And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[North Star]

I will just leave off with the following observations.
1) Mother Jones is a magazine that itself is well to the left. Any magazine named Mother Jones that wasn't firmly leftist would be an insult to its namesake. If you search you will find other accounts that are much less sympathetic to the Sandinistas.
2) I knew through work some Nicaraguans who came to Miami to escape  the violence of that period. All of them pointed to the Sandinistas as the bad guys.

That Mother Jones may have leftist bias doesn't necessarily mean what it says isn't true, of course. And it would make a great deal of sense for your work acquaintances who fled to Miami from Nicaragua to be sympathetic to the US-supported Contras, and to the Somoza regime - Somoza fled to Miami, too.

Here's what Wikipedia says on the matter. Can you show me some reliable sources with different views?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somoza_family

Anastasio Somoza García assumed the presidency after luring rebel leader Augusto César Sandino to peace talks, and murdering Sandino soon afterwards. Anastacio amended the Nicaraguan Constitution, concentrating power in his hands and installed his relatives and cronies in top government positions.[1] Although the Somoza only held the presidency for 30 of those 43 years, they were the power behind the other presidents of the time through their control of the National Guard. The differences in the Somoza's ruling style only reflected their adaptation to the U.S.-Latin American policy.[2] Their regime was overthrown by the Sandinista National Liberation Front during the Nicaraguan Revolution.

For more than four decades in power, the Somoza family accumulated wealth through corporate bribes, industrial monopolies, land grabbing, and foreign aid siphoning. By the 1970s, the family owned 23 percent of land in Nicaragua while the family wealth reached $533 million, which already amounted to half of Nicaragua's debt and 33 percent of the country's 1979 GDP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

In his 1997 study on U.S. low intensity warfare, Kermit D. Johnson, a former Chief of the U.S. Army Chaplains, contends that U.S. hostility toward the revolutionary government was motivated not by any concern for "national security", but rather by what the world relief organization Oxfam termed "the threat of a good example":

"It was alarming that in just a few months after the Sandinista revolution, Nicaragua received international acclaim for its rapid progress in the fields of literacy and health. It was alarming that a socialist-mixed-economy state could do in a few short months what the Somoza dynasty, a U.S. client state, could not do in 45 years! It was truly alarming that the Sandinistas were intent on providing the very services that establish a government's political and moral legitimacy"

The government's program included increased wages, subsidized food prices, and expanded health, welfare, and education services. And though it nationalized Somoza's former properties, it preserved a private sector that accounted for between 50 and 60 percent of GDP.


The United States began to support Contra activities against the Sandinista government by December 1981, with the CIA at the forefront of operations. The CIA supplied the funds and the equipment, coordinated training programs, and provided intelligence and target lists. While the Contras had little military successes, they did prove adept at carrying out CIA guerrilla warfare strategies from training manuals which advised them to incite mob violence, "neutralize" civilian leaders and government officials and attack "soft targets" — including schools, health clinics and cooperatives. The agency added to the Contras' sabotage efforts by blowing up refineries and pipelines, and mining ports.[7][54][55] Finally, according to former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, CIA trainers also gave Contra soldiers large knives. "A commando knife [was given], and our people, everybody wanted to have a knife like that, to kill people, to cut their throats".[56][57] In 1985 Newsweek published a series of photos taken by Frank Wohl, a conservative student admirer traveling with the Contras, entitled "Execution in the Jungle":

The victim dug his own grave, scooping the dirt out with his hands... He crossed himself. Then a contra executioner knelt and rammed a k-bar knife into his throat. A second enforcer stabbed at his jugular, then his abdomen. When the corpse was finally still, the contras threw dirt over the shallow grave — and walked away.[58][59]

The CIA officer in charge of the covert war, Duane "Dewey" Clarridge, admitted to the House Intelligence Committee staff in a secret briefing in 1984 that the Contras were routinely murdering "civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges". But he claimed that this did not violate President Reagan's executive order prohibiting assassinations because the agency defined it as just 'killing'. "After all, this is war—a paramilitary operation," Clarridge said in conclusion.[60] Edgar Chamorro explained the rationale behind this to a U.S. reporter. "Sometimes terror is very productive. This is the policy, to keep putting pressure until the people cry 'uncle'".[61][62] The CIA manual for the Contras, Tayacan, states that the Contras should gather the local population for a public tribunal to "shame, ridicule and humiliate" Sandinista officials to "reduce their influence". It also recommends gathering the local population to witness and take part in public executions.[63] These types of activities continued throughout the war. After the signing of the Central American Peace Accord in August 1987, the year war related deaths and economic destruction reached its peak, the Contras eventually entered negotiations with the Sandinista government (1988), and the war began to deescalate.[7]

By 1989 the US backed Contra war and economic isolation had inflicted severe economic suffering on Nicaraguans. The US government knew that the Nicaraguans had been exhausted from the war, which had cost 30,865 lives, and that voters usually vote the incumbents out during economic decline. By the late 1980s Nicaragua's internal conditions had changed so radically that the US approach to the 1990 elections differed greatly from 1984. The Bush administration decided to promote an opposition victory and to denounce the country's electoral laws and procedures should there be a Sandinista victory. The United States, through the National Endowment for Democracy, organized a united opposition out of fourteen dissimilar microparties into the National Opposition Union (Unión Nacional Oppositora, UNO). It promoted their candidates including presidential nominee Violeta Chamorro who was received by President Bush at the White House. The US thus "micromanaged the opposition" and exerted massive external pressure on the electorate. The Contra war escalated over the year before the election. The US promised to end the war and the economic embargo should she win.[64]

The UNO scored a decisive victory on 25 February 1990. Chamorro won with 55 percent of the presidential vote as compared to Ortega's 41 percent. Of 92 seats in the National Assembly, UNO gained 51, and the FSLN won 39. On 25 April 1990, Chamorro assumed presidency from Daniel Ortega.[64]


Illegal covert operations
See also: Iran–Contra affair
With Congress blocking further contra aid, the Reagan administration sought to arrange funding and military supplies by means of third countries and private sources.[65] Between 1984 and 1986, $34 million from third countries and $2.7 million from private sources were raised this way.[65] The secret contra assistance was run by the National Security Council, with officer Lt. Col. Oliver North in charge.[66] With the third-party funds, North created an organization called The Enterprise, which served as the secret arm of the NSC staff and had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, ship, operatives, and secret Swiss bank accounts.[65] It also received assistance from personnel from other government agencies, especially from CIA personnel in Central America.[65] This operation functioned, however, without any of the accountability required of U.S. government activities.[65] The Enterprise's efforts culminated in the Iran–Contra Affair of 1986–1987, which facilitated contra funding through the proceeds of arms sales to Iran.

According to the London Spectator, U.S. journalists in Central America had long known that the CIA was flying in supplies to the Contras inside Nicaragua before the scandal broke. No journalist paid it any attention until the alleged CIA supply man, Eugene Hasenfus, was shot down and captured by the Nicaraguan army. Similarly, reporters neglected to investigate many leads indicating that Oliver North was running the Contra operation from his office in the National Security Council.[67]

According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Manuel Noriega, the military leader of Panama later convicted on drug charges, whom he personally met. The issue of drug money and its importance in funding the Nicaraguan conflict was the subject of various reports and publications. The contras were funded by drug trafficking, of which the United States was aware.[68] Senator John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems".[69]

The Reagan administration's support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, alleging that the contras contributed to the rise of crack cocaine in California.[70]

Gary Webb's career as a journalist was subsequently discredited by the leading U.S. papers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times. An internal CIA report, entitled, "Managing a Nightmare", shows the agency used "a ground base of already productive relations with journalists" to help counter what it called "a genuine public relations crisis."[71] In the 1980s, Douglas Farah worked as a journalist, covering the civil wars in Central America for the Washington Post. According to Farah, while it was common knowledge that the Contras were involved in cocaine trafficking, the editors of the Washington Post refused to take it seriously:

If you're talking about our intelligence community tolerating — if not promoting — drugs to pay for black ops, it's rather an uncomfortable thing to do when you're an establishment paper like the Post. If you were going to be directly rubbing up against the government, they wanted it more solid than it could probably ever be done.[72]

An investigation by the United States Department of Justice also stated that their "review did not substantiate the main allegations stated and implied in the Mercury News articles." Regarding the specific charges towards the CIA, the DOJ wrote "the implication that the drug trafficking by the individuals discussed in the Mercury News articles was connected to the CIA was also not supported by the facts."[73] The CIA also investigated and rejected the allegations.[74]

Propaganda
During the time the US Congress blocked funding for the contras, the Reagan government engaged in a campaign to alter public opinion and change the vote in Congress on contra aid.[75] For this purpose, the NSC established an interagency working group, which in turn coordinated the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (managed by Otto Reich), which conducted the campaign.[75] The S/LPD produced and widely disseminated a variety of pro-contra publications, arranged speeches and press conferences.[75] It also disseminated "white propaganda"—pro-contra newspaper articles by paid consultants who did not disclose their connection to the Reagan administration.[76]

On top of that, Oliver North helped Carl Channell's tax-exempt organization, the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty, to raise $10 million, by arranging numerous briefings for groups of potential contributors at the premises of the White House and by facilitating private visits and photo sessions with President Reagan for major contributors.[77] Channell in turn, used part of that money to run a series of television advertisements directed at home districts of Congressmen considered swing votes on contra aid.[77] Out of the $10 million raised, more than $1 million was spent on pro-contra publicity.[77]

International Court of Justice ruling
Main article: Nicaragua v. United States
In 1984 the Sandinista government filed a suit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States (Nicaragua v. United States), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United States. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. Regarding the alleged human rights violations by the contras, however, the ICJ took the view that the United States could be held accountable for them only if it would have been proven that the U.S. had effective control of the contra operations resulting in these alleged violations.[78] Nevertheless, the ICJ found that the U.S. encouraged acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law by producing the manual Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas) and disseminating it to the contras.[79] The manual, amongst other things, advised on how to rationalize killings of civilians[80] and recommended to hire professional killers for specific selective tasks.[81]

The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the Constitution of the United States and argued that the court did not seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, while it accused Nicaragua of actively supporting armed groups there, specifically in the form of supply of arms.[82] The ICJ had found that evidence of a responsibility of the Nicaraguan government in this matter was insufficient.[83] The U.S. argument was affirmed, however, by the dissenting opinion of ICJ member U.S. Judge Schwebel,[84] who concluded that in supporting the contras, the United States acted lawfully in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.[85] The U.S. blocked enforcement of the ICJ judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[86] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[87]


Americas Watch – which subsequently became part of Human Rights Watch – accused the Contras of:[88]

targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination[89]
kidnapping civilians[90]
torturing civilians[91]
executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat[92]
raping women[89]
indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses[90]
seizing civilian property[89]
burning civilian houses in captured towns.[89]
Human Rights Watch released a report on the situation in 1989, which stated: "[The] contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners."[93]

In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."[94]

U.S. news media published several articles accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. It alleged that Americas Watch gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses and systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the major human rights abuses on the Contras.[96]

In 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission for Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"[97]

Human Rights Watch, the umbrella organization of Americas Watch, replied to these allegations: "Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras...The Bush administration is responsible for these abuses, not only because the contras are, for all practical purposes, a U.S. force, but also because the Bush administration has continued to minimize and deny these violations, and has refused to investigate them seriously.

[Florestan]

That Mother Jones may have leftist bias doesn't necessarily mean what it says isn't true, of course. And it would make a great deal of sense for your work acquaintances who fled to Miami from Nicaragua to be sympathetic to the US-supported Contras, and to the Somoza regime - Somoza fled to Miami, too.

What you basically imply boils down to 2 points:

1. Mother Jones might tell the truth despite having leftist bias.

2. (Allegedly) Contras sympathizers might not tell the truth because having rightist bias.

The first point is fair and the logic behind it is impeccable. The second point is unfair because it violates the very logic of the first --- and it's also the only example I've ever met of guilt by geographical association.

[North Star]

What you basically imply boils down to 2 points:

1. Mother Jones might tell the truth despite having leftist bias.

2. (Allegedly) Contras sympathizers might not tell the truth because having rightist bias.

The first point is fair and the logic behind it is impeccable. The second point is unfair because it violates the very logic of the first --- and it's also the only example I've ever met of guilt by geographical association.

Yes, it's of course simplistic to suggest that the bias of a person can be determined simply by where they sought refuge. But it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to assume that if one of the parties in the civil war was supported by the US, you would be more likely to move to the US if you sympathized with that party. And even if you didn't support the Contras, you would probably keep quiet about the times when you sang about killing Yankees..

In any case, I'm not suggesting the Nicaraguans that Jeffrey knew, were lying, it seems clear the Sandinista government / supporters violated some laws too - but that their personal experience probably doesn't give an accurate picture of the situation as far as the crimes committed by each side.

[Florestan]

it seems clear the Sandinista government / supporters violated some laws too

their personal experience probably doesn't give an accurate picture of the situation as far as the crimes committed by each side.

At least you acknowledge that crimes were committed by each side. Many if not most Lefties don't.

[Karl Henning]

At least you acknowledge that crimes were committed by each side. Many if not most Lefties don't.

I am sure you see that your point is not at all improved by the last phrase, and that it reduces your post from discussion to contentiousness.

[Florestan]

I am sure you see that your point is not at all improved by the last phrase, and that it reduces your post from discussion to contentiousness.

Well, yes, I do --- I take back Leftie, although I'm sure our mutual friend Noirth Star (whom I trust I have never offended in any way) wopuld identify himnslef as rather Left than Right.

[Karl Henning]

Well, yes, I do --- I take back Leftie, although I'm sure our mutual friend Noirth Star (whom I trust I have never offended in any way) wopuld identify himnslef as rather Left than Right.

Spoken like the gentleman I know you to be.

[North Star]

At least you acknowledge that crimes were committed by each side. Many if not most Lefties don't.

I certainly have no sympathy for deniers of Communist dictatorships' crimes, or for the deniers of any other regimes' crimes, and am not a supporter of any Communist ideology, although in the context of a revolution in a country where a dictator previously controlled most of the property, it's a natural step.

Well, yes, I do --- I take back Leftie, although I'm sure our mutual friend Noirth Star (whom I trust I have never offended in any way) wopuld identify himnslef as rather Left than Right.

I support many 'leftist' ideas, such as social equality, pacifism, environmentalism, free education and healthcare, and decreasing financial inequality via taxation, minimum wages and welfare. But how these things should be carried out, and the effects of a policy depend on local circumstances. I rather like the Nordic model and think that many places could learn from at least some aspects of it, but it's not as if a political system can be just implemented in a different country just like that, and it magically works. Someone should tell that to the CIA.  0:)

(And no, I don't recall you offending me.)

[Karl Henning]

I certainly have no sympathy for deniers of Communist dictatorships' crimes, or for the deniers of any other regimes' crimes, and am not a supporter of any Communist ideology, although in the context of a revolution in a country where a dictator previously controlled most of the property, it's a natural step.

I support many 'leftist' ideas, such as social equality, pacifism, environmentalism, free education and healthcare, and decreasing financial inequality via taxation, minimum wages and welfare. But how these things should be carried out, and the effects of a policy depend on local circumstances. I rather like the Nordic model and think that many places could learn from at least some aspects of it, but it's not as if a political system can be just implemented in a different country just like that, and it magically works. Someone should tell that to the CIA.  0:)

Long ago, I read (but do not recall the author: "[Communication to] Uncle Sam is like kicking a Diplodocus in the ass, it takes 25 years for the message to reach the brain.

[Florestan]

I certainly have no sympathy for deniers of Communist dictatorships' crimes, or for the deniers of any other regimes' crimes, and am not a supporter of any Communist ideology,

Substitute Rightist for Communist and I subscribe as well: I am no friend to dictatorships --- yet I frankly admit to an openly anti-Communist bias, see below.

although in the context of a revolution in a country where a dictator previously controlled most of the property, it's a natural step.

I don't know anything about Somoza, Sandinistas or Contras --- but in the context of Tsarist Russia / Bolshevik Revolution I side with Rachmaninoff and Medtner and Solzhenitsyn not because of ideology but because my own, personal, direct experience aligns with theirs.

I support many 'leftist' ideas, such as social equality, pacifism, environmentalism, free education and healthcare, and decreasing financial inequality via taxation, minimum wages and welfare. But how these things should be carried out, and the effects of a policy depend on local circumstances. I rather like the Nordic model and think that many places could learn from at least some aspects of it, but it's not as if a political system can be just implemented in a different country just like that, and it magically works.   0:)

I do agree that what works well for a given country might spell disaster for another.

I think social equality is a chimera --- in the context of our discussion, Daniel Ortega never was, and continues not to be, socially equal with a Nicaraguan peasant.

I think pacifism is utopian. Or, to put in better terms, the most outstanding pacifist ever was Stalin --- he willingly dismantled a whole army, only it was the Polish army, not the Russian --- ie, Katyn.

There is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you. That you consent to it or not is irrelevant --- just don't call it free, because it's emphatically not.

Environmentalism --- that the climate is changing right now it's obvious; that something should be done about it, it's also obvious. What is less obvious, to me at least, is (1) that the climate is changing mainly due to human activity, and (2) that the very people who complain about climate change are prepared, and willing, to take action --- would you give up listening to your CDs? (I do trust you're fully aware that buying or listening to CDs involves aiding and abetting anti-environmentalist processes)

(And no, I don't recall you offending me.)

You can bet on it on the future as well.

[71 dB]

There is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you. That you consent to it or not is irrelevant --- just don't call it free, because it's emphatically not.

Rather than saying "free" one can say "free at the point of entry." You paid your taxes so the doctor you see won't ask you for money.

[71 dB]

Call it as you wish, it doesn't make it "free". The doctor you see won't ask for your money, still it's your money alright out of which he is paid.

And so it should be. What's the problem?

[71 dB]

The only problem is that you call it "free healthcare". It's emphatically not "free".

I don't think I do. I call it single payer healthcare.

Biden Defends Private Insurance Sharks In Worst Strategy Ever

https://www.youtube.com/v/j7W18fY9YdQ

[71 dB]

Call it what you wish. It's not free and it doesn't work as smoothly as you think it does. I have close relatives in the UK and according to what they told me just yesterday the system is seriously fucked up big time, meaning that one could easily die before being refered to a specialist.

Anecdotes. You find A LOT of horror story anecdotes of US healthcare system starting from the 30.000-45.000 people who die every year because they don't have access. You have problems in every country, because no system is perfect. UK's healthcare system is considered one of the best in the World.

_______________

Example of corporate media:

CNN Is Running Pro-Kamala Ads As 'News' Segments

https://www.youtube.com/v/e2d2j5XnxFg

[drogulus]

Call it what you wish. It's not free and it doesn't work as smoothly as you think it does. I have close relatives in the UK and according to what they told me just yesterday the system is seriously fucked up big time, meaning that one could easily die before being refered to a specialist.

     I don't want free lunches, I want good lunches that cost enough to benefit the economy as a whole. The payments are part of the benefits.

There is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you.

     You pay taxes on money the government spent. If it wasn't spent, you wouldn't have it. Government "pay fors" add to private wealth, some of which is taxed back so there won't be too much of it. I like this, not just that it happens but that I know what's in my interest.

     Seriously now, how does money get to be "other peoples" unless the government spends it first? Do you pay taxes on money that don't exist? Whoa, that's.....UNAMERICAN!!

[71 dB]

--- the government doesn't create a single dime, they only spend it

So are you saying the government spending tax payer money on schools doesn't make any profit for the society in the long run? If so, why exactly do we have schools? Why do governments direct money on scientific research work if it never creates a single dime and is only spending?

[North Star]

Substitute Rightist for Communist and I subscribe as well: I am no friend to dictatorships --- yet I frankly admit to an openly anti-Communist bias, see below.

I don't know anything about Somoza, Sandinistas or Contras --- but in the context of Tsarist Russia / Bolshevik Revolution I side with Rachmaninoff and Medtner and Solzhenitsyn not because of ideology but because my own, personal, direct experience aligns with theirs.

I do agree that what works well for a given country might spell disaster for another.

I think social equality is a chimera --- in the context of our discussion, Daniel Ortega never was, and continues not to be, socially equal with a Nicaraguan peasant.

I think pacifism is utopian. Or, to put in better terms, the most outstanding pacifist ever was Stalin --- he willingly dismantled a whole army, only it was the Polish army, not the Russian --- ie, Katyn.

There is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you. That you consent to it or not is irrelevant --- just don't call it free, because it's emphatically not.

Environmentalism --- that the climate is changing right now it's obvious; that something should be done about it, it's also obvious. What is less obvious, to me at least, is (1) that the climate is changing mainly due to human activity, and (2) that the very people who complain about climate change are prepared, and willing, to take action --- would you give up listening to your CDs? (I do trust you're fully aware that buying or listening to CDs involves aiding and abetting anti-environmentalist processes)

You can bet on it on the future as well.

I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but lost it...oh well, in short:

I obviously agree that terrible things happened in French, Russian etc revolutions, and things didn't necessarily always improve in general either, until maybe after a long time. Social equality in the sense that everyone should have good chances to moving forward and doing what they want with their life. I don't think anyone thinks everyone should be president.. But for anyone to be able to get an education and work in your chosen field, again, since I apparently need to point out the bleeding obvious, I don't suggest that everyone should be able to be a center in a Stanley Cup winning hockey team, but that people's abilities and interest should determine what they become, not their gender, skin colour, family name or wealth. And I'm not suggesting that e.g. Finland should abolish its army or sell its weapons, but that avoiding armed conflict is always preferable. Sometimes having an army is needed for that, too, although it rarely includes deployment. And I'm sure you know we all know nothing is really free, and that what I meant was that education and healthcare should be largely paid by government with tax money. As for climate change, here's a brief summary of the causes of climate change. Deforestation, farming, man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the past 100 years or so seem to be the obvious cause. And about slowing down climate change, stopping to buy CDs surely helps a teeny weeny bit, but switching from air travel to trains, from cars to buses and bikes, from beef to chicken and to beans and lentils, from coal to nuclear and solar and wind, and using triple or at least double glazing in windows, more insulation, and so on, are surely more effective measures.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

[drogulus]

You, good sir, are a liar! Liar, I tellya! Liar, liar, liar!
I pay taxes on money I created with my own work. The government may very well spend any amount of money they want --- the government doesn't create a single dime, they only spend it

     I get paid with U.S. dollars created by the monopoly manufacturer, the U.S. government. Nobody wants "my" money. They want dollars, too.

     About "only" spending, that's how it's done. That's how the government has produced all of those dollars it hasn't taxed back, the national savings that's also the national debt. It spent them. They exist because they weren't taxed back. They became "our" money. Other countries do likewise.

[71 dB]

Do you imply that the US government can manufacture just as many dollars as it wants?

Of course it can (the US has it's own currency), but there is a consequence to that: Inflation.

[drogulus]

Do you imply that the US government can manufacture just as many dollars as it wants?

   

      Of course it can. It wouldn't be much of an accusation that the big fat government spends whatever it wants into our pockets if it wasn't a fact, too. It is. The practical limit is the availability of resources to spend money on. If that is exceeded high inflation results. But yes, there is no "largest number in arithmetic" nominal limit. That's a Bizarro World concept.