As I said when I opened this line of discussion, I used to be happily on the Left. I tell you that for two reasons; firstly, Like most on the Left, I was seduced by the desire to be nice, live nice, do good and share the world with the world, at peace; and secondly, there is a sound reason to reevaluate the decision to be on the Left, if that is where you find yourself today.

The Left promises a bright new tomorrow with sunshine dancing in the clouds, children playing happily, well fed and cared for, life fulfilled, purposeful, happy and secure. I will repost the following link, http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html and suggest that you read what you find there. It is a document that guarantees all of those things and more and it is unambiguous in the description of the idyllic life all Soviet citizens were entitled to under the benevolent rule of the Communist government. If the Soviet Constitution’s promises of free education, free healthcare, guaranteed employment, a living wage, guaranteed housing, clean environment, non discrimination and multicultural respect sound familiar, they should. They are exactly the things the American Progressive Left is promoting today.

You may have heard it said that Liberalism is a mental illness. I can assure you that it is not. Liberalism embodies some of mankind’s most altruistic dreams and finest motivations. There is one aspect of Liberalism that does qualify as a mental illness, the Left’s persistent belief that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually produce different results.

In spite of the promises, Soviet citizens lived in deprivation and want. Their stores had mostly empty shelves and their cars barely worked. They had no selection of goods to speak of and no money to afford them. The housing they had was dilapidated and the work they enjoyed was assigned to them by the state… but they did have all of those wonderful promises.

I have shown you that the Progressive agenda mirrors that of the old Soviet Union, I have shown you that the Progressives despise the concept of natural rights in their own words. I have shown you their ambition is to destroy the US Constitution and shown their claims that the document is empty and meaningless.

They deny they are Communists. They accuse anyone who pushes that word in their direction of name-calling and insulting them. Either they honestly are ignorant of the facts of their movement or they are afraid to let it become common knowledge. I suggest the latter, because even the most illiterate and gullible is aware of the human disaster that was the Soviet Union. They couldn’t sell that dream anywhere in America.

"You have yet to state a single act of the Fed that's criminal or even problematic. All you have is prejudice, the repetition of BS you heard somewhere. You are a fact-free ignoramus."

Now this is an example of the Black Pot, calling the kettle black.

Marvin; Try to get this through your really thick head.
Our government should not be borrowing money from a private corporation (The FED).
That is the trap that got the USA in this mess.
An $18 Trillion unpayable "debt".
It should be wiped off the books.
After all this is a Jubilee year.

For your edification: The Fed does not lend money to the federal gummint. The Treasury borrows money by auctioning treasuries to the private sector. The US gummint owes money only to the private sector. That debt is also the savings, the financial wealth of the private sector, including furriners.

The Fed may lend money to foreign gummints to provide liquidity in a crisis or for some other reason. That has nothing to do with US gummint debt.

The federal gummint has no need to borrow money for any reason. The Constitution gives Congress the right to spend without limit and without income - in effect, to manufacture money. However, Congress passed a law requiring the Treasury to borrow enough to cover the annual budget deficit by auctioning interest-bearing treasuries. This was done to offer a better investment than gold and prevent depletion of the gold supply under the former gold standard regime. We no longer have the gold standard and Congress should rescind that law but does not.

If Congress rescinded that law and the Treasury stopped the auctions, all deficit spending would be the same as printing money without debt.

Why can you not get that through your dense skull? Why do I have to keep making the same explanation again and again?

For your edification: The Fed does not lend money to the federal gummint. The Treasury borrows money by auctioning treasuries to the private sector. The US gummint owes money only to the private sector. That debt is also the savings, the financial wealth of the private sector, including furriners.

The Fed may lend money to foreign gummints to provide liquidity in a crisis or for some other reason. That has nothing to do with US gummint debt.

The federal gummint has no need to borrow money for any reason. The Constitution gives Congress the right to spend without limit and without income - in effect, to manufacture money. However, Congress passed a law requiring the Treasury to borrow enough to cover the annual budget deficit by auctioning interest-bearing treasuries. This was done to offer a better investment than gold and prevent depletion of the gold supply under the former gold standard regime. We no longer have the gold standard and Congress should rescind that law but does not.

If Congress rescinded that law and the Treasury stopped the auctions, all deficit spending would be the same as printing money without debt.

Why can you not get that through your dense skull? Why do I have to keep making the same explanation again and again?