What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Ron Paul 2012!!!

Skinny Leaf

Active member
Veteran
The Never Ending bailout #3. This is absolute insanity to keep bailing out these banks at the expense of the U.S. citizens. These bailouts are killing the dollar. Everything is going to cost more. We have had five years of these bailouts and it is not fixing the economy at all. The Bernanke is just a puppet.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
40 billion a month mbs purchases(toxic junk assets paid for by taxpayers)
+
45 billion a month ltro(short term papers is just about gone, what then?)
=
Bank bailout/extend and pretend.

Served to you as a stimulative for our haggard economy.

But what was served as stimulative was really one of the most massive transfers of wealth ever.

Prepare accordingly...

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826) *
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
im not sure weather to laugh or not.its just a sad situation all around.

[YOUTUBEIF]LS879r7xeLc[/YOUTUBEIF]
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
The Fed has worked diligently toward that goal – significantly reducing the value of the dollar. In February, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee made the policy official by announcing it plans to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.

Somebody doesn't know a 'goal' from an aspect. Logic like this is not unlike, "We go to war to kill off our soldiers." Killing our soldiers isn't the goal but it is an aspect.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Do you know what a strategy is?

The strategy, devalue the dollar.

The goal, keep banks limping along, monetize the debt, allow the gov to continue massive deficit spending.

I'd say their strategy is effective for now..... Until it isn't.
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Oooohhhh Bernanke........ Soooo predictable. Who knew that the next round of printing was going to be QEternity? :dunno:

So tell me Mr. Smarty Pants Central Planner Bernanke, what happens when unlimited monetization of debt fails to do anything for the real economy as all the other QE whatevers have done? What happens when Main Street continues down the path of impoverishment while the stock market bubble continues to blow up and more and more wealth is transferred to the 1%?

What happens when fixed income people and savers are left with nothing while Wall Street basks in the glory of unlimited free printed fiat currency?

Congrats to the Keyensians. The have entered their end game. In a global macro environment of forced deleveraging due to total debt saturation they have started the BIG PRINT. Unlimited monetization of debt in a feeble attempt to prop up the corrupt status quo.....

CoyoteHeroin.jpg


Yep, this is going to end well.........
Blow bubbles, spew propaganda, and hope no one notices Bernanke... that the only thing left for you to do. :blowbubbles:
 
Last edited:

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
whodare changes the term from 'goal' to 'strategy' but makes the same argument. Devaluation is an accepted law of our monetary system. To characterize as a goal or strategy is a rejection of fundamentals of US economics. Folks want to go back so something they know little about and are willing to mischaracterize aspects that lend to the perception of impropriety.

I'm soooo happy Greenspan is long gone.
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Devaluation is an accepted law in our monetary system, yes. We are doing something far more destructive than "devaluation". We are monetizing sovereign debt. On a global level.

It was not an accepted law in monetary systems long before ours and for a very good reason, but history repeats itself because after a few generations lessons learned are lost. And so here are.....again....
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
I think the idea is to stimulate the poor unemployment rate and then shift to medium and long-term debt reduction.

The sooner we get away from supply-siders calling the shots, the sooner we'll return to the economics of the 50s and 60s (and 90s) that many conservatives reference as sound economic times.

New Deal might meet it's death knell if conservatives could persuade Americans to abandon it. Trouble is, too many are New Deal supporters and conservatives chose to wreck fiscal order to get rid of it.

The conversation rarely acknowledges that half the Hill is trying to fix the economy and fiscal order while the other half is trying to break it so they may go in another direction. I can smell what supply-siders are cooking and it ain't democracy.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
:redface: AAAaaahhhhhhhh see internet???

Ah, the prison planet, info wars, vampire freaks and Ron's facebook page. :tumbleweed:

Interesting that some of the sites that come up do not contain the phrase. Some commenter posts verbatim and it returns like a hit.

But here's the real good ones These sites don't even have verbatim in the comments sections. It's in their fucking html tags - like yet another hit but it's not.

http://nworeport.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited:

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Do you know what a strategy is?

The strategy, devalue the dollar.

The goal, keep banks limping along, monetize the debt, allow the gov to continue massive deficit spending.

I'd say their strategy is effective for now..... Until it isn't.

whodare changes the term from 'goal' to 'strategy' but makes the same argument. Devaluation is an accepted law of our monetary system. To characterize as a goal or strategy is a rejection of fundamentals of US economics. Folks want to go back so something they know little about and are willing to mischaracterize aspects that lend to the perception of impropriety.

I'm soooo happy Greenspan is long gone.

hhhm?

i dont think i made an argument, i stated fact.

lol, i'm rejecting fundamentals of the u.s economy by pointing out their strategy, and the goal of that strategy? :blowbubbles:

considering the capture of most monetary policy maker positions by the the banks and "ex-employees" i think it's fair to scrutinize decisions made that benefit those "ex-employers".



Devaluation is an accepted law in our monetary system, yes. We are doing something far more destructive than "devaluation". We are monetizing sovereign debt. On a global level.

It was not an accepted law in monetary systems long before ours and for a very good reason, but history repeats itself because after a few generations lessons learned are lost. And so here are.....again....
:tiphat: as usual a succinct summary.


I think the idea is to stimulate the poor unemployment rate and then shift to medium and long-term debt reduction.

hahahahahahahaha hows that banana feel. you really think devaluing our dollar will help the poor get jobs. what jobs? NAFTA and free trade killed those jobs and making our dollar worthless isn't going to bring them back.

The sooner we get away from supply-siders calling the shots, the sooner we'll return to the economics of the 50s and 60s (and 90s) that many conservatives reference as sound economic times.

You're a supply sider yourself, an monetary one at that, i mean you do support the devaluation right?

stimulate job creation by printing(ie supplying) to devalue the currency, so manufacturers can afford to hire americans.(cost of living increases be damned)

New Deal might meet it's death knell if conservatives could persuade Americans to abandon it. Trouble is, too many are New Deal supporters and conservatives chose to wreck fiscal order to get rid of it.

the entitlements the new deal created are destroying the economy just as bad if not worse than the ''slash and burn conservatives''.

The conversation rarely acknowledges that half the Hill is trying to fix the economy and fiscal order while the other half is trying to break it so they may go in another direction. I can smell what supply-siders are cooking and it ain't democracy.

blah blah blah red team blue team....

both side are destroying the economy , in their own special way, and they both will succeed because people are still convinced one side is really working for them(the voter) and not themselves(the politician)





if america wants it's jobs back get rid of NAFTA and all free trade, impose tariffs on imports(like practically every other country. china kills our exports with tariffs) and create a sound stable currency.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4398

This report, written by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, reveals that the growth of U.S. exports to countries with which the United States does not have Free Trade Agreements (FTA) has outpaced the growth of exports to the 17 U.S. FTA partners. This analysis of government trade data finds that FTAs have actually imposed an export "penalty," including in the service sector. The report also exposes the inconsistent methodology underlying reports by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to show how the corporate lobby has produced data to support their demand for more FTAs.




a few notable statistics in the report

•Between 1998 and 2008, U.S. goods exports to FTA partner countries grew by an annual average rate of only 3.0 percent. Goods exports to non-FTA partner countries, by contrast, grew by 4.2 percent per year on average. (The 2008 end date is used to show the trend before the overall falloff in trade flows related to the global economic crisis.) For convenience, we call this phenomenon the FTA export growth “penalty.” We do not claim that there is a causal link between export growth and FTA implementation, unlike proponents of FTAs. Rather, we simply report the actual outcomes with respect to exports of the past U.S. FTAs, given
misrepresentations about them now figure prominently in arguments in favor of passing more pacts based on the same model.

• The picture looks especially grim if one looks at the 1998-2009 period. Throughout this longer
period, which includes the year in which the global economic crisis peaked, goods exports to FTA countries grew by an average of only 0.8 percent per year. This compares with a growth rate of 2.2 percent year for U.S. exports to non-FTA countries – double that rate.

Defenders of the past U.S. FTAs regularly claim that these pacts’ existence helped avoid a worse falloff in trade related to the global economic crisis. In fact, in 2009, exports to FTA countries shrank 21.1 percent, while exports to non-FTA countries shrank only 18.4 percent.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
I think the idea is to stimulate the poor unemployment rate and then shift to medium and long-term debt reduction.


oh, i should add i think you might be confused as they have been adding long term debt through ltro or operation twist, and they are selling short term right now to buy the long.

oh and they are 60% of the bong market, so when they turn to sell that long term who's gonna buy it? china, japan?


that is after they raise the "poor" unemployment by destroying the value of money...

:laughing:

















edit i meant bond market not bong but i thought id leave it for some comedic relief.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
hhhm?

i dont think i made an argument, i stated fact.

You're repeating a false perception.

lol, i'm rejecting fundamentals of the u.s economy by pointing out their strategy, and the goal of that strategy?
Not the economy honey, the monetary system.

considering the capture of most monetary policy maker positions by the the banks and "ex-employees" i think it's fair to scrutinize decisions made that benefit those "ex-employers".
insert bubble blower

hahahahahahahaha hows that banana feel. you really think devaluing our dollar will help the poor get jobs. what jobs? NAFTA and free trade killed those jobs and making our dollar worthless isn't going to bring them back.
Here's your rejection of fundamental economics. Investment, not sitting on your laurels generates expansion.

You're a supply sider yourself, an monetary one at that, i mean you do support the devaluation right?
Not in the context you purport.

stimulate job creation by printing(ie supplying) to devalue the currency, so manufacturers can afford to hire americans.(cost of living increases be damned)
Where's the promised hyperinflation from the first two actions? It doesn't cost anything to borrow right now. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there's no better time to kick start more jobs, more demand and ultimately the expansion we're expecting.

Your own personal slice of modern infrastructure was created the same way. The things you use every day and apparently take for granted cost money, don't last forever and have to be maintained.

the entitlements the new deal created are destroying the economy just as bad if not worse than the ''slash and burn conservatives''.
Let's take a look at the first 4 decades. Democrats controlled both house of Congress and Republicans had a president here and there. Before the advent of intentional fiscal desrtruction by Republicans, Democrats rolled peanut deficits and "trillion" never entered the lexicon.

Compare this with one man. One man compared to 39 other men and 200 years of their combined debt. In a deliberate attempt to wreck fiscal order, this one man tripled their combined debt. Add HW's adventures and we quadrupled 39 men and 200 years worth of debt in 12 short years.

Add W's 6 trillion and 3 successive GOPer presidents spent 10 times the combined National debt of 39 presidents. These 3 spent 10 times more in 20 years than 39 managed in over two centuries.

blah blah blah red team blue team....
fiscal order versus "me first"

both side are destroying the economy , in their own special way, and they both will succeed because people are still convinced one side is really working for them(the voter) and not themselves(the politician)
All the stranger to wish to regress to a time worse than both. A time where you could be a banker, a railroader or a farmer. Very little in the way of infrastructure because banks and railroads only built banks and railroads.

if america wants it's jobs back get rid of NAFTA and all free trade, impose tariffs on imports(like practically every other country. china kills our exports with tariffs) and create a sound stable currency.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4398






a few notable statistics in the report
I agree, China is an unscrupulous player in global trade. That said, the current administration has sued China more times than the last guy (in less than half the time.) And we've won all our suits, resulting in more manufacturing jobs here.

Compare this to GOPers plans for the Reagan Free Zone.:tumbleweed:

http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2011/09/mitt-romneys-reagan-economic-zone.html
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Not the economy honey, the monetary system.

yep, i mis-typed. good job being a condescending douche.

fyi a rejection of "fundamentals" of monetary policy would also be a rejection of the fundamentals of the US economy as money is one of the most important parts of the economy.

insert bubble blower

who bernanke or greenspan?

Here's your rejection of fundamental economics. Investment, not sitting on your laurels generates expansion.

yes, and investors dont invest when the future of monetary and fiscal policy is dangerously uncertain.


Not in the context you purport.

what context is that?

Where's the promised hyperinflation from the first two actions? It doesn't cost anything to borrow right now. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there's no better time to kick start more jobs, more demand and ultimately the expansion we're expecting.

while some people fear hyperinflation, i dont. we as reserve currency are able to export the inflation. we can absolutely expect to see higher cost of living through food, and fuel prices, exacerbated by speculators fueled by an easy money policy...

and borrowing to build and rebuild is not at all going to solve the problems, sounds good but what do we need to rehabilitate our D grade infrastructure into grade A? a few trillion or so? where does that money come from, higher deficits? higher taxes? monetization of debt?


Your own personal slice of modern infrastructure was created the same way. The things you use every day and apparently take for granted cost money, don't last forever and have to be maintained.

yep, and look at it, its shit, the roads suck, bridges suck, electrical grids suck, wastewater management sucks. the government sure does a good job maintaining their investment.


Let's take a look at the first 4 decades. Democrats controlled both house of Congress and Republicans had a president here and there. Before the advent of intentional fiscal desrtruction by Republicans, Democrats rolled peanut deficits and "trillion" never entered the lexicon.

ah yes, the first four decades,

1913, federal reserve act, signed by the progressive Woodrow Wilson

1933-36 new deal, brought by the progressive movement yet again.

THE two biggest reasons we are here today, monetizing the debt of our entitlement system.

Compare this with one man. One man compared to 39 other men and 200 years of their combined debt. In a deliberate attempt to wreck fiscal order, this one man tripled their combined debt. Add HW's adventures and we quadrupled 39 men and 200 years worth of debt in 12 short years.

Add W's 6 trillion and 3 successive GOPer presidents spent 10 times the combined National debt of 39 presidents. These 3 spent 10 times more in 20 years than 39 managed in over two centuries.

then there was obama, the king of deficit bubble blowing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

fiscal order versus "me first"

see above...


All the stranger to wish to regress to a time worse than both. A time where you could be a banker, a railroader or a farmer. Very little in the way of infrastructure because banks and railroads only built banks and railroads.

you assume i want to regress. and 100 years ago was a different age, ya know before computers.

oh and rail is much more efficient then concrete and trucks, maybe there was a reason the government had to choose to build roads, (they dont care about return on investment, it's not their money)

I agree, China is an unscrupulous player in global trade. That said, the current administration has sued China more times than the last guy (in less than half the time.) And we've won all our suits, resulting in more manufacturing jobs here.

at least we agree on one thing ;)

but lawsuits are a bandaid on a gunshot to the heart. NAFTA brought to you by HW, signed by clinton. a real bipartisan effort if you ask me.

oh and lets not forget W's FTA's

oh and Obama's FTA's

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/obama-free-trade_b_1003846.html
If you thought President Obama's expressions of sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement meant he was suddenly going to stand up for "the 99%," think again. Obama has just submitted to Congress the Chamber of Commerce-backed Colombia, Panama, and Korea Free Trade Agreements. And now, thanks to maneuvering by Obama and his business-friendly Chief of Staff William Daley and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, they're on an accelerated schedule in Congress. According to a report in The Hill, they will be voted on Wednesday, where they're expected to pass.




again with the red team blue team. both sides got us here.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
I've already moved on, honey.

As long as there are corporations, conservatism will never go away. On the bright side, "supply side" will go dormant for 30 to 40 years. That said, "supply siders" will forever fill whatever vacuum the opposition doesn't guard.

A vacuum slight enough for a B-list movie actor and a couple of economic derelicts gave us more than three decades of disaster, not to mention the multiple decades of payback. Two follow-ups sealed the deal and ten-folded the national debt. If you account for the fact they did it in 1/10th the time, their spending ratio looks closer to 100:1. (That's 39 presidents representing the "1" and 3 GOPers representing the "100".
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
ya moved on cause a wet noodle has more backbone than your arguments, and ive thoroughly destroyed them all.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Not eviscerated? Ahh, you're slacking...

I just compare opinions, whoodydoody. I don't live vicariously through them, especially enough to get bent in a twist.

Check out "Ann Romney" on SNL Weekend Update. She credits Ron Paul toward the end.
 
Top