Game of Thrones: The Debate of Liars

Econophile's picture

It was fairly unanimous in the MSM that Romney won the debate. Comments were that he was forceful, engaged, animated, presidential, challenging, and on the offensive. The president seemed lackluster, dull, unresponsive, and tired. All this is true.

Unfortunately they both lied.

I wish to point out that I will vote for Romney and I was pleased that he is perceived to have won the debate. But I thought he won based on theatrical performance rather than content, which, to be honest, is how most of the great unwashed judge candidates.

Neither candidate made much sense. Saying words people want to hear won't make it so.

Look, President Obama is a left-wing liberal (Progressive, socialist, whatever). He is an ideologue and I respect him for at least letting us know what he stands for. I know exactly what to expect from him and I strongly disagree with most of his policies. There are two really good reasons to vote him out, beside the fact that his policies have failed.

I've written many times about the danger of Obamacare to the overall economy and the social fabric of America. It is not just another government program. It is a major entitlement that will end up like every form of regulated or nationalized health care system around the world—broke. Costs will skyrocket, more regulations will be imposed, people (you 47 percenters) will demand more services, taxes will go up to pay for it, health care prices and wages will be controlled in some form or another, the quality of health care will go down, the economy will remain moribund with the high cost burden to producers, and unemployment will remain high (see, Europe).

The other major issue is that Obama will appoint Progressive "living Constitution" Supreme Court justices who will turn the country seriously to the left similar to what FDR did back in the Thirties when he tried to nationalize the economy.

What is there to say about Romney? Those who claim he is an advocate of liberty and free markets are blind to the meaning of those words because his history as a governor and presidential aspirant belie those ideals. Here is the thing about Romney: he will say and do anything to get elected. He is not an ideologue. An ideologue is "A person who zealously advocates a particular idea, concept, theory or ideology." The words he uses, like "free markets", have no more meaning to him than "I love you, man." ("No, Mitt, you can't have my Bud Lite.") He also believes in “... an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” (Thanks, Tim Price for that wonderful quote.)

He derides Obamacare but supported Romneycare. He didn't want to tax the rich, but now he does, at least as of last night's debate. He scapegoats China for our government's reckless spending yet professes he's for free trade. He may favor abortion or the right to life. He thinks he can balance the budget by creating a growing economy, which is true but not very feasible based on his Laffer Curve idea that tax cuts alone will grow the economy. Tax cuts can help, but it's the Fed that's driving this train. As the Fed continues to destroy capital with QE?, more private spending as a result of tax cuts will just destroy more capital (we need to save, not spend, to revive the economy). He supports a "strong military" which I assume means more U.S. intervention and new wars since we already have the most powerful military on the planet.

Romney has some good points if we can believe him. He will do his best to repeal Obamacare and, hopefully,not replace it with some similar, junior entitlement version. Yes, he does believe that "excessive" government regulation is harmful to business. I'm hopeful that he actually believes that (they all say this) but my guess is that he will take a "balanced" (i.e., weak-kneed) approach on this (he'll deal away regulatory cutbacks to get something else). He says he will try to semi-privatize Medicare for pre-retirees (Good luck! Ask W about that one). He says he will appoint "conservative" justices to the Supreme Court, which I applaud.

During the debate Romney lied about deficits, entitlements, and economic growth, but so did Obama. They are pandering to us dimwits, throwing out buzz words to gloss over the fact that their "reforms" have failed or can't work.

I do think however there is one major difference between the candidates. It is obvious that Obama has no faith in the private economy to pull us out of our continuing recession. I actually don't think he believes the economy will recover, based on his many policy failures. His entire campaign theme is for government programs, funded by higher taxes, to alleviate the continuing misery caused by the Obama recession. Romney does believe the private sector can lead us to recovery, but that will work only if he (a) leaves us alone and (b) replaces Ben Bernanke with a Paul Volcker. Those, my fellow citizens, are big ifs. But it will be better than another four years of Obama.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Burticus's picture

Turn off reruns of the elepant & jackass sock puppet show.  OBAMNEY = No Change

The first steps of any real solution are to repeal the 16th & 17th amendments and the (not really) Federal (with no) Reserve Act.  Only a third party will do this; the ruling ElephantJackass party will not.

We have a candidate who advocates individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise economics, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.  He deserves our support.  Otherwise, drop your vote for Obamney in the slave's suggestion box.

monad's picture

Wrong! You let the bank robbers win the debate, because they picked both puppets, and you concede this is a choice. Either way they win and you're completely fucked. 3rd option: call this farce what it is and give them reason to be afraid. Make my day...

Yen Cross's picture

 Where's the sausage link, "New Meat"?   Now it's "porkie pig"?

Muppet's picture

Government lie?   Consider if Jesse Jackson Jr. did commit suicide and is dead.  His death being covered up until after election when his wife will be appointed to his post?   The very few supposed (still) pictures of Jackson do not specifically name a date when taken.  Oh right, they were taken on the weekend at Bernie's.   

endicott glacier's picture

As the politicians vote along the party line, this time the citizens will likely vote along the prosperity lines. That is, based on asnwer to the simple question "do I belong to the class of people who are helped by Obama's economic policies or do I belong to the class which would be helped by Romney's policies"? The answer to that questions should be clear, and the voting too. Considering neither candidate will address debt/deficit, lobbysts, wall st, bankers etc that would be a reasonable litmus test to apply.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

I'm sorry but you are full of think Obama lets us know his true feelings about how the country should be? Really? And Romney is no good at all? Really? At least he knows how to run a business, at least he has a history of sacrificing his own money and his family's and his own time to help others, from the many and varied kind deeds to those in need. None of those stories have you heard on MSM. Yes, Venture Capitalists maybe be evil, but I don't think this man is. Obama is an ideologue who cloaks himself in good deeds of the government. He is the worst kind of scoundrel...the kind that does nothing to help others and is working, very hard, to put more and more people under the servitude of heavy debt and governmental dependence.  Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the first half-black president (apologies to Bill Clinton, the first black president, is going to ensure everyone is a slave (of the debt variety)?  

I'm glad you're voting for Romney but detritus such as this post about how evil Romney is, is not needed. The truly evil motherfucker in DC is this fuck Obama. 

Shankopotomus's picture

 Romney's not a Venture Capitalist. He used to be, but he left that a long time ago to go into the leveraged buyout takeover business which is just like the steal a car strip it down and sell the parts to the highest bidder business, except for the fact that it's legal. 

Vendetta's picture

VULTURE capitalist  ... not venture .... never mind .... just nit picking

Econophile's picture

I very much appreciate your outrage, but Romney is as big a political liar as Obama or any politician out there. This was not meant to be an attack against Romney, but (a) an attack on our political system and (b) the failure of people to understand economics. Romney is probably a very nice person, likes his family, etc., but so what. Almost everything he said was a lie during the debate, many of which were caught by the Right Wing media. My point was that he will say and do anything to get elected. I think that is pandering for power. Like many well intentioned critics of Obama, you believe that a business executive makes a good president. I don't buy that and and believe it is a war of ideas. Reagan was an ideologue, and while far from acting libertarianish, did many good things to reduce the impact of government on business, and reign in the Fed (keeping Volcker). He was well-known for having been widely read in economics (Bastiat, Hayek, etc.). He was no business exec. I don't know what Romney's core beliefs are because he is so inconsistent. I wish for the best, but don't kid yourself that this guy is some kind of saviour. He isn't. He has yet to demonstrate his understanding of the causes of our economic collapse or its cure. He's just another Bush. But thank you for your comment. I feel your pain, but we disagree. Thanks for reading!

q99x2's picture

Would any in their right mind let either of the two candidates in their home? No. So why would anyone vote for either.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

It may be best that YOU not vote. 

theprofromdover's picture

The local war being fought out now is the war between the people and the corporations. The corporations won the war against government 40 years ago.

The corporations, their bankers, and their lawyers want to enslave the rest of us. They have bribed governemt to go all in for big business, and squash small contractors. They overload small employers with legislation and taxes; they make it impossible to employ staff, and tie management into red tape knots. They want to crush small business (which is the only engine that will get us out of the depression). They don't like the fact that small business has energy, initiative, drive, competence and independence.

Small business reacts quickly to market demand, charges less, is more locally responsible, and is way cheaper. Big business only wants big fees and big profits, and will clear all opposition out of the way.

Break em up.

Vendetta's picture

Yeppers.  I do see how small businesses are really encumbered by regulation whereas big biz uses regulation to its advantage (they can afford lobbying to write those 12,000 page pieces of shit legislation) in crushing competition.

Abrick's picture

The US economy was nationalized 100 + years ago when taxpayer funded wars for the control of oil began.  The resource monopolies, and their privileged owners, recieved the gains at little to no cost. Meanwhile, after a the brief payback in the years following WW II,  these same monopolies have been extracting wealth. and freedom from service to their interests. for the last 40 years.

Vooter's picture

LOLOLOLOL! Anyone (including the author) who votes for a Democrat or a Republican is a COWARD and PART OF THE PROBLEM. You people are fucking unbelievable: "Oh, I *have* to vote for Mitt Romney because of x," or "I *have* to vote for Barack Obama because of y." What the fuck is wrong with you halfwits? You don't HAVE to do ANYTHING! These people are spitting in your face and laughing, and the only thing that your little walnut-sized brains can come up with in the way of a response is, "THANK YOU! May I please have another, sir?" GROW SOME BALLS. Vote third party, or don't vote at all. Do whatever it takes to monkey-wrench the system--the goal of every patriotic American should be to grab these scumbags by the hair and push their faces down in their own shit, literally or figuratively. Anything else is pathetic....

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

OK, so I vote third party, what does that get me?  Obama?  No thanks.

You can't just shit all over the system and say vote third party - we'll change the world.   We already know that won't happen.  We already know from the multitude of posts on this site that one of the two parties will win.   If people like vote for third party, Obama wins.  It's straight math.  Fucking democrats wil vote for Obama, period.

It's better to vote someone in that is at least kind to the way the system should be.

Voting Obama in is a sure vote to install a third-world dictator.   You know not what evil is assoicated with this fuck and what he will do given a second term...all executive orders all the time, lying down to the Russians as he promised in the now famous video.

You're solution, frankly, sucks.   It won't do anything.  We have towork with the system we have.  


Unless you're for which case a lot of misery and death are coming.   And don't think they'll allow it to happen anyway. 

Vendetta's picture

lol.  I certainly understand where you're coming from (been there and back a few times) but each head of the two-headed (party) hydra are still the same snake.

Vooter's picture

"You're (sic) solution, frankly, sucks. It won't do anything. We have to work with the system we have."

What don't you get? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE! The United States is in a death spiral, and no one--not Barack Obama, not Mitt Romney, not anyone else--is going to stop it. How could they? Magic? The carcass of the United States has been picked clean from inside. It's OVER. And yet, here you are, carefully parsing what the "candidates" have to say, and ruminating about who has the best "ideas" for America's future. Jesus H. CHRIST--could you people please WAKE THE FUCK UP???

moonstears's picture

Well next week(?) we get the VPs. Many Repubs call it a shur-thang for Ryan. Many think Obama did poorly. I was mutually unimpressed all around. Lest we forget, Mr Biden did write the patriot act see... Food for thought, I'm unimpressed by both parties, just sharing info. May God bless(and help!) America. We're facing some bad shit, folks.

bugs_'s picture

Game of Drones

GMadScientist's picture

Romney for Pres. Dimon for Sec of Treasury. Phil Gramm for Fed chairman.

What could go wrong?

Vooter's picture

I hope it happens--watching these fuckers crash and burn would be SO worth the price of admission. What a country of monkeys--we deserve all the chaos and suffering that's about to be heaped onto our plates...

ItsDanger's picture

Romney lost credibility for me when he claimed that capital gains income is taxed at a lower rate because its already taxed twice (initially at the corporate level) on 60 minutes.  Thats somewhat valid for dividends not capital gains.

Biggest problem is the sheep voters.  No candidate can tell the truth even if they wanted to.

GMadScientist's picture

He's so buddy-buddy with corporations he can't tell where they end and he begins?

Until Americans understand that cap gains tax advantages are driving the widening gap between rich and poor, that their mort interest deduction is an entitlement by any other name, and that the portion of taxes being paid by corporations has dwindled from 25% (to payroll's 10%) to 9% (whereas payroll taxes are now 35% of the revenue stream).

There's no way Mitt could run a legit business without that tilted playing field. NONE.

The Alarmist's picture

There's some basis for Romney's view ... the buildup in book value of a company is after-tax, and to some extent you could view that as being an increase in capital value.

avidtango's picture

What many anti-everybody posters miss is that capitalism requires capital.  There is a reason the US vastly leads the rest of the world in medical R&D - those awful Big Drug profits.  There is a reason the majority of patents and Nobel prizes go to Americans with 4% of the world's population - we can afford the luxury of laboratory, university and garage research. 

I agree with the poster.  I campaigned/voted for Paul but it's either more Obama (and all that entails) or Romney with perhaps renewed confidence. The fact that Mitt is not an ideologue may be good; ideologues favor ideas over people, continually trying to force the square peg in the round hole.

blindman's picture

The Peril of Obama’s “Man Crush” on Geithner is exposed by the Debate

Posted on October 5, 2012 by Devin Smith
.."Note the depth of their contempt for the American people. The American people did not want any executions of banksters, much less their murder in “a dark alley.” Geithner, Clinton, and the author cannot even consider the compelling evidence that accounting control frauds led by the banksters drove the crisis. They have no understanding of accounting fraud, justice, or the damage caused to a nation when elite frauds can grow wealthy (and massively destructive) through fraud. They have no conception of what any competent regulator, economist, criminologist, or attorney would understand about a “Gresham’s” dynamic. If cheaters prosper, then bad ethics drives good ethics out of the marketplace and fraud can become endemic.

The “price” that results from allowing elite frauds to become wealthy with impunity is endemic fraud, recurrent financial crises, grotesque economic inefficiency, and the perversion of markets and democracy through the descent into crony capitalism. Geithner will not bear this “price” – America and Americans will. We were not informed of this price or asked whether we were willing to bear it. There was no legitimate need for us to bear the price because Geithner’s grant of impunity to the elite frauds was unjust and harmed the economy and nation. The banksters are the most undeserving recipients of a U.S. government bailout in history. The odds are strong that the banksters will eventually share a portion of the massive bounty they received from the U.S. due to Geithner’s policy recommendations with Geithner. They may hire him, arrange for him to run an international organization, or give him Larry Summers-level (massive) fees for speeches on the wonders of faux “stress tests.” There are numerous ways for a senior government official to cash in.

No regulator would ever believe that leaving fraudulent CEOs in charge of banks produces economic stability. While Geithner, as President of the FRBNY, was supposed to be one of the nation’s top regulators he, by his own admission, refused to regulate. Like Clinton, Geithner was a strong proponent of the financial regulation that helped to produce (with a huge assist from Bush) the intensely criminogenic environment that caused the crisis. Geithner and Clinton would be two of the last individuals in the world that one would ever select to create an effective program of regulating or prosecuting banksters." ... wkb

[KR350] Keiser Report: Mr. Gold vs Chump ‘Economists’
We demonstrate the effects of money printing and Central Bank madness with a hyperinflationary chicken. They also discuss the Securities and Exchange Commission losing its mind as it sues the one rating agency NOT on the payroll of Wal Street. In the second half of the show, Max Keiser talks to Professor William K. Black about Deferred Prosecution Agreements, the Financial Conduct Authority and London as the capital of fraud.
comment on general content:
it is the money system itself that has failed. period.
everything else is derivative and tangential and will
not address the cause, root problem. so lets be
generous of spirit and say all these pundits either are
in denial due to the gravity of the situation, or not
yet aware of the gravity of the situation. but there is
probably a limit to the generosity of spirit in the
a system that monetizes fraud to the benefit of the
elite at the expense of the next generation, the current
working generation and the retiring generation for the
sake of a flawed and nepotistic money distribution
system is doomed on first principles. i didn't say it,
so don't look at me. it is just a fact of nature and
history proves it.

LawsofPhysics's picture

The "monetary system" is human construct.  You can reduce everything you just said to a single fucking sentence; Any system of exchange and capital must insure that there are real consequences for bad behavior.  Execute a few motherfuckers for fraud or theft of over 1 million dollars and watch how quickly all this shit staightens itself out.

We can make a concerted effort as a society to do this, or Nature will do it for us via a violent and bloody mechanism.  That is the only thing that history is clear on.

Time to see if mankind is smarter than yeast.  If history is any guide, the answer is no.  

avidtango's picture

No, execute a few for a crime based on a random number (a million) and what will happen is what occurs in every country where the State murders for economic crimes. Folks soon become afraid to do anything since, after all, the offending number can be changed with a whime from a nice economic tsar.   Or a new crime can be written that retroactively takes effect.  Or folks will start spying and tattling on fellow workers for "patriotic" rewards.   all the fun stuff.

Prosecute those who lied/stole/cheated/broke some of the hundreds of thousands of rules but no firing squad.  (Note - I oppose the death penalty in general).

LawsofPhysics's picture

What you or I "oppose" is irrelevant.  You dumb shit, the crimminals have changed the rules therefore there is no way to return to the system of justice you mention because those in power would have to indict themselves. Prepare, Nature (and all men are indeed part of nature) will re-assert herself in our lifetimes.

It will excellerate as supply lines are cut and essential goods and services can not be delivered.  Know your history.

Amagnonx's picture

" The American people did not want any executions of banksters, much less their murder in “a dark alley.”"


Was that just me then?

blindman's picture
"...I want to emphasize the “just” aspect. Holding the banksters accountable for their crimes has nothing to do with “pitchforks,” vengeance, or scapegoats. Holding elite criminals accountable is a minimum condition for a democratic state that aspires to be a great nation. Americans yearn for a president who demands that we live up to our best natures. The May 2010 article unintentionally demonstrates the author’s, Geithner’s, and Bill Clinton’s inability to even fathom the concept that justice requires holding the banksters accountable for their crimes. Indeed, the article descends into this loathsome slander of the American people.

[Geithner’s] objective was to rescue the economy from ruin, and if the price was that a bunch of bankers benefited, he was happy to pay it. But Geithner was smart enough to realize that the simmering wrath of voters could complicate the politics around his efforts considerably. So the secretary ventured to Harlem to ask Bill Clinton’s advice as to what might be done to cool the cauldron. According to Jonathan Alter’s new book, The Promise, Clinton told him that his options were limited.

“You could pull Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley and slit his throat,” Clinton said, “and it would satisfy [people] for two days, and then the bloodlust would rise again.”
" wkb
that was from a bill clinton quote. you and bill,
and others ...

headless blogger's picture

I've always thought Obammer would get back in, but maybe not. It seems Romney would be just what the Elites need to get rid of SS and many of the other programs they had set up several decades ago to create a dependency society.But then again....Obama would scratch these programs in a second too.

The Elites need all the Welfare State resources going to Military and Financial Institutions (Which are actually the BIGGEST Welfare recipients of all)....They will allow the death of millions (maybe a billion) to get their way...Afterall, look what they did during the WWI and WWII timeframes (close to 100 million dead).

No matter who gets in office it will be bad for most Americans. Sadly, most Americans don't know that they have been marked for extermination. The Elites have done an excellent job in training their minions (their administrators and other layers) that it will be ok to let millions die. The media is constantly showing reckless Americans who depend on food stamps or something else...all designed to make other Americans feel ok when they die, even though this kind of dependency is learned from the State itself.


LMAOLORI's picture



Think again

Corporate CEOs Unveil Obama’s Second Term Agenda: Cutting Entitlements and Endless Fracking

In July, I pointed out that Obama’s second term agenda was to cut Medicare, Social Security, and/or Medicaid. And here comes the cavalry to make that a reality. This passage is from Politico’s Morning Money, which is a newsletter that spans the nexus between financial services lobbyists in DC and the financial sector in New York.

COMING POST-ELECTION: CEOs TO PUSH ON FISCAL CLIFF - In multiple conversations recently, top corporate executives have indicated to M.M. that following the election (and no matter the outcome) they will push hard for a broad tax and spending deal in Washington that will take the threat of the fiscal cliff off the table even if it means significant new revenues. The executives have said their efforts could help offer cover to Republicans afraid of signing onto any deal that might anger hard-core tea party leaders or anti-tax advocates such as Grover Norquist. “We don’t really care if our taxes go up a little if we can just get this done and take this threat away from the economy,” one top executive at a Fortune 100 company told MM this week.

Read more at 

AllWorkedUp's picture

29. Both candidates have degrees from Harvard.

That's enough to make me puke and realize we're pretty much fucked.

Hapa's picture

The biggest news out of the debate is O'Bummer's performance.  It looks like they witheld his meds and he didn't get his usual mind control prep/pep session.  This guy is a puppet extraordinaire. I'd say by the look of his being unplugged, the Masters of the Universe are now backing Romulus.

otto skorzeny's picture

my hippie aunt and uncle- who love this tool- said the same thing about him being drugged out looking when I asked if they watched the debate.

knukles's picture

Was noticeable, wasn't it?
Particularly to those of us deeply involved in recovery process/programs... just seemed so obvious.  May or may not be, but something was not "normal".  Was way too not normal.

Yes, my bet's he taking a dive.
Would fit with all the other bits of anecdotal information: Penny Pritzker buying the home in Hawaii, family hating the role, attitude/anger management.
Seems mentally surrendered to the fate of ignobility along side Jimmy Carter

Vooter's picture

If he's taking a dive, he's the smartest guy in the room. Who in their right mind would WANT to be at the helm of this listing hulk in the coming years? If I were Barack Obama, I would be hoping beyond hope that I could squeal out of the White House parking lot at 12:00:01 a.m. on 1/21/13....

Stud Duck's picture

If Romney get elected, I am afraid the radical left will go "weatherman" and if Obama get elected the radical right will go Timothy McVeigh on us.

Neither of the two canidates have a clue on economic history, but both will get history lessons shortly,

The loser will be glad he lost, the winner is going to simular to a captain taking command of a doomed company of men or for you non Viet Vets, command of a sinking ship!

Take a long look at the economic situation of the Weimar Republic cica late 1920's to the early 30's for a historical comparison, the debasement of the mark worked in the short run, but the long run effect caused ruin first in the motherland, then spread through out all of Europe via warfare.

In conclusion, we are screwed, either way, the only thing this country has got to sell is soybean, corn and wheat, the balance of the economy is screwed to the max.


paint it red call it hell's picture

Everywhere I go, intelligent people are expressing outraged sentiments concerning the grift run by financial elite and their paid political hacks that have first deregulated to allow the con to happen and now covering for them by not initiating investigation, or heaven forbid, prosecution of the worst of the lot.

For the past 6 months I ask them all when they complain, "Why are we not on a bus to DC to march in protest?".

Nobody has yet to vocalize a legitimate reason to date, just nod in agreement. A trigger will have to be tripped before public complacency is broken as it appears to have  been in Spain.

cejack's picture

Please explain how regulations stop crime.  

I am sure many here are very curious about that.  

Especially those of use who work in the most highly regulated industry in the country already.



Seize Mars's picture

Yeah, all the deregulation. Yeah, that was it.

Dude what the hell are you talking about? Deregulation is not the problem. There is no such thing.

The problem is caused by one regulation: a law that props up a monopoly that allows a bank consortium to control the buying power of the dollars in my pocket. That's the problem, not "deregulation."

Actually we should try some deregulation. That would be great. You know what happens if you try to use an alternative currency? The private bank consortium uses state coercion power to throw your ass in jail. Does that sound like "deregulation?"



paint it red call it hell's picture

there is no problems with deregulation? repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't deregulation???


OneTinSoldier66's picture

When your looking at Glass-Steagall your only looking at a highly visible symptom, not the problem. The problem is with who is issuing the currency and what gave them the right to have control of the printing press(the money supply), the interest rate(the price of money), the amount of debt accrued by 'the public'(the price of serfdom)?


If you had said we need to repeal the legal tender laws then I think we'd be in the same corner.

btdt's picture

start with econ 101, topic of regulatory capture

proceed to public choice theory

then consider that blaming "deregulation" doesn't mean much and plays into the hands of the very peeople who wrote the dereg laws for the pols they bought off and the regulators they employ after they are done regulating.

move on to "control fraud" as explained by Bill Black

and then take his left bias into account (that regulators are somehow immune from corrupting forces)


what you end up with is Chicago city politics gone amuck on a vast scale:

your wanting 'regulation" is like asking the local cop on the beat to shut down the local whore house where he collects a pay-off each week.

monoloco's picture

We're fucked no matter which one of the corporately owned neo-liberals gets elected. We may get some fiscal restraint on social programs from Romney, but it will be more than offset by the increased military spending that he has promised, and if he is stupid enough to involve us in another conflict in Iran, he'll make the Obama deficit look like chump change.

northerngirl's picture

Someone once told me the body of cockroach could live 7 days without it head.  That's pretty much politics in America today, we think we are getting rid the of the head of the problem, but the policies live on.