A Summit with Kaboom: Persuade me.

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > A Summit with Kaboom: Persuade me.

Displaying 1 - 15 out of 21 Forum Posts

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

12-14-2011, 10:41 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Regular contributors, readers, and members of this site will no doubt remember....that in November 2010, I warned of the onset of the Big Darkness- a term I borrowed from Hunter S. Thompson who used it after 9/11 to describe what was going to become of our country.

And no doubt, one could have described me as an out and out Obama loyalist, even as I wrote some pretty harsh assessments of the president during the 2008 campaign, and pledged my support either way considering my more negative view of his partisan opponents.

Upon numerous occasions, I have lambasted the same people on the left, I now join in dissent against the president.
I have long argued devil's deal politics was the best we could hope for, and that open season on Obama by the left was unhelpful and often without any real merit. Still, my support for Obama and my positions in general have been quite complicated, and I realized that Obama could not solve his problems with the left by hippie-punching.

Furthermore, it took a year of educating myself, and I think, the more information that's become available helped, but my economic views have changed due to the empirical evidence, and I am now a full-fledged Deficit Owl.

Cullen Roche: MMT manifesto the video.
.........
Then along came Buddy Roemer.

He's running on campaign finance reform.
Regulating Wall Street and ending corporate tax loopholes.
Redoing foreign trade deals that exploit American industry and force it to compete with serfdom that violates the basic dignity of human beings.

Dare I say, he's more progressive than the president.
...........
So what would you have me do, Democrats?
Ignore this Republican?

No, I salute him. I march with him. And I tell other Republicans to rise up & do the right thing and progressives like myself will support them too!

...........
So to Obama voters, I am offering a chance to persuade me.

I think of the president as a second-choice option. I do not want a Republican whack pack member in office.

But my first choice is Buddy Roemer, and if you think differently, or have something to offer this conversation, feel free to comment.

I simply demand more from a so-called progressive administration than being just " too big too fail" in wake of Republican insanity.
Not all Republicans are insane. And the only way we are going to move forward and improve governance and policy is if Republicans start to agree with progressive policy goals like campaign finance reform.
...............
Oh yeah, Occupy Everything.

List of Demands-Saul Williams Live.

Break-Saul Williams & Trent Reznor

12-15-2011, 10:35 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Really hoping to hear from fellow D-Hubers.

I recently had some Democratic/Progressive friends of mine basically tell me off for my defection.

I think that's one way of looking at it. I prefer to call this an invasion.
Wall Street competes for control of both parties; why don't we?

Campaign Finance Reform. It should be the cause of our political lives.

And here's one place we can start without even needing a constitutional amendment:

"Government, as a creditor, buyer, and seller in the marketplace, can compel its voluntary trading partners to submit to campaign finance and political spending regulations as a condition of engaging in commerce with the government."
-El Prezidente Kaboom

Jack Abramhoff said the same thing in his new book.

Anyways, I'd like to hear from the D-Hub people.

12-15-2011, 11:24 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Yes you'll hear from me. I've been out of the "thinking loop" lately, and your posts require more thought. I'll share my views tomorrow.

12-16-2011, 03:32 AM

Veronica
Not Selected
Posts: 205

I wish you well, trying to reason with any of the GOP, although statistically, there could be a small remnant of Republicans left, who still silently believe in the "old values". It would be like a heretic, or scientist who tried to survive the Catholic Church's wrath -- during the INQUISITION. I guess they could have spent the last 26 yrs with their ear muffs on in their churches, or their meeting halls, or during Rush Limberger Hour on the radio: ) Or maybe they're just stone deaf.

12-16-2011, 10:16 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

El Prezidente,

As usual you challenge our thoughts and the status quo. I'll break my response up into pieces to avoid a very long post. Well this one is too long and people don't like to read long posts. First I'll share my thoughts on Buddy Roemer. As you probably know, I am very liberal in my views, but I am also a pragmatist. And I have had my share of arguments with those on the far right to know that I cannot influence them one iota with facts and critical thinking. Their ideological thinking has become so entrenched that it has become an almost religious orthodoxy...a self delusional sense of righteousness that sees liberals and liberal thinking as the "enemy."

And so it is with many members of the GOP Congress, especially the Tea Partiers, that would readily invoke a "scorched earth" policy of sorts that hurts the country rather than concede one victory to Obama. They will seek to defund approved laws supported by Obama, and they will filibuster everything and everyone that remotely smells of a possible Obama victory. And to add some kind of validity to their smug arrogance, he must be mocked and demeaned daily by right wing politicians and media like Fox News. They even attack the few of their own that do seek to compromise. They, in effect, live in a different universe...one not unlike that of the humanoids in the Star Trek Borg series...where resistance is futile.

These people thrive on power and money, and the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling is their ticket to even bigger money and more power. They don't want campaign finance reform. And neither do the networks and cable news stations that profit immensely from all that big money being thrown around, and where they often highlight one of the measurement of "success"...how much money a candidate has raised.

While compromise is seen as a sign of weakness by the right, it is also seen as a weakness by many of my fellow liberals. "Obama caved" or "Obama Disappoints" AGAIN are the often repeated expressions that I read or hear. But Obama has a responsibility that no one else has...the responsibility of the President of the United States of America...and the need to seek compromises to get anything done, no matter how those compromises don't pass the smell test with liberals. When dealing with the GOP bunch of ideologues that hate him, what are the alternatives? I'm reminded of that Dr. Seuss story of the north going Zax and the south going Zax that refused to budge from their positions.

So election time is here again...is there ever a time that electioneering is not going on? And with it comes money...lots and lots of it...to buy votes and power. Video tapes are dug out from decades past to show a candidate's views on an issue then versus now...a compromise perhaps back then...a flip flop now. Is he/she true to the ideology? But just what is that Republican ideology and who actually controls it? The Grover Norquists of this world? The Koch Brothers? Pat Robertson and James Dobson? All of the above?

But then along comes Buddy Roemer with his refusal to accept a donation of more than $100. I admire his stance and I agree 100 percent with his drive for taking the money out of politics. But what does $100 buy him? Nothing. A hundred dollars is chump change to those playing the big game on the GOP debate stage right now...they can rake in anonymous million dollars a whack donations so easily...all they need to do is sell their vote. And all Buddy Roemer seems to get is a token appearance on the Dylan Ratigan or Rachel Maddow shows...but not much else. Buddy who? If Buddy Roemer is to make a serious impact AS A REPUBLICAN, he cannot be running against THE single issue that the Republican establishment fought so hard for...unlimited campaign contributions and vote buying. That Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS just didn't happen...it was planned and orchestrated by the big money brokers for years. And they finally got what they wanted with the Bush court.

I note that Buddy Roemer was a onetime Democrat, and shares many of the same views that Democrats hold. But I do fear that he may seek to find his own stage as a third party candidate. The last person to try that in a big way was Ralph Nader and we all know what that got us in 2000. But I still don't blame Ralph Nader as much as the disillusioned "stay at home on voting day liberals" that couldn't get past the smell test of something that Al Gore or the Democrats said or did...or perhaps their disillusionment with government in general...the "what difference does my vote mean...they're all the same?" crowd. While it's easy to point the finger at Nader and the 97,000 people who voted for him in Florida, in fact the non-voting liberals numbered in the millions across all 50 states including Gore's home state of Tennessee. They could have made a big difference if only they had voted.

El Prezidente, I know you enough that if Texas was a swing state that made a difference between an Obama and Gingrich Presidency, you would indeed be voting for Obama. You will always vote intelligently...and most importantly you will have voted. But for every Texas, there is also a Florida.

I'll leave it now with a couple of my favorite quotes. I'll next address some of my own questions on money policy.

For me, the most disturbing aspect of the Republican political culture is how it puts its unquenchable thirst for power, domination and a radical ideology above facts, reason and the truth. -- Al Gore

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -- Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu

12-17-2011, 12:28 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Okay. Good stuff. Good starting point.

I think though, and even while I appreciate your comments, I don't think you've really argued anything besides what I've suggested. Obama is a holding action, a stop gap against worse.

To be sure, stopping the GOP whack-pack is paramount. But Obama victory in 2012 is not going to heal this country, or lead to the kinds of policy evolution that we both believe are necessary.

I think radical Roemer organizing is just the swift kick in the ass the Democratic Party needs.
Country first. Campaign Finance Reform Now. Occupy Everything.

12-17-2011, 02:38 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

basic problems with Obama:

1. He undermines even the deficit dove position every time he babbles about 'deficit reduction.' Clinton surplus narrative is a sin.

2. He's done nothing for campaign finance reform, only accelerated the arms race.
-In good conscience, there should have been some sort of public meeting between the two parties to craft some sort of accord on campaign finance reform for general election 2012. At least, an attempt to do this. President could have walked away shaming Republicans just as he did out of the summer debt ceiling calamity (he gets high marks from me for his performance during the debacle, despite point #1).

3. Then I lump this under my civil libertarian dissent:
Removing veto threat of NDAA; not pardoning Bradley Manning; not aggressively fighting to close G-Bay; not reaching out to anti-war left but to the right.

-This while I offer my support still for allied war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The later is now a diplomatic security-counterterrorism mission. The former remains the quagmire of our self-doubt and loathing. A decade of war and counting.
At the last, I'm somewhere between the progovernment dissent of Christopher Hitchens (RIP) and the radical Anonymous collective. However, the situation in Pakistan is going south, and the geo-politics has brutally shifted even as operations in the post Bush era have expanded foot of Kabul in southern Afghanistan deep-inside Taliban's former spirtual heartlands. I continue to press for both peace and justice in Afghanistan and our own, as I join other anti-war folks in calling into question American abuses, even as I continue to argue the case for a slow American exit and continued military-political aid, cooperation, and assistance for Kabul.

4. I'm still pretty pissed about the hippie-punching before Nov. 2010 (the administration's hissy fit with the "professional left" was costly).

-Global payment and means-tested copay Medicare-For-All with supplemental, 'roll-out,' or 'opt-out' regulated private insurance. Need I say more? Sounds complicated, but it's not. Gives everyone option and right to universal healthcare. Allows private competition with government system. Biggest problem is secondary need for specialized Health Courts to adjudicate disputes. Nobody thinks big anymore. I'm not talking about Big Government. I'm talking about a competitive, efficient government. Hey, even David Dewhurst and the Tea Party dominated Republican legislature agrees with global payment system for state Medicaid! Best way to free competitive forces of provider market is to make them compete on quality of service. Only way to open benefits of private market competition to all is to make government bulk buyer of healthcare costs. Global payments give providers flexibility to administer care without mechanistic government controls on care delivery (i.e. 'Death Panels') and with payments contingent upon aggregate results.

12-17-2011, 10:02 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Okay, I was working on my MMT questions and opinions including deficit reduction but I'll put those aside and tackle your list first.

On campaign finance reform, yes Obama didn't accomplish one of his stated goals, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. You will recall that the Disclose Act was passed by Nancy Pelosi's House but was filibustered in the Senate falling one vote short (59-39) of bringing it to the floor for a vote. Every single Republican voted against it. Party first. From the above article:

"Nevertheless, moderate Republicans such as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) -- who reform advocates had targeted -- stood behind Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is a long-time opponent of campaign finance regulation."

Many in the media called it a "major defeat for Obama." And it was...compliments of the Republican filibuster. That was September 23, 2010. In the November 2010 elections, the Republicans took back the House and you know the rest of the story.

Now I appreciate that maybe Obama should have kept the fire going, but having been defeated on it when he had a Democratic majority in both houses, it would have been like pissing in the wind to bring it up again in 2011...when every single Senate Republican was on record as opposing it...including good ole John McCain. Words don't mean anything...watch how they vote.

I will reiterate. The Citizen's United ruling was a major victory for the Republican Party, and Buddy Roemer will never be allowed on the Republican platform to debate that issue publicly with the other candidates. It would be like swallowing a poison pill. And a President Buddy Roemer would have the same obstacles as Obama has encountered.

The fact of life is that the Disclose Act was just one of many bills blocked by the record number of filibusters from January 2009 when he took office until January 2010 when the House went to the Republicans. Since then the only pieces of legislation to get out of the House are anti-abortion bills or the naming of post offices and maybe a few other truly non-partisan issues. Effectively, the Tea Party Republicans have killed the Obama agenda starting in January 2011. Take a look at the Laws passed in the Laws menu of this website and you will see the list of laws passed by date.

On the war in Afghanistan, you and I are on the same page. I believe Obama made a mistake listening to his generals and should not have surged the war. But to be fair, it is what he promised in his 2008 campaign, that he would escalate the war rather than pull out. I disagreed with him on that strategy then and now. There is not a win-win here.

The Affordable Health Care Law is a major accomplishment, even though it was diluted before it became law. It passed the House 219-212 with every Republican voting against it even after many of their provisions were inserted. It passed the Senate 60-39 with every Republican voting against it. Many on the left have criticized it for not having a public option. But with the public option, Conservadems like Ben Nelson would not have supported it. If Obama had not compromised, there would not be an Affordable Health Care law today...and hey it's a first step. That's what compromise is about...it's not all or nothing.

On the NDAA non veto, I don't know all the particulars of that spending bill. But I agree that I don't like the provision of unlimited detention. Maybe more will come out on what was traded here, but for now it doesn't pass the smell test.

A final point on Buddy Roemer. I spent some time digging on where he stands on a whole host of issues and couldn't find much. And where he has taken a stand, he has little to offer as an alternative that has any remote possibility of passing muster with his own Republican base. However, if we vote out that base, then maybe. But I sure would like to see more detail in much of his "sounds good" rhetoric.

12-17-2011, 02:19 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Just for the record, Politico has provided a detailed summary of the terms of the Disclose Act sponsored by the Democrats. Mitch McConnell criticized this bill before getting his Republican caucus to vote 100 percent against it:

"Make no mistake about it, the campaign finance bill introduced this morning is not about reform, transparency, accountability or good government,” McConnell said in a statement released by his office. “It is about election advantage plain and simple." -- Mitch McConnell

So what are the provisions that McConnell finds so distasteful?

According to Politico, the Disclose Act

"calls for full disclosure of any donors of political ads run by corporations, labor unions, 527 groups, and trade associations. The bills also place further restrictions on political spending by any company that is partially owned by foreign corporations or funded by taxpayer dollars. Heads of corporations would have to appear in ads they sponsor in featured disclaimers that express their approval of the ad, and periodically report all such expenditures to shareholders and members of their board."

In addition, it:

Places further restrictions on the electioneering timeframes in which special interests can reference a candidate for the presidency or congressional office;

Increases disbursement reporting requirements;

Enhances disclosure requirements by lobbyists, including a provision that requires any lobbyist to disclose any independent expenditure or electioneering communication in excess of $1,000, and the name of candidate or campaign supported or opposed;

Incorporates language from S.1858, legislation that would require all members of the Senate to electronically file their campaign finance reports;

Also, candidates for federal office would be offered the lowest unit rates if any covered organization buys time in a media market.

--------------------------------------------------------

By comparison, Buddy Roemer's comprehensive, six-point package to fight special interests in politics includes:

Full disclosure of every campaign contribution, no matter how small

Real-time electronic reporting of campaign contributions, within 48 hours, rather than quarterly

Elimination of Super PACs entirely

Limiting PAC donations to candidates to the same as individual contributions.

Prohibition of registered lobbyists participating in fundraisers

Criminal penalties for violations of campaign finance rules

Moreover, Buddy Roemer champions a system of disclosure and limits that applies to every office and level, not just the office or president. In the same vein, he believes that every office should come with term limits to prevent waste and corruption.

It would appear to me that Buddy Roemer's proposal that requires the elimination of Super PACs entirely and limits PAC donations is even more restrictive than the one that Mitch McConnell hates. Or am I reading it wrong?

For campaign finance reform to happen in any form, Mitch McConnell has to first be defeated.

12-18-2011, 09:05 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Okay, I'm still on the Summit with Kaboom. Since I spent a bunch of time researching Buddy Roemer and where he stands on a host of issues, (see Project VoteSmart website) I'll just share a few more points before moving on to some of El Prezidente's other points.

First, however, to be absolutely clear, I applaud and support Buddy Roemer on his issue of campaign finance reform. He and Gary Johnson belong on the same Republican debate stage as the "eight clowns" to debate that and other issues of the day. With 21 Republican debates, I would think the Republican establishment would like to have some new blood on the stage rather than the rerun of the Groundhog Day movie every few weeks. That movie is getting old. And the populace that has to watch that movie is getting a queasy stomach watching the repeated roller coaster ups and downs of the candidates and the endless analysis and trivia that follows on cable news until the next rerun of that movie. Here are a few memorable lines from the Groundhog Day movie:

Rita: You're missin' all the fun! These people are great! Some of them have been partyin' all night long! They sing songs 'till they get too cold and then they go sit by the fire and they get warm, and then they come back and sing some more!
Phil: Yeah, they're hicks, Rita!

Rita: Do you every have déjà vu?
Phil: Didn't you just ask me that?

So much for movie reruns. Getting back to the other issues of the day that are important to me, I note that Buddy Roemer hypes his credentials as governor of Louisiana, amongst them "balancing the budget" and "cutting spending"and "debt reduction"...like what he did in Louisiana he will do to the federal budget. There are some deficit owls [corrected] MMTers that might take issue with that strategy. Here are a few more Buddy Roemer quotes:

"The President’s jobs plan will certainly create jobs – jobs in China," Roemer said. "Another $450 billion government stimulus is not the answer. The President’s job-killing economic policies have decimated domestic manufacturing, shipped thousands of good American jobs overseas and saddled future generations with an historic level of debt they may likely never be able to escape." -- Buddy Roemer in his response to Obama's Jobs speech.

“He thinks that we must spend hundreds of millions of dollars retraining unemployed workers. Retraining them for what? There are no jobs; our jobs are in China,” Roemer said, raising his voice just short of a shout. “Is he going to retrain them to speak Mandarin so they can move to China and work 10 hour days for the wage of 50 cents an hour? Respectfully, Mr. President. I say, ‘No thank you to your jobs plan.’” -- Politico

"I recognize that I've been out of the governor's office awhile, but in that time I've been creating jobs. So here's some advice -- free of charge -- for the president," said Roemer. "Jobs growth doesn't come from the government, so government can't overtly fix it. The government can, however, create an atmosphere of growth by deregulation and permanent tax cuts. Read the Ronald Reagan playbook." -- The Sunshine State News

"Drill for oil in America where we know it exists -- both on and off shore," said Roemer. "Declare that we will be energy-independent as a nation by the end of this decade. Announce that we will tariff foreign oil, except Canada and Mexico, and raise the tariff as the end of decade approaches. The proceeds will pay down the national debt, not interest." -- The Sunshine State News

In these quotes, he does sound an awful lot like some candidates on the Republican debate stage. And that scares me. However, he does deserve to have his day on the debate platform and have all of these and other views, stated and unstated, put under the microscope.

12-18-2011, 11:03 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Just to be clear: I am actually in favor of Obama's Afghan surge.

Situation was/is much different than Iraq. In Iraq, factional fighting was between armed wings of political parties still also engaged in the political process, which the BUSH flip-flop on SOFA did more to resolve than anything else. Thank you again Obama for that too.

The Taliban is not at the table in the political process.

I think mistakes were made in AF-Pak, but putting more troops in Afghanistan was not one of them, per se. I think Obama has bravely put long-term American interests in peace, security, and development in the world way ahead of a quick fix (i.e., fast-paced withdrawal) to score domestic political points.

Probably should elaborate more on Obama's AF-PAK war, but I'm going to move on for now...
..........

My feelings and views regarding Obama are complex.

If I could sum it all up......I just think the president put himself in a position, with his political baggage (i.e. Rezko and J-Wright) and doublespeak courting of Big Finance, where he is now a prisoner to a totally corrupt system. And this is why I call him the Prisoner President.

Look, I'm all for compromise that's how representative democracy works. The problem is that Obama's starting position in all negotiations is thoroughly compromised by special interests and the Democratic Party's own political realities (i.e. highly divided Congressional caucuses, Blue Dogs vs. Progressives vs. New Democrats). In the end, Obama's failure/inability to rise above D.C.'s byzantine system of favors, kickbacks, and horsetrading; shrewd willingness to sell window-dressing as Mission Accomplished; and refusal/inability to lead by example on Campaign Finance Reform in seeking reelection, all amount to a presidency and record that we simply cannot as Progressives be satisfied with.

Buddy Roemer is a sorely needed radically transformative candidate. He is the Jiminy Cricket of the GOP. He challenges our ideas about what a Republican could be. He is an artist in this respect. Only Nixon could go to China; and only a Republican can bring about campaign finance reform.

I don't think Roemer is going to win. But I support planting the seed, or at least trying to water the grass on the other side of the aisle with Progressive policy arguments. I want to destroy the modern Republican Party establishment. I want to turn Republicans against each other. And frankly, I'm willing to go Dark Knight to do it.

Look, Republican or Democrat, most Americans agree with Progressive policy goals. Now, it's not like Progressives agree on everything. But the most pertinent and important political debate in this country is confined within progressive arenas that go far beyond partisan lines.
...........
We agree 100% on McConnell. I value and thank you for your ridicule of the GOTP, which is nothing more than a corporate rightwing attempt to recover the lost populist middle American base lost by the Bush administration. Don't ever take my dissident bipartisanship as somehow recognizing an equality b/n the GOTP and Democrats in sticking it to the American people. Edited note: I want to be even clearer about this. Responsibility for plight of Middle Class and American economy is overwhelmingly with the so-called "Republican Party" and it's GOTP mutation/transformation. I frankly believe we should stop calling them "Republicans." As far as I'm concerned, Roemer is the only Republican Left.

12-18-2011, 11:33 AM

Conservative Student
Itty-bitty-town, WI
Posts: 4

It's too bad Hillary doesn't run against Obama. Although I'm a Conservative, I'd MUCH rather have Hillary than him, and I know quite a few Democrats who agree with me.

12-18-2011, 12:07 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Looks like, Schmidit, we were posting at same time there.
...........
I'm getting a lot of doublespeak from Roemer on budgets and deficits.

And by the way, you mean anti-deficit hawk MMTers or deficit owl MMTers. Nit-picking for clarity.

Remember MMT teaches that the deficit and government spending are obviously correlated, but one does not have to increase the latter to raise the former. I think Roemer's biggest concern with federal budget is size of federal spending vs. GDP, not the deficit, per se.
I'm in favor of a full FICA payroll tax holiday, and restructuring the targeting of current deficits.

I've followed Roemer all year, and yeah, he does appear to have flipped on a lot of issues (most obviously, on Wall Street regulation and tax reform).

Keep in mind, Roemer is running for the Republican nomination.
(((Correction and edited note: I don't think Roemer has necessarily 'flipped' on Wall Street regulation and tax reform over the course of the campaign. I think he's said things to different audiences in different times and places which are rather inconsistent when taken together without clarification.)))

.........
On tax code, Obama, and trade: look Roemer has a point. We've got a tax code in place that incentivizes jobs-export; and Democrats like Charlie Rangel, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was responsible for writing the damn thing.

It is laughable that Rangel, like other Wall Street and 1% Democrats, are now trying to attach themselves to the Occupy movement.
........
My point here: Roemer is just as confusing as Obama on budgets and spending. And you have a point that is not without merit about the confusing tradeoffs here.

I take him at his word that he is a "Conservative who listens," and would hope that with campaign finance reform, MMTers might get the chance to lobby government and educate the public.

Remember, MMT is not an ideological system; it simply recognizes the reality of a fiat currency system. It is not inherently incompatible with federalism or Republican "purist" views on government spending, per se. And it can be and has been used for the Evil benefit of the 1% and the Oligarchical Socialism that the GOTP has come to support contrary to its faux populism.

The most dangerous Marxists and Vanguards were already on Wall Street, well before the Trekkie Marxist-Socialists in OWS arrived. And all along, the true CONSERVATIVES have been the PROGRESSIVES fighting everyone and everything that stands in the way of the RESTORATION of the RULE OF LAW.

12-19-2011, 12:01 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Link to Buddy Roemer's Ruck.us page: http://www.ruck.us/profile/buddy-roemer

Check out the Q&A.
Joe Firestone (a.k.a. letsgetitdone) and I posted some questions to Roemer. The Deficit Owls await a response.

Owls on Parade.
..........
Furthermore Huffpost article: Secret US-Taliban talks ..reaching turning point?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/18/secret-us-taliban-talks_n_1156903.html

12-21-2011, 02:40 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Hey guys Buddy Roemer responded to my MMT questions on Ruck.us.

Please check it out. I know you may not all agree with me about my support for his campaign.

But you have got to check this out. How often do you get to have a political exchange with a presidential candidate?

I'm fighting for what I believe in. I heart MMT.

http://www.ruck.us/profile/buddy-roemer

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES