her campaign harder? you know, people who don t have money, don t hate the 1 percenters, for reasons i don t understand. but, you know, roosevelt, bloomberg, all were millionaires, billion and millionaires. and i really don t think the fact that she has been a recent recipient of wealth has anything to do with where she would go in order to bring about some fairness and equity and justice to people, when you think of the disparity between incomes. as close as you are to the democratic base, i think you re whistling a little bit past a certain graveyard here, in that maybe it s not because she s got money, but when you talk to base democratic voters, there is a concern she s been too close to wall street, too cozy with wall street and that elizabeth warren has been tough. oh, vann. doesn t that open up a door? come on, you re one of the best politicians. look, i don t know how much money has as a result of his back, but he s not linenox aven
we re talking about here is what can we do to give a short-term stimulus to the economy? everybody knows the poor don t have as much money. they can t put it in the bank and leave it there. they go to wal-mart and spend. you can see this in the spending trends where the company like wal-mart see it on the first of the month when people are getting the checks. they go out and they re spending. people who don t have money spend all of it. if they spent all their money, they wouldn t be rich. david: but the bottom line is the overall economy better off as a result of the extending the bush tax rate cut? of course it is. you want decisions made on the economics, not politics. the more money in the private sector, that means that the economics is a determining factor in what happens to money whether it s spent, saved or invested. i think that s why president obama agreed all of a sudden he s for supply side economics. he realizes the big benefit. david: it s not just rich people buyin
to communicate a message, you have to pay for media, social media, radio and fell vision. you can t do it without that. money is free speech and there s one state supreme court said money is free speech. i don t think it s necessarily that s the problem. not necessarily poisonous. how else do you communicate a message to 300 million people but by buying media and a campaign staff on the ground? you can have all the wonderful volunteers in the world but without some kind of way to coordinate them which takes money, you can t run a campaign. do you think that that leaves people out of the process? people who don t have money? citizens united made it much easier for big money secret money. sources not identified always. like hillary clinton said if she were president she would support an amendment to get rid of citizens united. without the big money, you can t be as competitive.