How has the Democratic party fallen that it went from the economic policies of FDR and Truman

[brentspeak]

all the way down to the economic policies of the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

The party went from champions of the people to champions of the banksters.

[Oregone]

1. Uh...what does FDR stand for? Is that a Facebook thing?

Maybe the Halo sequel?

I don't fuckn care. Obama looks hunky in a tux, and oh damn, that Clinton dude can blow a sax

[CBR]

2. Champions of Japanese-Americans!!!! All the way! nt

[Captain Hilts]

3. Too much FDR-Truman created prosperity killed progressivism. nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

5. Computers were invented since the policies of FDR

They sorta changed things.

Ya know?

Policies had to change after that.

Ya know?

Longing for some golden age that never existed is a favorite trick of rightwingers, not progressives. Progressives like to, you know, progress.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. FDR/Truman "prosperity" was bought on the backs of

women (free labor), minorities (super cheap labor), and the so-called "developing" world (free and cheap labor, and cheap resources). Even under the post-war settlement, and even under high top-marginal taxation, the exploitation of labor continued unabated. It's a shock that it would appear as a "Golden Age" of policy to somebody who proclaims some kind of labor line non-stop on this board. The whole notion of the so-called middle class under capitalism is a myth. During the post-war years, it was a myth sustained by massive exploitation of women and minorities, together with residual imperialism. As those groups of exploited workers rose up against that exploitation (feminism, the civil rights movement, decolonization and Third Worldism), it shifted again, this time as a myth sustained by ridiculous credit policies, and laughably justified by recourse to "technological innovation." The middle class is an exploiter class.

[ProSense]

8. Some of the same people romanticizing FDR to lambaste Obama would no doubt

have called FDR a fascist for everything from the FDIC to internment.

In a controversial move, Roosevelt gave Executive Order 6102 which made all privately held gold of American citizens property of the US Treasury. This gold confiscation by executive order was argued to be unconstitutional, but Roosevelt's executive order asserts authority to do so based on the "War Time Powers Act" of 1917. Gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until President Ford rescinded the order in 1974.<51><52><53><54>

Roosevelt tried to keep his campaign promise by cutting the regular federal budget, including 40% cuts to veterans' benefits and cuts in overall military spending. He removed 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension rolls and slashed benefits for the remainder. Protests erupted, led by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Roosevelt held his ground, but when the angry veterans formed a coalition with Senator Huey Long and passed a huge bonus bill over his veto, he was defeated. He succeeded in cutting federal salaries and the military and naval budgets. He reduced spending on research and education.

link

Every President has issues to deal with related to the times.

[avaistheone1]

36. My family like many American families would not have been able to eat had it not been for FDR.

The notion of romanticizing FDR is pure nonsense.

[ProSense]

37. "The notion of romanticizing FDR is pure nonsense." Really?

There are people equally grateful (in this time) that Barack Obama is the President. As for FDR, internment was real.

[avaistheone1]

41. I am very grateful for FDR. I would not be here without him.

Internment was real. It was wrong. Nonetheless FDR was a giant and he can not be discounted by one error in judgment.
The proof was at the voting polls. The American people loved FDR and returned him to the presidency for an historic four times. By 1936 Roosevelt took the black vote from the republican party of Lincoln for the first time on record Democrats captured 75% of the black vote due to FDR's New Deal programs.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. That was the situation in the 1930's, not in 2010

Conditions were so terrible and there was so much political unrest that the United States could've easily followed Europe and fallen to dictatorship. The New Deal was an incredibly temperate approach to the situation given the circumstances. FDR wasn't great for his expansion of government but for his restraint. He could've easily said fuck the constitution and fuck democracy and made himself a king. But he chose not to.

The conditions are not even close to where they were in the 1930's. There is not a chance in hell that Obama could crown himself and get away with it. If they were I guarantee you we would AT LEAST see an expansion of government on the level of the New Deal, if not even more because Obama, for all we know, might actually like the idea of being king.

[brentspeak]

11. The, uh, what???

"Women (free labor)"

Rosie the Riveters earned $50/week during WWII, only $6 less than men.

"minorities (super cheap labor)"

Minorities had trouble getting work anywhere until the 1970's. Kind of hard to serve as "super cheap labor" when one is unemployed.

"the so-called "developing" world (free and cheap labor, and cheap resources)"

:wow:

Uh...that's the situation today. There's a thing happening today called "globalization". It did not exist during FDR and Truman's time. American products were made by American labor using American resources.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Your most clueless post yet

By the free labor of women, I am referring to, of course, the forced gender roles which pushed women back into the household, where they provided the free labor of childcare and other forms of affective labor (notably, elder care). If you think "Rosie the Riveter" was still shouting "We Can Do it!" after demobilization, you had best brush up on your history. The whole of second wave feminism was concerned with this specific problem when it turned to the question of labor: the labor of women in the home essentially distorted the exploitation of labor in the workplace by introducing massive free labor into the equation. That's why when feminism succeeds in taking some power back and breaking the forced free labor of the home, you have the appearance (the mere appearance, as Marx says) of massive increases in child, elder, and health care costs. These were always expensive propositions, but their expense was masked by the fact that women were essentially working for free. Now that you've been updated on basic left/feminist activism up to 1965 or so, I suggest you pick up a book and stop pretending that you know shit because you saw a poster in the Smithsonian or some shit. Rosie the Riveter indeed!

Imperialism was a major factor in the distortion of labor costs throughout the 20th century. I mean, are you kidding me? Please refer to your copy of Lenin. The whole of the American middle class under Truman was propped up by cheap labor and resources from the Third World. That's why the UAW was a brutal supporter of Third World exploitation, as has been thoroughly documented. The decolonization movements of 1930-1970 certainly led to the particular character of capitalist globalization, but let's not pretend that globalization is some kind of new phenomenon.

[ClarkUSA]

7. "champions of the people"?? The "economic policies of FDR and Truman" favored whites only.

FDR and Truman were "champions of the people"?? :wtf:

Yeah, let's hear it for FDR's Japanese-American concentration camps!

How about a cheer and a shout-out for Truman's H-bombs that incinerated and killed over 200,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

:puke:

[brentspeak]

13. "concentration camps"

They were internment camps, not "concentration camps". They sucked, but even the detainees never described the conditions as "concentration camps".

As for the H-bombs -- my OP specifically concerned economic policies, not military actions.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEPC">FDR and Truman, while far from perfect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Committee_on_Civil_Rights">advanced minority rights a hell of lot more than any DLCer would have timidly done so had they been serving as President back then. And considering how easily Obama could revoke DADT today but won't, it's safe to say that if he were white and President back then, he'd likely be justifying Jim Crow laws in order not to rock his centrist political boat.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Stop putting lipstick on a pig. FDR and Truman's economic policies favored whites only.

I am dealing with historical facts. Spare me your fantasy hypotheticals.

[Enthusiast]

15. That's kind of the way

things were done back then, right or wrong. Historical fact. No one could have changed it overnight even if they had tried.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. And marriage is between a man and a woman, that's how it is done these days

Nobody can change it if they try.

[avaistheone1]

38. Actually there was high black employment in the New Deal’s WPA program and federal funds

were poured into black schools and hospitals. Up until the New Deal blacks had been loyal to the republican party, the party of Lincoln. Approximately 75 percent of black voters in 1936 supported the Democrats, because FDR's programs gave blacks some relief from the the Depression.

[tranche]

29. "internment camps" to you just "sucked"?

Sorry buddy, we're never going to go back to a country that's all white, that has a 1/3 of the population we do now, and where people believed that internment camps just "sucked".

[brentspeak]

33. So, are you saying that the camps didn't suck?

Tranche: "The Japanese internment camps didn't suck. Plus, anyone who admires FDR is a white supremacist Nazi."

[boppers]

35. Oh, yeah, being a black man in the south in the 50's was GREAT!

Aside from the whole "lynching" and "beating" and "segregation" things, FDR and Truman were *totally* great in advancing civil rights!

[olegramps]

43. I guess that you missed the fact that Truman integrated the Armed Forces.

[boppers]

52. It wasn't like he waved a magic wand.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

I like to post that link to remind people that Truman didn't just sign a paper and change everything, this was a multi-year slog that required the military to effectively undergo a massive cultural change.

[olegramps]

61. So that is supposed to alter the facts that he ordered the change.

Some people have a little problem with admitting that they just aren't infallible.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. A good number of Roosevelt's economic policies were rooted in WWII...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[craigmatic]

17. Obama isn't as bad as Clinton. Clinton cut regulation. Obama at least is pushing

for a bill to check some of the banks' power. He's not FDR but he's a step in the right direction.

[depakid]

18. Comparisons of that sort have to be viewed in the context of the times

Hard to speculate what Clinton would have done with the knowledge gained from the failed policies that led to the financial meltdown.

Similarly, it's also difficult to place the Obama of 2009 into the political and policy climate of "reinventing government" and the now disgraced "third way."

[Enrique]

19. Clinton also vetoed some deregulation

a 1995 deregulation bill that many people blame for Enron, Clinton vetoed it but Congress overrode the veto. IIRC, Dodd, Lieberman and some other East Coast (i.e. Wall Street) dems voted to override it.

[ProSense]

20. The bill that triggered Enron was signed in 2000, not 1995. n/t

[depakid]

21. Both bills were a problem, though the 1995 legislation set the stage

For more details, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2207418

(Unfortunately, more than a few of the Republicrats responsible for this are still in office).

[ProSense]

22. "Shielded Accountants From Investor Lawsuits" Ridiculous. The bills that led to the crisis were

the 1999 repeal of Glass Steagall (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

[depakid]

24. So Enron's shenanigan's occurred only after 1999 and 2000? LOL

That assertion is lame on its face!

(Quite aside from betraying an utter lack of understanding of what the legislation did- and why many of us back in the day - including Clinton, were appalled by it).

[ProSense]

34. "That assertion is lame on its face!" Here's a clue

Enron's scandal, the companies activities between 1999 and 2001, was facilitated by the repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

Whitewing
The White-winged Dove is native to Texas, and was also the name of a special purpose entity used as financing vehicle by Enron.<30> In December 1997, with funding of $579 million provided by Enron and $500 million by an outside investor, Whitewing Associates L.P. was formed. Two years later, the entity's arrangement was changed so that it would no longer be consolidated with Enron and be counted on the company's balance sheet. Whitewing was used to purchase Enron assets, including stakes in power plants, pipelines, stocks, and other investments.<31> Between 1999 and 2001, Whitewing bought assets from Enron worth $2 billion, using Enron stock as collateral. Although the transactions were approved by the Enron board, the assets transfers were not true sales and should have been treated instead as loans.<32>

LJM and Raptors
Main article: LJM (Lea Jeffrey Michael)
In 1999 Fastow formulated two limited partnerships: LJM Cayman. L.P. (LJM1) and LJM2 Co-Investment L.P. (LJM2), for the purpose of buying Enron's poorly performing stocks and stakes to improve its financial statements. Each of the partnerships were created solely to serve as the outside equity investor needed for the special purpose entities that were being used by Enron. Fastow had to go before the board of directors to receive an exemption from Enron's code of ethics (since he was serving as CFO) in order to run the companies.<33> LJM 1 and 2 were funded with around $390 million of outside equity contributed by J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Credit Suisse First Boston, and Wachovia. Merrill Lynch, which marketed the equity, also contributed $22 million.<29>

Enron transferred to "Raptor I-IV", four LJM-related special purpose entities named after the velociraptors in Jurassic Park, more than "$1.2 billion in assets, including millions of shares of Enron common stock and long term rights to purchase millions more shares, plus $150 million of Enron notes payable."<34><35><36> The special purpose entities had been used to pay for all of this using the entities' debt instruments. The instruments' face amount totaled $1.5 billion, and the entities had been used to enter into derivative contracts with Enron for a notional amount of $2.1 billion.<35>

Enron capitalized the Raptors, and, in a similar matter to when a company issues stock at a public offering, then booked the notes payable issued as assets on its balance sheet and increased its shareholders' equity for the same amount.<37> This treatment later became an issue for Enron and its auditor Arthur Andersen as removing it from the balance sheet resulted in a $1.2 billion decrease in net shareholder equity.<38>

The derivative contracts of $2.1 billion did lose value. Enron had set up the swaps just as the stock prices had hit their high points. Over five fiscal quarters, the value of the portfolio under the swaps fell by $1.1 billion as the stock prices fell (the special purpose entities now owed Enron $1.1 billion under the contracts). Enron, using "fair value" accounting, was able to show a $500 million gain on the swap contracts in its 2000 annual report, which exactly offset its loss on the stock portfolio. This gain was attributed to one third of Enron's earnings for 2000 (before it was properly restated in 2001).<39>

link

The “Enron Loophole”
The section 2(h) “loophole”
The first provision of the CFMA to receive widespread popular attention was the “Enron Loophole.” In most accounts, this “loophole” was the CEA’s new section 2(h). Section 2(h) created two exemptions from the CEA for “exempt commodities” such as oil and other “energy” products.<71>

First, any transaction in exempt commodities between “eligible contract participants” (acting as “principals”) not executed on a “trading facility” was exempted from most CEA provisions (other than fraud and anti-manipulation provisions). Even the fraud provisions were excluded for transactions between “eligible commercial entities.” This exemption in Section 2(h)(1) of the CEA covered the “bilateral swaps market” for exempt commodities.<72>

Second, any transaction in exempt commodities executed on an “electronic trading facility” between “eligible commercial entities” (acting as principals) was also exempted from most CEA provisions (other than those dealing with fraud and manipulation). The “trading facility”, however, was required to file with the CFTC certain information and certifications and to provide trading and other information to the CFTC upon any “special call.” This exemption in Section 2(h)(3) of the CEA covered the “exempt commercial market” for “electronic trading facilities.”<73>

While the language of Section 2(h) was in H.R. 4541 as passed by the House, the portion of Section 2(h) dealing with the exempt commercial market had been deleted from S. 2697 when the Senate Agriculture Committee reported out an amended version of that bill. H.R. 4541 served as the basis for Titles I and II of the CFMA. The Senate Agriculture Committee’s removal of the Section 2(h) language from S. 2697, however, served as the basis for later Senate concern over the origins of Section 2(h).<74>

In 2008 Congress enacted into law over President Bush’s veto an Omnibus Farm Bill that contained the “Close the Enron Loophole Act.” This added to CEA Section 2(h) a new definition of “energy trading facility” and imposed on such facilities requirements applicable to fully regulated exchanges (i.e. “designated contract markets”) such as the NYMEX. The legislation did not change Section 2(h)’s exemption for the “bilateral swaps market” in energy commodities.<75>

The section 2(g) “loophole”
Section 2(g) of the CEA is also sometimes called the “Enron Loophole”. It is a broader exclusion from the CEA than the Section 2(h) exemption for the “bilateral swaps market” in exempt commodities. It excludes from even the fraud and manipulation provisions of the CEA any “individually negotiated” transaction in a non-agricultural commodity between “eligible contract participants” not executed on a “trading facility.” Thus, the exclusion from provisions of the CEA for “eligible contract participants” is broader than the Section 2(h)(1) exemption for “bilateral swaps” of energy commodities. The criteria for this exclusion, however, are narrower in requiring “individual negotiation.”<76>

This exclusion was not contained in either H.R. 4541 or S. 2697 as introduced in Congress. The House Banking and Financial Services Committee added this provision to the amended H.R. 4541 it reported to the House. That language was included in H.R. 4541 as passed by the House. Its final version was modified to conform to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act definition of “swap agreement.” That definition requires that the swap be “individually negotiated.” H.R. 4541 had required that each “material economic term” be individually negotiated.<77>

2002 Senate hearings indicated CEA Section 2(h)(3) was not the“Enron Loophole” used by EnronOnline. That facility was not required to qualify as an “electronic trading facility” under Section 2(h)(3) of the CEA because Enron Online was only used to enter into transactions with Enron affiliates. There were not “multiple participants” on both the buy and sell sides of the trades. Whether such Enron-only trades were covered by the Section 2(h)(1) “bilateral swaps market” exemption for energy products or the broader Section 2(g) exclusion for swaps generally depended whether there was “individual negotiation.”<78>

Credit default swaps
With the 2008 emergence of widespread concerns about credit default swaps, the CFMA’s treatment of those instruments has become controversial. Title I of the CFMA broadly excludes from the CEA financial derivatives, including specifically any index or measure tied to a “credit risk or measure.” In 2000, Title I’s exclusion of financial derivatives from the CEA was not controversial in Congress. Instead, it was widely hailed for bringing “legal certainty” to this “important market” permitting “the United States to retain its leadership in the financial markets”, as recommended by the PWG Report.<79>

link

[depakid]

39. Persistent- and persistently clueless

Do you even bother to read the posts and consider what they're saying prior to your mad copy & paste dashes?

:eyes:

[ProSense]

40. You said: " So Enron's shenanigan's occurred only after 1999 and 2000? LOL"

Based on the facts, you obviously have no clue.


You said: "Do you even bother to read the posts and consider what they're saying prior to your mad copy & paste dashes?"

Based on this response, it's obvious you also have no argument.

[depakid]

42. What I said was correct

and what I said previously- that both were a problem- but that the 1995 legislation set the stage for what followed, was also correct.

It's pretty clear to me that:

A. You either didn't live through or weren't cognizant during this time frame; and/or

B. You have no capability of understanding concepts nor analyzing the effects (intended and otherwise) of legislation.

As such, you'll forever be stuck with minutae- and whatever the talking points of the day are- without ever recognizing or grasping (much less ever believing in) any of the larger principles at work.

[ProSense]

44. What you said was nonsense.

The 1995 legislation had nothing to do with the repeal of Glass Steagall.

[dflprincess]

23. Instead of taking "a step" he should be pushing ot reinstate Glass Steagall

It's not like he's starting from scratch and no one knows what would work in this area.

[Captain Hilts]

26. Carter started de-regulation. He got the ball rolling. Phones. Airlines. nt

[pundaint]

54. Not as bad as Clinton is no recommendation, Obama did choose Pharmaceutical and Insurance profits

over public health. Then there was all that no-oversight on the bailout he continued. I see his economic cabinet as a group of problem causers and status quo entrenchers rather than believable changers.

[Beacool]

27. Only on the LW and RW boards is Clinton continually portrayed as a bad president.

We should be so lucky to be living in the Clinton era!!

:crazy:

[dionysus]

30. same with obama. the LWers call him a RWer, and the RWers call him a communist.

[Beacool]

50. Yes, you do have a point.

Then again, the same goes for Hillary. The left doesn't much like her and the right has called her every name in the book and then some.

Politics.......

:eyes:

[opihimoimoi]

28. NO NO NO..The DEM Party has NOT FALLEN...its vice versa, the DEM PARTY IS ON THE RISE

and its all good....Obama is doing things for the common good...fixing most of Bushies massive fuckups...and add health care, economy, and futureism to the list.

THE GOP has FAILED as a Party....

BULLIES have bad traits...the GOP exhibit them all...

[polichick]

31. It happened with deregulation and the handoff of resources to the wealthy...

Every president since Reagan is guilty as sin!

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. Yep.

And the DLC trolls up above who are bashing FDR have finally proven that they are no Democrats at all.

[Jennicut]

46. Actually, most Presidents have favored the wealthy elites in this country.

Very few have tried to take them on. And even fewer were successful.

[Jennicut]

45. Yeah, and the Dem party used to hate black people and ran over native americans like they were

nothing. Both parties have gone through numerous changes that fit the times they were in. It is called history. Look it up sometime. The Rethugs also used to have a guy named Teddy Roosevelt whom they would want nothing to do with today.

We got more conservative as a country starting in the 50's after the war, had a brief respite with Kennedy and Johnson (though Kennedy had many moderate ideas and Johnson got us into Vietnam). Then, we had a moderate Jimmy Carter, the Reagan Revolution and Clinton was what could get elected as a Dem in 1992. In a 3 way race, by the way. The country shifted rightward even more after 9/11...thus we have a moderate Obama. Sheesh.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. I do not see the opposition to equal rights for all as moderate

I see that as about as right wing as it gets, claiming that some people are sanctified by God and others are not, that is not moderate. It is extremely conservative, decidedly so.

[Jennicut]

49. I agree with you on that point.

On something like gay marriage, the younger you are the less religious you are likely to be. People under 30 are the most likely to be the least prejudiced though as a Gen Xer I would say we are slightly better then the baby boomers on that.

I would never tell anyone who is gay to just "suck it up" and vote for Obama. Clearly, he is shaped by his generation, by his religious influences on gay rights. He is also pandering to not lose the "middle". And I think he is gutless on this issue. Overall, he is considered a moderate, a centrist, etc. because that is where people on the political spectrum feel about gay rights fall. That is what is pretty sad.

One more thing that blows my mind: In 1991, adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority in polling for the first time. 1991! I think we can wait around for polling to catch up to gay rights or just act. Otherwise, it will be 40 years before the country will accept something like gay marriage. At least it is legal in CT, and no one freaked out.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, this realization of neo-liberalism threatens to gut our beloved democratic party.

The process began after Jimmy Carter's defeat in 1980.

Increasing numbers of American Citizens, out of profound frustration, will "drop out" of voting at all. Who can blame them when the entire system is rigged into one right wing duopoly?

To many, the only choices are "corporate" vs. "corporate with a few scraps for workers."


The process began during the dark days of Saint Ronnie. :scared:

The minority status of the Democratic Party was disguised by its lingering control of Congress (until 1994) and the fluke election (thanks to Ross Perot) of Bill Clinton. Social activists and progressives of various sorts remained the party's base, even as party leaders, embodied in the Democratic Leadership Council, sensing the limited electoral appeal of the progressive agenda, steadily drifted to the right. Their failure to rearticulate a compelling vision of social justice and democracy sealed the party's fate. Conservative attacks on 'big government,' and their promotion of 'deregulation' not only of much of the economy but of campaign financing, solidified the corruption of the political process. As early as the Carter years, conservatives captured the leadership of the Democratic as well as the Republican parties, and created the two-party, right-wing duopoly which now confronts us.

The right-wing duopoly is now virtually impervious to challenge, as the careers of figures as diverse as Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, and Denis Kucinich demonstrate. Kerry's right-wing campaign for president, echoing the exploitative domestic and aggressive foreign policies of Bush, confirms the end of meaningful political discourse in the United States. There are simply no remaining effective instruments of political action available to the restless masses, who are probably a majority of the country, and most of whom, as a result, no longer participate in the political process at all.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. You lost me at (thanks to Ross Perot)

Clinton was running double digits ahead of Bush until Perot got back into the race and it narrowed considerably afterward. Perot was to the left of Clinton on NAFTA and pro-choice. There is no possible way that Poppy would've won without Perot but right wingers like to pretend that he is the only reason for Clinton's victory to de-legitimize Clinton. Not really surprised to see that you enjoy repeating these right wing myths, though.

[gravity]

51. Obama is on the verge of passing Wall Street Reform

and he already passed health care reform.

I don't see the problem

[Dr.Phool]

53. Because they suck!

They are trying to compete with the repukes for corporate cash.

DLC, Blue Dogs, and "New Democrats".

They've got me ready to start calling them "the Democrat Party".

[Hippo_Tron]

56. FDR had an angry mob that would've thrown out the constitution and replaced it with a dictator

Save the UK, they were doing that pretty much everywhere in Europe. Obama has a pretty much complacent populace and the closest thing to an angry mob are the tea-baggers who, for some reason want even less government. This has nothing to do with FDR vs Obama and everything to do with the fact that the people are silent and so long as they remain silent, money is going to talk.

[mmonk]

59. m.o.n.e.y

[Dappleganger]

60. Follow the money.