Post by: The Rabbi on March 04, 2008, 05:30:39 PM
Guess that just wasn't what the country was looking for.
Quote
Only Texas Rep. Ron Paul remains but it's now impossible for him to become the nominee. He has not indicated when he will concede but his departure is inevitable.
Post by: nico on March 04, 2008, 05:37:29 PM
The thought that "the people" might actually want Obama, Clinton, or McCain doesn't really fill me with optimism.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 04, 2008, 05:39:09 PM
Post by: Finch on March 04, 2008, 05:41:17 PM
Guess that just wasn't what the country was looking for.
I guess not. Now had he been a rabid warmonger that supports invading countries that we don't need to and destroying our economy while pissing on the constitution, maybe he would have gotten more votes.
But atleast he kept his house seat which was also on the line.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125217.html
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 04, 2008, 05:45:02 PM
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 04, 2008, 05:54:49 PM
Have you seen the Obamaphiles?
At least Ron Paul supporters don't faint while he's speaking.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 04, 2008, 05:58:56 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 04, 2008, 06:04:43 PM
Speaking of raving nutter supporters...
Have you seen the Obamaphiles?
At least Ron Paul supporters don't faint while he's speaking.
I haven't seen any Obama supporters wearing wookie costumes yet. So I have to conclude that Obama's supporters, bad as they are, are still a cut above Paul's.Have you seen the Obamaphiles?
At least Ron Paul supporters don't faint while he's speaking.
Half of Paul's message was pretty good. Unfortunately, the other half, the stuff that really mattered to most voters, was downright abysmal. And that's a shame.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 04, 2008, 06:09:41 PM
not nice kicking a man when hes down.
No one was kicking him. Ron was punching them in the foot with his chin!
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 04, 2008, 06:11:13 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 04, 2008, 06:52:15 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 04, 2008, 07:08:17 PM
Post by: LAK on March 04, 2008, 10:20:51 PM
You can not get much more looney than taking the idea that we can have "peace and prosperity in every land" - which is where the fake purports to to be taking us that is currently in the WH. Keenly supported and defended still by a great many people who should know better.
Give the pan american union a big smooch now and it might not be so painful when it is on your doorstep, and then in your home.
-------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 04, 2008, 11:54:34 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 05, 2008, 05:33:29 AM
Other than that...
Post by: MechAg94 on March 05, 2008, 06:40:49 AM
Now if I could have a Congress full of Ron Paul type thinkers, that would be pretty good.
Post by: HankB on March 05, 2008, 06:47:17 AM
Thing is, the President has other than domestic policy issues to deal with. When he stated that 9/11 was "blowback" for US policy, and further opined that islamofascists and other international terrorists would simply leave us alone if we left the middle east, he showed himself divorced from reality by his naive idealism.
There are bad guys out there, who won't leave us alone.
Were this 1938 rather than 2008, I can picture him triumphantly waving a piece of paper above his head while he proclaimed "Peace in Our Time" . . .
Post by: K Frame on March 05, 2008, 08:39:52 AM
His idealism on so many subjects would have quickly isolated the office from Congress. He'd have had amazing difficulty in putting together any sort of process, and likely would have had very little success with the Republicans.
I suspect that Congress would have overridden multiple vetos on a wide range of subjects.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Single-minded idealism is GREAT.
But only if you're a dictator.
Post by: Paddy on March 05, 2008, 08:54:26 AM
Post by: HankB on March 05, 2008, 10:41:13 AM
Somehow, I think RP is gonna look real good to you chuckleheads after the reality of President ObamaClintonMcCain sinks in.
I think I'd prefer President LarryMoeCurly . . . as I predicted about this election quite some time ago . . . nothing good will come of it.The only good thing I can come up with on McCain is that we might - might - get a decent SCOTUS appointment. I know it's a long shot, but it's at least possible with him. With Obama or Clinton, we can
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 12:29:25 PM
Now that John McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination, does that mean that Ron Paul is finally going to start making his move?
Just because you "read it on the
Ron Paul is still very much in the race, even though the major news media, as well as administrators on small forums around the 'net, very much wish it weren't so.
Now that the GOP nomination is down to a socialist and a "real Republican", I'm looking forward to Nevada's next round of delegate elections and debates, which I happen to be personally involved in.
-edit
Those numbers posted along with the so-called "news" articles, claiming McCain has a majority, are nothing but projected numbers, based on assumption that all Hucka-Hunter-Guliani-Paul's-not-electable delegates will all throw their support behind McCain.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 05, 2008, 12:46:22 PM
what race are you talking about? you do know he didn't even do that well in his home district? barring all the other candidates except nader being killed his chances are pretty slim.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 12:50:09 PM
"Ron Paul is still very much in the race, even though the major news media, as well as administrators on small forums around the 'net, very much wish it weren't so."
what race are you talking about? you do know he didn't even do that well in his home district? barring all the other candidates except nader being killed his chances are pretty slim.
what race are you talking about? you do know he didn't even do that well in his home district? barring all the other candidates except nader being killed his chances are pretty slim.
Abe Lincoln's chances weren't so hot, either. Point being, despite misinformation (and outright, bald-faced lies), this is still a race between Paul and McCain on the GOP side.
Post by: Strings on March 05, 2008, 12:56:59 PM
Quote
they want one that will do things for to them
Fixed it for ya
Post by: The Rabbi on March 05, 2008, 01:01:09 PM
"Ron Paul is still very much in the race, even though the major news media, as well as administrators on small forums around the 'net, very much wish it weren't so."
what race are you talking about? you do know he didn't even do that well in his home district? barring all the other candidates except nader being killed his chances are pretty slim.
what race are you talking about? you do know he didn't even do that well in his home district? barring all the other candidates except nader being killed his chances are pretty slim.
Abe Lincoln's chances weren't so hot, either. Point being, despite misinformation (and outright, bald-faced lies), this is still a race between Paul and McCain on the GOP side.
"Come on, I'll bite your legs off...."
Post by: Manedwolf on March 05, 2008, 01:05:59 PM
Now that John McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination, does that mean that Ron Paul is finally going to start making his move?
Just because you "read it on the
Dude, you need to stop cutting your weed with household cleaners.
GAME OVER. Accept it already.
Post by: Scout26 on March 05, 2008, 01:12:26 PM
Quote
this is still a race between Paul and McCain on the GOP side.
My math skills aren't the best, but I'm pretty sure 1,260 is > then 1,191 (and a buttload more then 14).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_delegate_count.html
Quote
2008 Republican Delegates
Delegate Count (1,191 Needed to Win)
Delegates McCain Romney Huckabee Paul
Total - 1260 272 270 14
Delegate Count (1,191 Needed to Win)
Delegates McCain Romney Huckabee Paul
Total - 1260 272 270 14
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 01:14:30 PM
Quote
Me: "The news lied: McCain does not have enough bound delegates, and the numbers they list are biased projections."
APS curmudgeons: lock threads, post funny picture, "stop smoking dope, dude".
APS curmudgeons: lock threads, post funny picture, "stop smoking dope, dude".
The irony is that I've actually been on painkillers for a week, recovering from surgery.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 05, 2008, 01:16:37 PM
The articulation of both your argument and Rabbi's is astounding.
The irony is that I've actually been on painkillers for a week, recovering from surgery.
Quote
Me: "The news lied: McCain does not have enough bound delegates, and the numbers they list are biased projections."
APS curmudgeons: lock threads, post funny picture, "stop smoking dope, dude".
APS curmudgeons: lock threads, post funny picture, "stop smoking dope, dude".
The irony is that I've actually been on painkillers for a week, recovering from surgery.
That's not irony, that's a reasonable explanation for your posts.
Post by: MrRezister on March 05, 2008, 01:21:51 PM
When he stated that 9/11 was "blowback" for US policy, and further opined that islamofascists and other international terrorists would simply leave us alone if we left the middle east, he showed himself divorced from reality by his naive idealism.
I'm having some trouble finding anything linking him to that particular opinion. A quick search of things he's actually said turns up things more like this, with direct links:
Quote
A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the worlds largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We can and should remove our troops from the region quickly, before any more American lives are lost. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesnt work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
Link:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=281
Link:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=281
Truly dangerous, possibly unpatriotic words. And it gets even worse:
Quote
This is the problem with our government involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. Our friend one day is our enemy the next. And all our friends' enemies become our enemies. How many times have we armed BOTH sides of a conflict because of this? There is little for us to gain from this policy, and simultaneously a lot of trouble we get ourselves into. It is not a rational or intelligent way to interact with the world.
The administration has behaved as if there are only two choices in foreign policy - sending money or sending bombs. Our founding fathers knew a better way - to talk with our neighbors, do honest business with them, cultivate friendship, allow travel and open communication. We should neither initiate violence, nor take sides in conflicts that are none of our business. The American taxpayers are working hard enough to support their families here at home. If an American wants to send money overseas for a conflict or cause, let them, but do not slap Americans in the face by forcefully sending their children's college money abroad to subsidize despotic foreign governments. Our children should be going off to college, not going off to more senseless foreign wars.
Link:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1022
The administration has behaved as if there are only two choices in foreign policy - sending money or sending bombs. Our founding fathers knew a better way - to talk with our neighbors, do honest business with them, cultivate friendship, allow travel and open communication. We should neither initiate violence, nor take sides in conflicts that are none of our business. The American taxpayers are working hard enough to support their families here at home. If an American wants to send money overseas for a conflict or cause, let them, but do not slap Americans in the face by forcefully sending their children's college money abroad to subsidize despotic foreign governments. Our children should be going off to college, not going off to more senseless foreign wars.
Link:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1022
If those are the words of a foreign policy idiot, then I don't want to be smrt.
I mean smart.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 01:25:31 PM
The articulation of both your argument and Rabbi's is astounding.
The irony is that I've actually been on painkillers for a week, recovering from surgery.
Quote
Me: "The news lied: McCain does not have enough bound delegates, and the numbers they list are biased projections."
APS curmudgeons: lock threads, post funny picture, "stop smoking dope, dude".
APS curmudgeons: lock threads, post funny picture, "stop smoking dope, dude".
The irony is that I've actually been on painkillers for a week, recovering from surgery.
That's not irony, that's a reasonable explanation for your posts.
Actually, it is, unless what was taken as a figure of speech was an accusation, in which case I should probably be offended (but not suprised).
Regardless, none of this chatter changes the fact that the bound delegate count does not equal the majority, unlike it is being reported in the irrefutable "news".
Post by: The Rabbi on March 05, 2008, 01:40:07 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on March 05, 2008, 01:41:01 PM
I'll take Ron Paul over most Republican/Right Wing Authoritarian candidates any day. He has a great record in Congress. I'm happy he's on his way back to Washington, and you should be too.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 05, 2008, 01:43:19 PM
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 02:18:22 PM
Can you suggest a likely scenario that would have Ron Paul as the GOP candidate?
I doubt I could. Thankfully, history isn't made up solely of likely scenarios.
What I will be doing until the conventions are over, in September (whoops!), will be to do what I've been doing so far: attempting to correct misinformation/lies, calling attention to the fact that Paul is still a contender in the race, that he has stood by his principles during his many terms in office, and that many/most of those principles actually make a lot of sense when even a small amount of time is invested examining them.
I'll also be participating in a small way by directly electing delegates for the next of several rounds' worth of delegate elections which will determine who will actually go to the GOP national convention and there decide among themselves who the GOP presidential nominee will actually be. I'm hopeful that there are many others like myself out there, delegates who can't stand McCain nor his "principles", and will follow through with this whole disgusting political process.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 05, 2008, 02:21:24 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 05, 2008, 02:23:51 PM
You're free to spend your time however you like. But really, Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee. It simply will not happen. You owe it to yourself to accept it and move on.
"Men see the stars after darkness falls."
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 02:28:32 PM
You're free to spend your time however you like. But really, Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee. It simply will not happen. You owe it to yourself to accept it and move on.
That's your opinion, and history may well prove you to be correct. However, since the election of the final GOP delegates hasn't even happened yet, it surely would be foolish to give up because the majority opinion is that "Paul can't win".
I find it so much easier to present Paul's principles when I can contrast them with those of a single and largely unpopular candidate's... then top it all off with: "and since you're a delegate, you can still cast a vote that matters!" :) Hope, eternal springing, and all that.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 05, 2008, 02:41:57 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 05, 2008, 03:14:40 PM
I'm actually amazed by how much some people actually HATE Ron Paul. You'd think he murdered one of their family member or something. I guess when they start attacking his supporters they show their prejudices against freedom of choices and alternative candidates. I guess they want more "business as usual" by electing the same old politicans who have got us in the current mess we're in. Unreal. I will waste my vote on Ron Paul, and there's not much any Ron Paul basher can do about it.
Try living in New Hampshire, where the goddamned Paulistinians and "free staters" show up on the news all the time in some infantile conspiracy nut "fight the man" embarassment to the state. I got to see a crowd chanting that "9/11 was an inside job" while holding up Ron Paul signs across from one of my favorite restaurants. I saw on the news police video of one of their nuts throwing themselves to the ground and having to be dragged by police when pulled over for not having a registration sticker, since they considered that "evil".
I've had enough of those fruitcakes for a lifetime, and they're encouraging more of them to MOVE HERE.
Post by: Balog on March 05, 2008, 03:25:03 PM
Post by: Finch on March 05, 2008, 04:16:15 PM
Can you suggest a likely scenario that would have Ron Paul as the GOP candidate?
When Americans actually cared about liberty and didn't buy in to that whole "they hate us for our freedoms" fear mongering propaganda.
Post by: Paddy on March 05, 2008, 04:21:14 PM
Quote
I've had enough of those fruitcakes for a lifetime, and they're encouraging more of them to MOVE HERE.
BLARGHHHH!! Hate Ron Paul, I hates him I say, preciousssss........
and if enough of them move there, they can take over government, vote in Paulistas and form a Libertarian Utopia.
heh.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 05, 2008, 04:55:50 PM
Can you suggest a likely scenario that would have Ron Paul as the GOP candidate?
When Americans actually cared about liberty and didn't buy in to that whole "they hate us for our freedoms" fear mongering propaganda.
Post by: Finch on March 05, 2008, 05:05:22 PM
Can you suggest a likely scenario that would have Ron Paul as the GOP candidate?
When Americans actually cared about liberty and didn't buy in to that whole "they hate us for our freedoms" fear mongering propaganda.
I guess not all of us consider playing puppet with despots and destroying a currency sane.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 05, 2008, 11:11:45 PM
His supporters were loons, he attracted the worst sorts of black-helicopter conspiracy nuts and odious racists,[/quite]
So did Bush - you do know David Duke donated to his Presidential campaign, yes?
So did Bush - you do know David Duke donated to his Presidential campaign, yes?
Quote
He clung to an asinine gold standard suited for the 19th century with clerks and paper, not a world where global cross-currency transactions happen trillions of times per second.
No, he didn't.
Me and my fiancee are both FSP members. Hate me if you like.
No, he didn't.
Quote
I've had enough of those fruitcakes for a lifetime, and they're encouraging more of them to MOVE HERE.
Me and my fiancee are both FSP members. Hate me if you like.
Post by: seeker_two on March 06, 2008, 01:21:00 AM
Can you suggest a likely scenario that would have Ron Paul as the GOP candidate?
Does al-Qaeda have any more planes?....
Post by: LAK on March 06, 2008, 02:23:52 AM
Quote
He clung to an asinine gold standard suited for the 19th century with clerks and paper, not a world where global cross-currency transactions happen trillions of times per second
And look where global cross currency transactions a trillion times a second is sending the fictional dollar.Quote
And his foreign policy was a redux of Jimmy Carter.
Carter? I served in the military under Carter, and in addition to his neglect of the military, his foreign policy has not wavered from that of the other frontmen Johnson, Ford, Bush Sr, Clinton or G W Bush.As far as some of Paul's media highlighted supporters - is it any surprize that the oligarch controlled media focussed almost exclusively on any selected nut with a Ron Paul placard rather than ordinary people?
Many of the most normal looking people in finance and industry, along with millions of average people supported Adolf Hitler. Were there not likely some very obvious loons who supported him as well?
I am really not surprized that some of Ron Paul's supporters appear somewhat aggressive in their support. Many conservative people in this country are flat pissed off to see it being given away by the terra ton and are reaching the breaking point.
Speaking of the "assinine" gold standard - gold is now approaching $1,000 dollars an ounce and set to climb to perhaps $1,500, maybe $2,, even $3,000. That means that the dollar is plunging. While the dollar plunges to the bottom, the euro on the otherhand is doing nothing of the kind.
Are many conservatives in this country rightly angry watching a handful of frontmen and women being fawned over in mock combat for the WH while their country is being sent to the bottom? Yes, I think they are.
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 06, 2008, 02:34:39 AM
pssst comparing your boy to hitler is a political faux paux
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 03:47:25 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 04:00:09 AM
Manedwolf
Quote
He clung to an asinine gold standard suited for the 19th century with clerks and paper, not a world where global cross-currency transactions happen trillions of times per second
And look where global cross currency transactions a trillion times a second is sending the fictional dollar.You've just proven that you have absolutely no concept of how the global economy works; further discussion is fruitless.
Take Macroeconomics 101 and rejoin the discussion when you're done.
Oh, and be sure not to visit any stores and buy any low-priced item that you'd once have had to have a craftsman make at great expense if you wanted it. Or even any produce out of season in your local area.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 04:23:24 AM
Manedwolf
Quote
He clung to an asinine gold standard suited for the 19th century with clerks and paper, not a world where global cross-currency transactions happen trillions of times per second
And look where global cross currency transactions a trillion times a second is sending the fictional dollar.You've just proven that you have absolutely no concept of how the global economy works; further discussion is fruitless.
Take Macroeconomics 101 and rejoin the discussion when you're done.
How does this have anything to do with free banking?
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 04:29:02 AM
Manedwolf
Quote
He clung to an asinine gold standard suited for the 19th century with clerks and paper, not a world where global cross-currency transactions happen trillions of times per second
And look where global cross currency transactions a trillion times a second is sending the fictional dollar.You've just proven that you have absolutely no concept of how the global economy works; further discussion is fruitless.
Take Macroeconomics 101 and rejoin the discussion when you're done.
How does this have anything to do with free banking?
There's no such thing as free banking.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 04:38:27 AM
Manedwolf
Quote
He clung to an asinine gold standard suited for the 19th century with clerks and paper, not a world where global cross-currency transactions happen trillions of times per second
And look where global cross currency transactions a trillion times a second is sending the fictional dollar.You've just proven that you have absolutely no concept of how the global economy works; further discussion is fruitless.
Take Macroeconomics 101 and rejoin the discussion when you're done.
How does this have anything to do with free banking?
There's no such thing as free banking.
I think they're referring to the period of unstable state-chartered idiocy that existed in the US from the 1830's to the late 1860's, in which there was no common currency, "banks" could and did fail and take funds with them with no protection, etc.
I've noticed that a delusion that this was a good thing is common among Paulistinians. Why these people want to live in the 19th century, when the average person was subject to living in squalor and poverty, I have no idea. Perhaps they'd have enjoyed living on a ranch when a railroad baron came along and strongarmed them out of their deed with threats of violence against their family, too. The 19th century was when a new nation had to take time to figure out what worked and what was subject to abuse and failure. And for some reason, Paul's apostles want to return to things that failed and were discontinued because they failed.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 04:47:46 AM
But for people interested in easy solutions and slogans, it is just easier to ignore facts and history and declare it all treif.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 04:54:47 AM
Quote
I think they're referring to the period of unstable state-chartered idiocy that existed in the US from the 1830's to the late 1860's, in which there was no common currency, "banks" could and did fail and take funds with them with no protection, etc.
Actually that was far from the only example of free banking known to man, and not all of them had as mixed a record.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 04:58:29 AM
Quote
I think they're referring to the period of unstable state-chartered idiocy that existed in the US from the 1830's to the late 1860's, in which there was no common currency, "banks" could and did fail and take funds with them with no protection, etc.
Actually that was far from the only example of free banking known to man, and not all of them had as mixed a record.
Name any that did not fail and still exist, and are still in use. Anywhere. Go ahead.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 05:00:54 AM
Name any that did not fail and still exist, and are still in use. Anywhere. Go ahead.
[/quote]
On this argument, since every nation in the world except the US uses gun registration and licensing, gun rights are bad.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 05:03:18 AM
Name any that did not fail and still exist, and are still in use. Anywhere. Go ahead.
On this argument, since every nation in the world except the US uses gun registration and licensing, gun rights are bad.
[/quote]
FAIL.
And really weak red herring, too.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 06, 2008, 05:03:29 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 05:08:31 AM
that seems a might evasive should we interpret it as an admission you can't even name one?
We know that free banking has been abolished in all five countries where it was tried, however, this does not mean it was done because it brought to supposed crashes every single time, because in three out of five cases there were no such crashes, and in the US, it's record has been very mixed (quite like the record of America's gold- and silver-standard, responsible for at least one depression in the end of the 19th century, and the fiat money system, responsible for stagflation).
There's a lot of nice stuff that everybody does, but I, and others, disagree with.
More importantly, there's a variety of qualified economists who argue for free banking today. Not everybody that disagrees with you, even if they disagree radically, is a cook.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 05:11:12 AM
We know that free banking has been abolished in all five countries where it was tried, however, this does not mean it was done because it brought to supposed crashes every single time
Uh-huh.
The definition of madness is to repeat the same action, expecting different results. Sure, who needs an FDIC? You give me your money as a bank. When you try to get it back, I say "What money?" You can do...what about that? Throw a tantrum? File a charge with...oops...nope, it's not a government-insured-and-regulated bank, you can't do that. Oh, yeah, and the notes I issued you are worthless now, too, due to a credit downgrade. Oops!
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 05:12:47 AM
The definition of madness is to repeat the same action, expecting different results.
Just because every nation does it, doesn't mean it's right.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 05:16:05 AM
The definition of madness is to repeat the same action, expecting different results.
Just because every nation does it, doesn't mean it's right.
So you're in favor of a system that five nations tried and five nations abolished because it failed. Back in the 19th century, for the most part, when the global economy was in its first stage of fits and starts, learning what worked and what was a terrible mistake.
Right.
See why I think of Paul's apostles like I do? There's this freakish romanticism about the 19th century being the glory days in its business practices, when it was more like a pack of vicious wild animals fighting under the table.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 05:18:51 AM
So you're in favor of a system that five nations tried and five nations abolished because it failed.
Actually, 'because it failed' is not something I said. THere's a variety of modern economic research into what went all, and it's far from agreement on the negativity of its experience.
Post by: LAK on March 06, 2008, 05:49:16 AM
Quote
You've just proven that you have absolutely no concept of how the global economy works; further discussion is fruitless.
Take Macroeconomics 101 and rejoin the discussion when you're done.
Macroeconomics according to who? The London School of Economics?Take Macroeconomics 101 and rejoin the discussion when you're done.
Let's recap why we [supposedly] broke away from those people;
Quote
"America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money... " - Ron Paul, Forbes 03/04/08
The global economy? Before you inflate yourself further; the only difference between you and I in regard to understanding how it works is that you seem to think that the current artificial, controlled and manpulated system - at the expense of most people in this country - is somehow a good thing.
Quote
Oh, and be sure not to visit any stores and buy any low-priced item that you'd once have had to have a craftsman make at great expense if you wanted it. Or even any produce out of season in your local area.
There is a law of averages in the field of durable goods; it is generally a case of you get what you pay for.You can buy a cheap tool; risk ruining the part you are fitting/adjusting, and/or the tool breaking or wearing out quickly and needing replacing a number of times. Or you can buy a quality tool at a higher price that will not, with proper use, damage your task item, and is very unlikely to break before your children die of old age.
You can buy a cheap home audio system - if you don't mind throwing it into a dumpster when part of it stops working because it is uneconomical to repair - and buying a new one at a higher price - because a declining dollar means imported goods have a way of climbing in price.
Filling the nation's stores with cheap imported junk is not the foundation for anything except alot of waste. Even some once reliable brands of goods (which despite their foreign production are still very pricey) have become junk in many cases. And the prices of everything are climbing because an inflated ficticious dollar buys less oil - affecting everything.
No one is going to undergo any hardship because they can not buy some particular item of produce out of season. There is not any kind of imported produce that we either can not live without or produce ourselves.
There are things far more important to most people. Like how much per hour do they get paid, and how much money can they put away after all their bills are paid. And how many of them can expect to own their own homes - all paid up, and be financially self sufficient by the time they retire.
Please name something manufactured that can not be made cheaper elsewhere in the world; a nation of c.300 million people can not all be either a hamburger flipper or a company CEO.
Quote
See why I think of Paul's apostles like I do? There's this freakish romanticism about the 19th century being the glory days in its business practices, when it was more like a pack of vicious wild animals fighting under the table.
That's an astounding observation; it pretends that somehow all these global commercial producers, traders and investors etc have been taking merely what has been given to them for the last half century. Just what do you think all the vicious fighting and murder has been about in Africa, South America, the Mid East, Indonesia etc since WW2?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 05:54:17 AM
Post by: LAK on March 06, 2008, 06:11:35 AM
Manedwolf
Quote
Perhaps they'd have enjoyed living on a ranch when a railroad baron came along and strongarmed them out of their deed with threats of violence against their family, too
The more I browse your writings, the more I am astounded.Do you really not know how many people have been strongarmed out of their property under various pretenses in recent history in this country? Emminent domain style? Civil forfeiture?
If the trans-Texas corridor project goes through are they going to make it a tunnel or something spanning Texas underground? What about the rest of the North American super highways connecting our dear free-trading friends to the south with Canada to the north?
The poverty and squallor (squallor?) of the 1880s was not any worse than it was during the depression of the 1930s. I would say it was far less so, and nothing like what it will be in this country when the dollar takes it's coming slide to the sea bed.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 06:23:39 AM
The global economy? Before you inflate yourself further; the only difference between you and I in regard to understanding how it works is that you seem to think that the current artificial, controlled and manpulated system - at the expense of most people in this country - is somehow a good thing.
ILLUMINATI ALERT!
Stopping reading right there. Your tinfoil hat is too tight, dude. Post by: LAK on March 06, 2008, 09:54:51 PM
Enjoy the ride while it lasts.
------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2008, 03:24:51 AM
Not even a good dodge. The signs of the impending economic train wreck are unndeniable. Perhaps like myself, you are not dependant on the system to get by when things get tough. Perhaps many people you know, maybe even some family are not so lucky. You and a few other folk won't be so smug then.
Enjoy the ride while it lasts.
------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Economic train wreck? No, I dont think so. Recession yes, unmistakable and long over due. Its the business cycle.
Enjoy the ride while it lasts.
------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: HankB on March 07, 2008, 03:41:44 AM
. . . You give me your money as a bank. When you try to get it back, I say "What money?" You can do...what about that? Throw a tantrum? File a charge with...oops...nope, it's not a government-insured-and-regulated bank, you can't do that.
Necktie party?Cement overshoes?
Stake and a pile of kindling?
Satisfaction gained, but the money would still be gone . . .
Maybe we should think long and hard before replacing our crappy system with one that may be worse.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 08:48:18 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 07, 2008, 01:07:34 PM
... which is what I've been saying is the goal, and the only thing left to do, for those of us who say McCain is simply unacceptable.
Post by: LAK on March 07, 2008, 02:21:00 PM
Quote
The federal government's total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future payments related to Social Security and Medicare are now estimated at $53 trillion, in current dollar terms, up from $20 trillion in 2, Walker said
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1207/121707cdpm1.htm
Quote
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 08 Mar 2008 at 12:15:16 AM GMT is:
$9,396,876,372,949.77
The estimated population of the United States is 303,581,359
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,953.40.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.70 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
$9,396,876,372,949.77
The estimated population of the United States is 303,581,359
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,953.40.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.70 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
.......... The "business cycle and a "recession"? Someones' dreaming.
------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2008, 03:43:26 PM
Of course if you look at the value of assets held by the US you would see a corresponding increase. And if you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP you will find it is at the lowest its been in quite a while. Very much lower than during the halcyon post-WW2 days.
Yeah, its the business cycle. Comes around every few years. Get used to it.
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2008, 08:14:19 PM
STOP LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE!
You look ONLY at the one number to determine whether the economy is totally and completely screwed up!
ONE NUMBER ONLY!
All of those other numbers that refute that ONE NUMBER are thrown in there by the liberoconserarepublidemnazicomufascists to confuse the simple minded and take away from the fact that the ONE NUMBER says we're doomed!
Post by: Paddy on March 08, 2008, 08:20:25 PM
So, vote Republican. It will keep the big government, big spending liberals out of office.
Sheesh. No wonder we've got what we've got.
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2008, 08:37:52 PM
Trying to prove Hitler right, that if you repeat a lie often enough (and shrilly enough) people actually start to believe it?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 08, 2008, 08:50:20 PM
Oh, gee, look at that, the "middle class no longer exists because Ronald Reagan destroyed it" schtick again.
Trying to prove Hitler right, that if you repeat a lie often enough (and shrilly enough) people actually start to believe it?
Trying to prove Hitler right, that if you repeat a lie often enough (and shrilly enough) people actually start to believe it?
My parents did really well in the Reagan years. New car, we got to go to Disney World every year and stay in the core hotels across from the parks...Lots better than they'd done in the Carter years, I'm pretty sure.
Post by: LAK on March 09, 2008, 01:43:15 AM
$53 trillion in future liabilities, and a current debt of over $9 trillion - and increasing by $170 billion per day. So what are these national assets that are going to pay this off? If some calamity places a temporay halt on the market trading and there is a run on the banks what are the tangible assets that can be liquidated or offered when the notes are called in?
Interest on the national debt alone amounts to over 400 billion a year. How much interest has the American taxpayers paid in interest on this borrowing over the last thirty or forty years?
Slavery? Reparations? Who is now getting rich to the tune of $400 billion dollars from our blood and sweat?
If you have an individual man that digs himself into a financial hole like this, and keeps digging himself deeper, he is rightly looked upon a nut. On a government level it is more than sheer lunacy - it is a crime against the nation's people. It is our money - the fruits of our labor, our livelyhood - being given away. The fact that the money is being extracted from people under the threat of force equates to racketeering on a massive scale.
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 09, 2008, 01:53:09 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 09, 2008, 05:28:06 AM
There are NO believable alternative economic theories other than conventional business cycle theory. None at all. GO AWAY.
Fixed it for ya.
Post by: seeker_two on March 09, 2008, 05:31:09 AM
There are NO more UN-believable alternative economic theories other than conventional business cycle theory. None at all. GO AWAY.
Fixed it for ya.
Fixed the fix....
Post by: Tuco on March 09, 2008, 11:45:04 AM
All of those other numbers that refute that ONE NUMBER are thrown in there by the liberoconserarepublidemnazicomufascists to confuse the simple minded and take away from the fact that the ONE NUMBER says we're doomed!
That reminds me, Nader's running again.
Post by: LAK on March 10, 2008, 02:20:51 AM
OK, I am catching on now. The obvious truth matters not in "the business cycle" and "recession", the show simply goes on until the stricken ship begins to list heavily and people start sliding off the decks into the icey water, the bow begins to dip beneath the waves and the stern to rise.
So there is no alternative monetary system; other than unfunded and unsecured liabilities to the tune of $53 billion (and climbing), $9 trillion debt (and climbing), and paying out $400+ billion in interest (and climbing) to some "lucky" connected people - off the the backs of the American people??
Right
Some of you ought to go work as "financial advisers" to people in debt, bankrupt and in ruin. I mean, you could break the delusions of any of them might have about becoming debt free, accumilating tangible wealth, and perhaps even financially independence some day. All with the obvious reasoned, logical and rational truth that they simply need to spend more! On anything and everything! Enormous debt, huge interest payments are good! Consolidation, tangible wealth and no debt bad!
Good for who?
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on March 10, 2008, 03:23:31 AM
Interesting; I wonder why there were no answers to my specific questions.
OK, I am catching on now. The obvious truth matters not in "the business cycle" and "recession", the show simply goes on until the stricken ship begins to list heavily and people start sliding off the decks into the icey water, the bow begins to dip beneath the waves and the stern to rise.
So there is no alternative monetary system; other than unfunded and unsecured liabilities to the tune of $53 billion (and climbing), $9 trillion debt (and climbing), and paying out $400+ billion in interest (and climbing) to some "lucky" connected people - off the the backs of the American people??
Right
Some of you ought to go work as "financial advisers" to people in debt, bankrupt and in ruin. I mean, you could break the delusions of any of them might have about becoming debt free, accumilating tangible wealth, and perhaps even financially independence some day. All with the obvious reasoned, logical and rational truth that they simply need to spend more! On anything and everything! Enormous debt, huge interest payments are good! Consolidation, tangible wealth and no debt bad!
Good for who?
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
OK, I am catching on now. The obvious truth matters not in "the business cycle" and "recession", the show simply goes on until the stricken ship begins to list heavily and people start sliding off the decks into the icey water, the bow begins to dip beneath the waves and the stern to rise.
So there is no alternative monetary system; other than unfunded and unsecured liabilities to the tune of $53 billion (and climbing), $9 trillion debt (and climbing), and paying out $400+ billion in interest (and climbing) to some "lucky" connected people - off the the backs of the American people??
Right
Some of you ought to go work as "financial advisers" to people in debt, bankrupt and in ruin. I mean, you could break the delusions of any of them might have about becoming debt free, accumilating tangible wealth, and perhaps even financially independence some day. All with the obvious reasoned, logical and rational truth that they simply need to spend more! On anything and everything! Enormous debt, huge interest payments are good! Consolidation, tangible wealth and no debt bad!
Good for who?
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Check the term "rhetorical question" and you'll learn why no one has bothered to answered yours.
Plenty of people are debt free. Plenty of people pay their bills on time. The vast majority of even sub-prime mortgages get paid on time.
Yes, it would be fun to sit around and declare the sky is falling but it has happened in over 30 years that I've been watching, and things are a lot better now than they were in the 1970s.
Post by: HankB on March 10, 2008, 03:39:13 AM
. . . And if you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP you will find it is at the lowest its been in quite a while. Very much lower than during the halcyon post-WW2 days . . .
The problem is, deficits keep building the national debt . . . plus interest accrues. And you really shouldn't count on repaying it with inflated dollars or shrug it off with a comment like "Well, as a percentage of GDP, it's not so bad."If a man making $100,000 a year spends only $5000 more than he takes in, that overspending is a low percentage of his income . . . but if he keep adding to his debt a like amount every year, even in relatively small increments, he's ultimately headed for problems.
Note that the supposed "surpluses" of the Clinton administration (thanks to a GOP congress that showed some semblance of fiscal responsibility back then) were still the result of creative accounting, as the national debt continued to increase.
(see the graph at http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm )
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 03:58:01 AM
Check the term "rhetorical question" and you'll learn why no one has bothered to answered yours.
Plenty of people are debt free. Plenty of people pay their bills on time. The vast majority of even sub-prime mortgages get paid on time.
Yes, it would be fun to sit around and declare the sky is falling but it has happened in over 30 years that I've been watching, and things are a lot better now than they were in the 1970s.
Plenty of people are debt free. Plenty of people pay their bills on time. The vast majority of even sub-prime mortgages get paid on time.
Yes, it would be fun to sit around and declare the sky is falling but it has happened in over 30 years that I've been watching, and things are a lot better now than they were in the 1970s.
Of course, that won't help if the government "fixes it to death", thus causing serious inflation. That and raising taxes on all the people who ARE currently swimming around happily can cause them to sink instead.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 10, 2008, 04:18:23 AM
. . . And if you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP you will find it is at the lowest its been in quite a while. Very much lower than during the halcyon post-WW2 days . . .
The problem is, deficits keep building the national debt . . . plus interest accrues. And you really shouldn't count on repaying it with inflated dollars or shrug it off with a comment like "Well, as a percentage of GDP, it's not so bad."If a man making $100,000 a year spends only $5000 more than he takes in, that overspending is a low percentage of his income . . . but if he keep adding to his debt a like amount every year, even in relatively small increments, he's ultimately headed for problems.
Note that the supposed "surpluses" of the Clinton administration (thanks to a GOP congress that showed some semblance of fiscal responsibility back then) were still the result of creative accounting, as the national debt continued to increase.
(see the graph at http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm )
OK. Lets cut to the chase.
What negative result will occur as the gov't continues to grow the deficit while the economy grows at at least the same rate?
And Clinton's surpluses had more to do with the dot com boom and rising revenues than any discipline on his or Congress' part.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 10, 2008, 04:24:40 AM
Under Friedmanite economics, you can safely inflate M3 at the same rate at which the economy grows, or at a low, set rate below that.
Not expand the money supply at all, and you cause a deflation, which can be almost as bad as inflation.
Post by: LAK on March 11, 2008, 02:51:34 AM
A $9 trillion dollar debt and a forecast $53 trillion in future liabilities in one sector of public spending is rhetorical?
Asking you to cite these assets you refer to and claim to offset this is rhetorical?
Quote
"... Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist and research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, asked this question: If the United States collected all of the future revenue it anticipates receiving and matched that to its future obligations, would it be able to meet them? The answer was "no," to the tune of $45 trillion.... "
- U.S. government debt jumping by trillions, Dallas Morning News - April 11, 2004Is that rhetorical?
HankB,
There is also the issue of the American taxpayer being fleeced to the tune of nearly $2 trillion in interest payments every two years.
Tidy sum of money going to someones over the last four decades. I wonder what it takes to get in on some of that action.. could it be "who you know"? Or some other cozy arrangement.
-----------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on March 11, 2008, 03:52:26 AM
Yawn. Wake me when this thread is over.
Quote
"... Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist and research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, asked this question: If the United States collected all of the future revenue it anticipates receiving and matched that to its future obligations, would it be able to meet them? The answer was "no," to the tune of $45 trillion.... "
ANd how does anyone know how much revenue the US will get even next year? I want to meet that man.
Post by: Paddy on March 11, 2008, 07:27:11 AM
Quote
The vast majority of even sub-prime mortgages get paid on time.
Do your news reports go through some Alice in Wonderland reality warp before they arrive down there? Your version seems to be regularly different than actual events. Or maybe it's the 'tiny minority' of sub-primes that are responsible for the chaos, the meltdown of financial sectors worldwide, the frantic attempts of the fed to bolster the economy with voodoo economics, etc., et yada
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-11-foreclosures_N.htm
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 11, 2008, 07:47:49 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 11, 2008, 08:28:06 AM
Here:
Quote
Default rate on U.S. subprime mortgages continues to rise
By Vikas Bajaj
Published: October 16, 2007
E-Mail Article
Listen to Article
Printer-Friendly
3-Column Format
Translate
Share Article
Text Size
NEW YORK: During the summer credit crisis, investors concluded that the default rates on subprime mortgages made last year would probably prove to be the highest in the industry's history.
But there appears to be another contender for that dubious honor: subprime loans made in the first half of this year.
Borrowers who took out loans in the first six months of 2007 are falling behind on payments faster than homeowners who took out loans last year, according to a report by Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, an investment bank based in Arlington, Virginia.
The data suggested that more Americans could lose their homes and that the housing market's troubles might persist longer than many analysts have been predicting.
The report's author, Michael Youngblood, a portfolio manager and analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, said that most mortgage companies and banks had not tightened lending standards for borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit until July or August, even though early this year regulators, analysts and mortgage investors knew that the easy lending policies of 2005 and 2006 were producing high default rates.
Today in Business with Reuters
Fed to lend $200 billion more to ease market strain
European regulators raid airlines over price-fixing suspicions
Waiting for 'Sarkonomics,' French entrepreneurs remain abroad
"There are $10.6 trillion of mortgage loans outstanding in the U.S., and even if the brakes had been slammed, it was going to take a long time to slow this locomotive down," said Youngblood, who has researched home lending for more than 20 years. "And I don't see that the brakes were slammed on or that the engineer had a new track to follow. That track only now seems to be appearing."
He noted that Countrywide Financial, the largest U.S. lender whose practices are often emulated by smaller companies, did not significantly tighten standards until August.
And it was only in mid-July that Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's, the large ratings agencies, said they would make major changes in the assumptions that they use to evaluate pools of home loans sold to investors.
As of August, default rates on adjustable-rate subprime mortgages written in 2007 had reached 8.05 percent, up from 5.77 percent in July, according to Youngblood's analysis of pools of home loans put together by Wall Street banks and sold to investors.
By comparison, only 5.36 percent of adjustable-rate subprime loans made last year had defaulted by August 2006. Default rates on fixed-rate subprime mortgages were lower, but were rising at a similar pace.
In the first six months of the year, Wall Street securitized $215 billion in subprime loans, down 23 percent from the comparable period a year earlier, according to Friedman, Billings, Ramsey. By the end of August, the total had dropped by 33 percent from the comparable eight months of 2006.
By Vikas Bajaj
Published: October 16, 2007
E-Mail Article
Listen to Article
Printer-Friendly
3-Column Format
Translate
Share Article
Text Size
NEW YORK: During the summer credit crisis, investors concluded that the default rates on subprime mortgages made last year would probably prove to be the highest in the industry's history.
But there appears to be another contender for that dubious honor: subprime loans made in the first half of this year.
Borrowers who took out loans in the first six months of 2007 are falling behind on payments faster than homeowners who took out loans last year, according to a report by Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, an investment bank based in Arlington, Virginia.
The data suggested that more Americans could lose their homes and that the housing market's troubles might persist longer than many analysts have been predicting.
The report's author, Michael Youngblood, a portfolio manager and analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, said that most mortgage companies and banks had not tightened lending standards for borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit until July or August, even though early this year regulators, analysts and mortgage investors knew that the easy lending policies of 2005 and 2006 were producing high default rates.
Today in Business with Reuters
Fed to lend $200 billion more to ease market strain
European regulators raid airlines over price-fixing suspicions
Waiting for 'Sarkonomics,' French entrepreneurs remain abroad
"There are $10.6 trillion of mortgage loans outstanding in the U.S., and even if the brakes had been slammed, it was going to take a long time to slow this locomotive down," said Youngblood, who has researched home lending for more than 20 years. "And I don't see that the brakes were slammed on or that the engineer had a new track to follow. That track only now seems to be appearing."
He noted that Countrywide Financial, the largest U.S. lender whose practices are often emulated by smaller companies, did not significantly tighten standards until August.
And it was only in mid-July that Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's, the large ratings agencies, said they would make major changes in the assumptions that they use to evaluate pools of home loans sold to investors.
As of August, default rates on adjustable-rate subprime mortgages written in 2007 had reached 8.05 percent, up from 5.77 percent in July, according to Youngblood's analysis of pools of home loans put together by Wall Street banks and sold to investors.
By comparison, only 5.36 percent of adjustable-rate subprime loans made last year had defaulted by August 2006. Default rates on fixed-rate subprime mortgages were lower, but were rising at a similar pace.
In the first six months of the year, Wall Street securitized $215 billion in subprime loans, down 23 percent from the comparable period a year earlier, according to Friedman, Billings, Ramsey. By the end of August, the total had dropped by 33 percent from the comparable eight months of 2006.
So if 8.05% have defaulted then almost 92% are being paid on time. I'd call that the vast majority. Even accounting for delinquencies, it's still over 80%.
Post by: outerlimit on March 11, 2008, 09:31:26 PM
36.8% of GDP, 65th largest in the world.
Yawn. Wake me when this thread is over.
ANd how does anyone know how much revenue the US will get even next year? I want to meet that man.
Yawn. Wake me when this thread is over.
Quote
"... Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist and research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, asked this question: If the United States collected all of the future revenue it anticipates receiving and matched that to its future obligations, would it be able to meet them? The answer was "no," to the tune of $45 trillion.... "
ANd how does anyone know how much revenue the US will get even next year? I want to meet that man.
You may want it to be over.
Sadly we're sliding into an economic depression because of our Government's monetary policy. I hope that we can come out of this slump. While I disliked Romney because of his AWB stance, I think he would have been excellent for the country fiscally.
Post by: LAK on March 11, 2008, 10:52:11 PM
There is a um ... slight gap between the aggregate of our GDP and over sixty trillion dollars in liabilities. Yes, someone should wake up.
Quote
ANd how does anyone know how much revenue the US will get even next year? I want to meet that man.
Kotlikoff has written numerous articles for the Federal Reserve Bank; evidently someone has some trust in his judgements in economics. And since the whole system of fiat money is a big juggling and guessing game, there is no reason to believe that Kotlikoff knows any less about money and an economy and a U.S. Congressman or Pres, or Mr. Bernanke. Bernanke sure knows the business of fleecing a country of it's wealth.--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2008, 02:33:07 AM
The Rabbi,
There is a um ... slight gap between the aggregate of our GDP and over sixty trillion dollars in liabilities. Yes, someone should wake up.
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
There is a um ... slight gap between the aggregate of our GDP and over sixty trillion dollars in liabilities. Yes, someone should wake up.
Quote
ANd how does anyone know how much revenue the US will get even next year? I want to meet that man.
Kotlikoff has written numerous articles for the Federal Reserve Bank; evidently someone has some trust in his judgements in economics. And since the whole system of fiat money is a big juggling and guessing game, there is no reason to believe that Kotlikoff knows any less about money and an economy and a U.S. Congressman or Pres, or Mr. Bernanke. Bernanke sure knows the business of fleecing a country of it's wealth.--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Take the amount of your mortgage payment (or trailer note as may be appropriate), and multiply by the months remaining. Big scary number, eh? How are you gonna pay for it?
No difference here. It is useless comparing future liabilities to current income.
People predicted disaster from Reagan's deficits (those bifg scary numbers again). Istead we had the longest period of expansion in history. Only the DU and paranoid types could spin it as anything but a huge success.
As for Kotlikoff, appeals to authority (and dubious authority at that--I've never heard of the guy) are worthless as argumentation.
Post by: HankB on March 12, 2008, 04:45:51 AM
. . . Take the amount of your mortgage payment (or trailer note as may be appropriate), and multiply by the months remaining. Big scary number, eh? How are you gonna pay for it?
Bad comparison . . . in the case of most people, the outstanding balance on their mortgage doesn't keep increasing every year the way the national debt does.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2008, 04:50:08 AM
. . . Take the amount of your mortgage payment (or trailer note as may be appropriate), and multiply by the months remaining. Big scary number, eh? How are you gonna pay for it?
Bad comparison . . . in the case of most people, the outstanding balance on their mortgage doesn't keep increasing every year the way the national debt does.Neither does their income vary the way tax receipts do.
Nontheless it conveys the idea that comparing the total of future payments to current assets is stupid.
Post by: Tuco on March 12, 2008, 05:38:08 AM
. . . comparing the total of future payments to current assets is stupid.
At the risk of being called a stupid little baby who can't read nor reason, I put forth that comparing future finacial obligations to current assets is a necessary component of sound financial planning and the calculation of net worth.
The rabbi -do your worst.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2008, 05:50:59 AM
. . . comparing the total of future payments to current assets is stupid.
At the risk of being called a stupid little baby who can't read nor reason, I put forth that comparing future finacial obligations to current assets is a necessary component of sound financial planning and the calculation of net worth.
The rabbi -do your worst.
If my house is worth $100k and the mortgage payment is $1,000/mo then your logic would say that at month 101 I will be underwater and will continue to be so into eternity.
THat's clearly absurd, on many levels.
If you dont see that, then there is no point continuing the discussion.
Post by: GigaBuist on March 12, 2008, 08:05:59 AM
Quote
Nontheless it conveys the idea that comparing the total of future payments to current assets is stupid.
Weird. I guess my mortgage broker was asking all those questions about income and assets in an effort just to get to know me.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2008, 11:06:55 AM
Quote
Nontheless it conveys the idea that comparing the total of future payments to current assets is stupid.
Weird. I guess my mortgage broker was asking all those questions about income and assets in an effort just to get to know me.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 12, 2008, 03:18:37 PM
So if 8.05% have defaulted then almost 92% are being paid on time. I'd call that the vast majority. Even accounting for delinquencies, it's still over 80%.
A huge part of the problem is the fraud committed by the ratings agencies. An "AAA" rating is supposed to be equivalent to "can pay as well as the US government". Problem is, that's not the case anymore. People, even ordinary people, who have cash in the financial system which is invested in bonds (this includes 401ks, many stock portfolios, bonds, and ordinary bank depositors whose banks hold "AAA" paper, which is just about EVERYONE) are holding the bag on this one whether they know it or not.
A bond sold by Deutsche Bank AG in May 2006 is AAA at both companies even though 43 percent of the underlying mortgages are delinquent.
Got that? An "AAA" bond whose sole source of funds for investors who bought "AAA" paper is 43% delinquent. Does that sound as though the bond will hold face value as long as the US government exists? How are investors supposed to know which bonds are good and which are trash? Well, check the rating... oh, wait, can't, because of fraud like this! The reason for all the turmoil is because no one knows where all the crap is, no one wants to get caught holding it, and the ones that are holding the bag are keeping their lips sealed tight!
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2008, 04:10:40 PM
Do you actually understand securitzation and tranches?
Post by: LAK on March 13, 2008, 02:15:09 AM
Quote
It is useless comparing future liabilities to current income.
People predicted disaster from Reagan's deficits (those bifg scary numbers again). Istead we had the longest period of expansion in history. Only the DU and paranoid types could spin it as anything but a huge success.
It is useless to compare future liabilities with current income? DU and paranoid types?People predicted disaster from Reagan's deficits (those bifg scary numbers again). Istead we had the longest period of expansion in history. Only the DU and paranoid types could spin it as anything but a huge success.
Try taking that to a bank for a business loan; you perhaps get a polite short lesson in economics - or laughed out the door. One of the two. I'll settle for the second as appropriate in your case on this subject.
Oh, I will remember that "appeals to authority are useless in arguement" when other subjects pop up. I shall have to cut and save that one for future use - that's a real gem.
----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 03:03:24 AM
The Rabbi
Try taking that to a bank for a business loan; you perhaps get a polite short lesson in economics - or laughed out the door. One of the two. I'll settle for the second as appropriate in your case on this subject.
Oh, I will remember that "appeals to authority are useless in arguement" when other subjects pop up. I shall have to cut and save that one for future use - that's a real gem.
----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Quote
It is useless comparing future liabilities to current income.
People predicted disaster from Reagan's deficits (those bifg scary numbers again). Istead we had the longest period of expansion in history. Only the DU and paranoid types could spin it as anything but a huge success.
It is useless to compare future liabilities with current income? DU and paranoid types?People predicted disaster from Reagan's deficits (those bifg scary numbers again). Istead we had the longest period of expansion in history. Only the DU and paranoid types could spin it as anything but a huge success.
Try taking that to a bank for a business loan; you perhaps get a polite short lesson in economics - or laughed out the door. One of the two. I'll settle for the second as appropriate in your case on this subject.
Oh, I will remember that "appeals to authority are useless in arguement" when other subjects pop up. I shall have to cut and save that one for future use - that's a real gem.
----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
You obviously just dont get it, do you?
We are not talking about an individual getting a bank loan. Again, if your house is worth $100k and the mtg is $1k/mo then by yoiur reasoning bankruptcy will occur at month 101.
Hint, it wont.
Post by: GigaBuist on March 13, 2008, 08:17:36 AM
I guess you didnt get the mortgage because you can't read too good.
I don't read too well.
Look, here's what you said:
Quote
Take the amount of your mortgage payment (or trailer note as may be appropriate), and multiply by the months remaining. Big scary number, eh? How are you gonna pay for it?
No difference here.
No difference here.
You pay about 3x your house's price when everything is all said and done on a 30 year mortgage. So because there's "No difference here" let's lop off a few zeros to make the numbers easier to understand for the 'tards like me.
We owe 53 trillion dollars. Lop off some zeros and we've got $530,000 in debt... about the amount you'd pay on a 30 year mortgage for a $175,000 house.
We take in about $3 trillion a year. Lop off the same number of zeros and we've got $30,000 in income.
I realize that being illiterate I might not fully understand the phrase "no difference here" but if it means what I think it means, in that our debt, while big and scary, is just like a mortgage... well, I'm of the opinion that buying a $175k house on $30k a year isn't a good idea. That doesn't look like a situation I'd want to be in.
Post by: K Frame on March 13, 2008, 08:59:26 AM
In fact, you need a map and a compass to navigate it.
So, feel free to start the subject in a new thread, but I'm going to shut this one down.