If you have "no place to go," come here!

How to call the bluff of a deficit phony

DCblogger's picture

Warren Mosler Offers $100 Million of His Own Money to Pay Down the Federal Deficit If Any Lawmaker Can Prove Him Wrong

WATERBURY, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Warren Mosler, Connecticut’s Independent candidate for U.S. Senate today announced that it is an indisputable fact that U.S. Government spending is not operationally constrained by revenue and will give $100 million of his own money to pay down the Federal deficit if any Congressman or Senator can prove him wrong. “I am running for U.S. Senate to see my policies implemented to create the 20 million jobs we need. And to do this it must be understood that there is simply no such thing as the U.S. Federal government running out of money, nor is the Federal government operationally dependent on borrowing from China or anyone else. U.S. states, individuals, and companies can indeed become insolvent, but U.S. government checks will never bounce,” states Mosler. “Yes, large Federal deficits that push the economy beyond the point of full employment can lead to inflation or currency devaluation, but not bankruptcy and not bounced checks. If lawmakers today understood this fact, they would not be looking to cut Social Security and we would not still be mired in this disastrous recession.”

Let's use the upcoming debate to get the word out, the US has a fiat currency, we can never go broke. We borrow money from China because they want Treasury securities in exchange for all to goods they ship to us. We don't need the money to run the government. We can just print it.

Any Senator or Congressman who can prove otherwise can win $100 million of Mosler's money for Uncle Sam. The fact that no one has taken Mosler up on this challenge shows how phony the whole debate has always been.

So write a letter to the editor, challenging your Congressional and/or Senator deficit phony and ask them to put up or shut up.

Call their bluff.

No votes yet


Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

Democratic elite theory faults Marx's emphasis on class because classes are allegedly too large and amorphous to act; their boundaries unclear; revolutionary class struggle is a myth (classes as such cannot act); and the real historical actors are elites and sub elites. Elites may represent the interest of those at the bottom of society as well as those at the top, but it is elites who count (Etzioni Halevy, 1993, pp. 3549). 'Bringing elites and sub elites back into class theory, not as supporting actors for classes but as star actors in their own right, positioning them at centre stage, not instead of but in conjunction with classes, and exploring the relationships between the two, is thus a legitimate and a much needed endeavor,' Etzioni Halevy writes (1993, pp. 49 50).
'Who Can We Shoot?' Democratic Elitism, Marxism and American Progressivism ::: International Endowment for Democracy

Submitted by lambert on

I really, really don't feel comfortable as part of that "us," not because of my productive relations but because even being a system administrator :-) isn't much of a struggle..

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

someone brought his doctoral thesis to a dormatory bull session. This was just a simple suggestion the readers write letters to the editor publicizing Mosler's offer. If our leaders were really worried about the deficit, they would take Mosler up on his offer.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

Yeah, I may have been off topic with this. I was just wanting to share what was a new take (for me) on what might underlie a successful restart to the moribund
Activist Left.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

But if not folks like you and me, who; the people like Tom Hayden who drank the Kol-Aid?
The Obama blight has left the left in tatters.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

union members were "men of muscle rather than men of intelligence", that they were mere puppets who must depend upon the "brains of others for guidance."

National Association of Manufacturers

In April 1903, David M. Parry spoke to the annual convention of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)[11]. He delivered a speech critical of organized labor, asserting that trade unionism and socialism differ only in method, with both aiming to deny "individual and property rights". Parry asserted the natural laws which governed the nation's economy, and he decried any interference with those laws, whether by legislative or other means. Parry asserted that the goals of the unions would inevitably lead to "despotism, tyranny, and slavery", and the "ruin of civilization."[12]
Parry declared that union members were "men of muscle rather than men of intelligence", that they were mere puppets who must depend upon the "brains of others for guidance." He stated that the AFL was a breeding place for "boycotters, picketers, and socialists", and that unions denied individual workers the right to sell their labor as they saw fit. Union leaders preached "hatred of wealth and ability", he claimed. In his opinion, organized labor knows but "one law, and that is the law of physical force—the law of the Huns and the Vandals, the law of the savage."[13]
To control this threat to the status quo, Parry advised that the NAM begin organizing employers and manufacturers' associations into a great national anti-union federation. The NAM convention agreed to the recommendation, and created an employers' organizing committee with Parry in charge. Parry began the organizing effort at once.[14]

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

I've been blogging about the non-existence of the solvency problem for ages now. Glad to have some company.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

doing some seriously good blogging.