[–] remedy4reality [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It's a continuum of NeoCon/NeoLiberal Globalism. I know the players and I know the ploys.
This is about slapping the Left, whom by the way, have no idea what we're talking about.
[–] Thegreatstoneddragon 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Elect a lawyer, get sold a lie.
[–] 9450299? 1 point 11 points 12 points (+12|-1) ago
Liberals believe living in debt is the only way, without debt there is no growth. And to be honest, the debt isn't even real money. Its promises to the federal reserve, who has no armies or anyway of collecting a dime if we tell them to get fucked.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
[–] Tor1 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
Our currency is a fiat debt instrument not money.
To be money it must be a store of value. Gold silver diamonds animal pelts things that have scarcity and worth to lots of others.
Liberals and Conservatives are usually just two different waiters who work different shifts at the same restaurant with two different ways and attitudes and job execution results.
But what's in the kitchen doesn't change. Lots of things are beyond our meal representatives sphere of influence. Though if they give our meal to some smelly refugees in the next booth, hopefully we're in a gun friendly state and we can shoot the traitor waiter and foodie looters in the face and take back our gottdamm food we worked hard for and need for sustenance and survival.
[–] 9451384? 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
The problem occurs when the fed transfers the phony money into real wealth. They use it to buy up houses, businesses, and more importantly political influence.
So one could argue that a balanced debt free budget absent of any fed fractional reserve banking is necessary for a society to be free of political corruption. Face it, no matter how much money a group of people uses to gain political influence it will always be dwarfed by the fed.
We should ask ourselves is it truly worth it for growth...
[–] 9451677? 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
Funnily the last president to have an even budget was a liberal, Bill Clinton, despite war expenses for getting involved in Ex-Yugoslavia. His Republican successor Bush was no better about racking up debt than Obama was.
Neither major party is seriously interested into cutting back debt, they only care about spending money on different things. Liberals love to have more welfare and social programs, Conservatives love to have more military and cut down taxes without cutting back the administration, and both are very interested into lining the pockets of their friends.
[–] Waiyu_Dudat 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Ol' rapin Bill got a bit of a "lucky break" with the dot com boom. But I'm sure someone will come and add another point why that isn't very relevant. I agree with you though, government isn't concerned about cutting back debt, only about getting theirs. Even though the numbers were there for Bill, I'm sure the real value of America was decreasing overall. Going further into debt feels like a party and the numbers can make it look good in the short term. If I take out a loan and you only look at my bank account, you'll think I hit the jackpot, but we know that's not the reality.
[–] aria_taint 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
But but but he's black and did talk shows.
[–] [deleted] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
[–] remedy4reality [S] 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
I think Bush was Stage One and Obama was Stage Two.
Hillary was intended to be Stage 3.
[–] culofiesta ago
He also began the refugee crisis that is destroying Europe and causing so much trouble for Trump.
[–] remedy4reality [S] ago
He sold it, for sure, but all Elites are IN on the shit storm being carried out.
[–] dontdoxxmefaggots 2 points 1 point 3 points (+3|-2) ago
nigger