VladimirPee

Of course the liberals in his family have chosen to avoid debate with the conservatives because they can't win the argument.

VladimirPee

This year I noticed at Thanksgiving my left wing nephews had fewer talking points to parrot. Then I remembered Jon Stewart was off the air.

robmull Loc: florida

Just as the progressive "libturds" are REALLY proud of their logo, the Jackass, JMHO, they are also proud of sucking whatever they can out of whomever. It's sort of like a "one-ups-man-ship" for the true progressive "turd;" the "libturd."

VladimirPee

Interesting speech given this morning at a rally in Iowa by Bernie Sanders

The Democratic Party, as the conscious exponent of the working-class movement, aims at the complete liberation of the toiling masses from every form of oppression and exploitation. The achievement of this objective——calls for a very high development of the productive forces of capitalism and a high degree of organisation of the working class. The full development of the productive forces in modern oligarch society, a broad, free, and open class struggle, and the political education, training, and rallying of the masses of the poor and middle class are inconceivable without political freedom. Therefore it has always been the aim of the class-conscious workers to wage a determined struggle for complete political freedom and the democratic revolution.

The poor is not alone in setting this task before itself. The 1% , too, needs political freedom. The enlightened members of the propertied classes hung out the banner of liberty long ago; the revolutionary intelligentsia, which comes mainly from these classes, has fought heroically for freedom. But the working class as a whole is incapable of waging a determined struggle against the oligarchy; it fears to lose in this struggle its property which binds it to the existing order; it fears an all-too revolutionary action of the workers, who will not stop at the democratic revolution but will aspire to the socialist revolution; it fears a complete break with officialdom, with the bureaucracy, whose interests are bound up by a thousand ties with the interests of the propertied classes. For this reason the bourgeois struggle for liberty is notoriously timorous, inconsistent, and half-hearted. One of the tasks of the working class is to prod the rich on, to raise before the whole people slogans calling for a complete democratic revolution, to start working boldly and independently for the realisation of these slogans—in a word, to be the vanguard, to take the lead in the struggle for the liberty of the whole people.

Do liberals agree?

Owl32 Loc: ARK

apparently you don't know that progressive are not new on the scene, they have been around about 150 years, calling themselves many different things. claiming a new direction, but in the end it in Stalin, a whole lot of slaves, no hearing just death camps. open your eyes and ears.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Mr. Sussman, since you are obviously a studious man, allow me to point out to you that there is a huge difference between being able to “read” and being able to “comprehend.”

Your whole entire argument here is faulty, beginning with its very foundation. In fact I would even hazard to say that your argument shows just about all the signs of why conservatives regard liberalism as a mental disorder.

Allow me to take the time as you have done and present my case.

First off you contend that “Our Constitution enables Congress to spend without income and without limit… Having an infinite supply of money, Congress has no financial need to borrow…”

Why do you liberals so hate the constitution and the geniuses who “fathered” it that you are so intent on slandering them so? Answer: apparently because you know how to read but not how to comprehend.

Here’s what the constitution enables the Congress to do:


“The Congress shall have Power To...coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin....” Article I, Section 8, Clause 5

To “coin” money does not at all equate to the same word or meaning as “make money out of thin air.”

“Congress's power to coin money is exclusive: under Article I, Section 10, the states are not permitted to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...." Whereas the prohibitions on the states are clear and detailed, Congress's grant of power under the Coinage Clause is open-ended.

“nonetheless, certain elements are clear. First, Congress is granted the authority to "coin money," which authorizes Congress to coin money from precious metals such as gold and silver. Under the Articles of Confederation, the power to coin money was a concurrent power of Congress and the states. To create a more standardized monetary system and reduce the costs of running mints, the Constitution granted this power to Congress exclusively. The elimination of the states' power to coin money and the exclusive grant to Congress provoked controversy because the power to coin money was traditionally understood as a symbol of political sovereignty. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate the value of the coins struck domestically and to set the value of foreign coins. Under the Articles, Congress held the former power but not the latter. The Constitution gave both powers to Congress to encourage domestic and foreign commerce by preventing the states from attaching disparate valuations to circulating coins.

“Beyond these simple issues, however, the scope of the federal government's powers under the Coinage Clause is unclear. In particular, although the Coinage Clause empowers Congress to coin money from precious metals, it is not clear whether the federal government could also issue paper money. Linguistic and conceptual usage during the Founding era distinguished between several different concepts: the power to "coin" specie money (i.e., money backed by gold or silver), the power to borrow money through the issuance of interest-bearing "notes," and the issuance of "Bills of Credit." Unlike coined money, whose value was inherent in the metal that composed the coin, and unlike "notes" that accrued interest, a bill of credit was non–interest-bearing paper money issued on the good credit of the United States with no tangible backing in precious metal.” http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/42/coinage-clause

Now, I don’t claim to be a highly educated or intellectual man, but the good thing is, the constitution was not written in legalese garbage that only the inner societies have the educated intellect to understand and properly interpret.

A perfect case in point is basic economics, which, I am going to take the time to give you a brief introduction to.

The simplest of economics boils down to two people, each of which has a commodity that they produce (supply) and one that they need (demand). Let’s start with a farmer and a rancher. The farmer has a crop of wheat and vegetables and trades part of his crop for a fair share of the rancher’s meats and they are both happy with a complete diet to feed their families. It is a win-win situation.

Now enters a third person, the tradesman. He notices that while the farmer and rancher are out laboring in their respective areas of agriculture, they really don’t have time to build or maintain their houses, furniture, fences, farm implements, etc. Thus a whole new area of supply and demand enters the picture. Now the tradesman can barter his services for the other’s goods. Sometimes he may even build a house for the rancher and use some of that meat to buy fruits and vegetables from the farmer. Thus we have commerce beyond merely one-on-on.

And now a phenomenon called “supply and demand” starts manifesting itself in that sometimes there are more fruits and vegetables available so the farmer reduces prices, or the tradesman gets busy on one person’s house so his time becomes more valuable than it once was, and so forth. Nevertheless, it is realized that even still, all the people in society are enriched by each other’s labors. Thus the ebb and flow of supply and demand in free trade is accepted as a natural occurrence in a normal, healthy economy.

As time goes on another person comes of age and enters society. But this person chooses to be a miner and jeweler. He/she (hereinafter he for ease) finds he doesn’t have time for agriculture or other trades so he offers his gold and silver for bartering material; and thus the concept of using gold and silver as “money” is born. Also another benefit of money is discovered. People find out real quickly that gold and silver aren’t perishable!

And then along comes a new, less savory individual. This person doesn’t really feel like working so hard as the others; so he decides to simply steal other people’s gold and silver.

This situation creates such a new demand for three whole new, yet still actually unproductive, types of individuals. This first is our banker who promises to house people’s gold and silver into impenetrable vaults to keep them safe from the thieves. And what the banker does is offer to the productive ones “bank notes.” These are certificates of the gold and silver that the productive ones have stored in the banker’s vault. These bank notes now get used between the members of the economy instead of merely trading goods or services or weights of gold or silver.

Next are the law keepers. These are people that take it upon themselves to avenge the productive members of society of the ones who have stolen from them. And they make a living by the generous offering of the productive members to keep them safe.

Which brings us to the creation of opportunity for our final individual: the politician. He convinces the productive people that he will keep them safe from the thieves, safe from each other, safe from the law-keepers from being overly oppressive and even safe from the bankers who may have unscrupulous motives.

With so much gold and silver in their vaults, the bankers take the opportunity to loan some of the people’s money to other people since they weren’t using it at the time; and they collected the interest and shared a stipend of it with the ones who actually had the gold and silver on deposit.

While all this is happening the bankers come to a profound conclusion. They always seem to have more gold and silver in their banks than people have bank notes circulating amongst each other. And at no time has there ever been anything close to a “run” on the bank where everyone demanded all of heir gold at the exact same time. Thus the bankers deviously decided they could actually “loan” money in excess of the actual amount of real gold and silver they had in store.

And herein is the problem. Before this time all of the gold and silver which people had stored in the banks represented real, hard labor. In other words, all those bank notes had previously actually been certificates of a certain finite amount of productivity representing a finite amount of “labor units”. Once the bankers began loaning more “money” than they had gold and silver in reserve, they reduced the value of the units of productivity which the laws of supply and demand had previously affected commerce.

In other words, when the banker loaned more money to the rancher than the farmer had earned, the rancher had more money with which to offer the tradesman than the farmer, thus the farmer’s crops were devalued. And who was the big winner in the deal? The banker. And who were the real losers in the deal? The productive ones. Because eventually they each began borrowing against more “productivity units” than they had actually created, or was actually available in circulation.

So, guess where that fits you? It puts you on the side of the unscrupulous bankers against the producers. And even worse because you advocate that the government create money inifinitely beyond the productivity of anyone. That kind of thinking, sir, is exactly what is at the root of all of America’s financial ills today.

But this is the agenda of the left in a nutshell. They want to be, or want to be protected by, the politicians who want to and get to control who gets the artificially created money, but it is still the bankers who have tricked us all by creating the misnamed “Federal Reserve” which is absolutely neither federal nor a reserve. (Which is why conservatives want the Fed abolished and at the very least audited, and for the same reason the leftists couldn’t possibly stand for such accountability!)

The founders of our constitution had no such desire as to creating an infinite supply of money. For you to accuse them of them is slander and justifying the greatest heist of mankind ever at worst; or of misleading and misrepresenting them at best.

Let us not forget that they made a stipulation in the constitution that the government officials that they “authorized” had no more authority than that which was explicitly enumerated to them. I will assume that you have learned your lesson in comprehension beyond just reading that word “enumerated.” (For others, it means it would have had to have been “specified” or spelled out for them. For Mr. Sussman to prove that congress was given the power to create money out of thin air to infinity he would have to quote the place where such was spelled out, that is, enumerated, to congress.)

Therefore, for them to give congress the authority to “coin” money only means they gave congress the ability to take existing gold and silver and “mint” it into certain “denominations” of which they alone could control the value of.

Since you don’t understand these simple facts of economics, I find it hardly surprising that you don’t understand the difference between “coining” money and creating an infinite supply of money out of thin air.

The fact that you don’t understand such simple and basic economics make you sir, into a complete ignoramus. While you go on and on with your rant, even repeating it over and over again, for all your high-fallootin’ sounding theories and quotes, the simple voice of the actually productive ones completely goes over your head because it simply doesn’t fit your narrative. And therefore you denigrate it as inferiority of intelligence to your self-proclaimed superiority, all the while the productive ones are being robbed blind right under your nose.



Randy131, I applaud you sir!

On the other hand, tsk, tsk, mr high-and-mighty-Marvin-Sossman, since such facts and details of the real evil impact your leftist theories impose upon those you so falsely claim to be superior over can’t be allowed to interfere with your higher intellect.

Frankly, I must conclude, this is why you "liberals" make people like us who actually see what is going on sick to our stomachs. Hopefully someday you either come to the light on the side of hard working productive people like myself and the majority of others who actually built America, or you just move to some other socialist or communist country that you will feel more comfortable in.

VladimirPee

Marvin is not studious. He is a Bolshevik who knows his positions would lead to the collapse of the United States which is what he wants

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Okay, I stand corrected! Thank you! :-)

LG Loc: TENNESSEE

WOZ75
Seeing how Robert Reich played both roles, himself and Uncle Bob, it's shows one way the LEFTWING LIBERALS convince themselves that the liberal agenda lying talking points are the truth, they sit in front of a mirror and role plays with Uncle Bob and then uses MSNBC for fact checking.

woz75 Loc: Wisconsin

Vladimir here is missing his nipple clips - very disturbing that so called "straight" men would enjoy topless pics of Putin...just sayin'

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

So, what do you call some jerk sucking on a bottle of Gerber Good Start Formula?

VladimirPee

VladimirPee

Real Men admire real men. Not the Big Bang Theory nerds you Millennials love

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

woz75: Back up your troll ass and educate yourself on some logical websites that publish the truth instead of salon bald-faced lies!

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

BRAVO..WELL STATED...!!