Home | About | Donate

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Why Do We 'Write Blank Checks for War' But 'Our Pockets Are Empty' When It Comes to Medicare for All?


There is always money for war. Isn’t it interesting, when you do a little historical research, to find out that wars _always have to be financed, _ meaning that someone in the banking system is going to make a killing.

What if tyrants couldn’t find the money from bankers? What if we went to a system where there was no longer debt and interest, but you had to pay cash for what you wanted, including them big, expensive bombs and missiles?

The longer I live, the more I see the truth of the verse in the Bible which says, “For the love of money is the root of all evil.” Over the centuries, this root has produced some very toxic, noxious, and utterly disgusting vegetation.


I think it’s nice to have a true believer like @Lrx in the mix. The posts never attack other commentators and provide us all with a window into establishment liberal thinking.


They must get something for helping people since much more money is spent on social programs than the military.


I don’t entirely disagree, but I also realize the real world impact of what Lrx defends. We have a healthcare system that kills 45,000 people a year, that kind of matters to me. So when Lrx comes here and does his or her thing, I can’t help but to think about what exactly Lrx is providing cover for. To say nothing of the inequitable economy of ours, our crumbling infrastructure, the environmental crisis, our horrible foreign policy or the systematic corruption we see. If someone came here and didn’t attack anyone and defended what we have done to Iraq, I would feel the same way. What exactly are they defending?


LOL! Yeah, the rich have to really scramble to get something back on the taxes they pay. They’ve been really struggling in recent decades, poor things. How else can they get by but by profiting off of war (among countless other things, but oh well).


Okay, before I reply, I must say up front that I am the most simple of economists. If I have a dollar to spend, I have a dollar, not ten or twenty, in my pocket.

After I read the article, the words “snakeoil,” “Ponzi Scheme,” “sleight of hand trick,” and “outright fraud,” came to mind. You seem to be more in tune with economics, so let me run this by you for comment:

My understanding is that currencies are supposed to represent something. Creating money out of thin air means that the money does not represent a real, tangible product, and is therefore, for all intents and purposes, worthless. What our country is doing is completely fraudulent because there is no product behind the trillions of worthless dollars that have come off the printing presses.

Please show me where I am mistaken.


Alexandria threatens every Duopoly Establishment politician with her Progressive punch in the guts.

It’s too bad she chose to align with the Democrats.

Her progressive views match perfectly with the Green Party’s Green New Deal.


That hasn’t been true since Tricky Dick Nixon took us off the gold standard, letting the dollar float against other currencies. Money is now whatever is commonly agreed upon.


Cool. Can we talk privately? I want to give you my bank information so you can transfer those worthless things from your bank account into mine. I will take those worthless things off your hands. No need to bother yourself with those worthless things. Money is a store of value, it is a medium of exchange and a unit of account. And all money since humans have been on Earth has been created “out of thin air”. The government creating money doesn’t necessarily lead to inflation unless we are at full productive capacity and full employment. In other words, if you create money money but more goods and services are created, then the money is instrumental with more things being made. While we seen national debt and the amount of money grow, we have also seen the amount of goods and services we have produced grow along with it. It isn’t as if money was created and then sat there decaying. It was injected into the economy and then used to produce, grow and consume goods, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, services, etc. And besides all of that, when the government creates money, some of it sits at firms and doesn’t circulate in the wider economy, some of it sits in tax shelters, some of it leaves via the trade deficit, some of it never enters goods markets and is used to play around in the financial markets, among countless other things.

I for the life of me don’t understand why people think that when the government uses the “printing presses” that it does nothing but lead to inflation and devaluing the currency. It can create money to start wars, to give corporate welfare, or to bail out horrible banks, or it can create money to build a bridge, a school, to make sure old people live their last years with some dignity or to support domestic industry. It can be used to do good or bad things. On us and the political system as to what we spend on. King was right, our budget is a moral document, it reflects our morals and values, and that isn’t a good thing in our regard. From about the War of 1812 to around WWII, we had the highest average industrial tariffs in the world and we became the world’s economic superpower during that time. So, we printed money, we protected domestic industry from stronger foreign competition (which was the British at the time) and we developed. Was that a mistake Edward?


I saw him nodding his head along with her talking points. Maybe I imagined it…?


Yes, just once in my lifetime, I would love to hear this from the fawning parasites in Congress: SORRY ARMED FORCES WE CANNOT AFFORD YOU ANYMORE!


B-I-N-G-O!!! The dollar is TOTALLY WORTHLESS because there is nothing backing it on a domestic OR international scale. In other words, they are saying “trust me”. I don’t know about anyone else but trusting the government is like trusting a buzzing rattlesnake not to bite!


You explain why gold backing a currency gives it value but a fiat currency doesn’t have value. The gold standard caused chaos and made it difficult for governments to do things that the macro-economy needed, especially during downturns. Also, you explain to me, given the environmental crisis, why it makes sense to expand or contract the amount of money in the system based upon a commodity underlying it. It is 19th and 20th century thinking being forced into the modern world, which couldn’t be any more radically different.

And as I said to Edward above, if you want to hand over those totally worthless things in your checking account to me, let’s talk. If those things are totally worthless, I would love to take them off your hands buddy. Why bother yourself managing something that is worthless when you could get busy bartering your way through life. Don’t use dollars to buy your new pair of shoes. Make some pants or something, and go to the local market and bargain with people that make shoes. Life would be good and simple.


My perspective: the narrative needs to change from national security to the security of the war racket! Because nothing about it is really national and it has nothing to do with our security and everything to do with their security!


Baloney!!! We have trillions in assets held in a public trust. Selling them off over a 5 year period would be a piece o’ cake.
My friends want to buy The Bob Marshall Wilderness Area for $3.2 Trillion right now.


Yup. It’s really great to see AO-C, unlike other progressives, calling out military spending. However, she is making a significant error in talking about the trillions in costs for Medicare-For-All, which she seems to confuse S. 1804 (Sanders’ billl) with HR 676 – real single payer Medicare for All. While HR 676 “costs” trillions, those trillions are trillions less than the current cost of Obama/RomneyCare, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA combined.

This is one item where a program more than “pays for itself” and if the health insurance tax is made progressive, most people would pay even less. Add to that, improved healthcare programs based on healthy living and disease prevention and the monetary costs would come down more and benefits to actual health greatly increase.


It is not total nonsense. It IS totally worthless unless you believe it is not as you apparently do. I just don’t have the energy for an argument except to say: How can you hold a piece of paper in your hand worth a few cents and say it is worth $100 and another is worth $1. Today’s dollars are a symbol of a promise. Gold and silver have been considered “REAL MONEY” for thousands of years and was the standard. Now the only standard is a promise.

By saying "If those things are totally worthless, I would love to take them off your hands buddy." you are showing that you don’t understand the reality of VALUE based on a proven standard as opposed to a created promise.

So…you are O.K. with the Fed printing money whenever they felt like it and dumping it into the system? How can you defend that? How can you not see how WRONG and disruptive that is? Can YOU just write in more money to your checking account when you are broke because you want something you don’t REALLY have to pay for it?!



She’ll be co-opted and corrupted or threatened inside of a month if she even gets in which is unlikely because the mossad and aipac are already on the case. Also, like all politicians she only knows how to lie. But, you know, the Democrats see her as at least a double threat (Hispanic and female) in their identity politics paradigm. If she can claim some sort of a disability she becomes a triple threat shoo-in.



It is NOT “left-right” or “Republican-Democrat” or “liberal-conservative”.




And American economic affairs guarantee the desperation.


Yeah, why was that? Why was gold (among other things) used as money? If you were in 15th century Italy, and you got some local currency there, what would that currency be worth in China? Nothing. Modern monetary and banking systems didn’t exist. That paper money from Italy would have been worthless. But gold didn’t corrode, and would have been accepted in exchange for goods and services, so it was used internationally with trade. That started to change when we started to develop modern financial markets and monetary systems. It was possible by the 20th century or so to get paper money in Italy and to use, or exchange that, for goods, services or local currency in China. Gold in the 19th and 20th century was used as a means of managing the flow of money through economies, and it was an important part of what elites wanted to be a self-regulating market. A country would fix the value of its currency to an ounce of gold and when it had a deficit with another country, it would ship gold to that country. When it did so, its domestic monetary base would shrink, and deflation would set it. When a country received gold, it could expand its monetary base and it could spend more on goods and services. Gold was simply used as a means of managing the monetary system with the government having little power, outside of being a clearing union. You have romanticized gold, and like I said, it makes no sense in the 21st century to contract or expand the monetary base in that way. We have an environmental crisis, and have to consider things that humans didn’t in centuries past.

No, I live in the real world. Money is a store of value, it is a medium of exchange and a unit of account. It provides many functions. You still haven’t explained at all why money backed by a commodity has “value” but fiat currencies don’t. Everything, including gold, has value based upon how much we collectively think it is worth, which is why gold bubbles build then burst. You expect that gold is worth something, you might exchange a good or service, but then the value of gold collapses and you wouldn’t because the amount of gold offered wouldn’t be worth those goods or services anymore. How is fiat currency any different? It isn’t, and US bonds are literally the safest investments in the world. Gold is not, and neither is Bitcoin.

First off, the Fed and the Treasury work together to spend what our politicians determine the government is to spend within our “democracy”. Our system is corrupt and the people in government don’t represent us, but the amount of money we spend is determined within the political system. The Fed doesn’t have real independence, it has to work with the Treasury, whose spending is determined by politicians in government. Maybe you aren’t aware of that. And I cannot just print money out of my checking account because no one will accept JoanRobinson dollars in exchange for goods and services, and I don’t have to fund the building of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other things the government does. And people don’t need JoanRobinson dollars to buy stuff they need to survive.