 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / November 2008{OT} Merkel criticises US over crisis
"cheap money" sounds conservative. Comments anyone? "Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, turned the tables on her international critics on Wednesday by accusing the US and other governments of making cheap money a central tool of their economic management, thus planting the seeds of a similar crisis in five years. Excessively cheap money in the US was a driver of today s crisis, she told the German parliament. I am deeply concerned about whether we are now reinforcing this trend through measures being adopted in the US and elsewhere and whether we could find ourselves in five years facing the exact same crisis. There have been calls from outside Germany for it to beef up fiscal support, but Ms Merkel has been wary of raising public borrowing to stimulate demand, fearing that the extra income could boost Germans savings rate, which is already high. The chancellor defended her government s modest fiscal stimulus worth ¨12bn over the next two years as a measured and proportional response . . . tailored to the situation . Ms Merkel s comments came as the European Union proposed a ¨200bn economic stimulus plan aimed at avoiding a deeper recession through tax and infrastructure plans. There were immediate doubts as to whether member states would back the measures. The proposals envisage the EU s 27 states contributing about ¨170bn with the European Commission and the European Investment Bank providing the remaining ¨30bn, partly through accelerated spending programmes. Economists and politicians quickly questioned whether all member states would step up as required, or whether individual governments responses would diverge from the Commission s suggested measures. Angela Merkel and other conservative leaders such as [Italian premier Silvio] Berlusconi may well water down the plan and refuse to make the necessary national investments, said Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister who heads the Socialist party in the European parliament. The larger-than-expected package represents about 1.5 per cent of EU gross domestic product. It must be reviewed by finance ministers and by government leaders in mid-December. Analysts at Capital Economics, the consultants, said: The proposed boost has yet to be agreed by member states and would sadly not do enough to bring European economies out of the gloom for some time anyway. Business Europe, the main business lobby group in Brussels, agreed with the proposals but said a clear commitment from EU member states was needed to implement stimulus packages of at least 1.2 per cent of GDP. The proposal failed to impress investors, with most stock markets in Europe trading lower. A European slowdown was one of the factors contributing to a decision by the Chinese authorities to slash interest rates by 108 basis points, the biggest cut in a decade. The move reflects concern about a weak housing market and declining export demand." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e361d344-bc0c-11dd-80e9-0000779fd18c.html  Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra > "cheap money" sounds conservative. > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > "It's deja vu all over again" > Yogi Berra Germany was one of the many EU countries that told Bush 2 years ago to rein in the financial sector. But, bush being bush, he ignored the warning. >Germany was one of the many EU countries that told Bush 2 years ago to >rein in the financial sector. But, bush being bush, he ignored the >warning. Why did you idiotic Dims bring this on by insisting that people that could NEVER pay their mortgages back...be loaned money? It AIN'T Bush..... It IS Dims..... SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > >Germany was one of the many EU countries that told Bush 2 years ago to > >rein in the financial sector. But, bush being bush, he ignored the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It IS Dims..... GW Bush has run up big deficits and ignored all financial scandals and problems for years, so it must be Democrats. You need to clear your head by going on a hunting trip with Cheney one day. >Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >problems for years, so it must be Democrats. You need to clear your >head by going on a hunting trip with Cheney one day. I'd love to go.... Tell us again how you Dims INSISTED on loaning people money that could not repay it..... SignatureScott in Florida > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:10:27 -0800 (PST), "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Scott in Florida You keep saying the same thing about borrowers but the only way the banks could get away with sub-prime loans was to have the controls lifted and the banks deregulated. And the only way Wall Street could get away with slicing up good and bad mortgages, mixing the shreds and selling them, was deregulation. You see, when there were regulations, banks couldn't do what they did; after deregulation they just went apeshit. You do know that all the money spent so far on the Wall Street bailout went to reimburse the foreign countries that owned the crap U.S. investments. I'm about to give up on you. I keep thinking you are just trying to spin us up but I'm beginning to think you are stupid. One more thing about these mortgages - no one actually owns the whole mortgage, so no one can really foreclose on someone. In order to foreclose the mortgage owner must present the mortgage, but no one owns the whole mortgage. Hundreds, if not thousands of investors own slivers of mortages. That fact is getting around and many people can just keep the house and not pay the mortgage. I love it when conservatives and neo-cons are hoisted on their own petards. Phil Gramm is sitting on a pile of his own sh.t. > You keep saying the same thing about borrowers but the only way the > banks could get away with sub-prime loans was to have the controls [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > banks couldn't do what they did; after deregulation they just went > apeshit. No, banks have always been able to loan money in risky situations, even before deregulation. Deregulation had nothing to do with the loans, but it did have something to do with credit default swaps that, unkike real insurance, did not require the financial institutions who issued them to have captial reserves in case they defaulted. Even companies owned by Warren Buffet issued these credit default swaps. The other main problem was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought the loans from the mortgage companies soon after they were issued. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have required more stringent credit worthiness for the loans they purchased. If a loan makes a lot of money for a mortgage company to originate, and someone else buys the loan right after it is issued, then the mortgage companies had no incentive to scrutinize the credit worthiness of customers. A lot of socially conscious people ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to help poor people get home loans, at the expense of rational lending polices. Obama chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel was a director of Freddie Mac (appointed by Bill Clinton) during Scandal a few years ago. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1 <abstract> "President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com." According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002. The ... entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention." > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on > matters brought to its attention." The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems are small compared to the debacle of the commercial Wall Street banks. Wall Street crashed tens of banks in the EU. You need to get some of your news outside of the rightwing blogosphere. In article <f7c76bd4-e5c4-443d-81d8-ab69fcd1e940@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > > "cheap money" sounds conservative. > > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > rein in the financial sector. But, bush being bush, he ignored the > warning. NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. The dimmies had this idea that money grows on trees. The dimmies are like little kids, the whine and complain till they get there way then when there was is shown to be fuxxxx up they try to blame others. Typical dim. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra > NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there way then when there was is shown to be fuxxxx up they try to blame > others. Typical dim. Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. In article <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > > NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. larry moe getting defensive. The congress sends a budget to the president. Blame the congress, which has been controlled by the dimmies for the past two years. The dims are the ones who should have balanced the budget. larrymoe, you ain't seen nuttin yet. When obama gets done with ya. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra > In article > <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > larry moe getting defensive. You don't seem to know what defensive means -- or how my two requests relate to your ridiculous statements about Democrats. > The congress sends a budget to the president. > > Blame the congress, which has been controlled by the dimmies for the > past two years. The dims are the ones who should have balanced the > budget. So the Republican-controlled Congress during Clinton's second term puts out balanced budgets, but after GW Bush becomes President, for the next six years they put out nothing but red ink budsgets. What a mere coincidence. You'll probably squawk back, "but there were wars!" or other nonsense. >> In article >> <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >mere coincidence. You'll probably squawk back, "but there were wars!" >or other nonsense. There were wars! By the way we won.... SignatureScott in Florida >>> In article >>> <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Scott in Florida November 27 2008 KABUL, Afghanistan - A suicide car bomber plowed into rush-hour traffic on a commercial boulevard in Kabul on Thursday morning, killing at least four people and wounding up to 17 , the police and hospital authorities said. > >> In article > >> <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > By the way we won.... You're wasting your time Scott, he's a moron. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >> In article >> >> <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > You're wasting your time Scott, he's a moron. Until the promise is kept and bin Laden's head is on a stake on the White House lawn, the war is not won. Scott in Florida wrote: > >> In article > >> <23a0473d-3dae-40c3-8cf6-547aaa658859@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > There were wars! You're so predictable and so predictably wrong. Explain why these wars cause the debt/GDP to worsen when the Vietnam war, which cost a bigger chunk of our income, did not. > By the way we won.... Not yet, thanks to GW Bush's incompetence, and Afghanistan, the just war and the war that has to be won, seems to be going much worse than expected, again, thanks to GW Bush's incompetence. > Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > war and the war that has to be won, seems to be going much worse than > expected, again, thanks to GW Bush's incompetence. You treasonous bastard. Don't you read? http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_commits_one_additional_troop > So the Republican-controlled Congress during Clinton's second term > puts out balanced budgets, but after GW Bush becomes President, for > the next six years they put out nothing but red ink budsgets. What a > mere coincidence. You'll probably squawk back, "but there were wars!" > or other nonsense. The economy was headed down the tubes when Bush took office, and then suffered a severe blow with 9/11. It would have been foolish to balance the budget in that kind of economic downturn. To repeat, the budget deficit has NOTHING to do with the current problems. Nothing. >> So the Republican-controlled Congress during Clinton's second term >> puts out balanced budgets, but after GW Bush becomes President, for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > To repeat, the budget deficit has NOTHING to do with the current problems. > Nothing. If we got our money's worth, the money spent after 9/11 would be a non-issue. I tend to be a vengeful sort of guy, so I don't feel my tax dollars were well spent. There's still an objective that has not been met, a promise not kept. > If we got our money's worth, the money spent after 9/11 would be a > non-issue. I tend to be a vengeful sort of guy, so I don't feel my tax > dollars were well spent. There's still an objective that has not been met, > a promise not kept. I can't say for certain at this point in history whether the money spent on Iraq or Afghanistan will be deemed to have been worth it . Even assuming it was not worth it, and even if it causes massive problems in the future as a result of a larger US debt, it has nothing to do with the current financial crisis. Nothing. Interest rates on government bonds are so ridiculously low right now (because they are risk free and everyone wants them), that the US interest payments on the national debt are lower now than they were in the 1990's even though the total debt has ballooned to much larger numbers. The total US debt may bite us in the future, but it has nothing to do with the current problem. Nothing. >> If we got our money's worth, the money spent after 9/11 would be a >> non-issue. I tend to be a vengeful sort of guy, so I don't feel my tax [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the future as a result of a larger US debt, it has nothing to do with the > current financial crisis. Nothing. Correct - nothing to do with it. I was simply commenting on the waste of money as a standalone issue. The objective of the expenditure has not been met. > Correct - nothing to do with it. I was simply commenting on the waste of > money as a standalone issue. The objective of the expenditure has not been > met. You will see a lot of government deficit spending in the next two years in order to try and "jump start" the economy. Some of it (or maybe a lot of it) will invariably be wasted. > > Correct - nothing to do with it. I was simply commenting on the waste of > > money as a standalone issue. The objective of the expenditure has not been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > order to try and "jump start" the economy. Some of it (or maybe a lot of it) > will invariably be wasted. "[W]ill see a lot of government deficit spending in the next two years"? Bush funded the entire Iraq and Afghan war off-budget with money borrowed from China. Bush has spent the US into a huge deficit of historic proportions. Let's do what the UK just did. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7762e8ee-ba28-11dd-92c9-0000779fd18c.html >>> Correct - nothing to do with it. I was simply commenting on the waste o > f [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Let's do what the UK just did. > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7762e8ee-ba28-11dd-92c9-0000779fd18c.html http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ambrose_evans-pritchard/blog/2008/11/24/is_britain_ going_bankrupt > On 2008-11-27 20:11:26 -0800, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Interesting opinion article. I like the final paragraph. "If and when the storm blows over, Britain should still have a lower national debt than Germany, France, or Italy. It will certainly have a better demographic structure that most of Europe (except France and Scandinavia), and less catastrophic pension liabilities than most. The situation is desperate, but not serious - as the Habsburgs used to say. Fingers crossed." I also like the responses to the article. I'm a recent subscriber to the Financial Times (2 months) and find the letters to the editor to be more informed than the articles written by US journalists run in US papers. >>> Let's do what the UK just did. >>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7762e8ee-ba28-11dd-92c9-0000779fd18c.html [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > letters to the editor to be more informed than the articles written by > US journalists run in US papers. I forgot if I found this article on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. <sarcasm mode OFF> >> Correct - nothing to do with it. I was simply commenting on the waste of >> money as a standalone issue. The objective of the expenditure has not been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >order to try and "jump start" the economy. Some of it (or maybe a lot of it) >will invariably be wasted. All we need to do is reduce taxes (eliminate capital gains taxes...),. Let the weak fail. Get government out of the way. Problem solved. ....but idiots voted for Barry. It ain't gonna happen. Bend over.... SignatureScott in Florida > > So the Republican-controlled Congress during Clinton's second term > > puts out balanced budgets, but after GW Bush becomes President, for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > suffered a severe blow with 9/11. It would have been foolish to balance the > budget in that kind of economic downturn. GW Bush can't be blamed for that recession or its direct consequences, but when the economy got better and grew at roughly 4% a year (a number that his supporters like to cite), why didn't the deficits or at least the debt/GDP shrink (the latter did during the Vietnam war)? > To repeat, the budget deficit has NOTHING to do with the current problems. Nothing. So what is behind it -- unprecedented prosperity and fiscal responsibility? > So what is behind it -- unprecedented prosperity and fiscal > responsibility? Go back and read my posts that explained it in more detail. It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying loans issued by mortgage companies (they purchase 50% of all mortgage loans issued) that were not credit worthy (which incented the mortgage companies to make more loans without worrying about credit worthiness of borrowers), and credit default swaps that were basically insurance issued by financial institutions to guarantee the Freddie Mae and Freddie bonds (backed by mortgages they purchased from mortgage companies) that did not have the capital to pay off when the mortgage loans (and Freddie Mac Bonds) went bad. Since many people knew the Fannie Mae bonds were risky, they bought "insurance" on the bonds, which were called "credit default swaps". With "real" regulated insurance products, the insurance company is required to have capital reserves to pay off all claims. With credit default swaps (and other derivatives), the financial institutions were just gambling that the loans would not go bad (or that they could auction off the foreclosed properties without loosing too much money), and they did not have the reserves to pay off the defaults. You can also check out the CBS 60 Minutes archives on the web to hear more about the credit default swaps. The current collapse has nothing to do with budget deficits or national debt. Those problems, if they occur, will occur later. >> NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. You're asking dbu to explore history, which would require him to read a little. You're silly. dbu does not read. He said so. >> NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. None... >Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > >> NO, wrong. It was the democrats that insisted on free money. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > None... Incorrect answer. > > Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. Let the record show that Scott did not answer because if his first answer about the Democrats was true, then it has to be true for the Republicans as well. > Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. > > Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. The criticism of the German Chancellor has nothing to do with budget deficits, it has to do with cheap money. The Federal Reserve, an independent agency, largely determines interest rates in the US and the supply of money available when they loan money to banks, who in turn loan it to individuals and companies. Interest rates in much of Europe (especially home mortgage rates) and Asia are even lower than in the US. The real problem has been loose restrictions of borrowing money, especially for mortgage loans. This was largely determined by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who purchased 50% of all mortgage loans made in the US for resale on the secondary markets as mortgage backed bonds, and therefore they set the standard for acceptable risk of individual borrowers. As long as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase a mortgage, the mortgage companies did care beyond that about the credit worthiness of the borrower. Fannie Mae was started by FDR to provide liquidity in the home mortgage financing debt market and later became (with Freddie Mac) a quasi-independent government chartered company (somewhat separate from the US government). The Board of Directors for these two companies is still nominated by the President and confirmed by the senate, but it was otherwise run independent of the government (sort of like the Federal Reserve). These loose money lending guidelines were partly based on the faulty assumption that real estate prices would keep increasing (or at least not decrease), making foreclosures not a big deal (the real estate could be sold at auction for at least 90% of the mortgage balance). The loose lending was also based on a desire to make home ownership available to as many Americans as possible (with a somewhat political and social mission involved). The other major problem in the current crisis are the "credit default swaps". Since a lot of institutions were buying these repackaged loans in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, they wanted some insurance in case of default. So banks and insurance companies began offering credit default swaps, which were basically insurance in case the bonds defaulted. However, unlike "real" insurance, which is regulated by government to make sure the underwriter has capital reserves to cover any and all claims, credit default swaps and other derivatives were deregulated in the Clinton administration and anyone could offer them, even if they could not make good on the claims if the loans went bad. Clinton's treasury secretary Robert Rubin was a big believer in deregulating these instruments, as were many Republicans including Phil Graham. So when the mortgage backed bonds started to default, the credit default swaps came into play as institutions tried to make claims against those other institutions who guaranteed the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds. But since the credit default swaps were not regulated like insurance, they could not cover all their losses (higher than expected), and a domino effect cascaded across the financial sector as real estate prices dropped, mortgage backed bonds (especially for sub-prime loans) became toxic assets that no one wanted, and the whole system collapsed. The current problem really has nothing to do with US government budget deficits. The deficit problem may come later, but it is neither the cause of the current problems, nor is it a problem right now. Don't expect Obama to balance the budget. The last president who tried to balance the budget during a recession was Herbert Hoover, which turned a recession into the Great Depression of the 1930 with about 25%-30% unemployment. In his 60 Minutes interview, Obama said that no economist (left or right) has advised to even think about balancing the budget any time soon. > > Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. > > > > Name the last two Republican presidents who ran balanced budgets. > The current problem really has nothing to do with US government budget > deficits. The deficit problem may come later, but it is neither the cause of > the current problems, nor is it a problem right now. You're missing the point, which has nothing to do with US government budget deficits but with something often, but not always, related to them. >>> Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > budget deficits but with something often, but not always, related to > them. You could start with the abolition of the Fed Reserve Board, and a return to the gold standard. To borrow a George Carlin-ism, Bernanke and Company should be thrown, "...screaming, from a helicopter." > You could start with the abolition of the Fed Reserve Board, and a return > to the gold standard. > > To borrow a George Carlin-ism, Bernanke and Company should be thrown, > "...screaming, from a helicopter." I don't see what the gold standard has to do with our current problems. Maybe the Fed is partly to blame, but not the fact that we are not on the gold standard. >> You could start with the abolition of the Fed Reserve Board, and a return >> to the gold standard. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maybe the Fed is partly to blame, but not the fact that we are not on the > gold standard. Really? You need to read a couple of books. Start with Peter Schiff's "Crash Proof". If you don't learn how important the gold standard was after reading that book, then you didn't read the book. > >>> Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you return to the gold standard the foreign holders of dollars can demand gold in exchange for the dollars. If you run a deficit economy then in short order we would have no gold left in the treasury. Do you ever remain conscious beyond the first paragraph of anything you read? > If you return to the gold standard the foreign holders of dollars can > demand gold in exchange for the dollars. If you run a deficit economy > then in short order we would have no gold left in the treasury. Do > you ever remain conscious beyond the first paragraph of anything you > read? The US total debt problem may bite us in the future, and your comments may be relevant then, but it has nothing to do with the current financial crisis. Nothing. > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > be relevant then, but it has nothing to do with the current financial > crisis. Nothing. That's funny. Why do you think Nixon took us off the gold standard? Ever see pictures of the Nixon White House and Oval Office meetings - Rumsfeld, Cheney and most of Dubya's Neo-con White House. All this goes back to the beginning of Neo-Con philosophy. > That's funny. Why do you think Nixon took us off the gold standard? > Ever see pictures of the Nixon White House and Oval Office meetings - > Rumsfeld, Cheney and most of Dubya's Neo-con White House. All this > goes back to the beginning of Neo-Con philosophy. Nixon was not a Neo-Con, and many thought he was fairly liberal because of the following policies: 1. Created the Environmental Protection Agency 2. Was the first president to support and implement affirmative action in its most quota-oriented form. 3. Normalized diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China 4. Perused a policy of detente with the Soviet Union The US is off the gold standard for the same reason the rest of the world is off the gold standard. It is an anachronism, and the price of gold is too easily influenced by factors that have nothing to do with balanced budgets and economic prosperity (such as industrial uses, fashion, etc). The value of the US currency is determined on open currency markets trading against other currencies, so there is no problem with being off the gold standard. When the US has deficit spending, the value of the dollar goes down (as it has the last 5 years). The only problem is with China, who artificially sets the value of their currency and does not allow it to be traded on currency markets. >> That's funny. Why do you think Nixon took us off the gold standard? >> Ever see pictures of the Nixon White House and Oval Office meetings - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nixon was not a Neo-Con, and many thought he was fairly liberal because of > the following policies: > 3. Normalized diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China > 4. Perused a policy of detente with the Soviet Union Oh CRAP!!!!!!! Now you've done it. You've kicked the jambs out from under any future comments from Sot or dbu about a way of handling Iran without putting 4000 more American soldiers in bags with zippers. By the way, I think Nixon did more than "peruse" that policy of detente. >> You could start with the abolition of the Fed Reserve Board, and a >> return to the gold standard. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you ever remain conscious beyond the first paragraph of anything you > read? How utterly pathetic and ignorant you are. Talk about the personification of straw man arguments. Did your mother give birth to any children with higher than room-temp I.Q.s? Try reading a book or two. Until then, we have no common frame of reference, eddie. > On 2008-11-27 09:52:17 -0800, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Try reading a book or two. Until then, we have no common frame of > reference, eddie. Too bad you can't take your own advice, but it is much easier for you to just passively listen for rightwing radio and Fix News. >> On 2008-11-27 09:52:17 -0800, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" >> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Too bad you can't take your own advice, but it is much easier for you > to just passively listen for rightwing radio and Fix News. As predictable as a rabid dog. In another post within this thread, you agree with me about the gold standard and the ensuing financial chaos: "That's funny. Why do you think Nixon took us off the gold standard? Ever see pictures of the Nixon White House and Oval Office meetings - Rumsfeld, Cheney and most of Dubya's Neo-con White House. All this goes back to the beginning of Neo-Con philosophy." Previously you disagreed with me (above) just to stir the pot. I've even suggested a start to your education, but you pull out a very tired, emaciated argument about radio and news programs I don't listen to anyway. A rabid dog. Nothing more. Your duplicity betrays you, eddie. > On 2008-11-27 20:00:01 -0800, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Neo-cons have just about destroyed the US and they used two stupid vehicles to implement the insane policies - Reagan and dubya. >> A rabid dog. Nothing more. Your duplicity betrays you, eddie.- Hide > quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Neo-cons have just about destroyed the US and they used two stupid > vehicles to implement the insane policies - Reagan and dubya. Not even an adequate deflection from my assertion, so I'll take that as an admission. > If you return to the gold standard the foreign holders of dollars can > demand gold in exchange for the dollars. If you run a deficit economy > then in short order we would have no gold left in the treasury. Do > you ever remain conscious beyond the first paragraph of anything you > read? Let them echange the dollars for a currency that is on the gold standard, and then they can get their gold. What's that you say? There are no other currencies on the gold standard? Not my problem then. . >> Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You could start with the abolition of the Fed Reserve Board, and a > return to the gold standard. The gold standard was actually worse than the Federal Reserve system and did things like cause 50% annual inflation during the Gold Rush and 14% unemployment in the late 19th century (the "Noose of Gold"). That's pretty bad, considering that the Fed's own foul-ups include the Great Depression. > To borrow a George Carlin-ism, Bernanke and Company should be thrown, > "...screaming, from a helicopter." Don't you mean Alan Greenspan, the most overrated Fed chairman of all time? Once Greenspan was unleashed from the constraints of the Clinton administration, he proved that he was as bad as his pre-Ford administration track record showed. >> You could start with the abolition of the Fed Reserve Board, and a >> return to the gold standard. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's pretty bad, considering that the Fed's own foul-ups include the > Great Depression. Read Schiff's book, for starters. >> To borrow a George Carlin-ism, Bernanke and Company should be thrown, >> "...screaming, from a helicopter." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Clinton administration, he proved that he was as bad as his pre-Ford > administration track record showed. Greenspan and his predecessors are why I said "and Company." The lefty kooks are pulling your chain. Even the dimmest ot the Dims know it is the Congress that appropriates ALL the finds. They know the President has northing to do with how much is spent. >> Name the last two Democratic presidents who ran balanced budgets. >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Minutes interview, Obama said that no economist (left or right) has > advised to even think about balancing the budget any time soon. > The lefty kooks are pulling your chain. Even the dimmest ot the Dims know > it is the Congress that appropriates ALL the finds. They know the > President has northing to do with how much is spent. You also need to get a better newspaper than the weekly Penny Pincher. I guess telling the country that if the democrats voted against any of the ridiculous Bush spending packages they would not be supporting the troops had no effect on the outcome? Where you been, locked in the dungeon? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.