Pres. Obama: Counterfeiter-in-Chief?

Co-written by Patrick Kirts

I don't quite remember when, sometime in the past year, I first began hearing average people say that the government ultimately has the power to fix the economy, because it can just 'print money,' but, in a few short months, the sentiment has become commonplace. It boggles the mind, but it now seems to be a truth commonly accepted by just about everyone--politicians, journalists, investors--even the man in the street. At Portfolio Asset Management this change in sentiment has altered part of our investing strategy. Gold is now back on the menu along with shorting treasuries. Alternative assets have gone to the top of our list of potential funds and the bond funds we hold are under tremendous scrutiny. The bottom line is that we are under fire--not by the market itself, but by the government policy of debasing the currency. Few are vigilant and the delay in the market reacting to the changes may take time. Meaning, some sound strategies may not work even though a rational investor would say otherwise.

Last Wednesday, the Fed announced that it would buy $1.2 trillion in new assets--$300 billion of which would be Treasuries, the rest mortgage-backed securities, or, well... we don't really know quite what. The term that's gaining currency (no pun intended!) to describe this phenomenon is 'quantitative easing.' It happens when a central bank has lowered interest rates so low that the only way to continue pumping money into the market is to create it out of thin air. In an age when most dollars are simply credits and debits in electronic accounts, you don't need a printing press to print money. The dollar has begun to lose its value, and the heads of other countries are now speaking publicly about abandoning it as the world's reserve currency.

A centerpiece of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 is the degradation of language for political purposes. When the meanings of words are corrupted, the populace loses its ability to think effectively, and discourse becomes a charade. It was a staple of fascist and communist regimes, and Orwell called it Newspeak, and his examples are hyperbolic: for instance, 'love' comes to actually mean 'hate.' We aren't facing anything so overt, but our political discourse is suffering from the same corruption of meaning.

What, really, is 'quantitative easing'? What, for that matter, does it mean to 'print money'? From time to time, people have been caught in schemes where they manufactured fake currency. We must assume that there have even been times when people have done this successfully--they haven't been caught. We all immediately recognize this as a gross injustice. Not only is it morally offensive--people should work for their money, but, if done in large enough quantities, it distorts prices. A sudden increase in the number of dollars in the market must, once market actors realize that there are more units of money in circulation, have an impact on prices. This is the reason that counterfeiting is such a serious crime--it is fraud, and not fraud committed against a single person or group, but against everyone in society. Successful counterfeiting negatively impacts the real buying power of everyone in the market except for the counterfeiter.

So why is it not counterfeiting when the government itself does it--and does it on a scale far greater than any private criminal ever could? We have allowed our language to be degraded. A host of new terms has been invented. 'Quantitative easing' is a deliberately meaningless phrase, intended to distract and mislead. Its purpose is to make you forget to think about what is actually occurring. Could you imagine what the result would be if our political discourse proceeded meaningfully? Imagine if President Obama got up in front of the American people (or Bernanke or Geithner in front of Congress) and said something like this:

'We are in a great financial crisis. For the past decade, Wall Street has been gorging on dollars that the Federal Government has counterfeited for them. Since everyone in the market has begun to recognize this, the market is adjusting. This adjustment has threatened many firms that are deeply embedded in the government itself. Thus, it is politically unfeasible to become honest. The United States must therefore continue printing money.'

The truth hurts, and any kind of honesty or meaningful discourse about where we are and how we've gotten there would interrupt the devil's dance between New York and Washington (and, to be fair, London, and Frankfurt, and Dubai, and Hong Kong, and Tokyo...). Barack Obama seems to think that the problem with the market is that its participants have lost confidence, and in a sense he's right. What he misses is that confidence is something that cannot be faked, and more Newspeak cannot restore trust.

Disclosure: Author holds long positions in GLD, QID, SDS

Comments

[JudeJin:]

obama is the president of united states of ponzi

Mar 26 03:29 AM

[socrateazz:]

Do not worry Obama believes in what he does! He believes what he has learned through the years. The country has elected a communist whether the country believes it or not. Any communist believes he can make things fair through manipulation of the falsehoods that exist. He does not realize he himself is the biggest falsehood. Expect him to lead the country toward a situation similar to Cuba. When things do not work out as he expects, I hope he is not addicted to power. If he tries to control some section or all of the media, then you have your answer.

Mar 26 08:02 AM

[Vox Rationalis:]

What a muddled argument.

"The dollar has begun to lose its value, and the heads of other countries are now speaking publicly about abandoning it as the world's reserve currency."

Foreign heads of state have been angling for the removal of the dollar as the reserve currency for years. This is not new.

"...our political discourse is suffering from the same corruption of meaning. What, really, is 'quantitative easing'?... 'Quantitative easing' is a deliberately meaningless phrase, intended to distract and mislead."

Hogwash.

Corruption of meaning? Have you encountered the term "quantitative easing" in other circumstances, and are confused?

Just because one doesn't understand it doesn't mean it's either misleading or meaningless, and how exactly do you have any insight into the intentions of those who coined or popularized it? I'd say it's more an esoteric term of art that the general public couldn't have cared less about at any previous time.

Without looking them up, "quantitative" means to me "relating to quantity," while "easing" relative to monetary policy means those policies that tend to spur economic growth through manipulation of the money supply. Now put them together - expansive monetary policy achieved by directly increasing money supply quantity. There - was that so hard?

Welcome to an evolving language, where words are put together in new and different ways. Perhaps you should try Latin.

"A sudden increase in the number of dollars in the market must, once market actors realize that there are more units of money in circulation, have an impact on prices."

Not if the "sudden increase in the number of dollars" is offset by an equally sudden decrease in the velocity of money, which is generally defined as the total of economic activity during a period of time divided by the money supply [refer to the quantity theory of money for more]. Simply put, if economic actors increase their preference for holding money rather than spending it, the volume of circulating money declines. Velocity fell dramatically during 2008. If the money supply is increased at the same rate velocity is falling, price levels will remain unchanged. This is what the Fed is trying to do.

"So why is it not counterfeiting when the government itself does it--and does it on a scale far greater than any private criminal ever could?

Do we really need yet another discussion about how fiat currency works?

"The truth hurts..."

What truth?

1. "dollars that the Federal Government has counterfeited for them... " Certainly no truth there. In the 10 years before 3/31/08, M1 increased by less than 2.5% per year. This is quite reasonable according to historical averages.

2. "Since everyone in the market has begun to recognize this, the market is adjusting." The market's turmoil is due to money supply growth? Certainly no truth there.

3. "This adjustment has threatened many firms that are deeply embedded in the government itself." Oh, I get it. This whole complex fiction you've created is all about Goldman Sachs, isn't it? Puts your last article, railing against "Wall Street," into a clearer light. You think that because former and future GS executives have often held prominent government positions, that there MUST be multi-generational corruption. You're a conspiracy theorist.

Mar 26 09:33 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

I'll put my faith in the U.S. government rather than Portfolio Asset Management, because when PAM is gone and forgotten Uncle Sam will still be in business.

Mar 26 09:48 AM

[optionsgirl:]

I don't understand why more people aren't alarmed at the far-reaching tentacles of both the Fed and the Treasury. They are both operating way beyond their mandates. Then we have our noble leaders in Congress, thugs like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, etc.
These are not characters that inspire confidence. They don't even understand the ramifications of the legislation they write. They have no regard for current law and our rights as free American citizens. They certainly have a total disregard for private property.
I remember a sign that used to hang at my local dry cleaners. It said " In god we trust, all others pay cash". OK- but when that cash is based on devalued currency, in a country that has created so much debt it can't pay, what do you trust, then?

Mar 26 10:05 AM

[Chris B:]

And not a word about Bush? He increased the national debt by several trillion dollars during his term, but when BO increases it by maybe 1-2 trillion (by buying distressed assets that will probably be sold for a profit later vs. throwing money down the hole in Iraq/Afghanistan) it's the end of the world. Sounds like a twinge of political bias to me.

Mar 26 10:59 AM

[Glen L.:]

In defense of Mr. Munson and against BS Disseminator aka Irrational Voice:

The term "quantitative easing", is a stupid bureaucrat's euphemism for inflation. I once had a friend who lamented that he had "negative charisma", a euphemism similar to "negative growth". (When I pointed out that he really meant he had a sh##ty personality, he dropped the pretense). The author is absolutely correct to ridicule it, and Vox Irrationalis is, as usual, over the top in his criticism.

Obviously the critic, in his genuflexion to the government bailout artists, thinks that "the velocity of money" will never increase, i.e. the banks will never lend out the trillions they're holding in reserve now, OR he thinks that Bernanke & Co. will have divine insight into when and how much to put on the breaks via interest rate hikes to prevent runaway inflation.

I wonder why the critic, and so many others like him, have so much faith in these "experts" who failed to foresee the disastrous consequences of their prior meddling in the markets, and were making pronouncements such as "the economy is fundamentally sound" (Bernanke, Paulson, etc.) as late as the summer of 2008? I certainly don't care that they're stupid and blind, that's their problem, but I absolutely hate the fact that they support and elect fascistic rulers and their surrogates, time after time - and yes, Bush and cohort are to blame as well.

One more time, people, stop blaming the free market; that's like blaming unicorns for the damage that elephants and jackasses did when they walked through your garden. One never existed, the others are far too real.

Mar 26 11:44 AM

[henarl:]

The problem with abandoning the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency is - what do you replace it with? Certainly not any of the other main fiat currencies, most of which are in worse shape than the dollar. Or maybe a new currency created by combining a few of those other sick ones? Try to get even two countries to agree on anything and look how well that's now working with the Euro. Or how about returning to the gold standard? Unwieldy in this electronic age and try to convince those countries that don't have big gold reserves. Maybe the yuan? Unacceptable to most of the western world. The dollar is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Mar 26 12:05 PM

[fireball:]

when i was a kid gold was $35. wish i had been able o buy. very glad as a younger man i accumulated at $300. wish i had looked at it as insured savings instead of insurance. that $300 would purchase about the same goods as $950 today. by those prices the dollar has been much worse than decimated.destruction of the fiat currency has been relentless.
when the obamamama communist is finished he will have fulfilled his promises. it will not matter if your stocks went up 1 trillion per share. no one will take worthless federal reserve notes for usable goods. so $1 or $1,000,000,000,000.00 will be equal. change. no more problem for the middle class because no more middle class.
this is now about power and control. while we worry about paper debt instruments (federal reserve notes included) the real assets will be flowing to goverments, the banksters, and men whose names we will never know
it is time for americans to study their constitutional government to get a clue to the chains of restraint that have been broken. time to kill the federal reserve and abolish the (marx inspired) progressive income tax. time to realise that the legal power resides in the states and the ultimate power with the individual citizen. or we can go begging to obamamama for a tit.
the legal govt. is hanging by a thread. that thread is the 1st and 2nd ammendments and they are under heavy attack. it seems the rest of the bill of rights is nullified or so damaged it is merely inconvenient words on paper.
i am an advocate of peaceful restoration through legal channels. the jury box, the ballot box, and the soap box. however the jury box has suffered, the soap box has suffered and the ballot box is being nullified by electronic voting. when all means of peaceful redress are exhausted americans have a duty that is not pleasant to a sane person.

Mar 26 12:41 PM

[milkchaser:]

The cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of the "stimulus package" are comparable. But the stimulus package will be spent in less time. The war in Iraq arguably enhanced national security. The stimulus package was predominately a payoff to various Democratic constituencies. I doubt that either the war or excessive Federal gov't spending will result in economic growth, but at least the war accomplished something: it's hard to argue that the world would be safer if Saddam were still above ground and breathing.

Besides which, Bush is gone. It's all on Obama now.


On Mar 26 10:59 AM Chris B wrote:

> And not a word about Bush? He increased the national debt by several
> trillion dollars during his term, but when BO increases it by maybe
> 1-2 trillion (by buying distressed assets that will probably be sold
> for a profit later vs. throwing money down the hole in Iraq/Afghanistan)
> it's the end of the world. Sounds like a twinge of political bias
> to me.

Mar 26 01:05 PM

[roywil:]

Chris B wrote: "And not a word about Bush?"

Bush is ancient history. The fact is Bush left the house with a fire on the front porch. Obama and his band of nitwits decided to throw gasoline on the fire, "before a crisis turns into a catastrophe," without much thought and no deliberation. Now the whole house is burning down. Their answer?: Bring in more gasoline!

Mar 26 02:24 PM

[Whippet:]

Glen L.- you nailed it:
"One more time, people, stop blaming the free market; that's like blaming unicorns for the damage that elephants and jackasses did when they walked through your garden. One never existed, the others are far too real."
The problem with capitalism causing this mess is that capitalism did not even exist in the markets that collapsed- these are monopolistic, oligoarchic, plutocratic markets. Capitalism is based on atomistic buyers and sellers and firms with no direct influences on the market; the "invisible hand" controls the market. At some point Helicopter Ben, Easy Money Alex, Hank the Stank, Tax Cheat Timmy, Chris Dodo and Banking Queen Barney thought their hands were superior.
Congress is putting more in their hands as I write this.
It's time to chop off their hands and give the markets back their autonomy. Only the abolishment of the unconstitutional Creature from Jekyll Island can do this.

Mar 26 02:46 PM

[31October:]

No, they are doing a good job handing out urine and calling it Kool-Aid.

Most of us who are against inflation and screwing over US bondholders are FULLY invested. My paycheck is direct deposited into a securities account - can you say that? If my account inflates from $20,000 to $40,000, but a Ford costs $75,000, did I benefit? I didn't save up from two jobs at a time to watch Congress piss my earnings away.
And when the American sheeple finally woke up and got worried about the hiding of the M3 money supply, falsifying unemployment numbers, trade deficit, and decline of the dollar, you call it "ignoramus populism"?!
Inflating your way out of trouble is an irresponsible ponzi sceme. It works great... for a while. But the higher the Fed/Treasury/Congress stack the house of funny money, the farther the mess when it scatters. My professors all loved inflationary "get out of jail free" paper economic models. Now they drive used Pontiacs.

Only a young boy, who has not been around long enough to have seen his buying power decline, could say what you just did.


On Mar 26 03:32 AM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Obama and Geithner are doing a good job restoring investor confidence
> which is why the stock market keeps going up day after day without
> fault. Generally, those who are opposed to the stimulus, bailouts,
> and tax cuts tend to be those who aren't invested in stocks, or those
> who are short or far left liberals or fiscal conservatives. It is
> these three groups of people that seem to get the most attention
> in the media and are fanning the flames of this ignoramus populism.
> Those who actually have money in stocks understand the importance
> of these stimulus, bailouts, and tax cuts. They know that you can
> inflate your way to prosperity. It works.

Mar 26 04:32 PM

[Vox Rationalis:]

Glen L. wrote:

> …against BS Disseminator aka Irrational Voice:

Ahh, this is starting well. I guess you've brought it on yourself.

> The term "quantitative easing", is a stupid bureaucrat's euphemism
> for inflation.

No, silly. Inflation is an increase in the price level. This could occur in a number of ways, quantitative easing being among them. It's kind of like "Glen L." and "comments full of distortions and falsehoods"; the former leads to the latter, but not exclusively.

> I once had a friend who lamented that he had "negative
> charisma", a euphemism similar to "negative growth". (When I pointed
> out that he really meant he had a sh##ty personality, he dropped
> the pretense).

"Friend," eh? Come on, you’re not fooling anybody. There was no friend, was there?

> Obviously the critic, in his genuflexion (sic) to the government bailout
> artists, thinks that "the velocity of money" will never increase,
> i.e. the banks will never lend out the trillions they're holding
> in reserve now, OR he thinks that Bernanke & Co. will have divine
> insight into when and how much to put on the breaks via interest
> rate hikes to prevent runaway inflation.

1. Of course the velocity of money will increase. Does the inevitable future increase in velocity help now? Does future job creation help the unemployed today?

2. Why would the Fed raise rates, when it now has a wide array of much more effective tools to work with? Sorry, I guess that's probably a really difficult question for you.

I'm going to explain something to you now, and I’ll try to use small words so that you can follow. The Fed regulates banks. Are you with me so far? Good. In this role, the Fed has a very good understanding of the operations of the banks, and receives reports from the banks regularly - most of the important data weekly. From this data, the Fed generates its own reports - the H.4.1 is something you should probably look at if you'd like to avoid writing foolish things about monetary policy.

Now, if you'd bother to study the H.3, you'd find that the reserves held by the banks spiked dramatically during late 2008, from about $50 billion to more than $800 billion. This had grave implications for the economy, and prompted the Fed to take several unprecedented actions, including starting to pay interest on reserves held at the Fed and entering the commercial paper market.

But to answer your question, yes, the Fed has a very good understanding of what's happening to the money supply on a near-real time basis, and so yes, I think it has a reasonable chance of countering much of the inflationary money supply growth that will occur as velocity and the economy recover. Just as it's done a superb job of managing the money supply over the last 6 months.

> I wonder why the critic, and so many others like him, have so much
> faith in these "experts" who failed to foresee the disastrous consequences
> of their prior meddling in the markets,

Sorry, what prior meddling are you going on about?

> ...and were making pronouncements
> such as "the economy is fundamentally sound" (Bernanke, Paulson,
> etc.) as late as the summer of 2008?

I would love for you to support something here. Well, anything at all, really, but specifically this: what did Bernanke say, and when did he say it?

> ...I absolutely
> hate the fact that they support and elect fascistic rulers...

Add "fascism" to the long list of concepts Glen doesn't understand. If goes right before “Federal Reserve” and after "Everything about the economy."

Mar 26 05:33 PM

[Lee Eugene ...:]

Who could possibly believe, after the past year and a half, that '...the Fed has a very good understanding of the operations of the banks'? If they did, you would have to also believe that they are a criminal entity, because any regulator who understood what they were doing and both let it happen and continuously lied to the American people would be a criminal. I'm at least willing to entertain the notion that they're ignorantly negligent, and haven't the foggiest clue what to do.

But that isn't the real point. I understand how fiat currencies work. Given the regularity of financial crises since Breton Woods II, and the gross monetary manipulation that has occurred for the past decade (Bush is guilty of many sins, but he's out of power, and Obama is for the worst of his economic policies, and against the best), we need to be asking some serious questions about the nature of fiat currencies. It seems to me that their fundamental problem is that they are not ultimately subject to market control, but to political control. Free markets satisfy many human needs. Politics satisfies only one--the need for power.

History shows that any time this amount of power accrues to one entity, everyone suffers.


On Mar 26 05:33 PM Vox Rationalis (aka BS Detector) wrote:

> Glen L. wrote:

Mar 26 06:20 PM

[Vox Rationalis:]

Lee Eugene Munson wrote:

> Who could possibly believe, after the past year and a half, that
> '...the Fed has a very good understanding of the operations of the
> banks'?

So wait, are you saying you don't think the Fed understands how banks operate? You think the Fed doesn't have any idea how much banks hold in reserve, for example? That the Fed doesn't know what's happening to bank operations in various credit markets? That it doesn't actually look at the data it tabulates in various weekly reports?

Really?

> If they did, you would have to also believe that they are
> a criminal entity,

Well, sure you would. I mean, since it's all a massive conspiracy, right?

> ...continuously lied to the American people would be a criminal.

Examples, please, Mr. Libel.

> Given the regularity of financial crises since Breton Woods II..."

Given, eh? Please identify some.

> ...and the gross monetary manipulation that has occurred for the past decade

Really? Gross? By whom?

> we need to be asking some serious questions about the nature of fiat
> currencies.

Here's the first one - is there another viable option? Gold clearly can't fit the bill, for the simple fact that real GDP far outpaces growth in the world' gold supply. By the way, if you think depending on foreign oil is bad, consider for a moment relying on foreign governments for our CURRENCY. Strikes me that it might be just a touch destabilizing on a global scale.

> It seems to me that their fundamental problem is that
> they are not ultimately subject to market control, but to political
> control. Free markets satisfy many human needs. Politics satisfies
> only one--the need for power.

Interesting. You appear to believe that it's impossible for people to act except in their self-interest. It's a claim this Pollyanna's never been able to accept, perhaps because it's so easy to find selfless acts happening every day.

> History shows that any time this amount of power accrues to one entity,
> everyone suffers.

Wait, one entity? I thought you were a conspiracy guy.

I wonder which power you're talking about - you mean power over a fiat-based money supply? Because I don't think you can make a convincing argument that the U.S. has suffered due to the shift off the gold standard.

Mar 26 11:43 PM

[mediapro:]

This will be tough for you to understand, but sending money down the rathole in Iraq and Afghanistan is the least of our worries.

Check true or false to the following. Maybe you'll at least think about the consequences of war:

1. More than 4000 mostly young American lives were lost in a war we have yet to define.

2. An untold number of Iraqi lives have been lost from relentless shelling of an urban population.

3. By year three of this war even the most fervent war supporter saw the coalition of the willing dwindle to a precious few.

4. For the next two generations we will be paying the bills as grateful Americans to the more than 100,000 war veterans who were damaged by this war.

Since you pegged the reason for going to war as the last one that Bush could dreamup -- unseating Saddam -- I'll ask you:

Were the Khmer Rouge terrorists? Was Idi Amin a madman? Pick your dictator and let the wars rage. If you really want to know the source for Hussein's weaponry and WMD, go back to the 1980-1984 period of U.S. support for Iraq against Iran and you will find numerous reports of extensive weapons sales, chemical stockpiles and even photos of Donald Rumsfeld making nice-nice with this hated dictator who killed his own people.


If you can't learn the lessons from recent history, you my friend will repeat them.


On Mar 26 01:05 PM milkchaser wrote:

> The cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of the "stimulus package"
> are comparable. But the stimulus package will be spent in less time.
> The war in Iraq arguably enhanced national security. The stimulus
> package was predominately a payoff to various Democratic constituencies.
> I doubt that either the war or excessive Federal gov't spending will
> result in economic growth, but at least the war accomplished something:
> it's hard to argue that the world would be safer if Saddam were still
> above ground and breathing.
>
> Besides which, Bush is gone. It's all on Obama now.

Mar 27 01:54 AM

[Evelyn:]

Counterfeiting & Ponzi-finance, yes!

Very good unicorn analogy. We will have to kill it in order to save it, of course.

Here is my modest proposal:

We have been told for months that big bonuses are needed to retain the “talented” people who created the very complex derivatives that turned into a black hole once Lehman blew up. These people are the only ones, we are told, who understand how to “unwind” (and keep making) these complicated Structured Investment Vehicles.

This goes right to the top, of course, with the control of all these trillions of dollars in backdoor, front-door and sideways bailouts/guarantees gifts/loans – whatever – completely in the control of a coterie of Goldman Sachs’ finest. They use their savvy and keen insight into the depths of financial matters to shovel money into AIG so it passes through to Goldman Sachs!

Not just any garden variety financiers could think of so many good tricks for getting money (and leverage and other force-multipliers) into the pockets that matter.

So what I would like to suggest is that they quit fooling around and put Bernie Madoff in charge of the whole shebang. Turn the FED-Treasury over to Bernie. He knows what to do.

The stated goal of this whole exercise is equivalent to keeping a Ponzi scheme running through another round, delaying the collapse by taking in one more gluttonous feeding. They say want to reinflate the price of houses! Paulson actually said in a videotapes speech that he would "Stop this correction" in house prices. The only real way to make houses “worth” their bubble-madness prices is to make the dollar worth correspondingly less. We are working on that (quantitative easing) but in the meantime, the fiction that the banks “assets” are not based on fictitious prices can only be kept via secrecy.

There is great motivation for the banks to pretend they’re solvent. They get free money, like social security checks that keep coming as long as Grannie stays “alive.” They won’t get any more free money if they declare themselves dead.

So bring on the free money, YAY! – and then oops, we’re very sorry but the re-inflation is unsustainable; the bankers crack-cocaine binge is over, and the taxpayers have the biggest hangover in financial history to show for it. Right? I mean, that’s how these things end; the bigger we blow up the bubble the bigger the blast when it pops. So clearly, the way to deal with this inevitable crash is to delay it as long as possible.

Bernie proved that he could keep a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme going for YEARS. He’s financially sophisticated, with a track record that speaks for itself.

Bernie! He’s our guy.

Mar 27 12:22 PM

[Willy Walnuts:]

Thank you Vox Rationalis for sifting through this drivel.

This article reminds me of the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" It starts out based somewhat in reality by stating the obvious current events, but then explains them with a cartoon mentality that almost makes me laugh out loud. There is plenty of material here that even Vox has left out. I won't even try.

Very entertaining, Lee. Keep 'em coming. There's always room for comic relief.

Mar 28 01:49 AM

[User 426864:]

I want to know what are your all thinking? #1 It cost's X Dollars to pay for the war's we that we are in.
#2It cost's X $ to pay for our National,State and Local Governments.
#3 If you want good Health Care it cost's X$.
#4 Good Free Education cost's X$.
#5 Great Security,National and Local Defense good Military it cost's X$.
#6Satisfactory Transportation System it Cost's X$.
#7Highway System X$.
#8 Social Security X$.Out of space,you know we pay ,how? I know how.Think about it we can do it.This country has been in worst shape and we did the right thing payed up one way or an other and here we are.Great Country I believe we all together can do it starting TODAY. PAY UP MORE UNTIL WE PAYED EVERYTHING.
NO MORE DEATH National or Local Balance all Budgets NOW.Than pay as we go.
Kurt.

Jun 06 04:17 PM