Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: some say "the debt is a problem for the elite not ows"

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 2, 2014, 6:47 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

https://occupywallst.org/forum/surgeon-charges-250000-to-sew-up-an-incesion/#comment-1048914

Poster "flip" says that the fact that we were on track to pay the National Debt off by 2010 before W Bush was elected doesn't mean anything to people who support OWS, I think he's full of crap and I believe that government debt is the method by which the wealthy indenture future generations.

What do you folks think? Government debt, problem or not?

101 Comments

101 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by agkaiser (1883) from Fredericksburg, TX 3 years ago

Should we render unto Caesar, what Caesar, in the fullness of hubris, demands of us or should we meet out justice to Caesar according to our common sense about what we need to survive?

Must we honor our debts to Caesar even if we must die to do so?

The elite class of parasites [Caesar] have outsourced our livelihoods, made us dependent on foreign producers and driven us into debt to them to get what we need to live instead of allowing us to work in our own country to produce our sustenance.

Will we be good capitalists until the day we die of debt and starvation or will we string up the billionaires and bankers and the politicians they own by the heels to draw and quarter them?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

ag there is a certain rhythm to your writing that makes it a pleasure to read, I wonder though if at times clarity is elusive...

still the meaning is clear enough, I would say you have it about right and we should insist taxes meet outlays, I would encourage a automatic "millionaires tax" to trigger after any quarterly shortfall, I think that would discourage greatly the dropping of expensive bombs which would make many of us happier...

[-] 4 points by agkaiser (1883) from Fredericksburg, TX 3 years ago

thank you. i'm glad my writing pleases you.

w.r.t. clarity: i'm not talking about government debt alone and paying it off is not what i have in mind. there should be no profit on finance. finance must be done of by and for the people on a non profit basis. any profit on finance is parasitic, will concetrate wealth and ultimately destroy the real economy. middlemen like superfluous rich must be outlawed and eliminated from existence. i'm indifferent to whether that's accomplished by taxation or more drastic means.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

It is so rare we see a writer on here, your thoughts on interest are aligned with certain spiritual beliefs I believe, though I'm no expert. Myself I find many spiritual beliefs to be founded on sound principle, this being one of those.

w.r.t. paying it off, I would find a certain symmetry in applying taxes to large estates which would then be used to buy the people's debt back from those same estates....

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1883) from Fredericksburg, TX 3 years ago

write on!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

this is a topic that requires a serious discussion for those intersted in moving ows forward. it is a common argument form the right that "we don't have the money." we don't have the money to pay social security, to pay postal workers, to pay teachers properly to create a functioning health care system. they know the truth when the finanacil system is failing no? they found trillions to help them out - no? they also are always able to find the "money" when they want to bomb someone. we need to realize that we can "print" all the money we need to build a sustainable and just economy - what we need to be careful about is wasting the finite resources (like oil and steel etc) that are the basis of our real wealth. inflation and debt are misunderstood by most and we need to bring back the populist education of the 1880's. they understood why the rich wanted the gold standard and hated fiat currency! i would suggets reading stephanie kelton's talk from italy - very helpful. alan watts says it bettter for those who are enlightened!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

so you are now backing down from the position that it is a problem only for the elite?

Are you then prepared to say that being on track to pay the debt off entirely by 2010 was a good thing and those policies should have been maintained and that those that failed to support the continuation of those police are in fact responsible for not only the huge debt but also the wars that have occurred as a result.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

you need to read graeber - do you know who he is? one of the "founders" of ows - you should. not sure you will understand him but try. money is debt - so no paying off the debt is not a good thing. can you respond to this - it is a common argument form the right that "we don't have the money." we don't have the money to pay social security, to pay postal workers, to pay teachers properly to create a functioning health care system. they know the truth when the finanacil system is failing no? they found trillions to help them out - no? they also are always able to find the "money" when they want to bomb someone. we need to realize that we can "print" all the money we need to build a sustainable and just economy - what we need to be careful about is wasting the finite resources (like oil and steel etc) that are the basis of our real wealth.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Really flip do you not pay attention to anything? here is the quote for you since you seem to know nothing of recent history:

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

Here is a link to the post where this was discussed here on the forum:

https://occupywallst.org/forum/bush-tax-cut-deficit/

and I will bump it for you....

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

thanks - you just made my point. qouting alan greenspan! what will be next - hayek or ayn rand? do you think the discredited "maestro" is on the side of ows or the rich? do you know who he is - wow - he is a real free market fundamentalist and one who helped deregulate the financial sector. i could go on but i shouldn't have to - can you answer the queston about what the debt is used for- no i didn't think so. how about answering the point that when the government runs a surplus it is taking money out of the economy. it is a simple thought - even you should be able to understand it. when the gov't spends money and goes into debt - as in paying unemployemnt ins or fixing road or paying out welfare payments it is putting money into the system. now one might make the case that during times of economic boom it is not bad to create a surplus but certainly in these times - of recession it is not a good idea. now thank you for your continuing this discussion so that others (not you i am assuming) can read and understand how money and government works

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

so you excuse your ignorance by attacking the source, flip you are so ignorant of current events it is amazing you can even use a computer

so you are so limited that you must love those from which you obtain information?

flip you are indeed an idiot

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

nice going - defending the maestro! wow you fooled me again. i thought you would go with hayek since ayn rand is sucha nazi. but instead you went with the non answer - i should have known - silly me- once again i feel like the pear - oh god

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I just called you ignorant rather redundant I admit, but I defended no one, you are a lying idiot and as we now know you are completely ignorant of any economic knowledge.

As well as being a GOP electing political hack.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

so what exactly happened to derail the 2010 paying off of the debt? i am not sure you are correct here - the debt is a big number and i doubt it could have been paid off by 10 but what happened?

[-] 5 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

government debt is a swindle by the wealthy to garner more cash

a proper government would tax the rich

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

yes the government should tax the rich - especially these guys - "in 2013 the top 25 hedge fund managers took home, on average, almost a billion dollars each." having said that government debt is not a problem if it is used to build a smart grid, fund solar and renewables, rebuild our rail system, retrofit our homes to be more energy effecient - need i go on? when the debt is used to fund wars and bank bailouts and to ship jobs overseas as the rich like - that is a problem

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

government doesn't need debt

government CAN collect and produce what is needed

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i disagree - read graeber "debt, the fist 5000 years"

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

it is also an excuse for austerity, it takes from future workers a part of their pay to give to the wealthy bond holders and creates an indenture nation, taxes sufficient to pay the costs of government should be applied.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

this is a topic that requires a serious discussion for those intersted in moving ows forward. it is a common argument form the right that "we don't have the money." we don't have the money to pay social security, to pay postal workers, to pay teachers properly to create a functioning health care system. they know the truth when the finanacil system is failing no? they found trillions to help them out - no? they also are always able to find the "money" when they want to bomb someone. we need to realize that we can "print" all the money we need to build a sustainable and just economy - what we need to be careful about is wasting the finite resources (like oil and steel etc) that are the basis of our real wealth. inflation and debt are misunderstood by most and we need to bring back the populist education of the 1880's. they understood why the rich wanted the gold standard and hated fiat currency! i would suggets reading stephanie kelton's talk from italy - very helpful. alan watts says it bettter for those who are enlightened!

[-] 2 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Money is like inches and ounces - an abstract, arbitrary - yet commonly accepted metric for measuring 'wealth' but it is not 'wealth' per se. Until we have clarified our critique of 'money' itself - and therefore by extension 'debt' .. then we will always be playing catch up and the initiative will as ever remain with The Venal Banksters ; The Extractive and Parasitic Rentier Class and their larcenous lackeys and dupes in the mainstream political parties & media in 'USUK' etc. Also see :

''Government debt'' - can be a problem but it really depends on who issues that debt ; who holds it ; for how long ; how it is traded etc. - but - What is 'money' really ? Who 'issues' it and how ? Who decides how much of it there is in circulation ? These are some of the questions we need to ask. Do NOT just take the word of TPTB and their MSM stooges about the 'nature of debt & money' and if you are really interested in 'Debt' then you must 'simply' face the very real issue of 'INTEREST', especially when it is 'compounded', so ...

  • consider : A = P x (1 + r/n) to the power of {n x t} ; where ~

  • P = principal amount (the initial amount you borrow or deposit) ;

  • r = annual rate of interest (as a decimal) ;

  • t = number of years the amount is deposited or borrowed for ;

  • A = amount of money [Debt] accumulated after n years, including interest &

  • n = number of times the interest is compounded per year !!!

The 'Compound Interest Equation' above, can also be simplified if 'n' is obviated by it being assumed that n = 1 .. thus leaving : A = P x (1 + r) to the power 't'

Tho' this is a more elegant equation, it is nevertheless also true that interest is compounded many more times than just once a year and banks can calculate & 'compound' interest on a daily basis - especially on loans and debt & now, just imagine that 'n' = 365 !!! I am sure that there are some extremely serious implications to that !! ! My mind boggles a little at the thought of it AND at how we speak so little about 'Interest, Debt and especially about 'Jubilee' - which was well understood in The OT !

99% & Student Debt Jubilee Now !!! Stop Paying Odious Compounded Onerous Interest and pandering to The Banksters and at most - just repay The Principle & fight to end Debt Slavery ffs !! Instead of the controlled and co-opted Pols all just tinkering and submitting to avarice, larceny and pure parasitism !

What is needed now is 'Publicly Owned Banks' and especially 'Central Banks' - which are currently mostly cartels and clubs of private banks & bankers, eg. The Fed & The Bank Of England. Libya btw had a Publicly Owned Central Bank & Iran still does, interestingly enough. Also urgently fyi, consider :

From which, do try to consider ... ''Interest charges are a strongly regressive tax that the poor pay to the rich. A public banking system could realize savings up to 40 percent - allowing taxes to be cut, services increased and market stability created, with banks feeding the economy rather than feeding off it.'' Also :

The final link is to a forum-post that includes many links, comments & arguments to support the above.

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 3 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

"MODERN MONEY MECHANICS" - A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion ; from The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago :

So I mostly agree with 'flip' that "the debt is a problem for the elite'' they can nevertheless offset its effect because they own the govt. & its institutions but the debt is problematic for The 99% & OWS too I think as 'Debt' ipso facto - underpins modern fiat money banking. Finally, do try to consider :

ne quid nimis ...

[-] 7 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

it depends to a great extent what the debt is used for. if you go into to debt and take the money to vegas and blow it - ng. if you invest in a new gas furnace and cut your heating bill from $4000 a year to $1500 that would be a good use of debt (as we just did). if the gov't uses the debt to bomb people or build useless aircraft carriers - ng. if it invests in a smart grid and solar and making homes more energy efficient and mass transit - that would be a good thing!

[-] 3 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

The ''neoliberal wealth extraction machine'' ... is the main problem that assails us all & of course I agree that 'borrowing for investment' that'll give long term returns is ok. But instead of bailing out private banks & 'Queasing' ever larger sums to keep the whole shonky edifice teetering - lets nationalise central banks & make 'cheap money' available to The 99% to invest in themselves and their families and communities and enable the circulation of money (via its 'velocity' and 'The Multiplier Effect' spread wealth, instead of the 1% & Parasite Class hoovering it up at the top. Re. The Friedmanite 'Chicago School' / 'Washington Consensus' of Neoliberal Austerity and Imperial War proposing ''wealth extraction machine'' .. {via those strictures of money lending and compounded interest}, please consider :

''The World Bank is very well funded and vastly powerful. With money it makes trading on Wall Street and through donations from rich country governments, it distributes about $30 billion each year, mostly in loans, to less rich countries, ostensibly to promote economic development. But it has a pretty checkered history, and one that has attracted legions of critics over the years, including a broad range of economists, governments and large NGOs, but most persistently grassroots and community groups whose lives it directly affects. And now, after a decade or so of relative calm during which the Bank seemed to get some measure of control back over its public image, criticism is again mounting.

''It's a criticism that runs deep, to the very core of the Bank's purpose and guiding ideology, and it is being voiced all over the world, from the farmlands and cities of India, Latin America and Africa to the doorstep of the Bank's headquarters in Washington, DC.

''As the organs of the neoliberal wealth extraction machine get more sophisticated and subversive, the world's social movements are adapting their responses. They are taking various forms, from occupying public space to synchronized marches in the street. They are removing the veils of rhetoric, experimenting with new tools for organizing and building power to counteract the deadening forces of corporate globalization.''

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

ok so do I put down as debt good or bad?

Do you agree with flip that the debt is only a problem for the elite or not, this bunch of links don't really tell us how you feel Shadz are you afraid to tell us? Are you scared people will see you for what you are?

[-] 4 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

'Occupy Alternative Banking' : http://altbanking.net/ and ...

'Occupy the SEC' : http://www.occupythesec.org/ & please try to digest ...

''It's the Interest, Stupid! Why Bankers Rule the World'', by Ellen Brown :

are the most important links arguably but I would say every link provided above is relevant to the subject matter of your forum-post. I've tried to reply to with candour and honesty - you not so much, I think. With your sad lack of grace, again you remind me not to reply to your posts but I will try not to let umbrage at your gracelessness mar the need for info via the agon. I am ''scared'' of nothing, emanating from you and please feel free to opine about 'what I am' but be advised that saying that I have ANYthing to do with The Repugnants will only make u look very silly indeed ! Yet again !! Debt based fiat money is the problem !!!

temet nosce ...

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

well if it isn't it the top campaigner for the GOP chiming in again, still no word from him about if he thinks debt is only a problem for the elite, as with many who work to elect the GOP he avoids actually answering any direct questions..

I don't say you're a con, I just say you elect the GOP and so does your friend flip

You may not accept the things Obama does but you accept a W Bush in the White House, what does that say about you?

[-] 4 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

The 0.01% Parasite Class do NOT think that debt is their problem - because they totally own the fkn Government and the Politicians and so make sure that they get bailed-out and underwritten ... by The 99% - you fkn numpty and - I no more ''accept'' that cunt G.W.Bush and his stolen elections than I do accept Obomber - and his lies to get elected !!!

Your deep mental block at not being able to differentiate between critiques of Obomber, Hitlary and The Democraps from 'The Left' and the Corporate Controlled ; Viscerally Nationalistic ; Deeply Racist ; Anti-Progressive ; Imperialistic and Blindly Pro-Crapitalist, GOP - is sooo telling, common in the U$A and so utterly idiotic .. as to not even be fkn funny any more !!

The very premise of your question is at fault actually because .. ''The Debt'' need NOT be a fkn 'Debt' At All .. IF 'A Publicly Owned State Central Bank' is calmly considered - but of course - you are far too much of a heavily pre-programmed dolt to ever to want to get that ... despite all my links to you or Ellen Brown's article above .. so - ''what does thAt .. say about YOU'' ?!

''The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled'' - John Kenneth Galbraith & - fiat money is the 'double entry book-keeping' magical exercise by which a 'credit' instantly generates a 'debit'. This is a mathematical construct and is NOT reflected in nature. Think about that frf.

ad iudicium ...

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

You do not work to defeat the GOP, therefore you accept the GOP, I don't work to defeat the Dems, you do have me there, but you don't work to defeat the GOP so that is your cross to bear.

I reject the GOP by working to defeat them you accept the GOP.

I accept the things the Dems do because I reject the GOP you would rather accept the GOP and reject what the Dems do.

[-] 1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

''World Versus Bank : The Return of the World Bank and the People's Resistance'', by Martin Kirk and Alnoor Ladha :

It's NOT merely about the 'D' side or the 'R' side of your crooked coin, you oaf !!! YOU fkn ''accept'' that status quo - you binary-blinded, duopoly-deluded, nicompoop !! It's about the whole 'D and R' Bankster-Imperial, 'Wars & Austerity' Consenus ! Here, go get yet another clue about what we're all up against :

I don't fall for/in or wallow in - your reductionist 'D&R' schizophrenia & like I said before - I get that being a liberal/left Dem in aRizona is no small potatoes but frankly that just isn't enough for The 99% at large - even tho' it might count as a start in AZ ! I wish you all the best with your progressive efforts in a deeply reactionary part of the US but I'm NOT the enemy !! Conservative and Duopolistic Status-quo'ism .. is !!!

fiat lux ...

[+] -5 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

It is you that constantly attack the Dems and accept the outcome that it elects the GOP, I may be "trapped" in reality but you push pure fiction with no regard to the consequences.

[-] 3 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

''Building an Ark : How to Protect Public Revenues from the Next Meltdown'', by Ellen Brown :

I ''constantly attack'' Banksters & 0.01% Parasites & try to point out that DEMoblicans & REPublicrats are their wholly owned tools & puppets. Your deep affiliation and affection for one face of this corrupted, corporate controlled crooked coin - is duly noted ... .. once again !!! Now get your head out of your arse & read that fkn article by the ever excellent Ellen Brown !! You never know factsy .. you just might even learn something useful for you AND The 99% ! Also, once again fyi, I append and strongly recommend :

ipsa scientia potestas est ...

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

food for thought? - it depends to a great extent what the debt is used for. if you go into to debt and take the money to vegas and blow it - ng. if you invest in a new gas furnace and cut your heating bill from $4000 a year to $1500 that would be a good use of debt (as we just did). if the gov't uses the debt to bomb people or build useless aircraft carriers - ng. if it invests in a smart grid and solar and making homes more energy efficient and mass transit - that would be a good thing!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I didn't see the "it depends" in your original comment you seemed pretty certain the whole thing was just a problem for the elite I will refer you to your comment, so you are now backing down from that position?

Are you then prepared to say that being on track to pay the debt off entirely by 2010 was a good thing and those policies should have been maintained and that those that failed to support the continuation of those police are in fact responsible for not only the huge debt but also the wars that have occurred as a result.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

other than you the people who complain about the debt are the elite - simpson bowles come to mind. so yes today - in this political culture the rich are the ones who want to cut the deficit - by ending social security, unemployemnt ins, privitizing schools and prisons - i could go on. you are not saying that the wars are a result of the debt are you - maybe the reverse

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

so when they use the debt as an excuse to cut social security, unemployment ect.. you don't see that as a problem that OWS should talk about you don't see how that hurts working people? Wait a minute I'm talking to someone who can't see a difference between Al Gore and W Bush so of course you can't see how that would be a problem.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

again you make my point - thanks - do you remember YOUR original post calling me out - what was the jist of that - remember?? that the rich are saying the debt is a problem. so when you say "they" as you did here "so when they use the debt as an excuse to cut social security, unemployment ect." who exactly do you mean - name them. is it labor leaders, advocates for the poor and working class, advocates for home morgage relief, or aarp perhaps - nope it is simpson/bowles and peterson and the like - the rich you moron! the ruling class, the power elite, the masters of the universe or maybe just the 1%!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

The gist is this, I said a Dem, Clinton had us on track to pay the debt off, which would have been a great thing because it would remove a tool the rich use to hold the people down, you refuse to give any credit for any good to any Dem so you took the ridiculous position that the debt was not a problem, now you are trying to defend that ridiculous position rather than just facing up to the truth that you screwed up.

I'm just messing with you watching you defend this ridiculous position, that's the gist of it.

Your love of the GOP and your desire to elect them is clouding your vision.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

sonow the question becomes - is the debt a problem in an of itself or simply because it is "a tool the rich use to hold the people down," i assume you realize that you have made my point AGAIN! i willl agree that the rich use the debt to say we have no money for all the things that people need. all i did so many months ago was to tell you that the debt is an issue the rich use and now you say the same - thank you

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

So then Bill Clinton a democratic President did a very good thing by putting us on track to pay off the debt and this is just another example of Nader's complete blindness. It is surprising to see you praising the actions of Bill Clinton maybe there is hope for you.

oh and it was a week ago you are just a huge lair at your core:

2 points by flip (6852) 1 week ago when the federal government runs a surplus and retires debt it actually takes money out of the economy - exactly the opposite of what should be done in time of recession. the debt is a problem for the elite not ows - as in simpson bowles! you should try to understand how government finances work - i could explain it but i am afraid you would just do your usual. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

you cannot be this stupid really - can you? first of all you are correct that the rich use the debt to hold [people down - you said that remember - yes?? now that is the same thing i said - you are parroting the rich when you praise the debt reduction. the correct response is not to reduce the debt but to educate people so that when the rich complain about it they understand that it is a red herring. get it - get it - no i am sure you do not - sad little man. and it seems that you cannot understand that when the government runs a surplus it is taking money out of the economy - maybe you will get it if galbraith says it - doubtful but i will try -"In Defense of Deficits" by the great James Galbraith "To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call "economic growth." One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that's basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors--public deficits or private loans--has to be in action. For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in "net financial wealth." Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks.

And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. Bankers don't like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over--a house or factory or company--that will then become the property of the bank. It's easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits.

All of this should be painfully obvious, but it is deeply obscure. It is obscure because legions of Wall Streeters--led notably in our time by Peter Peterson and his front man, former comptroller general David Walker, and including the Robert Rubin wing of the Democratic Party and numerous "bipartisan" enterprises like the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--have labored mightily to confuse the issues.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

So I glance though this bullcrap but it mostly looks like you're just trying really hard not to admit how wrong you were that is classic of idiots like you. No mention of your lie saying it was months ago when it was last week, you are so wrong on the facts so often why would anyone care what you say?

What's painfully obvious is you have a hard time giving credit where credit is due if it might hurt your precious political party because at your core you are just a hack helping to elect Republicans.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i thought you liked liberal democrats? so you quote greenspan like he knows something and then trash galbraith as bullcrap - hmmmmm - sounds very republican to me. do you know the galbraiths - let me help you. for sure you need lots of it! from wiki - John Kenneth "Ken" Galbraith, was a Canadian and, later, American economist, public official, and diplomat, and a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism. His books on economic topics were bestsellers from the 1950s through the 2000s, during which time Galbraith fulfilled the role of public intellectual. In macro-economical terms he was a Keynesian and an institutionalist.[2]...................

Galbraith was active in Democratic Party politics, serving in the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. He served as United States Ambassador to India under the Kennedy administration. His prodigious literary output and outspokenness made him, arguably, "the best-known economist in the world"[4] during his lifetime.[5]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Oh let's see is this where you say you were mistaken and it was last week not months ago as you had claimed?

I would say you suffer from head up the butt disease, but that is like saying the sky is blue.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

Not sure what you are debating here - some time frame about some statement. Very substantive! How about Greenspan or Galbraith. That is much more interesting don't you think

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

we all want to be special

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

The question at hand is. Did Bill Clinton do a good thing by placing us on track to pay the debt off? That is the substantive question at hand you have so far said no he did not I say yes he did.

The question at hand is are you capable of recognizing reality.

It has nothing to do with Galbraith unless you can produce a quote from him saying we were not on track to pay the debt off back in 2001.

As far as Galbraith goes he has never failed to vote for the Dem, he has never thrown his vote away on a third party ego whore, nor has he ever supported or endorsed one.

[-] 5 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

reread this part from galbraith - For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in "net financial wealth." Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks. And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

first of all we need to discuss how that debt is used. do we bail out banks or build a smart grid. do we build aircraft carriers that will never protect us from 9/11 style attacks or build solar power - any thought on this?

secondly - "The nation’s debt is a good deal for Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the leaders of the failed deficit commission. The two are profiting personally by urging fat cats and CEOs to support their two-year-old, already-interred deficit reduction plan.

Simpson, a former Republican Senator, and Bowles, a Morgan Stanley director, charge $40,000 a pop to promote their rejected scheme to fix the debt by slashing Social Security, Medicare and other programs for the middle class. That means every time they speak, Simpson and Bowles each pocket more than 2.5 times the $15,000 that a typical senior citizen gets from Social Security in an entire year.

The Simpson-Bowles personal profit tour reveals that for them, for their creation – the speciously labeled Campaign to Fix the Debt – and for the CEOs, right-wing groups and Republicans rallying round them, the effort has nothing to do with deficits or fixing anything. For them, it’s all about personal profit. And if their personal gain costs the vast middle class any sense of retirement security after a lifetime of paying into these earned benefit programs, well Simpson-Bowles & Co. are just fine with that.

Simpson is the avatar for those wailing, “fix the debt,” while demanding special deals for themselves. In 1996 as a Senator needing support from senior citizens, Simpson offered an amendment noting that 60 percent of them depended on Social Security for at least half of their income. It specified:

“Social Security beneficiaries throughout the nation deserve to be reassured that their benefits will not be subject to cuts and their Social Security payroll taxes will not be increased as a result of legislation to implement a balanced budget amendment.”

Now, when he’s a shill bagging $40,000 a speech from business groups and CEOs, he calls Social Security recipients “greedy geezers,” and scorns the program cherished by the middle class, calling it:

“a milk cow with 310 million tits.”

Easy for Simpson to say. For his 18 years in the Senate, U.S. taxpayers are giving him a pension of between $41,000 and $55,000 a year, which is two to three times more generous than a middle class person would get in the private sector, if the worker were lucky enough to receive that now-rare benefit.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Lot's of stuff from other folks but it still not clear do you or do you not believe it is a problem only for the elite as you stated in the linked to comment, please try to be serious and answer the question.

Why do you feel it is a problem only the elite?

Are you capable of having a serious discussion flip?

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i will try to make it simple for you - can you respond to this - first of all we need to discuss how that debt is used. do we bail out banks or build a smart grid. do we build aircraft carriers that will never protect us from 9/11 style attacks or build solar power - any thought on this?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I will make it simple for you as well the question is, were we in better shape when we were on track to pay the debt off? You said the debt was a problem only for the elite, to make it very very simple do you still hold that position?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

as i have said many times - yes. it is the elite and not the unemployed who want to cut the deficit. it is the rich and not the old on social security who are worried that we are spending to much money. now how about answering my question - you can't can you?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

this post is discussing your position that the debt is a problem only for the elite, you are an idiot flip, the debt is owed to the rich by the taxpayers which for the most part working people, the debt is a tool of the wealthy to control the masses, it is idiots like you that allow the rich to get away with it because you are too busy plotting your rise to power to notice.

I'll answer any question you have after you explain how helping to elect the GOP as you do, does any good at all....

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I don't much care for posts that single out users of the forum - whether they are a bone head or not. Could you edit your post title to remove the user name reference?

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

from stephanie kelton - “As long as the state has the power to enforce its tax laws, the people will need the government’s money. The currency will have value. People will work to sell things—goods and services—to the government in order to get government money. Whatever the government accepts in payment to itself becomes the ultimate, ‘definitive,’ money in the economy. It is the only way to settle a debt. You must use government money. We can imagine in any economy a hierarchy of money. But not all money is created equal. The most acceptable money sits at the top of the pyramid. Those are the IOUs that everyone accepts and everyone must accept. Those are the IOUs that are ultimately needed to pay our debts. Those are the government’s IOUs. The rest of us can go in debt, issue IOUs, but our debt is not as good as government debt. It’s not as acceptable. It can’t be used to pay for things.

(c. 10:25) “In the U.S., the hierarchy looks like this: The government’s IOU—the United States dollar—sits at the top of the pyramid. It is a fiat currency. The United States government is the monopoly issuer of the U.S. dollar—the only entity on the planet that can legally create the currency. The U.S. government taxes in dollars. It spends in dollars. And it controls its own currency. Why is this important? What are the benefits of issuing your own currency? They are extraordinary.

(c. 11:19) “The government, when it issues its own currency, and goes into debt in that currency can always pay its debt, can never go broke, can never run out of money. It can afford anything that is for sale in that currency. It doesn’t need to borrow its own currency. And it can set its own interest rate. It does not have to pay what markets want. It does not become a victim to speculation, to bond vigilantes. It has additional policy space. It can do things for its economy and for its people that a government that does not have a sovereign currency cannot do.

(c. 12:18) “Think about what the hierarchy would look like under a gold standard. Many governments operated under gold or silver or both for some period of time in our world history. Under a gold standard, the government promises to convert its currency into gold. In that situation, what sits at the top of the pyramid is not the state’s currency, but the gold reserves. This means that the government must be careful about how much it spends. If it spends too much of its own currency, it can jeopardise the entire system because it may not be able to convert currency into gold as promised. You have to limit your spending and limit what you do with your policies. Governments operating under a gold standard do not have sovereign currency.

[-] 0 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

You sure didn't have any qualms like that when 'ZionDog' was running amok here calling people out and spewing shit all over the place !!! Your sensibilities appear selective at best !! 'Hypocritical' .. would also be another word ! Per the OP tho' :

multum in parvo ..

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

GFYS

[-] 0 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Why - when I can ''F'' with you instead ?!!! You may want to call up the 'snoozy lurkers' now for some ass-istance !! Sheeesh + lol ! Here's why we are here btw :

  • "Meltdown - The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse" (Video) : September 2008 launched an extraordinary chain of events: General Motors, the world’s largest company, went bust. Washington Mutual became the world’s largest bank failure. Lehman Brothers became the world’s largest bankruptcy ever – The damage quickly spread around the world, shattering global confidence in the fundamental structures of the international economy : http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/meltdown/ .

alea jacta est ...

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

OH go somewhere ( else ) and defend your pet terrorist group Hamas.

[-] 3 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

''Hamas'' has what to do with this forum-post ?!!! I had better copy your b-s for posterity actually - just in case you think twice about it when you sober up and delete it !! You Numpty !

===================================================

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28454) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 minute ago

OH go somewhere ( else ) and defend your pet terrorist group Hamas.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

===================================================

My clear recollection is that I joined this OWS forum before you - so despite you having more than 1 'log in' and acting like you run the joint .. just whyTF would I go anywhere ''(else)'' ? Also fyi, try to consider :

Mary Robinson is the ex-President of The Republic of Ireland (where there is much understanding of and solidarity with - the Palestinian cause) & Jimmy Carter - was a very famous peanut farmer from Georgia who wrote at least one book - if you can recall through the haze of your 'Southern Comfort' !

So Daniel, just why do you take the matter of Palestine so personally ?! IF - as you insisted, 'bw' 'must have blood ties' to that part of the world because she had the temerity to speak up for Gazans not long ago ... then does the same apply to you ?!! Interested readers may want to know ... I don't give a fk tho' and give me ammo like your b-s comments above and below - you can bet your fat ass that I'll use it !!!

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

A repeat for the rock-head = You = GFYS

[-] -3 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Acting like a cop from St. Louis - doesn't quite cut it around these parts actually !

You should take care DKhead and look what happened to the other 'Officer GFYS' !!

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Oh go cuddle with your pet terrorist group Hamas - ya rock-head.

[-] -1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Why are you mentioning 'Hamas' here ?!!! Are you (more than) a bit of a gatekeeper for Likud too ?!! You sound like just another 'Apologist For Apartheid' to me .. just like all those 'D and R' morons on The Hill !

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Ignore Button = ON

Buh-Bye S666

[-] -1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Bye DKhead & for the standing record, d'you recall what happened last time you donned your 'Viva Likud' T-shirt ; lost the plot and took me on ?! Here let me remind you but you'll have to fill the blanx yourself tho', lol !! Numpty !

vale ...

[Removed]

[+] -8 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

You guys are funny. Doing pretend fights amongst yourselves - (members of the Twinkle Team) - in an attempt to fool our readers you aren't working together to destroy this place. The truth is, you did a great job. Getting most users banned, that signup page removed, and now you, shadzPuppetThing, and VQkag2 are nearly the only users left on the forum. Only I continue to resist. Once I stop, you will have won and completely destroyed this place. I make a last stand for OWS!

[-] 1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Three way punch up ?!!! Long time no take part in one of those .. right ?!!

Is VQuack feeling left out d'you think & shouldn't you invite him to join ?!

omnia causa fiunt ...

[+] -7 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

I don't like VQ, don't talk to him. He's just another member of your Twinkle team in my eyes. He's the Twinkle Teams bot expert. Vote manipulation king. Your job is to soil the minds with conspiracy theories. DKAtoday is the leader of the pack. He plays dumb to make himself look more appealing - that, I'm just a simple guy routine.

I have to say, you guys are good. You basically won. Fooled everyone here expect me. Fooled jart for a long time, finally she came to her mind and banned you. Unfortunately, you came back as a puppet.

[-] 3 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

I am as ever, just li'l ol' me & not a ''puppet'', mais tu sur l'autre main - have more muppets / monikers / idents - than I can possibly count !!! A long time ago, I did have a running count on your monikers but I stopped at 50+ in 2012 so you must easily be 200+ by now - but like I actually did warn you back then; ''you will make yourself ill'' - et regard maintenant John/Jean/Josh .. you have done exactly that re. your paranoid fantasies ; megalomaniacal projections and multiply disordered personalities !! I gotta go now TrashyManque' .. so I'll now leave you to play with yourself and further diminish your vision - yet again !

gnothi seauton ...

[+] -7 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

It's a real tragedy that OWS let you and the rest of the Twinkle Team ruine the forum.

[-] 2 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

The primary characteristic of ''The Twinkle Team'' - as you have dubbed them here, is their Democrap allegiances !!! Are you seriously equating me to thAt ?!! It is YOU who is behind so many attempts at the ruination here - Numpty ! Also fyi :

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

A reasonable request.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I had thought so - but apparently it is not so much for others - Hey?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Many enjoy the acts (distractions) of attacking, flaming, personal destruction, and partisan purity policing.

I submit it is simply an effort to distract/disrupt from discussing actual issues that affect the 99%.

Tiresome, & amateurish.

Every good effort to modify that destructive behavior is welcome.

Thx

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

We gotta stay on point = confronting the BS and it's purveyors. One would think that Shadz666 would be all for that.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

He seems unable to refrain from distraction tactics, encouraging/feeding the troll, & continued partisan purity policing.

Even his banning didn't teach/inspire him to stay focused on his better posts.

Oh well, A minor annoyance if some moderation is employed.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I'll give him one thing - it is unlikely that the forum banned him - no that was done by the forums eternal troll = thrashingmasks. But yes - he remains a minor annoyance. Funny thing is - he does not like frf - nope not one least little bit. But he chooses to jump in on my comment to frf. Guess he couldn't help himself - ick - does that mean that he is fixated on me?

[-] -2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Perhaps he needs to be fed.

That would make him a troll.

I think some of his behavior/actions are trollish like his fixation on you & Frf.

Oh well, His misfortune indeed.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Don't get me wrong - frf - IS on the side of doing whats right - but he can get a bit fanatic/blind in supporting/forwarding such.

[-] -1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 3 years ago

Looks like we do have modding here - as my last reply here was ''removed'' ! Ho-hum !! Here's the main bit again - without my skit of DK tho', lol :

I've made my substantive comments on this thread already, tho' you had fuck all to do with that but you are dismissed (with disdain now) and can go back to your 'multi-voting' antics as - as we get closer and closer to mid-terms - your knickers get ever more twisted and finally end up garotting your own rectum !

Finally for you and your siDe-Kick - seeing as though he did raise the matter of Palestine here -

fiat lux ...

EDIT : The paragraph that got my previous reply right here ''Removed'' = ''LOL & so how many log-in monikers have you got here again ?!!! The fkn 'sign up page' would still be open now btw, IF only your co-numpty, DKhead hadn't gone off flouncing and whining at jart like a big, flouncy, cup-cake .. AFTER she had opened it already !!''

ssshhh, sub rosa ..,

[+] -7 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

Trying to cover your ass?

Sorry, but jart banned shadz66 and the rest of your Twinkle Team.

I never banned anyone here. You know that. I never had moderation privileges like you or jart. So don't accuse me of banning people when it's obvious you and jart are the ones who cleared this forum of users.

[+] -7 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

You talk about staying on point, not attacking others, etc... Then you attack shadz66 in your comment?

You are one of the users here who as attacked the most users. We all remember the days when you created mob attacks in tandem with shooz on almost all new users. You always wanted to abuse your moderation powers on others. The be the forum's big boss. You drool blood from your mouth when you feel the possibility of power. Power is all you are about. Power over others is your modus operandi.

You're an hypocrite.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I'm a fan of the truth myself, this flip fellow been chasing me around the site, I offered to do for him what I did for odin, (I listed odin in a post a bit before his "departure") thought it was time I gave flip what he has been asking for a chance for people to see the real him as I did for odin before him....ok I'll take it off the title....

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I agree that he (& turbo, Shadz) have hounded you, trolled you, with withering partisan attacks.

They have appointed themselves with Partisan, Purity, Policing.

You're political beliefs are not to their liking and they have embarked on an effort to harass you into leaving.

Stay strong, focused & avoid engaging them on their intolerant, abusive level. It's what they need, for you to feed.... them.

I support your right to express your opinion free from their abuse & harassment.

Peace!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

oh 99, don't worry it's only a computer monitor, I won't actually hurt him, flip has requested to be exposed for the political hack that he is and from time to time I like to provide some service to others so I thought I would help him out, that's all nothing more really..

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Understood, well done. My comment on flips Partisan Policing seem more deep/serious than they really are.

I simply seek to expose he & his fellow Police (Turbo the con, Shadz, & our forum concern troll Trashy).

Peace

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

They are all political hacks trying to build their little party and care nothing of what that does to OWS or the nation, I hope others can see them for what they are.

(except turbo he is really a con)

[+] -4 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Agreed, not so many here to "see them.." anyway, so it's enough to challenge them consistantly with substantive facts, not flamewar personal attacks, or not at all.

Whatever politics they believe, in the end they are about meaningless attacks, & never serious debate on progress.

In fact they are obvious, transparent, & amateurish.

Keep fighting

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

I suspect many like myself who went to a few OWS meetings and down to the Phoenix camp a few times what I found was Green political hacks trying to capture the energy of OWS to boost their Ego Party it turned me off and I had no interest in helping some political want-2-B achieving their ego driven dream of seeing their name on a ballot somewhere as the influence of Jill Stein and the Greens increased within OWS, national interest in OWS faded.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

oh god

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

first of all we need to discuss how that debt is used. do we bail out banks or build a smart grid. do we build aircraft carriers that will never protect us from 9/11 style attacks or build solar power - any thought on this? secondly - "The nation’s debt is a good deal for Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the leaders of the failed deficit commission. The two are profiting personally by urging fat cats and CEOs to support their two-year-old, already-interred deficit reduction plan. Simpson, a former Republican Senator, and Bowles, a Morgan Stanley director, charge $40,000 a pop to promote their rejected scheme to fix the debt by slashing Social Security, Medicare and other programs for the middle class. That means every time they speak, Simpson and Bowles each pocket more than 2.5 times the $15,000 that a typical senior citizen gets from Social Security in an entire year. The Simpson-Bowles personal profit tour reveals that for them, for their creation – the speciously labeled Campaign to Fix the Debt – and for the CEOs, right-wing groups and Republicans rallying round them, the effort has nothing to do with deficits or fixing anything. For them, it’s all about personal profit. And if their personal gain costs the vast middle class any sense of retirement security after a lifetime of paying into these earned benefit programs, well Simpson-Bowles & Co. are just fine with that. Simpson is the avatar for those wailing, “fix the debt,” while demanding special deals for themselves. In 1996 as a Senator needing support from senior citizens, Simpson offered an amendment noting that 60 percent of them depended on Social Security for at least half of their income. It specified: “Social Security beneficiaries throughout the nation deserve to be reassured that their benefits will not be subject to cuts and their Social Security payroll taxes will not be increased as a result of legislation to implement a balanced budget amendment.” Now, when he’s a shill bagging $40,000 a speech from business groups and CEOs, he calls Social Security recipients “greedy geezers,” and scorns the program cherished by the middle class, calling it: “a milk cow with 310 million tits.” Easy for Simpson to say. For his 18 years in the Senate, U.S. taxpayers are giving him a pension of between $41,000 and $55,000 a year, which is two to three times more generous than a middle class person would get in the private sector, if the worker were lucky enough to receive that now-rare benefit.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

ahh look at that the same bunch of words you used to not answer the question last time did someone write this for you or did you pull all these quotes yourself?

oh it doesn't matter that's not the question the question do you stand by your comment that the debt is only a problem for the elite or are you incapable of being serious?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

ok I'll take it off the title

Thanks

[+] -7 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

You Twinkle Team infiltrator moron.

You've been targeting users since you first got here. Target, attack in tandem with your friend shooz, then ban. Odin, PeterPropotkin, penguento, builder, etc... You eradicated all the people from the forum and kept only your other Twinkle Team friends, shadz66, Girlfriday, Zendog, and shooz. Finally, jart understood what I was talking about and banned you, shadz66, shooz, Zendog, and GirlFriday. She banned the whole Twinkle Team. Problem is, you begged for your user back, and shadz66 got a hold of a puppet.

And now your bot using friend VQkag2 is back to take vengeance.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33200) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Ignore Button = ON

[+] -4 points by timeforabigchange (-43) from Winnipeg, MB 3 years ago

You can't ignore me you Twinkle Team dork troll. You're the one here who gives me the most attention. Alone, in your therapeutic bed, you dream of me. You dream of me every night.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

ok, you have called me out - now how about an honest debate on the subject? so far you have not proven capable of that. this is your chance to prove me wrong on many fronts. as i see it we have a few questions on the table. is government debt a good or bad thing? should obama be praised for reducing the debt. and who is clammering to have that done - tthe people on unemployment or those represented by simpson/bowles? you can add your own if you like but how about a real discussion - so i won't have to "chase you around the site." i have sent you plenty to get started - you know what i think - now your counter argument??

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8783) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

As the post says I think government debt is a problem for OWS and working class people to be concerned about tell us more about how you feel it is an issue only for the elite.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

“Abba Lerner was an economist, a contemporary of John Maynard Keynes. He saw this very clearly. He said:

“‘By virtue of the power to create or destroy money by fiat and its power to take money away from people through taxation, [the State] is in a position to keep the rate of spending in the economy at the level required [for full employment].’