Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections


I think asking the question that way completely misunderstands how the system even works.

By way of analogy, let me see if I can explain. I will explain using a similar “water” analogy in the diagram.

Let’s say your bathtub is close to full, but it’s cold and you want to add more hot water. If you don’t want to cause the tub to overflow you have to drain out some water, do you think the water that goes down the drain feeds the faucet that adds the water?


Does draining water drain away create room in the tub for you to add water? In this sense, the drain doesn’t supply the faucet, the drain makes it possible to create room in the tub for more water.

So I don’t believe that taxes pay for spending, I believe that taxes make room for spending.

What that means is that taxes aren’t meant to pay for things, rather they are a fiscal tool for tuning the overall economy. That is to say, there are times when taxes can be low and times when taxes will need to be higher, but the amount of tax isn’t directly related to spending, rather the state of the economy overall.

The problem that will arise in this group is, how is new money created?

THere is exogenous and endogenous money.

Most of the money you and I use is created by the banking system exogenously as “credit”.

Here’s where we are probably going to run into another point of contention.

Banks don’t lend the deposits of their customers to other customers (only to other banks).

But unless you’re really interested in this conversation, I’ll leave it here.


So that is the standard by which we judge? Only if there are documents?

To answer your question, in the age of computers I suspect the evidence will be largely electronic.

As far electronic documents, money transactions and face to face meetings, I can’t definitivly prove anything any more than the OP represents definitive proof, which of course was my point. If this group accepts the OP as definitive proof as opposed to evidence (as proof and evidence are different) then the bar for “proof” has been set pretty low.

I believe the quantity of evidence and the President’s actions is an indication of potential guilt. As far as proof, I have none to offer, but neither does the OP as it’s not proof, but potential evidence.

I look forward to seeing the evidence/ proof that comes from an investigation of the facts.


Ah. A phrase I dislike. When I hear “sector” I picture a wedge of pie. “Public sector” conjures up the notion that most of our nation’s activity is controlled by the FG with a slice left over for a little freedom. But forget that.

I was ready to dive in and attack the article, based on that diagram alone. But it turns out, the diagram is just the first cut, which the article itself starts to attack.

…, or else—it seems mathematically obvious—the TAX spigot ultimately will have to drain the P.S. pot completely just to pay for the government’s debt!

But oh good grief! This article starts to make some sense but ends up being totally brain dead. Do you think like this article, @csbrown28?

There are two major oversight flaws.

First is the growth of the debt to foreign countries. One version of the diagram had input from China, but we’re also continuing to borrow from Japan, Ireland, Brazil, UK and others.

What’s really really scary is that the Federal Reserve also buys our debt too. And where does the FED get the money to buy US debt? It “prints” it, just like Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe did before their collapses and Venezuela is doing now during its collapse. (Though the FED saves a few cents by not printing much physical cash.) The article seemed to suggest this is a good thing.

Second, worse, there’s no mention of creating wealth. To illustrate this glaring omission, why can’t the government just guarantee everyone a salary of say $150K per year? Everyone can quit working and just live off their government salary. We won’t be kings, but we can all live comfortable, fun lives.

I hope it’s obvious that wouldn’t work. No one would be creating the goods, services and wealth that the money is spent on. Without that, discussions about money flow, and money itself, are totally pointless.


Just a name, call it what you want, the point is it’s not part of the government and it only includes domestic spending.

Actually no, you didn’t read it, or, with respect, you didn’t understand it. The first several pictures are illustrating what people believe and what the problems are. The quote you plucked supports what I believe and does not disparage the point of the article, which you have to read to the end to understand.

China is just representing all foreign spending. Borrowing has very real macroeconomic effects, not the least of which is the foreign governments have saved about $13 trillion (FOREX+REserve balances). That’s $13 trillion that isn’t circulating in our economy. Ironically, that’s about the same amount as the non-government portion of the debt…Hmmmm (that’s not an accident)

The Fed creates dollars, endogenously, meaning that for every dollar it creates it must hold an asset. This differs from the Federal government that can create dollars exogenously without holding an asset to offset it, but we can get into that later if you’re interested.

Hyperinflations are generally the result of an economy that is resource constrained. I’d be happy to explain Weimar, Zimbabwe or Venezuela from my point of view if you’re interested, but just know that money creation didn’t cause hyperinflation. There is a chain of cause-and-effect decisions that led to the problem.

The government doesn’t create wealth, something I’m sure you’ll be surprised to hear me say. Think of it like this. Brick factories don’t create buildings and more than dollar creators create wealth, but buildings are built with bricks just as wealth is created with dollars.

The answer is simple. Because the economy cannot create at today’s level of inflation, $30 trillion dollars (roughly 200 million adults x $150k) worth of goods and services to supply to the population. In other words, we would find ourselves resource constrained and massive inflation would result. There aren’t enough resources to meet the level of demand that would result from that volume of money.


The only currency the Government can create is coins, and that’s not even 2% of the currency in circulation.

Again, you need to make a distinction between what you suggest the Government do, and what it actually does.

The Government doesn’t operate on a neo-chartalism framework, officials who runs its operations have stated this. They don’t spend anything, until their accounts are credited with money from somewhere else.

To continue to suggest this, means you must then also be suggesting a conspiracy theory where these same officials are hiding the truth from everyone.

But you can over or under supply bricks, and there is no utility in centralizing the decisions surrounding the supply of bricks.

Nor is there a utility in Government subsidizing Brick production.

The brick, just like any other good, should have its supply float as a consequence of supply & demand. Technocrats will not make superior assumptions, than the rest of the economy.

To dovetail this, taxes cannot “tune” anything, because the economy is not a car. It’s a distributed cognitive system (growing ever more complex), where it’s full body is never within sight of a single person or even a group of persons.

You can’t use taxes or spending to coax people into “superior” outcomes with their own money, and you can’t make superior guesses than the economy itself. That’s overprivileging the cognition of a select few, over the whole.


Semantics. Some of the “people believe” made a lot more sense than the final solution that sees tax as just a drain.

Are you familiar with the concept of sustainability? That is, do you think the US can keep on borrowing more and more and more ad finitum?

That’s the one solid thing you said.

You treated my extreme rhetorical example like it’s plausible except for some little problem.


That’s simply ridiculous. There’s not only no “proof” that President may have “colluded” with Russia, there’s not even any EVIDENCE that he might have.


Right, it’s more like spend, spend and spend – no taxes needed. Why aren’t you a Republican and a Trump fan? :wink:


Citizens should be concerned about political leaders who have shady contacts with hostile governments. Which is precisely why I’m sure you’re all very concerned about the Trump campaign’s mountain of weird and shady contacts, such as hiring Manafort—the very definition of a shady and criminal character with slimy Russian contacts—to run your campaign, a campaign where Russian agents were actively trying to sow chaos and interfere on behalf of Trump.

This is also why I’m sure you’re all super concerned with the fact that the POTUS credulously declared that he believed Putin’s denials about interference. So much so, that he proposed partnering with Russia on cyber security, which really has to be one of the most embarrassing things ever proposed by an American president.


Actually I am not concerned about the wet dreams and fantasies of Trump haters. It must be painful for you people to see an elected president actually accomplish much of what his campaign rhetoric promised.

I notice your lack of concern over the actual documented collusion of our 44th president with Vladimir Putin against the interests of the American people. Ditto for his administrations use of our Justice system and intelligence agencies as partisan political tools.

I am by no means an admirer of Paul Manafort but if the full force of the FBI were used on the all members of Congress I wouldn’t be surprised if half of them got indicted. They are obviously pressuring Manafort to bear false witness against the president. The persecution of General Flynn is shameful.


I never said taxes aren’t needed either…Just that taxes aren’t necessary to spend.


So you think you can spend money that you don’t have??? Explains a lot.


In the case of the OP, there are DOCUMENTS proving what happened. Where are the DOCUMENTS proving the Trump Campaign got together with the Russians to defeat Hillary? Where is even ONE?


Er, please explain how you get something for nothing without a perpetual motion machine.


Serious question for discussion,

What is money?


The fact that you haven’t seen evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However, explaining all of the “smoke” to you and how I think it probably leads to fire is pointless with you. You’ve made up your mind already.

I can no more, at this point, prove there is substantial evidence of Trump working with the Russians than you can prove there isn’t, we can just both insist that there is or isn’t. I’m happy to wait and argue about Muller’s finding when they are released.

I don’t claim to know there is fire, but it’s my guess that when Muller releases his findings the fire will be exposed. If it’s not I’m sure you’ll all have the chance to say I told you so.


And in the meantime, Mueller is spending MILLLIONS of OUR tax dollars with virtually NOTHING to show for his efforts except a few, totally unrelated indictments for totally unrelated “crimes.”


Yes, because procicuting crime is bad. When you were a detective, did you work for free?

BTW, nice deflection, way to avoid the point.


I CERTAINLY didn’t work for “multiple millions of dollars”, CSB. The highest salary I earned was $679/month–before deductions and I was the 3rd highest-paid man in the department. Only the Chief of Police and his two assistants earned more than I did. On that (plus my wife’s $50/week) we bought our first house and our first ever brand-new car. Admittedly, that was 45 years ago.


Did you investigate highly connected ridiculously wealthy people involved in (alleged) international crimes whose crimes could be tied to the President (or his team)?

Curious, do you have a breakdown of where the money is being spent on the investigation? I mean, I’d agree that Muller and his team are probably working for what you made in a month in an hour, but given you’re in your 70’s (I believe) you could be talking about the 1960’s. Heck, I make about what you made in a month in a day, but that doesn’t mean much because I’m willing to bet, your $679 a month bought a hell of a lot more than my $679 does.