everybody's 401k's devaluated overnight in 2007 or something else?

You know what, never mind. I don't care what you meant. That "repelicans" thing is just so divisive that you're virtually ensuring that a rational conversation is impossible, so what's the point. All you've got is slogans anyway. And your attitude makes me not really care what you think.

Congratulations on your contribution to OWS. Good night.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

FYI: I'm the CTO of a venture-funded tech startup, and I come here when I'm having trouble concentrating. This week I've been sleep-deprived because of my four-month-old infant. I don't worry very much about money but I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than zero even though I make less than the number that you just cited. So again I'm baffled by whatever it is that you're talking about. I probably pay more in taxes than you earn.

I've been pushing for transcending the partisan squabbling all week so that we can work together to make our country a better place and I can't imagine what's more centrist than that.

You, on the other hand, seem intent on dividing the 99% and if somebody were to pay a shill to disrupt OWS then they would pay somebody to behave exactly like you.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Does she like paying for fraudulent wars, Wall Street casino capitalism, middleman health care graft, tax breaks for the rich, and corporate and 1% tax evasion?

There's a big difference in the costs of being robbed and buying a money-making delivery van, ie. stimulus.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

No I don't want her to have to pay for any of that or these stimulus splurges either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Then let's do the big stuff first and worry about the crumbs when we clean up.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Yeah but if the wealthy are so good at parting the middle class and working class from their money, then I don't see why it matters who gets the money, those who are entrepreneurial will once again acquire all the money, so who cares.

Also to stay on topic, the suggestion that the poster makes, from a holistic point of view, makes perfect sense. The debt is only a problem when it is near the total of our gnp.

Stimulating the economy will cause inflation, which from a nationalistic point of view is needed. If the dollars our nation owes is worth less in the future and the GNP is inflated with cheaper dollars in the same future, then the ratio of debt to GNP becomes more manageable.

Also, giving the money to people who are not paying taxes, because they are employed at jobs that pay salaries that are below the federal poverty limit or unemployed, will ensure more people will pay taxes.

Conservatives love to cat on the working Class about how stupid they are, so giving the so called stupid people more money just creates more entrepreneurialism, right? So we should flood the economy with money,allowing the rich to sharpen their acquisition skills, no?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I agree, and with the manufacturing base decimated, one of the best places to spend is infrastructure.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Where was your thread on inequity? I wanted to read that.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thanks for the interest.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inequality-the-results/

I do tire of the endless soap opera around here.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

It is really simple-
1 f_ck grover
2 tax the 1%
3 hire the 99%

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

It's not just the banksters
its all of the corrupting money in government


Please comment on NYC OWS site:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

A constitutional amendment to Overturn Citizens United and Corporate Personhood

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,
and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case
transcript, and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 70+ videos on CU / CP from
Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Nader , Justice Stevens,
Warren, Lessig, Hartmann, Maher, Kucinich Sanders, Hightower, etc.

and our voting bloc petition & plan.

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com no password or signup

JOIN our OWS Working Group: http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

REGULAR MEETINGS: Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Nothing NOTHING happens without turnout.

Who's jes?

I'm sick of online petitions.

Is Big$ better?

Online feed for non-NYers.

Sites are too cryptic.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

why is site cryptic?
a voting bloc is not an on-line petition

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Possibly because I had no hand in designing it, it offers me nothing I want to interact with, and it's unfamiliar. Not new user friendly.

I've been there before and tried to interact and it's cryptic, just like this time. I've already signed a dozen anti-CU petitions. Where's the beef? At least with ALEC we saw some results. Possibly with Koch world enterprises. CU is so Un-American, so egregiously appalling it's hard to imagine it's existence. I don't even think Will or Brooks or the Sunday Fox Lies pundits like it. Here's the deal: the same people who had it ratified are the same people who own the media CU allows the funding to. Can you say gigantic swindle?

Sorry, site turns me off. I think I actually hate jes.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and did you WATCH any of the 70+ videos? and did you READ any of our documents? and what makes it CRYPTIC?


Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech Please click one of the five | RED BUTTONS | below and then scroll down to view that page or press this page button to view that page

* | CNP & MNS Home | 
* | DOCUMENTS |  
* | VIDEOS |
* | BILLS & AMENDMENTS | 
* | VOTING BLOC PLEDGE  &  PLAN |
[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Can't get past jes and her icon.

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You are right, that is really simple.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

since when are YOU allowed to agree with ME ?

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I said it was simple. I didnt say it made any freakin sense.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You don't support job creation?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

simply put

more good paying jobs = more consuming

more consuming in a consumer based economy = good

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the money is out there

we just need to tax the rich

if the debt is allowed to continue, those loaning to the government at taxing the government

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Typo? plz clarify

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

missed a comma

the money to fund government programs can be gathered without the government borrowing

[-] 4 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Disagree. We need a HUGE stimulus immediately, bigger than the last one. Taxing the rich and cutting defense spending just wont cover it. Please read the article I posted, Stiglitz lays it all out for you.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I agree with Matt the money is there it's political will that we don't have, the debt is a tool of the 1% to own the country so they can dictate policy as they are doing in Greece and Spain, when the Banks become bigger than the country the American people will no longer be in charge the banks will be, that's what the GOP are working for by increasing the debt every chance they get, we should change the tax laws so we can get at the trust fund money use it to pay off the debt, then when the super wealthy see their Kingdoms stripped of their power and their offspring thrown out into the workplace it will get their attention, one of the problems we have is the people who make decisions for our economy like to have strong unions or not to base their choices with the knowledge that their offspring will never have to work for a paycheck...

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

I believe that because we are currently in a liquidity trap (interest rates are extremely low, no one is lending, demand is low, investors fear another crisis) that it wouldn't work to pay down the debt as a form of stimulus. I would have to read up on that to refresh my memory.

In any case, you're not realistically gonna pay down that $16T until you get some real growth. If we don't get unemployment under control it is likely that GDP would start to shrink again. That's why it takes a lot of bravery and long-term thinking to resist austerity.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You are quite correct in accepting the general principle of Keynesian stimulus. There is, however, a very good reason that it hasn't worked very well. It is a principle called "leakage". There are three types of leakage. Taxation, savings and imports (trade deficit). Since the taxation rates are low as is the savings rate (although that has risen) what should we be looking at? The 600-700 billion a year trade deficit that the US has, is unprecedented in all of human history. When 700 billion was injected as stimulus, most or all was leaked out in the first year. From the article below; "Savings, taxes, and imports are "leaked" out of the main flow, reducing the money available in the rest of the economy.[1] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leakage_(economics)

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Great point, but it could still be argued that if there was much more actual hard infrastructure spending, that there would be less leakage. For example, increasing public transportation has a lasting effect. The first wave during the construction, when the workers shop at Walmart, much of that is leaked to asia. But there is a second long term wave, as commuters expenses are lowered. This is in contrast to a middle-class tax cut, which gets spent immediately. $300 billion of the Obama stimulus was in tax cuts and incentives. Another $100 billion went to aid for poor families etc (all good stuff, but not infrastructure), leaving like $400B to anything that really counts as an "investment".

Just pondering here, but I wonder if there is not at least some degree of reversed leakage. Obviously there is the US-China trade deficit, so maybe not. Rich Chinese kids coming here for their educations? Probably infinitesimal.

So then, tariffs? For the risk of sounding like a free-market advocate, couldn't too much tariffs exacerbate the slump? The price of products will definitely go up, causing the cost of living to rise for lower income families. I don't think we're ever going to get manufacturing jobs back, so we're not going to have gains there.

Just some thoughts.

Edit: So in short, more hard infrastrucutre spending, tax the 1%, increase tariffs but not to the point of causing problems?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

All very good questions. On the issue of infrastructure. I do believe that an investment in infrastructure could be helpful, but by their very nature, building projects are temporary. Some can last for years, and may provide additional some jobs after completion, but this is something to keep in mind. It's important to chose which projects with the future benefit in mind. On the subject of what you described as "reverse leakage". Well, by definition, leakage is what is left after you subtract exports from imports, but I get what you mean. China does import a significant amount from the US. About 100 billion, but we import about 400 billion. Not a good deal for us. Hugh tariffs, if instituted at one time would, no doubt, cause disruption. Phasing them in over a period of years would be more reasonable. On your third point. The idea that increased cost of goods would lower the standard of living. I think the first thing to look at, is how did things go when the US did do its own manufacturing. If you look at the 1950s through about 1970, you will find that the US worker was much better off. The thing to consider is, where did that extra money, from the higher cost products go. To a large extent, it went into the hands of the manufacturing worker, to then be re-spent into the economy.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Rail systems, green energy and education all have lasting impact on societies and economies, for example. If the US had an education system set up to groom a skilled work force, like the gymnasium in Germany for example, we could help to regenerate the manufacturing base that way.

OK, you have a point that the entire system is unsustainable. A huge part of this is because other countries have lower standards for workers rights, and the developed world enables this injustice. The US workforce then pays for the imbalance. Still, even with an incrementally more strict US trade policy, it would still take quite some time before the US started to see manufacturing jobs again.

I think a key point in all this is the "lost decade" that analysts speak of. Tariffs to correct trade imbalances, and progressive taxation to pay down the debt, do not address our immediate situation. As deeply flawed as we are, the first world has the potential to have a substantial positive effect on world justice, through of our tradition of democracy and labor rights. By letting our economies falter, more wealth and power escapes to the emerging economies, where it rests with elites who could give a damn about the rest of humanity.

This is globalization 101, and I'm sure it's nothing new to you. So yes, I agree, ironically: US nationalism with the goal of international human rights. (Boy, I can't wait for the libertarians to spin that statement.)

In short, a carefully directed, and sizable, deficit spending, immediately, so that the US economy doesn't falter further. There will be leakage, but the result will be a foundation from which to rebuild our society. After employment and GDP are healthy, it will be much easier to initiate aggressive tariffs and increase tax revenues.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Well, investments that would decrease our dependence on foreign oil would seem to be a top priority, since that (oil imports) is the other big part of trade deficit. I would suggest to you, though, that we have elites here as much as elsewhere that don't give a damn about humanity. There are certainly those that like to spin it to seem they are doing the third world "a favor" by providing them slave labor jobs. It seem pretty clear to me, it's only about the bottom line. I believe though, that the positive effects of merely enacting tariff legislation, even if it was not to be fully implemented right away, would create a situation where investment would begin immediately Factories would have to be built. That could create a lot of construction demand. .

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

"I would suggest to you, though, that we have elites here as much as elsewhere that don't give a damn about humanity. There are certainly those that like to spin it to seem they are doing the third world "a favor" by providing them slave labor jobs."

Of course this is true. Domestically, however, we have enforced laws against child labor, a minimum wage, etc. I'm suggesting that if "emerging economies" like Russia and China were to become the most dominant forces in the world stage, that we would have to start from scratch in terms of fighting for these basic protections.

However frail the condition of labor rights is in the US, I still feel that we have some hope of influencing the rest of the world in a positive way, so long as we can keep our own foundations intact. I might be naive though.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I do agree that if we could arrest neoliberalism here, it would have an influence around the world. It's likely to be a tough fight.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

A successful stimulus has the potential to garner a high degree of populist support. Imagine a prevailing sentiment of "the left cured unemployment!", or "public education is great again!" or "high speed rail has replaced the hassle of flying!"

I'm asserting that not only Keynesians, but people like Chomsky and Richard Wolff would have a much larger audience in the years following an intense focus on infrastructure.

As austerity is proven wrong, the global right-wing will have far less credibility.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh damn. I guess if you chat to enough people you're bound to run into an educated one now and again....the "leakage" you speak of has been and is a problem. There are of course at least two schools of thought, one is that we lift the whole world the other is we plunder the world and bring the good stuff back, and policy seems to teeter between them. We were once more on the side of getting to the raw material now we are starting to harvest the labor over there as well. The elite around the world are forming their own pseudo-nation bound together by common wealth and whose allegiance is only to mo'money. We are falling back into Monarchy by another name, this time it’s world wide and the power of the people to decide thing, one person, one vote is in danger of losing forever to those that feel it should be one share, one vote, those that own, rule.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You are quite right about the monarchy or perhaps oligarchy that has no geographical borders. The problem I have with the "lift the world up" theme, is that I think it is usually just a rhetorical ploy. The globalists have no real interest in lifting anyone up but themselves. I've been accused of "nationalism " by some, for advocating that the US protect itself. I would like very much to see the third world worker get a better deal, but I think we need to recognize our limitations. The idea that the US can fix the world seems to border on megalomania and promotes a justification for hegemony.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If we are to be part of improving the human condition, I think in the end it will have to be world wide, but we must understand what it is to be a "part of" instead "doing for", but that is a long term goal. The eternal struggle is and has always been between those who "own" and those who "work" it may sound a bit Marxist but I fear no thought or words, and to bring it closer to home it is between passing on to your offspring and getting an equal opportunity. In truth we don't want an "equal opportunity" for our own children; we want them to have every advantage we can give them. The trick is knowing when some are given so much opportunity (or advantage) it sucks the world dry for everyone else, and being brave enough to stand up to that fact. Of course the problem faced across the world is that those with more influence always have more opportunity to give to their children and they are woeful to relinquish it.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

It is indeed between those who work and those who own. Those words do not offend me. All real wealth originates from labor. Those who own, would do well to remember that.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As would those who work, we must remember this on election day and make sure it is reflected in the actions of our representatives, or we must be prepared to replace them.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hey Tommy quick word I actually think you're right about the debt thing right now, but I don't have to like it....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here if you watch this news conference you will see the "explianer in chief" talk about shifting money from borrowing (by the government) into investment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ac9uDLUdSs

at about the 16 minute mark is when he starts to explain what I'm talking about here, it may be the only time I've seen it discussed on the TV, it's something I saw twenty years ago when Clinton did it, but for some reason they don't talk about it, this borrowing steals capital from the economy thing., he comes back to it at 25 minute that's where the core is....

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Just an example of how right-wing Clinton really is. He's talking about how "business investment is our salvation". No way, not when nobody is lending, and employment is so high. He's hallucinating. I almost feel sorry for those two, watching that clip.

Anyway, I think I remember what you're referring to, I think it's some monetary theory or another. I wish I could remember what it's called. Either way, those tricks generally work for little slumps, not for major world catastrophes.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Did you read the article? Some deficit spending is needed to address unemployment and inequity.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

inequality must be dealt with through the tax system, otherwise the cons might actually be telling the truth about a dependent society, we need to actively insure that workers are well pay by tweaking policy to support unions, federal law repealing all "right to work" laws would be a good start, heavy taxes for big incomes and a property tax on stocks and bonds would also be helpful.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

We can't pay down the debt first, that would take way too long. Further, the degree of heavy taxation you are talking about would mess up demand while the economy is still fragile.

You still didn't address unemployment at all. Deficit spending can directly address unemployment, as it involves hiring people immediately.

While nobody here is a fan of the big banks, your opposition of them is verging on paranoid. I would like to remind you that conspiracy theories are against the rules here.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I use the term "banks" to represent wealthy interest more than the actual banks, though money is quite important to their operation, and the banks do become the tool used by those in power.

As far as "conspiracy" goes a more compete reading of my writings would revel that I don't think we're that smart really, I think people act from a more fundamental basis I tend to focus on the simple ideals and motivations. I do believe that Reagan had the ideal to "starve the beast" he believed that if the government could be saddled with a huge debt it would be unable to interfere with business activity, and that concept is at the core of what drives the top people in the GOP. Furthermore an indebted government would not be able to provide so much to people that they would become unwilling to put in a good days work, then how do the wealthy make money?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

I think your notion that "the debt is a tool of the 1% to own the country so they can dictate policy" is fantasy. It just doesn't work that way.

The big banks are powerful beasts, and thats why we need regulation to keep them in check. However, a little more deficit spending is not going to equate to "handing them the reigns".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You should take a look at Spain and Greece before you say it just don't work that way....

We should animatedly levy taxes to cover spending and set an auto tax increase for any debt to be applied on incomes over $250,000,

The debt is the only actual fiscal problem we have, we should fix it in a way that will last.

Hillary recently spoke I think at the UN where she talk about it being a global problem of the wealthy around the world not chipping in to help their countries. We have given the world over to the luck of the draw so to speak because we don't trust our government, and therefore ourselves to do things, so we roll back taxes on the wealthy and trust them to make all the choices. People can govern if they have the will to do so, if they don't the whole world falls back into Monarchy.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

This is not meant to be pejorative, but you are ignoring basic math.

1) We need to boost growth and employment now, we cant wait.

2) If we cease all deficit spending and start paying down the debt, we couldn't possibly raise taxes high enough to have money left over for an adequate jobs bill.

So if the 2012 budget is $3.8T without a jobs bill, and revenues are $2.5T, you just can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover the current deficit, a jobs bill, and start paying down the debt.

In the mean time, you don't want to start taxing people so much that demand is squashed. That's a part of Keynesian stimulus, too, that isn't exactly "liberal". You wan't to keep tax breaks on the middle class in place.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Very little demand comes from the very wealthy, I don't support deficit spending unless the top rate is 90% on incomes over one million and 50% at $250,000, the government borrowing all the available capital is a huge drain on the economy stopping that would offset any loss in spending by the few affected.

I don't think this can be done too quickly but the principle should be ingrained, first of all we are not "broke" we just don't pay anything in taxes, at least the wealthy don't to speak of, and long before we balance the budget we must get some clarification from the GOP about the last time we had a balanced budget their response and do they intent to do anything differently in the future, because if not what the hell, let's just take the tax rate to zero and print money as long as anybody will take it, that's the GOP end point right?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

"the government borrowing all the available capital is a huge drain on the economy stopping that would offset any loss in spending by the few affected."

According to whom?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It worked it 1993, the less the government borrows the more money is forced into the risk markets and becomes more productive, taking money from trust funds and paying bond holders stimulates the economy.

Look I have heard the logic behind deficit spending going back to Reagan, a fella at the "use to work" was getting his finance master's and he talked about it a bit how deficit spending could be a good thing, the cons were making up all kinds of new rules to justify Reagan's debt, but traditional old school thinking was that the government was big and should pay it's way as the money was needed, that was why SS was set up as pay as you go, somewhere along the line the pols got ahold of this ideal they could use the national credit card and of course that hasn't gone well, I know we're in a pickle and I can accept some debt for a while but we must change the mindset or we will forever be facing this problem of debt....

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Isn't a stimulus like draining blood from one part of the body, then injecting it into another part? Where the money is taken from and where it is injected is key.

Our economic body can't function if most of the blood rushes to the head while depleting the supply to our legs and arms. Drain the money from the abundant pools and reroute it to where it is lacking.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

The point of the stimulus is to create demand and fight unemployment while improving infrastructure for future generations. Please read the article, it's pretty clearly laid out.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

How big does the next one need to be?

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

I'm not an economist, but I'm sure someone could answer that. The first thing we need is political will.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well if you are going to back something like this, you damn well better know what you are talking about.

The country doesnt need anymore people parroting D/R solutions with no understanding of the details.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It's time people wake the fuck up and realize what is going on here, and the very very very hard choices we are going to have to make as a country. Big, sweeping changes.

Wanna save SS and MEdicare? End the fuckin wars. Give the people universal healthcare.

Wanne close the gap between the rich and the poor? The entire tax code needs to be wiped out and started over. And there also needs to be way more money dumped into local schools (and get DC, which only wants mindless consumers) the hell out of the way.

Etc, etc, etc.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Are you Fing serious? I need an exact number for you in order to justify my being in favor of a certain policy? It's not enough to listen to the world's leading economists? Back in '09 they were saying that the last one fell $400 billion short, so chew on that.

Parroting D/R solutions? What kind of cop out is that? First of all, tell me one mainstream politician who is calling for another stimulus at this point? You are so full of BS dude.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Reality has a liberal bias, and a conservative aversion.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think hc is a closet republican, & usually resorts to insults & unfounded accusations if you don't agree with him.

I agree we need a big stimulus. (the 1st one was watered down) Certainly when every jobs bill is obstructed you're gonna slow the recovery.

Just 2 days ago a veterans jobs bill (1 million) was defeated by traitorous abuse of filibuster by Republicans!

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

incorrect. The first stimulus was abused. As is all government spending. Until the abuses are addressed, any further stimulus will be ineffective.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Anti-government dogma. There is no reasoning with you, you are to close minded in your hatred of cooperation and team work.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

1st stimulus immediately set the framework in motion to end the bleeding of jobs (800k job loss per mo.!) and created the environment for 30 months of private sector job growth! (almost 5 million so far)

The stimulus brought the unemployment rate down by almost 2%.

If Repubs hadn't watered it down, obstructed every jobs bill, & fired almost a million public workers we would be at almost 5% unemployment.

More jobs bills/infrastructure/greentech to grow economy, outsource penalties, insource rewards. cut tax/debt for middle/working class.

That'll work.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The Jobs Act was your stimulus plan. And I think that pretty much everyone with half a brain realizes that the dollar is hanging on by a thread right now, which is why they have just shifted the stimulus burden to the FEd with QE1, 2 and 3. Keep it out of the MSM.

And no, you dont need an exact number. But a ballpark would be great. So I guess you are suggesting that 400B more than the last one would be the number you are shooting for?

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Good one.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So Moody's, who is run by Goldman Sachs, think that the gov borrowing more money from Goldman Sachs would have created jobs? Really?!! Im shocked.

There are 20 million people out of work. The only way this thing turns AROUND, is if the underlying issues of tax/trade/monetary and foreign policy are addressed in MASSIVE, major changes. Neither "side" (just think of how anti democractic THAT is) is going to get what they want.

[-] -1 points by Doglover (10) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

Economic Policy Institute? LOL

http://www.epi.org/about/board/

Hotbed of marxists.

And, you have to wonder WHY all of Obama's economic advisors have quit !

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

When have I EVER said that I think all of the extreme monetary tinkering was the solution? The whole reason the Obama kept libertarian monetarist clowns like Bernanke and Summers in power was supposedly that he was being "moderate" or "apolitical" or "bipartisan". If he would have acted like a "liberal" than he would have had Stiglitz, Krugman and Reich in there and it would have been a whole different ballgame.

At least I'm responsible and humble enough to avoid acting like more of an expert than I am. Just for fun, let's say yeah $500 billion in stimulus spent on infrastructure, etc. Something like the Jobs Act. $500 billion is less than 4% of GNP. $500 billion is less than 5% of our $14 trillion debt, half of which is left over from the Bush administration. It's not much at all considering how much we need it for our future.

Oh yeah, and "the dollar is hanging on by a thread"... more scare tactics, I guess we have to sit on our hands and let things get worse.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6733) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

if your house has walls they might be more persuadable....if Reich would run have you seen his latest?

http://books.google.com/books?id=quYQDr_HPukC&source=gbs_slider_cls_metadata_7_mylibrary

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

How much did Wall Street steal, and how much is the Private Sector stashing in offshore tax havens?? I say we go Iceland and nationalize all those assets and put a real number to work for the good of our country and the 99%!! And throw these dirty executives in prison with Bernie Madoff!!!

[-] 1 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

utilizing the tax code is not illegal.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

you have no right to anyone elses earnrd money or property.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

I know, they stole it all fair and square.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No one said sit on your hands? Where do you get these assumptions? The exact opposite is true. Its time to stop delaying the inevitable (the markets say its hanging on by a thread, not me. Be happy the rest of west is suffering the same exact shit, or we would be toast).

There is nothing libertarian about spending money like a drunken idiot, bailing out your friends, and lowering rates to near zero. That is raw fascism.

Im saying its time to get deep, get to the raw numbers, and really understand what it is going to take to turn this around, not just slow it.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Milton Friedman, the father of monetarism, was a self described libertarian. Bernanke cited Friedman as his inspiration to set interest rates to zero. Bernanke has always opposed fiscal spending, aside from maybe the "bailout". It is libertarian because it is all to avoid fiscal policy, which would mean social programs, which they hate because they are sociopaths.

Libertarian economics has often had direct ties to fascism. Pinochet was influenced by Hayek and Milton Friedman. Von Mises said that fascism "saved European civilization".

Libertarian ideas were the cause of the entire financial crisis, and now that monetarism has been literally proven wrong, the right wingers are trying to dust off Austrian pseudo-economics as a last resort, anything to avoid taxation and regulation.

[-] 4 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Tin horn dictator, Augusto Pinochet was installed, after a coup d'état of the democratically elected government with (R)Nixon's devious help, in a Shock Doctrine experiment. The current evolution of which (SD) is being used on us in the 1% class war being waged on the 99% today. We need to go Iceland on their asses.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well said.!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Once again, we have another person who is calling fascist policy something besides fascsist. The Republicans call it liberal. The left calls it libertarian.

There is nothing further from libertarian thought than central planners. Its the exact OPPOSITE of what they believe in. Just because someone says something is an inspiration, doesnt mean its true. Look at Bush. He called himself a conservative. And then proceeded with vast social programs and a rapid expansion of government. Obama claims to be a liberal, yet the war on drugs is still waging, the war on poverty is even further behind, and there is no talk of marriage equality.

Stop paying so much damn attention to what they say, and start judging them on actions.

[-] -1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

These guys are investment hacks. They have money riding on Obama's reelection. Obama has made a lot of after election promises and kept them all on a string. We've been arguing with some of them for the last 6 months. Find all the campaigners and their socks, and read the little bit they talk about. Green energy. Infrastructure. Enough pieces and you can figure out their areas of investment. My guess is they're psudo-wealthy. Wealthy enough to be shy of morals but not wealthy enough for dinner @ Goldman Sacks(of shit). Half of the "trolls" are them, directing the other side of the conversation so that others may only interject but not actually steer the forum conversation.

[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Economics is a theory for the most part. It is far from proven fact. I am sure you can find "world leading economists" that said the 2009 stimulus was too much or just right as well as those who say it was too little.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

So, economists are all full of it so we shouldn't listen to them at all? That's not exactly a constructive point of view.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

No, I am just saying that regardless of your view on economic matters you can find "world leading economists" to agree with you. They can't all be right.

And like I said, I am not anti-stimulus. Some of it goes right into my pocket on a weekly basis still to this day so I can't complain too much. I just think they should be more efficient in how they spend it to get more bang for the buck. I've gotten a nice sum of money from it since 2009 but I already had a job, I just make more now so from my end at least it is not really stimulating anything. Again, I am not complaining though.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

It's stimulating the economy because you have more disposable income than you otherwise would. You may choose to save all of that money, but almost everyone tend to splurge a little more on eating out or buying new clothes or going to the movies if they have a little more income coming in.

More income= more demand

It's really that simple.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Unsustainable spending doesn't help future generations.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Sitting on our hands and letting the infrastructure crumble doesn't help future generations.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

The 1% posterity be doing just fine, thank you very much. Big$ shows up and makes the sacrifice, we don't!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Wait a minute, I got that very same fortune cookie last week!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

lol

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

At least their inane talking points are good for a little comic relief.

Here's a little stimulus myth busting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-obamas-stimulus/2012/08/10/7935341e-e176-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Good one.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago
[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

no jobs were created, it was ( is ) a slush fund for obama.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

That is a blatant LIE. You are a either lying intentionally or repeating the lies of others.

"+ 1.4 million to 3.3 million — that's how many jobs were created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154910893/the-nation-obama-has-a-jobs-plan-romney-doesnt

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

npr? they shill for obama. no jobs were created.

[+] -4 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

how sad that you believe the govt and msm lies. you're just another " useful idiot"

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

So PBS and FactCheck.org are useless sources of info? Where do you get your facts, prisonplanet and the zeitgeist movie? Who's the useful idiot? smh...

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

pbs and factcheck, are both lib run.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

So where do you get your information then?

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

The CBO says the stimulus worked. The vast majority of expert economists says it worked. Upwards of 4 million jobs says it worked. But you alva, the most painfully stupid poster on this forum, says it didn't.

It's people like you, that God help us - I can't even say it! - go to the voting booth! - that scare the living hell out of me.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

is that why the official unemployment rate have been over 8 % for the last 44 months?

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

No you fucking moron. It's because job growth slowed since the stimulus ran out and Congress refused to pass the Pres. Jobs bill last fall.

Read the CBO report you idiot. Read the survey from the Univ. of Chicago. Read what the vast majority of economists say you freaking idiot.

And I am begging you! Begging you!! Please consider your severely painful stupidity! Have some mercy on the nation! Do the rest of the country a favor and stay home on election day!

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

44 months of 8 + % umemployment under obama.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your repubs watered watered down the stimulus, obstructed every jobs bill & fired almost a million public state workers.

2 days ago the repubs abused the filibuster again to kill 1 million veterans jobs.

Traitors! The unemployment rate would be 5% already if not for republican obstruction.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

still blaming everyone but bam? he had the senate AND the congress for 2 years. bam owns this economy.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

2 days ago the repubs abused the filibuster again to kill 1 million veterans jobs.

How is repub traitorous behavior Pres Obamas fault.?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

who got the money in the last stimulus ?

[-] -3 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

LOL, hahah. So all the new jobs were because Obama?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.t03.htm

Let give him equal credit for job losses then

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Wow, what an entirely thoughtless and logic-defying post. What I said was, the stimulus directly, literally, created some jobs. You are somehow arguing with that?

What you are saying is that the president is somehow directly responsible for job losses in the private sector? That's a serious stretch, even for the most adamant randroid.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

It's called straw man. GOP MO.

[-] -3 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I would hope that of the $800 billion or whatever it was that at least a few jobs would be created. If I took $200K of equity out of my house and had a small roller coaster built in my back yard it would also create a few jobs most likely. It doesn't necessarily mean its a good idea though.

I think people would have a lot less problems with deficit spending though if our government would spend more efficiently and less foolishly. Sure, the stimulus created some jobs but even a blind squirrel will find a nut sometimes.

[-] 4 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

"The government is inept" blah blah blah. More Tea Party talking points. OK, let's just sit on our hands then, right? Modern austerity is an apathetic and cowardly philosophy based on Randian sociopathy.

"I will sink the entire ship so long as I don't have to help another human being or contribute to the rest of society. Nothing repulses me more than that image."

[+] -4 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Haha yes, because anyone who criticizes the inefficiency of our government must be a raging Tea Partier and want to perform unspeakable acts on Ayn Rand. You are extremely wise.

I actually saw some of that stimulus money go right into my own pocket so I am not complaining (though I already had a job, I just get paid more now). I just get to see first hand how they love to piss away money and I can only assume that the pissing away of money is across the board.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I got an awesome folding bicycle out of the George W Bush stimulus but I got nothing from the Obama stimulus.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Sweet. At least you got something for your tax dollars. No doubt you rode your bike to the job it created for you.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Haha no I created the job myself. But I do still enjoy the bike.

I was just curious to see how long it would take for that comment to lead somebody to brand me as a Tea Partying Mitt Romney lover. Any post with words like "George W Bush" and "Obama" in it provokes a sort of predictable response on this site.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I would certainly hope that a Trillion dollar stimulus, along with massive FEd interference, creates some jobs. It would be almost impossible for it not to.

The problem is that stimulus does nothing to address the underlying issues. Its a cop out.

So what are you proposing should be the size of the next stimulus bill? And what should it entail?

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Wrong. Improving infrastructure directly addresses the underlying issues; employment and future prosperity/equity. That is exactly what it does.

You are her to obstruct meaningful discourse with your free-market proselytizing. Go here where to hang out with your own kind: www.teapartypatriots.org/

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Im not saying that it doesnt do THAT, Im saying its not a solution. Infrastructure investment does that regardless of when its done. Its infrastructure. Duh.

Im saying its a cop out.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

We need it NOW. Unemployment is high and the recovery is anemic.

We need to boost demand. Duh.

Doing nothing and sticking our heads in the sand is a cop out.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Goldman Sachs freakin loves guys like you....

So you want a Trillion dollar stimulus package? I would be up for that., if the entire system wasnt in bed with the banks. Problem is, it will all be funded through GS.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

So, you suggest no deficit spending, because that would involve working around our current central banking system? Banks lend. That's what they do. Get over it.

I'm sick of your type of obstructionism. You offer no solution to boost employment and demand, so leave the damn conversation.

Go here: forum.prisonplanet.com/

Or here: conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum

Or here: www.ronpaulforums.com/

Get the hell out.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The problems are structural. Printing more money isnt going to change a damn thing.

Ill get you a list of some stuff that would probablu work better. Give me a second.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

How much was stolen and stashed? That much! Make Ralph Nader a special prosecutor, we'll get multiple trillions back!!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ok, so do you have any numbers? And dont bring Nader into this, I guarantee you he wants nothing to do with this group of criminals.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

I heard it was 23 Trillion. That will do. Nader would like nothing better than to bring the Banksters and evaders to supreme justice!! Nader, special Economic Treason Prosecutor! Oh man!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Nader would like to do it, but the D/R wont let him.

Why do you think they fought so hard to keep and everyone else who has real ambition, off the ballots?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Politics. It's an unfortunate truth in our winner takes all political structure. Dems went through a faze of running candidates with "real ambition" or aptitude, and losing to BS artists and dirty tricks. Perhaps if we had more of a shared leadership, extremists and scoundrels would not have such influence. Nader is a special case. There are very few greater American patriots with so much ability and ambition. But the Power Elite hates his guts, and wouldn't hesitate to drop the big one on a Nader WH, even if they got caught. And he is an electoral hot potato in that he has followers from all sides, but not a majority from any one. He would make a great honest Ken Starr. And all those Jamie Dimons would get the justice they deserve.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Regarding your comment about how both parties are committed to perpetual war.

We do have to take control. Our protests have moved the govt/national direction on financial/economic equity and it can do the same regarding war.

I think OWALLSt is focused on continued protests regarding economic equity. UFPJ is a good org for anti war protests. There areothers as well. OWS has added their voice and should continue.

War is hell! End the wars.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

insufficient funds

[-] 0 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

from j m keynes - "The gold standard meant that the value of a country's money was determined by international market forces to which each country had to conform in terms of appropriate adjustments in its domestic structure of prices and wages.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Keynes never said that. You took that off some Lizardarian website. Anyway, whats your point?

[-] 0 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

really - you don't think he said that - the first point is the gold standard is part of the golden rule - you know - those with the gold....secondly we need to realize that a fiat currency allows us to create all the money we need for full employment

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

I know how to use google, those are the words of Lizardarian Richard M. Ebeling.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

http://203.200.22.249:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2209/1/A_tract_on_monetary_reform.pdf

Don't show this to ZenDog, he'll blow a gasket.

Actually strike that -- there is no way that he would have the attention span for this.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

i think he has already blow something - some of these people do not want to see the hand in front of their face. "there are none so blind as those who will not see!"

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

The jobs problem is going to get worse whether you like it or not. And no amount of temporary print and spend will resolve that. The question becomes, is it fair to Americans to increase the tax burden while enriching the money mongers - Rothschild, I'm quite certain, is buying more gold right now.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

"no amount of temporary print and spend will resolve that"

Where did you get that analysis? I guess you've never heard of the New Deal. Obama already created 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs with the last stimulus. Try getting your information from somebody besides Ron Paul and Alex Jones.

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154910893/the-nation-obama-has-a-jobs-plan-romney-doesnt

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I got from a place called "common sense" - Google it.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Infrastructure is not "temporary" dummy. The stuff that FDR and Eisenhower did is still around to this day.

Dude I hope you're not talking about Thomas Paine... Things have come a long way in the last 300 years you know. Let's not go back.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Infrastructure isn't temporary but the jobs are... Obama has been stumping about "infrastructure" but not a single item has been proposed - it's all bogus.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

What do you suppose the millions of jobs created by the last stimulus entailed? Digging ditches and filling them back in? Why don't you quote a reliable source and stop making assumptions based on your ideology.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Obama's job council hasn't met in six months - that's not ideology, that's a fact. And infrastructure is - literally - a pipe dream; by the time they finish conducting studies for these construction projects he'll be long gone.

What ideology are you referring to - the American working class ideology which says that government should not put coal miners out of work? Or feels that government should not send manufacturing jobs across the border to enrich corporations and bankers?

Two months ago the Obama jobs number was 416,000 and now suddenly it has jumped to "millions"? Check your facts: it's bogus and a lie.

This isn't ideology; this is just "tired" of being repeatedly lied to. By people just like you.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fact-check-4-5-million-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html

[-] -1 points by stinkyhippie (-7) 2 years ago

Yea boy...that 2 $ TRILLION Obama spent Stimulating the economy sure worked swell. 10-% unemployment, and getting worse.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

$2T? Are you just pulling numbers out of thin air now?

[-] -1 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

You are right! If you people spend another 5trillion we will be on easy street!!

[-] 4 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

You have to invest it like FDR and Eisenhower, not steal it like Raygun and Bushes. You do understand the difference, don't you? I think not.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Just... try to have an open mind. I know the corporate media has fed you all kinds of tripe about how the national debt is such a crisis, just read the article dude. He won a Nobel Prize for a reason.

[-] 4 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

They think Nobels are liberal-commie conspiracy. Wealth and greed seems more their speed.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

What we need is more bankers regulating the banks. While we're at it, I think Monsanto should start regulating Monsanto.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Crash course on American government (civics). That's what we need.

[-] -1 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

I'm not joking. We might as well keep spending. And Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize too. For what I don't know. Like Paul Krugman says we didn't inject nearly enough money into the economy. Maybe the recent Federal Reserve actions will make the vital difference.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Get into the way-back machine and take a look at GOP obstruction and fighting when Dems tried to get any stimulus at all.

[-] -1 points by Doglover (10) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

The debt is over 16 Trillion or over $50,000 for every person in the United States.

What is the definition of short-term? Hell, Obama couldn't even tell us the national debt number on Letterman the other night. Seems to me it would be a pretty important number if you want to make the case not to focus on it. Shouldn't you at least be able to tell us how much it is and WHY we shouldn't focus on it?

I'm sure he didn't have a problem remembering his NCAA bracket predictions, did he?

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

The debt is around the same as current GDP. Stop trying to scare people with words like "TRILLION". Lot's of people make $200k per year and have a $200k mortgage, I takes a while to pay off but it doesn't equal "financial peril" by a longshot.

[-] 0 points by Doglover (10) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

You don't know what you're talking about. The U.S. financial numbers are worse than Greece. Have you seen what's been going on there?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43378973/US_Is_in_Even_Worse_Shape_Financially_Than_Greece_Gross

[-] 1 points by Doglover (10) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

Wrong. Like you always are.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Oops! How could I miss that FOX talking point. So I stand by my point. GDP is over $15T.

Paying down the debt without investing leads to inequity and anemic growth.

[-] 2 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

i think these people are a waste of time - well you know that already

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Spending isnt the answer. And neither is cutting.

The answer is fixing the underlying structural problems with the trade/tax/monetary and foreign policies.

Spending or cutting is the easy way out for both sides. Which is why its what they always suggest. Too bad the people werent smart enough to catch on.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Dude your entire understanding of economics is completely wrong. I have seen you around and all you try to do is obstruct any useful conversation with your pro-elite anti-science. Why don't you go hang out with Ron Drawl or the Tea Farty? You're not willing to learn so I kindly suggest that you just take a hike.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Let me know when you are ready to make some real hard decisions instead of just begging Goldman Sachs for more loans.

Your view is extremely short sighted, and does nothing to address the underlying problems. Its typical talking point nonsense.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Let's get the money they stole back!!

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

A Jack LaLanne Power Juicer for every American!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMqemXx1e9M

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And create a 1$ wealth tax on all the money ($32 Trillion) the 1% are hoarding.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Economic terrorism has a steep price. Drones? or Special Prosecutor Nader?? Either one works for me, oh man, how sweet it would be!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I like the Darth Nader prosecutor idea. I think there is still 2 years left on the statute of limitations on these financial crimes.

That is what I hope for.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Let the letter and petition campaigns begin!

Special Prosecutor Nader!!!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I wonder if he would be willing. And do you think the Obama admin had this in mind when they let the states begin the prosecutions?

I suppose that is too hopeful. But if so that is some bad ass chess playing shit.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Nader would eat it like candy. Chess is being played, checks are rampant, and we only see the checkmates.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

From your mouth, to the invisible man in the sky with superpowers dude!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1987) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

I wonder if he has broadband?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

he has everything man! And controls everything!

He is literally THE MAN! And he is holding us down! LoL