Some Democrats are Really Stupid

[carlangaslangas]

Two weeks ago, we told you about an exciting, youth-led grassroots movement to break up the banks called A New Way Forward.

On Saturday, A New Way Forward is sponsoring a nationwide day of action to demand that our leaders (1) nationalize (2) reorganize, and (3) decentralize the banks as a first step toward building a more just economy.

The way I read it:
1) Nationalize -> But only the twelve regional banks of the Federal Reserve
2) Reorganize -> Fire the board of directors and dissolve those banks
3) Decentralize -> No more FED! All that's left are the private banks with worthless stock in the now nonexistent Federal Reserve system.

Genius!!

 

[CUnknown]

I think A New Way Forward is mostly good.

But yeah, you can only have 'nationalize' and 'decentralize' in the same sentence if 'reorganize' actually means 'getting rid of.'

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here's the perfect example: Two Democrats Stuck on an Escalator


YouTube - Democrats on Escalator

 

[fj45lvr]

everybody's "stupid" in their own way on various things.


The democrats have some awful ideas.....their ideas are bad and much of their party platform.

The Republicans are mostly liars and "neo-conned".


I think everyone should get a copy of Lew Rockwells book "the Left, the Right and the State"

 

[LibForestPaul]

Their are no democrats their are no republicans there are no their ideas...

Slaves need to wake up. If you keep putting your head in the sand, the Centralized Banking Cartel will keep putting their hands in your pockets.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

as a first step toward building a more just economy.

What exactly is that supposed to mean in the eyes of a liberal/socialist?

 

[theinlawjosie]

Their are no democrats their are no republicans there are no their ideas...

This.

Partisan politics dumb the people down.

 

[amy31416]

Classic liberalism is what I learned about in college (think John Locke--I was a huge fan, have to re-read his stuff sometime soon, quite frankly) and we, of all people, should not be using the word "liberal" as a pejorative. The word has taken just as much of a beating as the word "conservative."

True conservatives and classic liberals have far more in common than neoconservatives (established) and "neoliberals" (weaseling their way in.)

Look up classic liberalism and see what it's about. Classic liberals are our allies. I'm not sure if Kucinich is close to being one or not, but he's not all bad--so far as I can tell. He needs to get on board with HR 1207 though.

I was reading up on David Souter's resignation today and, as I am wont to do, I always dig a little deeper. He's maligned as a "liberal" because he didn't fall in lock-step with the religious right's expectations. But this guy is truly a thoughtful individual with a good understanding of the Constitution (noto bene--I've only read two chapters of a biography and read about 12 articles, so I know I could be wrong.)

He seems to take a very technical position, which I respect, because he's technical about the Constitution and generally treats it if it were set in stone. And that's something I think that most all of us can support, no matter whether that leads us to a "liberal" conclusion or a "conservative" conclusion.

Isn't that what it's all about?

 

[BenIsForRon]

I think every rational person in the country would like to see decentralization of finance, the difference is on how we should get there.

I'm convinced that if we let the banks fail, prices will undershoot their real value and a lot of people will lose money and jobs that they didn't need to. On the other hand, I don't see a plausible alternative.

I've heard one guy say that FISA should take control of banks assets, then sell them to smaller investors at realistic market prices. Sounds good on paper, but I don't see how it could realistically be achieved. Any thoughts?