THE MONEY IS ALWAYS THERE FOR WARFARE and BANK BAILOUTS- BUT NOT FOR HEALTH CARE

Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can't do those kinds of things any more.

Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms — and editorial offices — the cultists would speak more plainly: we don't do those things anymore because we shouldn't do them, we don't want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith. But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a "balanced budget" is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can't afford all these luxuries, sorry about that.

But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie. The money was there — billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it. We can see it before our very eyes today — being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.

Let's say it again: The money was there all along.

Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.

...

Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.

Money to...

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/5417-the-god-that-failed-the-30-year-lie-of-the-market-cult-.html

plenty of dough for those

Btw, looks like the TARP money will be paid back with interest. So the money was "there" for TARP because Barney Frank made sure it would be paid back.

On edit: Just skimmed the article you linked to. What a steaming pile of incoherent cow patty! OK, so a cult took over the government? They always knew there were trillions of dollars lying around to give to banks?

Is that to say that the bailout money wasn't borrowed but was all along laying around in some secret vault?

MAYBE YOU CAN GET ME A ROBUST BAILOUT SO AS TO PAY THE REPAIR PERSON?

to finance the bailout and stimulus. Wouldn't that imply that in fact, the money wasn't "always there"?

when they needed to find the money for their fatcat benefactors, somehow they just pulled it out of their back pocket. Mony for kids on medicaid? Sorry, we're all tapped out..

Hows that work, Hamden?

Is it really incumbent on me to discuss economics with a person can't spell "mony"?

Hint: It's "money."

.

nt

Much funding comes from the states, and states have individual programs. The primary funding issues with medicare at the moment are state budget issues, not national budget issues. But I guess that's not relevant when you're just physically pulling shit out of your ass (a condition which, contrary to popular belief, is not covered by most insurance companies or medicare.)

?

The Senate to scrap the ONLY damn protection that we had against Depression, that is, Glass Steagall, and the banksters influenced that body to vote away the protections of Glass Steagall, and this ended up costing us the loss of our damn economy, back in THAT day, how much discussion was there about economic impact?

None, right? Except for one person, Senator Dorgan. (He was one of eight Senators voting to keep it.) Dorgan said in ten years, we would see the econmy collapse. ANd unfortuantely, he was right.

None right. Because the campaign donor class always trumps the damn realities of expense regarding policies.

We can't have health care, but they BROKE the damn economic system, with their de-reegulations and pulling the plug on Glass Steagall. DAMN THEM TO HELL. Which had protected us since the thirties. Without penalty, keeping their same board of directers (for the most part)

And with us the taxpayers floating the eleven trillion dollars given away in the last 24 months. The Bush/Obama economic giveaways!

And now Obama is more than ready to give away the HEALTH CARE FOR ALL so needed. In order to guarantee the hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries - sometimes to just one Health Maintenance executive. (Like to Helmsley of HealthCare United.)

for other projects you don't have any knowledge of.

Some of the shit on this site is priceless:

NASA and Military Secrecy

In 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Act created NASA's Space Program in response to the Soviet's successful October 1957 Sputnik 1 launching. The Space Race was on to see which side could trump the other but not without inevitable problems.

A major one happened on January 28, 1986 when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded in flight killing all on board. Official causes cited faulty O-rings to hide the truth.

Teh twoof!

Challenging the Official 9/11 Scenario

Skeptics abound and with good reason. The idea that 19 Arab terrorists "could commandeer, with only primitive boxcutters, four sophisticated Boeing commercial jets and redirect three of them, successfully, as apparently poorly-trained amateurs in air maneuvers which seasoned pilots claimed were near impossible" seemed utterly preposterous.

Eckehardt Werthebach, former German domestic intelligence service president said:

"the deathly precision and the magnitude of planning behind the attacks would have needed years of planning (and would require the) fixed frame (of a state intelligence organization unavailable to a) loose group" of terrorists. Werthebach's conclusion: the attacks were "state organized actions."


Ooh! More twoof!


After Russia easily defeated the Georgian army, its spy satellite spotted a convoy with Georgian special troops en route to Poti, the port city under Russian occupation. It was captured along with its weapons and "a large trove of top-secret NATO documents concerning their hightly secret satellite technology." It was analyzed, used to capture large stocks of US military equipment stored in Georgia, and humiliate Washington and Israel at the same time.

It was also learned that captured Pentagon electronic equipment was manufactured in the Ukraine (a non-NATO state) under US license, yet "NATO-compatible sensitive military equipment" was being made there sub rosa. The discovery for Russia "totally compromised both the American and Israeli intelligence networks set up in Georgia (to spy) on Iran, Russia and Turkey."

Yes, obviously one would give the Georgians documents regarding our super-secret satellite laser death rays and have them randomly carted around the country in a military convoy for no apparent reason whatsoever. Because somebody on teh interwebz says so.

Definitely the kind of OP and article that are embarrassing to DU -- assuming that there are readers out there who appreciate the importance of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing to economic policy, who will read that stuff and cringe.

The roster of writers on that site looks like a mixed bag -- some good, some atrocious and nutty.

that you are reduced to shilling for Wall Street bankers under the guise of "sane economic policy"

1. Idiots who don't know the difference between the effect on the federal budget, deficit and debt of a loan that will be paid back and an expenditure.

2. Morons who cannot grasp the fact that one off investments that will be paid back are accounted for completely differently from recurrent budget expenditure commitments.

3. Paranoid nut cases who think that anyone who disagrees with them because such person can add, subtract, multiply, divide, calculate interest, and read a government budget is a shill for Wall Street bankers.

who doesn't consider you a shill for Wall Street bankers? I know, I know, we're all "morons, idiots and paranoid nutcases". You keep intimating that the money will be paid back, its a one-time "loan" and that arithmetic is a lost art --but you are short on proof for any of those claims. In fact you have an abundance of signals suggesting the exact opposite that you are forced to try and "refute"

A one-time loan that will be "paid back" -- and lets be real here, how many loans are made with merely the hope that one day the principal will be recovered..most of it anyway -- sort of indicates that you see some sort of 'normalcy' returning? Thing is, if all of that "propserity" was based on debt and this crisis is exactly the wake up call that you can't build prosperity on debt..

Add to this the fact that rising indebtedness was the ONLY possible driver before this and..

Not to mention the irony -- when you factor in ALL of the money that has been transferred to Wall Street (not just TARP, but also monies from the Fed remember), now you have to explain a much larger sum that totals multiple trillions of dollars. So you your "one time expenditure" has already been made multiple times over (which, whether you know it or not, is the definition of recurring)

But there are lots of "leftists" on this forum who agree with me, but you would define them as not leftists just because they disagree with you.

Just yesterday someone wrote that if you apply accounting, then you are capitalist. Well, I've worked in socialist countries, and yes, they do apply accounting, cost benefit analysis and budgeting.

So, I think you are trying to define your way to "winning" the argument. I would say that few of the least informed people on finance agree with me, but the informed leftists and socialists agree.

I have made no guarantees that all the bailout money will be paid back. I wrote extensively when it was happening that although the money was not being "given away" the actual real danger was that the various bailouts turned the Fed into the biggest hedge fund in history. I wrote about that, and you can google it. It was an extremely dangerous gamble -- even more dangerous than the money not being paid back. But I was interested in the real danger, not the fake danger.

The financial sector is normalizing, and it looks like at this point, the TARP money will be paid back.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124524619467123215.html
U.S. Gets TARP Payback From 10 Banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01bank.html
Four Small Banks Are the First to Pay Back TARP Funds

<end links>

The biggest chunks of the Fed bailout, which dwarf TARP also look like they will be paid back with interest. But those were the commercial paper program (about $1.4 trillion) and the central bank currency swaps (up to $4 trillion); those were short term, and since no money market has broken the buck (indicating widespread commercial paper defaults) and since no central bank has defaulted and neither the euro, pound nor yen have collapsed, the Fed currency swap should also pay off.

The biggest credit extension was the guarantee of all money market accounts, which stopped the run of September. But none of that had to be used, and it may be canceled without a dime having been expended.

The AIG bailout will continue to be a loser. The FDIC will not be "paid back" but it was never intended to -- it's paid for with higher premiums on banks going forward.

artifice and evasion don't really count. Why is it when the halls of wealth and power need funds that you admit total on the order of 6 trillion dollars it is on the next Wells Fargo truck, but in any other instance its "sorry, we just don't have the money"

Why is it presupposed that the money was THERE for the bailout but every other need is met with a staunch "you can't print money out of thin air, y'know"

Leftists are fools according to you. Why is that Hamden? Because we don't have bootlicks like yourself to rush to our defense, no matter how many absurdities and contradictions you have to ignore in the process?

Let's say you have no cash, but you have $100 more on your credit card credit limit. (You are, in effect, the US.)

You have 2 friends.

One says, I need $100 to pay my rent and put gas in my car. Can you give it to me?

The other says, I need $100 to put in the bank to fix my credit score so I can get some money from another source. If you give it to me for 2 weeks, I'll pay you back $105.

Can you see what will happen depending on which friend you give the money to? Is it that hard to understand the difference between an expenditure and an investment on your balance sheet?

That said, Democrats did pass a stimulus bill, which was expenditure that went primarily to social spending. Keynes teaches us that sometimes even expenditures have to be financed with borrowing. But the 1970s through early 1990s in this country, and the experiences of many European, Latin American and African countries in the 1970s through 1980s proved an iron law of public finance -- namely, you cannot finance recurring social expenditures (or for that matter military spending) with deficits indefinitely. That's just the way it is.

If Al Gore had been elected president, the federal debt would be near zero and there would be trillions on the national credit card for investments, as well as for some financing of social spending. That's why technocratic progressives wholeheartedly support the Democratic Party. Bush may have set us back 10-15 years, but our long time frame perspective shows us that if we stick with proven Democratic Party economic policy, some time in the future we will have all the current revenue and public finance credit to accomplish all of our social policy goals.

You're telling me that my bitch is that the money is being put into the wrong "sector" (Wall Street rather than Main Street). Meanwhile you are defending the bailout as "proven Democratic Party economic policy".

See, the thing is you don't know your own influences very well. If you're a Keynesian YOU should be the one decrying the bailout as misapplied. I know that Krugman and Stiglitz and Sen are "onboard" but it is a tepid consensus that only underlies the fact that their opinions are timid and milquetoast on almost every subject.

Almsot all capital gain appears in the figure of the rentier today. Now, you tell me how to square that with Keynes' "euthanasia". Al Gore? C'mon man that is more garish than picking your nose right in front of me. But you do have a booger hanging out.

Proven Democratic Party policy is that for them, unlike for Cheney, Reagan, Bush et al, deficits matter. That's why Clinton got them under control. Reagan and Bush ran up massive deficits. Clinton ran up massive surpluses. The goal of getting the deficit down is for two reasons: it brings down long term interest rates, but more importantly, it will enable the federal government to have the credit to carry out more massive social spending in the future.

Why don't you address even a single aspect of the article posted?

More importantly why are you fastidiously avoiding the article altogether and posting some crap? Is that to blow some smoke around in an attempt to hide the fact that you don't wish or cannot discuss this very basic article that merely points out the obvious fact of where our government's priorities lie and where our tax money goes?

That specific website is no more than a warehouse of various authors and articles and you can find this specific article linked on numerous websites. If I found one that passed your purity test then would you agree to actually make a constructive comment on the piece written by Chris Floyd?

Maybe you could just comment upon what he says here for example:

The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.


Is that too crazy a conspiracy for you or is the coincidence that money always magically appears to bailout the wealthy but never seems available for us peons the crazier possibility?

You tell em'!

Why don't you address even a single aspect of the article posted?

Because it's blatantly idiotic crap from a NWO conspiracy site.

More importantly why are you fastidiously avoiding the article altogether and posting some crap?

Because your article is crap.

Is that to blow some smoke around in an attempt to hide the fact that you don't wish or cannot discuss this very basic article that merely points out the obvious fact of where our government's priorities lie and where our tax money goes?

The article doesn't even bother to address any of the primary criticisms levelled against health care reform. It sets up a straw man and then rants at it with a bunch of unhinged nonsense.

That specific website is no more than a warehouse of various authors and articles and you can find this specific article linked on numerous websites. If I found one that passed your purity test then would you agree to actually make a constructive comment on the piece written by Chris Floyd?

No, then the article would just be crap, rather than crap from a conspiracy site.

The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.

He might have a point if the current argument against national health care is that we can't afford it. But that isn't the argument.

Is that too crazy a conspiracy for you or is the coincidence that money always magically appears to bailout the wealthy but never seems available for us peons the crazier possibility?

I'll answer that when you tell me what you think about the Challenger coverup.

I guess that's why 30 percent of the writers have PhD's... Naomi Klein, Sean Penn and many other authors, academics, bloggers and writers pen at Atlantic Free Press under a Open Source Journalism agreement.

I guess that's why we are syndicated with Lexis Nexis, Ebsco, and an official Google News site.

Because they juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust love that NWO stuff.

Sure there are some writers that are willing to test the boundaries in terms of what is perceived and what is real... and we are not scared to criticize Israel or Palestinian policy.

Buy you dude, know nothing about Atlantic Free Press it appears... and how long we have been around, how many articles we have published in four years (12,000) and who is involved. Chris Floyd, the writer you so lamely throw a straw man at - is the former editor of Science and Spirit at Oxford university and was a long time columnist for the Moscow Times. He's also won two Project Censored awards and his writing can be found from antiwar.com to counterpunch.com as well as at his own site - which I publish at www.chris-floyd.com

C'est la Vie. How shallow can one be?

Richard G. Kastelein
Publisher
www.freepressgroup.eu

That pretty much disqualifies you as a reliable source. I don't want to read "news" from "journalists" who "test the boundaries" of "what is real."

:rofl:

Hey, but thanks for making it clear what you guys are about!

What is perceived as...

You really are provocative aren't you?

What is perceived as - has a lot different meaning than your take.

And you think you are funny...

So go tell that to Naomi Klein. She has tested a lot of boundaries of what the public perceives is really happening behind closed doors.

or ask some of the other writers.

Shirzad Azad
Clifford J. Wirth
Mike Ferner
Juan Santos
Jeff Leys
Travis Kelly
Andrea Luchetta
Franklin Lamb
Kellia Ramares
Jennifer Epps
Sukey Wolf
Hannah Bell
Sean Penn
Weldon Berger
Dan Lieberman
Mary Ann Mann
Kahentinetha Horn
Ahmed A/Kadir (Shiine)
Jim Fuller
Naomi Klein
Dr. Jim Knapton
Kent Welton
Michael O?McCarthy
Jerome Grossman
Gary Corseri
Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr.
Ezra Nawi
Rayeon Yeem
Michael Richards
Prem Lal Joshi
James McEnteer
Alan Bisbort
Kathleen Hayden
Kourosh Ziabari
Dr. Aqueil Ahmad
Sean Paton
Robley E. George
Nadeem Walayat
Tim Buchholz
Devinder Sharma
Jen Marlowe
Dr. Haider Mehdi
Kay Mukhar
Eileen Fleming
Suzanne Baroud
Justin Podur
Phyllis Sladek
Beenish Gaya
Martha Rose Crow
David Crowe
Peter A. Falvey
Sean M. Madden
Roland Michel Tremblay
Richard Hirschhorn
Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq .
Maxwell Black
Zahir Ebrahim
Stephen Bindman
Stephanie Westbrook
Shamus Cooke
Nadia Hasan
Paul William Roberts
Doug Mitchell
Jalal Alavi
Walter Brasch
Kevin Harris
Bryan Lee
Dr. Gideon Polya
Art James
Rod Amis
Manuel Valenzuela
James Secor
Mike Whitney
Rob Buchanan
Weldon Berger
K Gajendra Singh
William Bowles
Craig Murray
Copy Dude
Jules Siegel
Tom Chartier
Tom Burghardt
S. Artesian
Mel Seesholtz
Sam Welch
Mark Crispin Miller
Dave Lindorff
Christopher Parsons
William A. Cook
Tariq A. Al-Maeena
Mickey Z
William Blum
Lawrence Velvel
Phil Rockstroh
Paul J. Balles
D.A. Weaz
John Brown
Sarah Mayer
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
George Soros
Paul Lehto
Jennifer Matsui
Seth Sandronsky
Rand Clifford
Stephen Lendman
Richard Marsden
Ramzy Baroud
Will Durst
James Petras
Aseem Shrivastava
James Howard Kunstler
Dr. Neve Gordon
Jeremy R. Hammond
Anwaar Hussain
Frank Pitz
Andrew Bard Schmookler
Jason Miller
Cem Ert
Joshua Frank
Shepherd Bliss
Peter Stern
Rosemarie Jackowski
Norman Solomon
Andrew Kishner
Nicola Nasser
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Aaron Sussman
Patricia Alessandrini
Shahid Alam
Robert Jensen
Linda Milazzo
Michael Wills
Katherine Hughes
Gilad Atzmon
David Swanson
Winter Patriot
Andrew Hughes
Larry C. Johnson
Tom Engelhardt
Faisal Kutty
Stephen Soldz
Walter C. Uhler
Media Lens
William Fisher
Dahr Jamail
Heather Wokusch
Murray Polner
Amhed Amr
Ehsan Azari
Jonathan Cook
Lloyd Rowsey
Roland Sheppard
Maryann Mann
ddjango .
Joseph A. Bello
Sheila Samples
Gabriele Zamparini
Andy Goodall
Chris Martenson
Gregory Elich
Riverbend .
Edward Jayne
David Howell
Medea Benjamin
Stan Goff
Jeffrey Goodger
Bill C. Davis
Stephen P. Pizzo
Elizabeth de la Vega
Robert Singer
Eric Margolis
Kenneth Ring
Danny Schechter
R.J. Eskow
Dennis Jett
Ed Kociela
Aaron B. Pryor
Ed Naha
Mark W. Bradley
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad
Robert Fantina
Tim Gatto
Christopher Ketcham
Bob Geiger
Ignacy Nowopolski
Edward Strong
Paul Krassner
Jayne Lyn Stahl
Deepak Tripathi
Remi Kanazi
Daith? Mac Lochlainn
Gail Dines
Ann Wright
Cyril Mychalejko
Daan de Wit
Dr. Glen Barry
Carolyn Baker
Bart Klein Ikink
Christopher Mansel
M. Hasan Uncular
Brian Barder
Stuart Noble
Brian Rayner
J. C. Shakespeare
Juan Cole
Rod Lever
Nu'man Abd al-Wahid
Mark Bryan
Mahmood Mamdani
Dale Allen Pfeiffer
Richard Backus
Richard A. Falk
Michael Collins
Mike Palecek
Abukar Arman
Richard C. Cook
Kevin Pina
Michael Greenwell
R.W. Behan
Andre Vltchek
Maher Osseiran
Joe Bageant
Michael Haas
Bennett Blumenberg
Cynthia Ann McKinney
Robert Weitzel
Burton H. Wolfe
Jimmy Montague
Jim Miles
Dal LaMagna
David Rovics
Allen L Roland
Steve Windisch
Marguerite Laurent
Peter Chamberlin
M. Jamil Hanifi
Mohammed Mustafa Mustafa
Islam Yasin Qasem
Pablo Ouziel
Chris Hedges
William C. Carlotti
Roy S. Carson
John Feeney
Fred Cederholm
Lisa "Stienster" Nerone
Brian McAfee
Michel Chossudovsky
Judith H. Young
Eric Larsen
Linda Sutton
Marjorie Cohn
Sukant Chandan
Robert Larson
Jennifer Lynne Ziemann
Dr. Bernard Weiner
Paul Craig Roberts
Mohammed Ataie
George Anthony
Sherwood Ross
John Brissenden
Guy Gabriel
Margie Burns
Adam W Parsons
Michael Gillespie
George Galloway
Tony Karon
Gina-Marie Cheeseman
Satya Sagar
Rajesh Makwana
Warren "Bones" Bonesteel
Rodrigue Tremblay
Mary Rizzo
Marco Procaccini
Viktor Zimmermann
Bolivia Rising
Mathew Maavak
Dr. Trita Parsi
Harvey Wasserman
Mahmoud El-Yousseph
Joel Wendland
Willard Payne
Bruce Katz
Linh Dinh
Gregory A. Burris
Peter Zaza
Ingmar Lee
Neal Romanek
Jason Leopold
Nathalie Gange

But I see you have Hannah Bell. She's like a black hole of stupidity that cancels out anything intelligent on your site by sucking all the information and rationality into the worm hole of her "teh stoopid."

In your view all of those writers should be censored.

Why don't you just admit it openly that you wish to censor people and channel all thought into your narrow right-wing reactionary political punditry that you claim to be "reasonable."

The ultimate philosophy you profess is a recipe for Newspeak.

Now certainly you have a position paper in defense of imperialism to get to. Seems you've been exposed Hammy and don't even possess the fortitude to apologize to AFP.

They definitely should not be censored. But if someone continuously writes crazy, factually wrong things, I won't take that person's writings seriously. If a collective includes good writers and crazy writers, the reputations for veracity of the good writers will suffer.

For example, if a poster cites as an authority some guy who approved of apartheid South Africa's murderous rampage in Angola, that would affect my understanding of that poster's veracity and overall values.

double post - deleted

Either the money was lying around, or it was borrowed. Which was it?

Just depends on how the pie is sliced.

You keep on Hammie. Your true colors are showing quite brightly.

WTF.

So that pie chart is completely irrelevant. I also agree that defense spending is way to high, but the claim of your OP is that the money for the bailout was "always there."

If it was "always there" why did federal borrowing go up in direct proportion to bailout costs, and what was the borrowed money used for, if not for the bailout?

National Defense ought to be for the nation for the US only. Nothing else, no invasions nor occupations.

We are out over $100 Billion on TARP, so far. It's extremely unlikely that we will come out ahead, and TARP represents just a fraction of the 23 Trillion in banking backstops the government has provided during the crisis. I know you are aware that the Fed is accepting trash collateral in exchange for no or low interest "loans", but you choose to pretend that everything is aboveboard for whatever personal reasons.

Anyone who disagrees with you of course must have a personal agenda, or maybe even Goldman Sachs stock options.

No, I'm just astounded by what people will fall for. Do you think that, as the OP claims, TARP was paid for by money that was already lying around, or did the government borrow it? If they borrowed it, then the money wasn't "always there" was it?

How can the same doomers one day be screaming that we've borrowed so much for the bailout that we'll never be able to pay it off and never be able to afford social programs; and then the next day believe that the money was lying around the whole time.

Please explain how you can believe those two opposite things.

It borders on insanity. Pointing it out isn't based on any personal agenda other than a desire to see nonsense confronted with truth and reason.

The point being that there are a multitude of crying needs of the people to be addressed but go begging, yet this money could be found to service the 'need' of the finance sector. Kinda puts the priorities in sharp relief, doncha think?

Subscribing to blatant self-evident lies is apparently now the litmus test for being a Trotskyite "believer".

;)

.
.
.

If one reads it carefully,

Pearl Harbor has disturbing parallels to 911 on how the USA's government gets its citizens riled up enough to go to war.

Iraq DOES have WMD's somewhere, right?

It's just that after killing/displacing millions of Iraqis we haven't found them elusive WMD's yet . . .

It wasn't about oil at all

yeah right . . .

bombs etc. there should be an automatic tax increase to pay for it. There would be such an outbreak of peace!

I got sick of meme of "There won't be any Social Security when you retire", but we have trillions to fund "wars" that are nothing but giant welfare projects for the military industrial complex and Iraqis.

We have trillions of dollars for banks so they can keep their bonus payouts higher than annual profits, but there is no money for the actual homeowners being foreclosed on.

There seems to always be plenty of money to line the pockets of corporations who make campaign contributions but nothing for your average voter.

Fuck that noise. If we are going to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars, it's time to spend it on something ALL Americans can benefit from.

Give me Single-Payer health care, and give me my retirement. Gimme Gimme Gimme, or I'm going to votee votee vottee you assie assie assies out of office.

Welcome to our side!

"..Land of the free, and home of the brave(?)."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

we spend that with a blink of the eye
the American public just has to wait till Healthcare is 60% of GDP

then MAYBE we will be all bankrupt

We printed unlimited money for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

We printed unlimited money to bail out AIG and the banks.

We can print unlimited money for something as important as Health Care.

I am being a bit hyperbolic, but I am sure you get the point. I do not accept the premise that what we can do is limited by budget constraints. It is not.

:dem:

-Laelth

Unless you think debt is the same as simply printing money.

Debt = printing money.

Feel better?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

I guess "hyperbolic" is code for "bullshit." They aren't the same thing at all.

As stated, there has always been the money to make things better for everyone- just not the will.

Orwell summed it up well:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites."

1984

http://costofwar.com/

:thumbsup:

AND KEEP IT IN CAPS, ORWELLIAN_GHOST!

NO MORE BUSHIT!

Atlanta Georgia has plans to raze its last public housing, other cities are tearing down without replacing...money for housing has been there all along too...

K&R! btw. Your "CAPITALS" are the kind I can support!

Lot of hurt in Detroit.
And Cleveland.
And Indianapolis.
And ... anyplace where once there was these things called "manufacturing" and "unions."

They helped build the middle class. That's also going extinct.

LOTS of money. Ask the Romans, the Dutch, the British, etc. About $600 billion is now spent per year on force projection ("Defense") and we're told healthcare isn't affordable.

We're governed by psychopaths.

:grr:

The right wing HATES an educated, aware and active populace. More television!

right on target.

:kick:

that said, rage on brother...

who believe that keeping the books straight for their capitalists masters trumps human need.

Borrowed or given away, what matter? If borrowed the money for human need could be found, take it from the Pentagon, take it from the rich. The point is the priorities of our government, which are horrible.

Oh wait they tried that and it didn't work out so well. Now real socialists who run countries engage in budgeting and costs accounting and -- gasp -- do accounting!

of the bean counters. If capital is assumed superior to labor your system may have internal consistancy but bears little relation to the reality of the laboring masses.

Do you think that those who you pimp for will save you a seat at their table?

I doubt it.

Dag, teh stupid in invincible. Who do you pimp for?

:rofl:

Why do you support the slaughter of baby arctic seals? Huh? Huh?

to pass right over his point or you just don't take the time to read instead opting for react(ionary) and ultimately creating a false assumption based on your faulty comprehension or purposeful misdirection.

What he said was capitalist bean counters. Doh.

The socialist governments I have consulted for would be shocked! shocked I say! to hear this.

Most socialist, communist and capitalist countries now agree on addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, the building blocks of accounting.

Socialist countries find accounting to be very useful.

There's never enough for people and never too much for the parasites.
:kick: & R