I suspect most would wish they had when the bill for US and Americas both living far beyond their means comes due. I.e. when China does not need to sell to the US and does not finance US debt and dollar collapses and deep long lasting depression returns - far worse than the 1929 one. For the first time, I think, China's domestic retail sales are now growing faster than it exports (17.7% vs 17.5% increase) and exports growth dropped from 24.5% to only 17.5% (September vs August 2011). In only a few years, China will trade mainly with the suppliers of the raw materials, food stocks and energy it needs (like Brazil and Canada) plus it Asian neighbors. None of these will need loans to buy as the US and EU do. The Asians will (already are) earn Yuan by selling to China the lower value added components (like simple fans, rubber & plastic products*, electrical components, etc.) it builds into the high value added products China now makes (Cars, electronic devices, drugs, high-speed trains, etc.) and sells to the world. Brazil now buys more cars from China than the US and China is its main trading partner. Same true of Australia. China now gets 1/3 of it oil from Africa and African / Chinese trade topped 100 billion in 2010 and is fast growing too. (China mainly pays for the wealth it takes from Africa, by building infrastructure there - Schools, Hospitals, power plants, roads, new mines, railroads, etc.) China and India have agreed to cease using dollars and balance their mutual trade instead (at 100 billion dollars equivalent per year). * Simple things like the rubber in car's windshield wipers or rubber hoses of the car - labor cost are too high in China now to make instead of import these simple low valued manufactured items China needs and rising at >10% /year IN REAL, purchasing power terms - why the domestic retail sales now growing faster than exports. SUMMARY: Ron Paul or not - the typical kid born in the USA now will die very poor. The "middle class," already decreasing, will just be a memory when he dies. Only grains from the fertile mid west, and coal will be American's globaly competitive products and provide jobs for less than 5% of the population. US is training / educating too few in the "hard sciences" compared to Asia. US has already lost technology of making products to Asian. Cannot even make the first generation of flat screen display. They are making generation 5 or 6 now. etc. but Corning does still make the thin (light weight) "gorilla glass" for the small devices that may be dropped. Probably in a few years, they will move their technology to China, where the market is, as many others have already done.
Joe, you live in la la land. You desperately want to believe the good guys wear White hats and the bad guys are GOP. It makes life simple and easy to understand. THAT only exists in la la land. Over here in the real world there's no such thing as White and Black. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists House = 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (1D) Senate = 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 2 not Voting (2R) On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of the Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act also known as the USA PATRIOT Act. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 20026 ( Democrats: 86-179. Republicans: 164-3. Here's the "Justice" Departments' memo on why Obama has the right to use "Limited" Armed forces in Libya. Their argument is, we're so overwhelmingly powerful who'd call it a war? Lastly, Obama ordered the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki who was an American Citizen. It was so f*cking easy to find this Jihadi douche I think they had him dead in less the a fortnight. Obama's a Democrat Joe. Prove it. Ron Paul wrote a number of books predicted the shit we're in. Has Obama written any books? You, what have you done? ANYTHING? Where are your books? Why aren't you running for office if you think you have the answers? You're voting for Obama because the media told you he wears a White hat. That makes you feel good. That's it. The truth is, until 4 years ago no one had even heard of Obama. Obama has gone from zero to hero because the banking elite bankrolls his campaign and he's paying them back in spades. He has nearly ZERO economic prowess and has hired MORE douche's bags from GoldmanSux than any other POTUS in our history. So, go ahead and vote for statuesque. That's your right. But don't expect anything to change and don't whine when it doesn't.
A List of Goldman Sachs People in the Obama Government: Names Attached to the Giant Squid’s Tentacles That list is so f*cking long we should say the GoldmanSux Administration. Now, are you going to wisen up Joe? Or are you going keep your head buried in the sand? :shrug:
Ron Paul's bibliography Here's a few recent books: Ron Paul. (2007). A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship. Lake Jackson, TX: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. ISBN 0912453001. OCLC 145174995. Ron Paul. (2008). The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446537519. OCLC 191881970. Ron Paul. (2009). End the Fed. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446549196. OCLC 318878539. Ron Paul. (2011). Liberty Defined. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 9781455501458. OCLC 668192339. Obama Wrote: 2008; Obama, Barack. Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Times Books, 1995. Reprint 2004; Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006. Obama's books are stuffed full of Hope and Change, but that's it. Nothing else. There's absolutely NOTHING intellectually of substance in his writings. There's a problem with America's Economic Future that's for sure. Giving the reigns over to GoldmanSux isn't going to FIX the US. The first step is to try and pull people's collective heads out of their arses. Then we need to remove most of this governmental bullshit that's wasting our money including war bases all around the world. Don't you want to do that? Isn't it about time we pull out of Japan? Germany? Jesus H Christ. I know someone who recently got a job at the FDA. He had a PhD student, ran her life into the ground, burned through $750 thousands in grant funding, didn't publish one thing. Spent all his time flipping houses and investing in his new grand scheme of building a huge rental property to shove 4 Indians per room into for rent. He's now working at the FDA because it gives him the money (over $100K) and the free time to work on his housing projects. The government is filled with people like him. People go to work in the government BECAUSE they can't make it in the real world. Anyway, if you think Obama and his Goldie friends are the way to lead the USA into the future, if you think things in the USA have progressively gotten better over the last 30 years. Vote for Obama or Kerry or Mitt or whomever you like. If you want REAL change, then vote Ron Paul.
No Michael that is you creating a straw man. I will grant you I am very angry and disturbed by the American right. But that does not translate into a blanket endorsement of the American left or the Democratic Party. Is there a point in there anywhere? If it were so easy, why was the previous Republican administration unable to do it for the 8 years they controlled government? Yes Obama is a Democrat, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Before you start projecting Michael it is best to look at yourself. And I am really not getting you comments about writting books or how that might be in the least bit relevant. I am not running for office, because I don't want to run for office. It is that simple. I don't tolerate fools very well. As for hats, I have never seen Obama wear a hat and frankly don't care about the color of his hat. What I do care about with respect to Obama is what he is selling the American people and is that better or worse than what the Republicans are selling. And the answer has been and remains yes. In American politics we have a system in which we the voter gets to choose from one of two choices. And that decision making often comes down to choosing the least damaging candidate or the lesser of two evils. Your hat analogy is just two simple, it is an over simplification - something those on the right are all too good at. Got any proof of claims? You still have not proven the last set of claims Michael. Obama won because he was not the establishment candidate. Clinton was the establishment candidate and the candidate of Wall Street, not Obama. Obama got most of his money through the internet and small donors. Obama took no corporate PAC money last election. And if Obama is so friendly to the banking elites, why is it those elites fought tooth and nail to prevent the passage of Dodds-Frank. And why is it those very elites through their representatives in congress (the Republican Party) fight Dodds-Frank and Obama's nominee for the consumer enforcement agency it created to protect US consumers from abuse by the banking elites? Now here is a news flash for you Michael. You can agree and support someone even if you don't agree with them 100 percent. There are some things on which I disagree and somethings for which I agree with Obama. Above all I am a rationalist. If you can make a rational arguement for your case, I will likely support it. But here is the thing, you and those like you have not been able to make that case - nor has Ron Paul. Here is the reality Michael. Reality is that there is a bureacracy back in Washington and you need people in government that know how to get things done. And just because you don't like them does not mean they are not needed. Two, Paul represents disaster. So if you like disaster, Paul is your man. If you really want change in Washington and if you really want to recover your government, then you need to remove the special interest money from our political system. And any thing less is just peeing in the wind. Ask yourself why is it that no one either on the Democrat side or the Republican side calling for that kind of change? That is real change Michael. And it scares the shit out of "the banking elite" and all the other power brokers in Washington.
Yeah, I think Tiassa summed it up nicely, once upon a time. If you disagree with me, you must be one of them.
You asked for proof of Democrat warmongering and I provided it :shrug: Again, proof of Democratic Warmongering. In this instanced murdering a jerkoff nobody who was a US CITIZEN who wrote bullshit on Facebook and Twitter :bugeye: I'm sure there are other more legal ways than Obama calling in a hit. I find it personally revolting. I'll taking my chances with Alwazeri whatshitface thank you. You asked for evidence Paul knows something about how the monetary system works. Other than having written on it for 4 decades, including these recent books, and sitting on the subcommittee that overseas the Fed, what else do you want. A Nobel prize (talk about a joke). Try Libertarian Joe, you might like it. Paul's a Libertarian and he is very different than those Douche bag GOP he shares the stage with. I posted the link above. When does Dodds-Frank take effect? No he doesn't. No one can know what will happen. He represents CHANGE. That scares people. Even if it's just a return to the way a few things were, people still shit their pants :shrug: He may well do that too.
See, this is what most people in America don't get. Things ARE going to get worse and because we're not acting now, when the whole economy crashes, it'll be much much further than it could have been. I'd argue, it'll be so bad, the only solution will be the draft. Want to see how the story ends? Go to Detroit MI.
A few reports came out last week. One showing Obama got WAY MORE money from WallStreet than McCain. Securities & Investment Still Voting Obama Joe? Click on ANY of the Banks to see who got how much. Here's the page with GoldmanSux contribution to Obama. MILLIONS! You know whose name I don't see on the list? Take a fucking guess. Who is the ONLY candidate who isn't selling out to the Banks Joe? Who do you think? YOU were just talking about fiance reform. Well guess what, Paul didn't get millions from GoldmanSux and BJ Morgan. Obama DID. How long are you going to keep eating the shit they're feeding you? Until your kids have to fight some war somewhere? Is that what you want? Time to vote for REAL Change Joe. It's time to vote Paul.
GO on ahead and type in the name Obama and take a look and then type in Paul. From 1989 - 2010 Paul received just under $18 million. From 1999 - 2011 Obama received just over $400 million. Getting the picture yet Joe? If not go back and click on GoldmanSux and see Obama's name AT THE TOP OF THE LIST. Paul isn't even on the list. They've NEVER donated to him. Getting it??? Hello, Earth to Joe, come in Joe.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And neither did Obama take money from those corporations. Just because you can find a whacko web site to make the claim, it does not make the whacko claim true. As previously pointed out to you, Obama did not take PAC money in 2008. He did accept donations from individuals. And some of those individuals worked for Wall Street banks and for many if not all of the corporations listed on the stock exchanges. That is not the same as taking money from those corporations. He took it from their employees who freely donated it to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Fundraising Nobody is feeding me anything Michael. If you can make a rational case for your candidate, I am all ears. But here is the rub, you cannot. In order to buy what you are selling you have to believe some pretty bizzare stuff that is not grounded in reality. And that is why Paul will never go anywhere. The Koch brothers who are big funders of the Libertarian movement don't support Paul. There man is Cain, a man who will play ball with them. I believe Paul is sincere. It's just that he is a bit whacko. Like I said, if you want real reform you we need to reform campaign finance. We need to take special interest money out of our political system. A vote for Paul at best is a protest vote; at worst it is a vote for a failed political and economic philosophy.
Joe, you're like a Political version of a Theobot. YOU asked for evidence and I provided YOU with EVIDENCE. Now you're attacking the website? :bugeye: Try Again Joe. The evidence is the evidence. It doesn't matter who provides it. From all I can see that site is non-Partisan and just collects the data. It shows Obama got 0% PAC money. So what? You want to know how much PAC money Bush Jr received? Guess how much Joe. A whooping 2%. Yeah, that's right, just like Obama, most of Bush Jr's money came from "Individuals". It's called being on the take. What now? Are going to suggest Bush Jr wasn't on the take? Is that how far your willing to cut your nose to spite your face??? Pull your head in! Obama got over a million dollars from GoldmanSux and millions more from related Wallsteet Banksters. It's a FACT (I know you love that) that Obama received WAY MORE money from WallStreet and their corporate SugerDaddies than McCain and even more than Bush Jr. That's a FACT. You're always hollering: "Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it""Prove it" Now you have PROOF. Only a Theobot can stare proof in the face and deny it. Why? I have no idea, but, some people seem to roll that way I guess *shurg* Better living in la la land than admit they were suckered and live the real world. I mean my God Joe, why are you so enamored with Obama? He's a f*cking politician just like all of them. Get over it. You have a big fat fetish style stalker crush on Obama don't you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Those big strong chocolate arms... holding you tight, keeping you safe from the OWS protesters Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wake up Joe, time for real Change, Vote Ron Paul!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Seriously Joe, take a look at the data, the evidence, stop thinking Obama is baby Jesus incarnate and if need be go to your local downtown shit hole. You know, where all the white trash and black live. It's not working. We need real change. Paul is the ONLY person in the USA who is going to bring that change. But, even if he isn't elected, change is coming. Wouldn't you rather have a custodian like Paul ushering it in logically and sensible? We're not paying back the debt. The banks are going to fail. We've had enough. Soon Americans will start using alternative currency and *shock* find it works perfectly fine if not better. The End Is Nigh :itold: Of the Fed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Firstly, having debated in the religious subforum, the case is not going to be made over a few posts. Secondly, you really need to ask yourself how long you think things have been getting progressively worse? 3 years? 10? 30? 50? 80? Were things really any different under Clinton? Did NAFTA gut the auto-industry? Does that even matter? Thirdly, economics is a psychology. It's not a hard science and it can not make predictions as we can in hard science. So, the word "evidence" is used differently than as we use it in, say, Chemistry. "Proof". Only math can do "proofs". What we're really dealing with is changing the psychology of a nation. Simply put, the way people see their relationship with themselves, one another and the government. You think that the case is going to be made over a couple posts? I don't. Lastly, Paul's ideas are not "bizarre". Think of it like this: I'm sure it must seem "Bizarre" to North Koreans to live in a world where you can refer to your leader as a douche. How Bizarre is THAT??? Or in an Islamic country where you could deny God exists and call Mohammad a Meme and suggest he never existed. How utterly Bizarre that must seem to them. Yeah, for a lot of Americans, things Paul suggests seem foreign and bizarre. Yet, a generation ago, they were normal. Now THAT is what's really bizarre. See above. Suggesting Jesus never existed is probably a bit whacko, yet, he didn't. Also, Paul isn't supported by the Koch brothers because they don't support Capitalism. They support Crony Capitalism. Take a look at how much money Obama took from GoldmanSux and other Bankster's "Individual" donations (100s of millions) and then at Paul's. See, the problem actually is people are unwilling to see they were/are being duped.
You claimed Obama was the pocket of Wall Street bankers. Now by your own admission, he didnt' take any corporate money in the last election cycle. And you have not been able to show any special favors Obama provided to said bankers. I pointed out to you that Dodds-Frank a Democratic piece of legislation signed into law by Obama puts severe restrictions on the banking industry. And bankers fought the legislation and Obama's appointees tooth and nail through their Republican representatives in Washington. And Paul happens to be a Republican and is running on the Republican ticket for POTUS. I have asked repeatedly for a rational arguement in support of your positions and you have failed to produce that arguement. Instead, you have offered ad hominem and straw man arguements. And I will repeat myself yet again, just because one does not agree with you it does not follow that they are enamoured or acting irrrationally. You have not proven your case that Obama was purchased by Wall Steet bankers. Paul is a throw back to an era that didn't work. So while Paul has a cult like following, his movement will never go very far as long as we have a free press and voters are somewhat educated. Paul appeals to the protest voters. But protest votes just don't work very well with our system of voting.
I suspect that (Detroit) is how the story STARTS, then a Greek like period of controlled chaos, but the end is / comes with / food riots, looting, burning buildings (sort of like Watts but on a national scale) and finally Marshal law with the Constitution suspended.
Joe, some questions. 1) GW Bush Jr. only took 2% in PAC moneys. Therefor, according to you, he's no different than Obama. Is that correct? 2) When the Koch brothers give "Individual" donations, this is, according to you, untainted money. No influence peddling there. Is that correct? Because if you agree that this is the case, then no I can not convince you that the MILLIONS of dollars Obama got in individual "Donations" from "Employee's" at GoldmanSux is influence peddling. Apparently you live in La La land where when rich powerful bankers give money directly to Obama it has no effect on his actions. 3) Do you agree that Obama took more money from WallStreet than John McCain? Please see the Stats before answering. 4) Your use of the word throwback is meaningless emotional driven drivel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 5) Does Dodd–Frank Act make it so that NO BANKS ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL? Does it Joe? I don't think it does. As a matter of fact, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — also known as the "top Wall Street lobby" in Washington — has expressed TOTAL support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it. Want to know why Joe? Why do you think that's be the case. You said the Banks were shaking in their boots. Well, here's evidence that is not the case. Exactly the opposite. They LOVE this Act. So, the evidence is that they did NOT fight tooth and nail as you say, but fully support it. Just ask yourself: Are the TOO BIG TOO FAIL BANKS STILL TOO BIG TO FAIL? Come on Joe. I know you can figure this one out. 6) There's no convincing Theobots. It's just not possible. I've provided you with the evidence. You just refuse to accept it. Just like a Theobot. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lets just wait and see. Remember, the first time I said that, there were no OWS protester. Now they're all over the world. Greece is on the verge of collapsing and get this WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY BACK THE DEBT. We'll use alternative currency. Whatever it takes. This will happen. They are not getting their blood money. I predict those OWS protesters are going to start killing bankers as the economy REALLY goes into the shitters, then we'll some real shit hitting the fan. 7) Lastly, Ron Paul is not the one who's a throw back to an era that didn't work. You are. The FED is a throwback to the early 1900s. Get this, it's corrupt and it didn't work Joe. LQQk out your window. Does it look like things are working?
How this chapter starts anyhow. Three curses: May you live in interesting times May you come to the attention of powerful people May your wishes be granted Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What do you think when you see Obama got the most money, by far, from "individual" donations of employees *cough* Lloyd Blankfein *cough*. Wouldn't you consider this influence peddling? Joe seems to think that the FACT the Obama got WAY more money from Wallstreet when compared to anyone else in the race and is now their Bitch is just a coincidence. That Paul didn't get any "individual" donations of employees of GoldmanSux, and is independent and a critic of the FED and the banks, that's also just a coincidence. Your thoughts?
No. I have do idea what makes you think such a thing. No again, you are mixing and matching and over simplifying the issues. Individual contributions to a presidential candidate, which are limited by law, are very different from contributions to other campaign organizations like 527's and the many other political organizations created by people like the Koch brothers. And if you had been paying attention Michael you would know that I am opposed to the current system of campaign finance. I think campaigns for public office should be funded only from public coffers not private pockets as is currently the case. In any case, you claims that Obama has been bought out by Wall Street is just not borne out by the facts. His public actions and policy have been anything but bank friendly. Obama and McCain both took money from employees of Wall Street firms. Is there a point here somewhere? Do you have any proof of wrong doing by either Obama or McCain? LOL, no it is fact. What Paul is advocating - we have been there and done that. It didn't work. That is why we are not doing it now. And that is why you don't find a lot of educated folks backing Paul. You don't think. Well you are going to have to do better than that. Because Frank-Dodds does prevent "too big to fail" and it does provide a mechanism of dismantling large banks (Tittle II). And the evidence is they did fight tooth and nail to oppose Dodds-Frank. If you had been paying attention you would know that banks have been fighting Dodds-Frank. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/the-billion-dollar-bank-heist.html “Passing this bill was no easy task,” Obama told the 400 dignitaries who witnessed the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression. “We had to overcome the furious lobbying of an array of powerful interest groups and a partisan minority determined to block change.” The pomp and ceremony may have been premature. Ever since the law’s passage, those same “powerful interest groups” who opposed Dodd-Frank have been trying to prevent it from taking effect. “Just because we lost that round,” says Cam Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, which spent $1 million in the first three months of this year to lobby against implementation, “doesn’t mean we just give up. - Daily Beast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act It is pretty obvious Michael you have not done much research here, you are just repeating stuff you have heard from right wing sources. Well you are right there, there really is no convincing the emotionally attached. But unfortunately that is you Michael. It is like trying to convince a Christian to become a Muslim or a Muslim to become a Christian. It just doesn't happen very often. I am not sure what the OWS protestors have to do with this discussion. But they are definately not Paul people or right wing Tea Party folks either. And they do have some very legitimate issues. I support them and hope that they can bring about some meaningful change - make the system more competitive and provide more opportunity. I am not sure what Greece has to with this conversation. But yes, I think it is likely that it will default on a portion of it's debt. Current discussion is about a 50 percent haircut on Greek debt. I don't think the OWS people are going to start killing anyone. The movement has been entirely peaceful and that is a good thing. And I don't think the economy is going into the shitters. I see no evidence of same, though I can envision a situation in which that could occur (e.g. right wing control of government). Ah Michael, try to detach yourself from your political theology for a moment. The Fed has been around for almost a century. And contrary to your assertions, the Federal Reserve has been quite successful. The facts are Michael that economic depressions and recessions have become less frequent and less severe under the Federal Reserve and other Keynesian economic tools than it was before those tools were implemented. Paul is advocating we go backward to a time when economic recessions and depressions were both more frequent and more severe. In the minds of most people that is not progress. And that is why Paul will continue to appeal to minor cult following who refuse to recognize reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States "The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). See Post-World War II economic expansion for further discussion." - Wikipedia So you see Michael, I prefer reputable sources of information. I don't believe every blog or web site pretending to have some special knowledge which is unknown to most. I don't believe in irrational conspiracies - call it a personality defect. The bottom line here is Paul and his devotees are advocating policies that are a throw back to an era where recessions and depressions were both more frequent and more severe. Facts are facts Michael, and they just do not support your contentions.
I am not going to step in between your & Joe's cross fire but will say it is well done - a model for others with facts, references, and essentially no name calling. I will however add: Keynesian economics, the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid) works until it doesn't, as is now the case. Some will say that is because the government intervention was not enough. Others will say it has made the problem worse - will destroy the dollar etc. I think both are correct. Whether or not even stronger Keynesian efforts would have worked or only destroyed the dollar quicker, I don't know.
