SYNDICATED COLUMN: 7-7-7

Jobless? Face It: Obama’s Not That Into You

Forget Herman Cain’s 9-9-9. The battle cry for every American ought to be 7-7-7.

7-7-7: for the $7.7 trillion the Bush and Obama Administrations secretly funneled to the banksters.

Remember the $700 billion bailout that prompted rage from right to left? Which inspired millions to join the Tea Party and the Occupy movements? Turns out that that was a mere drop in the bucket, less than a tenth of what the Federal Reserve Bank doled out to the big banks.

Bloomberg Markets Magazine reports a shocking story that emerged from tens of thousands of documents released under the Freedom of Information Act: by March 2009, the Fed shelled out $7.77 trillion “to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.”

The U.S. national debt is currently a record $14 trillion.

We knew that the Fed and the White House were pawns of Wall Street. What’s new is the scale of the conspiracy.

Even the most jaded financial reporters were stunned at the extent of collusion: “The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”

Citigroup earned an extra $1.8 billion by reinvesting the Fed’s below-market loans. Bank of America made $1.5 billion.

Bear in mind, that’s only through March 2009.

“Many Americans are struggling to understand why banks deserve such preferential treatment while millions of homeowners are being denied assistance and are at increasing risk of foreclosure,” wrote Representative Elijah Cummings, a ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who is demanding an investigation.

Indeed we are.

This stinks. It’s terrible economics. And it’s unbelievably cruel.

First the economics. The bank bailouts were supposed to loosen credit in order to encourage lending, investment, job creation and ultimately consumer spending. It didn’t work. Banks and corporations alike are hoarding cash. President Obama, who promised 4 million net new jobs by earlier this year, has been reduced to claiming that unemployment would have been even higher without the bailouts.

Ask any business executive why nobody is hiring and they’ll blame the lack of consumer demand. If the ultimate goal is to put more money into people’s pockets, why not just, you know, put more money into people’s pockets?

Bank executives used federal taxdollars to pay themselves tens of billions in bonuses and renovate their corporate headquarters. We the people got 0-0-0. What if we’d gotten 7-7-7 instead?

Every man, woman in child in the United States would have received $24,000.

A family of four would have gotten $96,000.

And that’s without an income test.

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that 100 million American citizens—one of out of three—subsists below or just above the official poverty line. Demographers, statisticians and economists were stunned. “These numbers are higher than we anticipated,” Trudi J. Renwick, the bureau’s chief poverty statistician, told The New York Times. “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.”

For four decades progressive economists have warned that the middle-class was being eroded, that the United States would become a Third World country if income inequality continued to expand. They can stop. We’re there.

These poor and “near poor” Americans comprise the vast majority of the uninsured, un- and underemployed, and foreclosure victims. If Bush-Obama’s 7-7-7 Plan had gone to each one of these 100 million misérables instead of Citigroup and Bank of America, the IRS would have mailed out 100 million checks for $77,700 each.

This would have paid off a lot of credit cards. Kept millions in their homes, protecting neighborhood property values. Allowed millions to see a doctor. Paid for food.

A lot of the money would have been “wasted” on new cars, Xboxes—maybe even a renovation or two. All of which would have created a buttload of consumer demand.

If you’re a “99er”—one of millions who have run out of unemployment benefits—Obama’s plan for you is 0-0-0.

If you’re one of the roughly 20 million homeowners who have lost or are about to lose your house to foreclosure—most likely to a bank using fraudulent loan documents—you get 0-0-0.

If you’re a teacher asking for a raise, or a parent caring for a sick child or parent, or just an ordinary worker hobbling to work on an old car that needs to be replaced, all you’ll get is 0-0-0.

There isn’t any money to help you.

We don’t have the budget.

We’re broke.

You can’t get the bank to call you back about refinancing, much less the attention of your Congressman.

But not if you’re a banker.

Bankers get their calls returned. They get anything they want.

There’s always a budget for them.

They get 7-7-7.

(Ted Rall is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto.” His website is tedrall.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2011 TED RALL

28 thoughts on “SYNDICATED COLUMN: 7-7-7

  1. @Ted: Yah things like that are happening everywhere in the US and have been for a while. Back in roughly 2005-2007 The California Institute of Technology declared to students and staff that they were having trouble making ends meet. During this time they slashed jobs and created a slew of new charges for students. As a graduate student I was suddenly charged $30 a month for internet use by them which I was not allowed to refuse and thus had to pay for, $40 a month for student parking (I had to get rid of my car and walk to work, have you ever tried to get around in LA without a car?), and so so much more. Who decided that graduate students were a good source of untapped revenue? They did this with over half a billion dollars in their endowment.

    Incidentally, Caltech also has a nationally recognized blue ribbon winning private club called the Atheneaum for the Elites. One can get Atheneaum membership for as little as $9 a month (if you have certain Caltech affiliation). So we are expected to believe that it takes only $9 a month in membership fees to maintain a historic marble interior fully staffed blue ribbon private club but $40 a month in membership fees to (poorly) maintain an asphalt rectangle used for student parking.

    So what happened with all these cuts and revenue increases? By 2009 Caltech’s endowment had almost doubled in just a couple of years and was getting close to 1.5 Billion. They had made about half a billion dollars in just a couple of years a few of which were a major economic down turn, and yet they are registered as a “non-profit” organization to avoid paying any taxes. Would that all for-profit institutions were so profitable in economic downturns as this “non-profit” organization.

    This money just sits in a giant pool with no intention of being used for anything other then hoarding. Even as Caltech amassed it they had labs (that I worked in) where the 50 year old temperature regulating devices for the labs were so decrepit and damaged that the rooms regularly got above the flash point of the Class A flammables being stored and used in them (Note: this is illegal as it is a severe fire hazard). Water rained freely from the ceilings in some lab areas with expensive electronics or water reactive chemicals (water reactive as in dangerous when mixed with water, another sever fire and health hazzard). When a rat died in the wall next to my benchspace Caltech refused to do anything about it. I worked for months there as it rotted away, the smell being so bad most people couldn’t bare to be in that room yet alone near my work bench (it did become a good way to physically hide from my PI when research wasn’t going so well as he wouldn’t set foot in that room during the rotting rat period, but I still got his emails.) Eventually I was saved because some workmen were called into that room to try and fix some other part of its decaying infrastructure and the smell was so bad that they refused to start working until they had caulked all the numerous holes in the wall shut, which successfully sealed away the horrific smell. Ironically these workmen were unable to do their actual repair job and fix the room’s McQuay unit because it was so old no one made the parts for it anymore and Caltech refused to buy a new one. Also the workers were none-to-pleased that when they started taking the McQuay unit apart they quickly found out that it was packed full of active black widow spiders’ nests.

    I could tell you so many things more. This is all only the tip of the iceberg on the slumlord-like greed of this institution, but this post would be far to long for anyone to care to read it. The sad fact is that Caltech is not alone, they are pretty much on par with most major institutions in America in these respects.

  2. someone,

    I really keep thinking nothing new will surprise me, but the news that we aren’t even employing Americans to build high-speed rail…reminds me of Mr. Rall pointing out how bizarre it is for Obama to be so unconcerned with actually stimulating the economy. That’s the biggest no-brainer. Employ Americans….I can only suppose Obama knows something I don’t, which guarantees his reelection even in such high unemployment. exkiodexian is right of course, they cannot have the stimulus accomplish anything or it would ruin the right’s propaganda…wait, no facts have EVER ruined that.

  3. patron,

    It’s a very good question: who will be in charge? In revolutions, not much can be planned. We know the first steps. I have a distrust of all forms of government (not in a libertarian way, mind you) because they all come to be run by people who are just out for themselves. I mean, what’s in any kind of government to stop that from happening? I believe in Socrates’ “Philosopher King.” It seems the only way. To have one in charge who is devoted to truth above all else. His problem was how to make this happen. Ours is the same. I hope that someone who cares will be in charge after the revolution because our history has shown that even democracies can be wholly corrupted by the enemies of humanity. I’d argue that democracy is the WORST form of government because it allows corruption to be so neatly hidden beneath the framework of the system and allows the ease with which its players shift blame.

  4. Susan said of Whimsical:

    “You’re a patronizing, arrogant little shit, and not just to me. Example:

    “>>Actually ex, I’d wager far more of the country agrees with me than you. You arent going to get support for killing bankers, because the majority of the country gets that that’s unnecessary and unhelpful. It works wonders as a denial mechanism so you don’t have to focus on solutions that will actually work, though.

    Unless of course your purpose in constantly advocating ridiculous amouts of violence is to identify those who would be willing to commit violence, for whatever reason. Something to think about, certainly.”>>

    What are you, a fucking psychoanalyst or something? Is Exkiodexian a patient on your couch?

    Well, sir, this may be just my humble opinion, but I think you are a creepy, manipulative little man-bitch. If you want to psychoanalize somebody, you should really start with yourself.”

    ——-

    Food for thought, certainly. While you’re analyzing yourself, Whimsical, try to think back to what happened in your life to make you love talking down to everyone and what made you adore our rotten-to-the-core fascist “democracy.”

  5. exkiodexian said:

    “As I’ve said here before the only way to stop this is through violence directed at the executive elite. NOT the government, the executive elite that make up the shadow government that actually run things. Until these exexs have their throats slit on national TV, nothing will change. This latest outrage is just another opportunity for them to laugh at the working class slob. To spew out more propaganda. To tighten the screws even more. When will people wake up and do what MUST be done?

    Now, I know Whimsical will be here any minute to talk about “taking it slow and steady” and “incremental change”. Woe be the left with Whimsical in charge. The only question he asks the elite is “would you like to fuck my in the ass using vaseline or gravel?”. That’s right, to the Whimsical’s of the left, it’s all about how bad you want to take it. To the rest of us, change can happen NOW. See how the elite took $7.7 trillion in 0% interest loans and converted it instantly to $15 billion in profits? SMASH and FUCKING GRAB!! They don’t sit around talking about “incremental change”. They DO. They don’t talk. They DO.

    It’s time the left stop fucking around with talking, chants, and protests. It’s time for action. It’s time for casting aside the Whimsicals and picking up the pitchforks.”

    This needed to be reposted. This man should be paid for such writing. We should have to PAY. He should be a speech-writer. So much truth, passion, and brilliance. I have a new respect here.

  6. Alex,

    That’s a pretty inventive punishment for our intrepid bankers. But then, aren’t they always blathering about how we should embrace “rugged individualism”? This would give them a chance to practice what they preach, huh? On the other hand, dropping them food every few days seems like welfare, right? Perhaps they should “get a job” as hunters-and-gatherers rather than subsisting on the dole for the rest of their lives.

    In regards to Star Trek, yeah that’s a socialist vision of the future, kinda similar to what Norway is today, only more so. Yeah, why can’t we have a society like that?

  7. At the risk of walking into a flame war …

    Let me just offer this observation about bankers and killing.

    What the bankers have done, the deliberate, intentional, carefully planned rape and destruction not just of the economic system but also the damage it has inflicted on the trust of the people (I’ll come back to that in a second) ought to be something that carries a capital sentence: it should be right up there with treason, and if found guilty, a death penalty should be inflictable upon the guilty.

    But I would not kill the bankers. And here’s why. Way, way, back, there was a book called (I think) “The I and the Not I.” One point in it was that a lot of people out there simply do not see other people as people. They see them as things. It’s a form of sociopathy. The bankers behave in the way they do because they simply are not capable of comprehending that what they’re doing is beyond the boundaries of what is considered normal; that they are into the uncharted territory of mental illness.

    Killing the bankers will do no good, and it will corrupt the better aspects of society. The bankers still don’t understand that they did anything wrong. It’s like trying to explain to a small child that it’s being too rough with a puppy or a kitten.

    I would try the bankers in court. If they are found guilty, I would sentence them to be placed on an island (there are many candidates in the United States. The Aleutians, some of the Hawaii islands, islands off the coast of the Carolinas, Maine, Massachusetts, etc.). They would all arrive in the three-piece suit they wore to court and nothing else. No tools, no weapons. Food would be airdropped every two or three days. They want the thrill of the hunt? They want to show us how superior they are? That’s fine. I prefer a society in which I do not have to perpetually earn my keep every single day and God help me the one time I stumble because the jackals I thought were human beings will rip the living flesh from my bones before I can stand back up. Those strong, virile, hyper-perfect bankers may hunt each other for scraps. Let them create their perfect society in a place where their corruption will not destroy everything else.

    As I mentioned, I’m coming back to a point I didn’t make earlier. The real damage from what the bankers did is still coming. A successful society requires stability. Ideally, it’s like Gene Roddenberry’s notion of what the Star Trek universe was like: Every child can read, and no one is hungry. (But the bankers — and their suck-up hangers-on — managed to convince a sufficient number of people that starving illiterate children deserve it if they aren’t willing to become as crooked and thieving as the bankers.)

    For everyone to be able to read and to not starve, you need homes, schools, the infrastructure to support them. As few people can just buy a house outright, they go for a mortgage. How many people do you think are going to apply for a 30-year mortgage after this fiasco? No one, except in a final extreme. So there goes the idea of owning a home. If you aren’t going to own a home, you’ll rent. Will you really care how the neighbor is? Probably not as much as you would if you owned a home. If the place starts to go to hell, you can always move. You have no reason to stick around. Same with the schools. If they start going to shit, you move to a better district. Or maybe you move because you have to find a job. You can’t fart around trying to unload a house in a sluggish market if you just took a job 60 miles away because your current job was just outsourced.

    That’s the real damage that’s coming.

  8. >>”Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could. And for the laughs.”>>

    I’m glad that your ability to laugh is better than your ability to put forth an honest, respectful, and coherent argument.

  9. @ex

    Oh, and if you’re going to quote me, quote me accurately. “Once people think it through, they will see that [killing the banksters] is unnecessary and unhelpful.” That’s MY argument, not this BS strawman you responded to.

  10. @ Susan

    Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could. And for the laughs.

    @ex
    We disagree. The system is perfectly reformable without violence. The left is just bad at it. And I suppose we’ll have to leave it there.

    • I received this response via email:

      I’m a part-time Lecturer (PTL) at [a large East Coast university] and a union official. We are currently negotiating for a new contract.

      [Their] offer? Nothing – salary freeze for the next four years. No benefits, no job security.

      This is their offer, even though they have $500,000,000 of unrestricted net assets lying around.

      PTLs at [unnamed university] currently make $4500 per three credit course. There are thousands of PhDs in [my state], and across the country, that cobble together multiple part time jobs to earn below poverty level wages.

      Nationally about 75% of college instructors are part timers – adjuncts who teach by the course without benefits or tenure.

  11. @Whimsical

    You’re a patronizing, arrogant little shit, and not just to me. Example:

    “>>Actually ex, I’d wager far more of the country agrees with me than you. You arent going to get support for killing bankers, because the majority of the country gets that that’s unnecessary and unhelpful. It works wonders as a denial mechanism so you don’t have to focus on solutions that will actually work, though.

    Unless of course your purpose in constantly advocating ridiculous amouts of violence is to identify those who would be willing to commit violence, for whatever reason. Something to think about, certainly.”>>

    What are you, a fucking psychoanalyst or something? Is Exkiodexian a patient on your couch?

    Well, sir, this may be just my humble opinion, but I think you are a creepy, manipulative little man-bitch. If you want to psychoanalize somebody, you should really start with yourself.

  12. Notice the way Whimsical shifts the arguments? This is a classic tactic.

    Whimsical: “Of course, the first visceral, emotional, reaction to what bankers did is “Kill em!”. You aren’t going to get any significant support for killing bankers beyond that first irrational, emotional surge.”

    No one said the point was “emotional”. In fact, in previous posts I talked about how such acts will be ugly and uncomfortable – but ultimately, necessary. Whimsical likes to shift the argument into a scenario where there’s a free-for-all of people running amok, getting off on killing all bankers. That was never said, and is not the argument.

    I reiterate: You can no longer change this system without revolution and revolution means violence. Any adult knows that and accepts it. This government-corporation is so corrupt to the core, it can no longer be bargained with. This government-corporation has blocked democracy at every turn, has overturned the will of the people so many times – they can no longer be bargained with. The de-infestation of corporations running this government will not happen by simply ASKING them to leave. They will have to be forced out. Why? NOTHING will change until that de-infestation happens.

    To the disillusioned Obama backers, there’s a simple explanation as to why nothing has changed under Obama, and why he’s been even more conservative than Bush (including his Republican hatched HCR): He’s not in charge. He’s just filling a position offered by the shadow government made up of unelectable elites. Know why the foreign policy has not changed one bit? That plan was written years ago by the unelectable elites, and by god they are going to carry it out – no matter how much democracy they need to subvert. Know why the HCR was simply a mandate to purchase private insurance? They same reason the insurance companies sent out memo’s after it passed saying “we won!”. That bill/law was written years ago by the unelectable elites (penned entirely by the health insurance industry), and by god they are going to carry it out – no matter how much democracy they needed to subvert.

    How many more examples do people need to know they no longer live in a democracy? Anyone who thinks they do live in a democracy is a child. A little child that prefers fantasy to reality.

    Those are the same children that prefer to think we can Whimsical our way to a better tomorrow through “little increments” and “slow and steady”.

  13. @Susan-

    Don’t like the way I treat you? Change the way you treat me. I just reflect back the attitude I’m approached with.

    And there are several posters here I’d consider my intellectual equal. Alex_the_tired, for one.

  14. Quote Whimsical:

    >>”Congratulations, your record of (deliberately?) misunderstanding my point(s) continues unabated.”>>

    And your record of patronizing other commenters on this site as if they were children continues unabated. If you don’t think or see us as your intellectual equals, then I suggest that you leave.

  15. @susan

    Congratulations, your record of (deliberately?) misunderstanding my point(s) continues unabated.

    Of course, the first visceral, emotional, reaction to what bankers did is “Kill em!”. But most people don’t stop there. Most people take a deep breath, think it through rationally, and realize that its unnecessary and ultimately, unhelpful.

    So, yeah, I stand by what I said- you aren’t going to get any significant support for killing bankers beyond that first irrational, emotional surge.

  16. Quote Whimsical:

    >>”You arent going to get support for killing bankers”>>

    Yes, of course, Whimsical. Why would anyone want to kill a banker? Perish the thought. Where would we be without those great humanitarians?

  17. @ex

    You can no more claim that a British asshole speaks for the American right than I can claim you speak for the UK left.

    You’re really becoming a cartoon figure, popping up on thread after thread going “Kill em! Kill em all!”. It’s suspsicous and creepy.

  18. @michaelwme: “so about $750,000 per $40,000 job saved” Yes, but after the Republicans, and many Democrats, got done with modifying the stimulus it was designed to be as infective as possible to prevent any damage to the “stimulus doesn’t work” trope. For instance, about half (and possibly more) of said stimulus was devoted to tax cuts and cost reductions for people already hoarding money. Thus half or more of the stimulus was strait up devoted to pissing in the wind. Now you are talking about $375,000 per $40,000 job saved. Then you look at where stimulus plans took place and you find that they were targeted in ways and to places where they would have the least effect possible, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. By the time you figure it all out the stimulus actually looks pretty good given how much effort was devoted to making it as small, wasteful, and ineffective per its insufficient size as possible.

    Indeed the Obama administration is working on another stimulus package now that, among other things, has $13 billion devoted to high speed rail. It achieves this by, drum roll, contracting a Spanish company to do this instead of employing Americans. So right there $13 billion of that stimulus is not a stimulus at all, except for Spain. In conclusion, all (well targeted) stimulus works, and work very well (multipliers between 1.5 and 4 are standard, i.e. every $1 spent tends to result in $1.5 to $4 of increased economic activity so long as the economy is depressed and not at or near maximum output capacity.) The deal, however is the powers that be FEAR STIMULUS. A successful stimulus shows the public that government can solve problems (specifically problems typically created by the powers that be), can create jobs, and can do good things. Thus it is the goal of every stimulus plan to be both too small to be successful and to be as wasteful and useless as possible to make sure the “government = useless/evil” trope is never ever questioned or even slightly eroded in the minds of the masses.

  19. @exkodexian: It is true that the money was in the form of loans and not just free cash, but it was in the form of loans with almost no interest. The 100 Million poorest Americans have a ton of debt at a comparatively much much higher rate of interest. These people could and would have been noticeably helped by having the fed pick up their debt and hold it at the lower rates reserved only for the privileged bankers. Indeed these rates are currently so low that some people refer to it as “free money” because the interest may be less then inflation over large stretches of time, meaning that over the long term more money was given away via these loans then will be requested back once adjusted for inflation. Fed loans to cover debts still certainly wouldn’t be enough to save all of America’s deeply impoverished, but it would definitely help this group of people and it is grossly unfair that only the wealthiest are given access to “free money”.

  20. So, um if we get rid of these people who run things, then who is going to be in charge? The people? So we will be like an idealized Ancient Greece, where every person (every male in their case) votes on every issue? Otherwise, we will be back to the same story, some people will have more power than others, those people will use that power to gain more resources than others, those resources will allow them to buy more resources, until we are in the same situation again. The problem with the idea of changing to a fairer system, is a fairer system does not appear to exist, I guess the revolution shakes things up and those that have been oppressed may get to be the oppressor for awhile, but I am not sure that is a very useful rallying cry “Fuck equality, lets oppress the oppressors.” On second thought, that might rally some folks.

  21. Anyone see what British news asshole Jeremy Clarkson said on BBC about the general strike that just happened?

    ———————–
    During his interview, Clarkson was asked what he would do with strikers, he replied: “I would have them all shot”. He continued: “I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed, while the rest of us have to work for a living.”
    ———————–

    There you have it. The right would execute you in front of your families, simply for your right to strike. But, the left? The Whimsicals? “Hey now, let’s be reasonable. Let’s give Obama a chance. Change doesn’t happen overnight. Small increments folks. Small increments.” Yeah, that’ll work. Why don’t you add in some “Hey Hey Ho Ho” chants while you’re at it.

    Obama and his minion enablers are part of the problem, perhaps even worse than the right wing itself. Here you have “kill them” being leveled at workers, and “give peace a chance” as the response. I say “give violence a chance”. It’s time to fight back against the Jeremy Clarkson’s of this world and execute THEM in front of their families.

  22. Meh, I wouldn’t advocate violence personally, but I am rather passive, however, I think you can make a logical argument both for and against it.

  23. Actually ex, I’d wager far more of the country agrees with me than you. You arent going to get support for killing bankers, because the majority of the country gets that that’s unnecessary and unhelpful. It works wonders as a denial mechanism so you don’t have to focus on solutions that will actually work, though.

    Unless of course your purpose in constantly advocating ridiculous amouts of violence is to identify those who would be willing to commit violence, for whatever reason. Something to think about, certainly.

  24. There has been one, count them, one stimulus that worked unambiguously, a stimulus proposed by those two great economists, Adolph Schickelgrüber and Tojo. Unemployment fell from more than 15% to less than 2%. And the fall in unemployment wasn’t limited to the US, worldwide, unemployment fell drastically.

    Every other stimulus left many unemployed, and the right-wingnuts say that stimuli CAUSE unemployment rather than alleviating unemployment. And they MIGHT have been right for stimuli other than WWII. Of course, they say that stimuli NEVER work, which is clearly disproved by the WWII data point. But the right-leaning econometricians say that, on average, over all stimuli, most do not work, and I can’t refute that claim (I don’t believe it, since the left-wing economists say it’s wrong, but I can’t refute it).

    The economic theory says that, when a stimulus takes money from those who don’t spend it (usually, rich people) and gives it to those who do (usually, poor people), it puts people to work; when it takes money from those who would have spent it and gives it to people who won’t, it causes job losses. (There are technical economic terms for spenders and misers, called ‘high-MPC’ and ‘low MPC’ but one doesn’t really need that jargon.)

    So the right-wingnuts could well be right: spending was cut on state government employees and the money given to Wall Street executives to ensure their bonuses, and unemployment remained high.

    Of course, Thomas Friedman and the other non-right-wingnut NYTimes columnists quote the CBO saying that the Obama stimulus saved 2 million jobs, but that has to count the Bush, jr contribution, so about $750,000 per $40,000 job saved. Not at all clear to me that this was an efficient and effective use of the stimulus funds.

  25. First off, the “why” is simple: The elite run things, not us. More on that in a second.

    Secondly, you’re assertion that checks for $77,700 would be sent out to 100 million families is not relevant. They would have been loans, not handouts. The banks got $7.7 trillion in loans. It doesn’t make it less egregious, but if the money would have been distributed to families they would have had to pay it back. It’s a disingenuous analogy you’re making.

    Back to my first point …

    As I’ve said here before the only way to stop this is through violence directed at the executive elite. NOT the government, the executive elite that make up the shadow government that actually run things. Until these exexs have their throats slit on national TV, nothing will change. This latest outrage is just another opportunity for them to laugh at the working class slob. To spew out more propaganda. To tighten the screws even more. When will people wake up and do what MUST be done?

    Now, I know Whimsical will be here any minute to talk about “taking it slow and steady” and “incremental change”. Woe be the left with Whimsical in charge. The only question he asks the elite is “would you like to fuck my in the ass using vaseline or gravel?”. That’s right, to the Whimsical’s of the left, it’s all about how bad you want to take it. To the rest of us, change can happen NOW. See how the elite took $7.7 trillion in 0% interest loans and converted it instantly to $15 billion in profits? SMASH and FUCKING GRAB!! They don’t sit around talking about “incremental change”. They DO. They don’t talk. They DO.

    It’s time the left stop fucking around with talking, chants, and protests. It’s time for action. It’s time for casting aside the Whimsicals and picking up the pitchforks.

Leave a Reply