Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Mofo
()
Date: December 11, 2009 02:53PM
Time to buy more gold?
-----------------------
House leader says government needs to borrow at least $1.8 trillion more
By Lori Montgomery and Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 11, 2009 12:18 PM
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Friday that the government needs to borrow at least $1.8 trillion more next year to avoid defaulting on its debts.
Such an increase in the nation's debt ceiling is much larger than Democrats had contemplated earlier this year.
Hoyer's comment came as senior White House officials and House and Senate leaders planned to resume negotiations over the debt limit, with the three camps at odds over how to chart a course toward fiscal solvency.
Late Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag and other senior White House officials met with more than a dozen lawmakers at the Capitol, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
Conrad is the leader of a group of Senate moderates threatening to block an increase in the debt limit unless Congress also votes to create a bipartisan task force on deficit reduction with broad powers to force tax increases or spending cuts through Congress.
But the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have resisted giving an independent task force the power to make potentially momentous budget decisions outside the regular legislative process. One option: President Obama could appoint a task force by executive order, though that body would be significantly weaker than one created by statute.
Emerging from the meeting, Conrad said he would consider the idea, but only if lawmakers refused to create a more robust body.
"The first thing we want is a vote," he said.
Separately, conservative "Blue Dog" House Democrats are demanding a new pay-as-you-go law that would prohibit lawmakers from approving tax cuts or spending increases without offsetting the cost elsewhere, an idea the Senate has resisted.
"The stumbling block now is with the Senate. We're trying to get the Senate to move on this," Rep. Baron Hill (Ind.), a leading conservative Democrat, said Friday. He added that his group is ready to "make some very tough decisions about some legislation that's still pending if we don't get statutory pay-go."
A group of Blue Dogs met with Pelosi Thursday evening to reiterate their position. Aides said the meeting produced no decision on how the House will proceed on the issue.
But both Hill and Hoyer expressed hope that an agreement could be reached next week between the three camps. Hoyer said he had spoken extensively to Conrad on the issue, as well as Vice President Biden.
Democrats want to increase the debt limit now so they don't have to revisit the politically uncomfortable issue before facing votes in November. With the national debt projected to soar by nearly $1.4 trillion this year, Pelosi said Thursday she would include legislation to raise the debt ceiling in a must-pass defense spending bill headed to the House floor next week.
Republicans vowed to block such a move, despite the potential consequences.
"It will be an opportunity for us to point out the excessive spending that's going on in this Congress," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio).
Treasury officials have told congressional leaders that they must raise the cap before Dec. 31 or risk running out of money for Social Security checks and veterans' payments due in early January, Democrats said. By law, the Treasury can borrow no more than Congress legally permits.
The House voted this year to raise the debt limit to nearly $13 trillion, but the Senate never acted on the matter. Now, the issue is complicated by the competing demands of moderates in both chambers, who are expressing increasing concern about the nation's rising debt load.
Obama called this week for a jobs bill to combat the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate. That could add billions of dollars to budget deficits already driven to record heights by the worst recession in a generation and the emergency measures intended to ease its effects.
Conrad and other Senate moderates have threatened to vote against increasing the debt limit unless Congress creates the task force, composed primarily of lawmakers, to address the budget problem. Conrad and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) introduced legislation Wednesday to create such a body.
"We understand in the short term you add to debt to avert [economic] collapse. We understand that. We also understand at some point you need to pivot to address our long-term debt, because at some point, it's unsustainable," Conrad said Thursday.
-----------------------
House leader says government needs to borrow at least $1.8 trillion more
By Lori Montgomery and Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 11, 2009 12:18 PM
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Friday that the government needs to borrow at least $1.8 trillion more next year to avoid defaulting on its debts.
Such an increase in the nation's debt ceiling is much larger than Democrats had contemplated earlier this year.
Hoyer's comment came as senior White House officials and House and Senate leaders planned to resume negotiations over the debt limit, with the three camps at odds over how to chart a course toward fiscal solvency.
Late Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag and other senior White House officials met with more than a dozen lawmakers at the Capitol, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
Conrad is the leader of a group of Senate moderates threatening to block an increase in the debt limit unless Congress also votes to create a bipartisan task force on deficit reduction with broad powers to force tax increases or spending cuts through Congress.
But the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have resisted giving an independent task force the power to make potentially momentous budget decisions outside the regular legislative process. One option: President Obama could appoint a task force by executive order, though that body would be significantly weaker than one created by statute.
Emerging from the meeting, Conrad said he would consider the idea, but only if lawmakers refused to create a more robust body.
"The first thing we want is a vote," he said.
Separately, conservative "Blue Dog" House Democrats are demanding a new pay-as-you-go law that would prohibit lawmakers from approving tax cuts or spending increases without offsetting the cost elsewhere, an idea the Senate has resisted.
"The stumbling block now is with the Senate. We're trying to get the Senate to move on this," Rep. Baron Hill (Ind.), a leading conservative Democrat, said Friday. He added that his group is ready to "make some very tough decisions about some legislation that's still pending if we don't get statutory pay-go."
A group of Blue Dogs met with Pelosi Thursday evening to reiterate their position. Aides said the meeting produced no decision on how the House will proceed on the issue.
But both Hill and Hoyer expressed hope that an agreement could be reached next week between the three camps. Hoyer said he had spoken extensively to Conrad on the issue, as well as Vice President Biden.
Democrats want to increase the debt limit now so they don't have to revisit the politically uncomfortable issue before facing votes in November. With the national debt projected to soar by nearly $1.4 trillion this year, Pelosi said Thursday she would include legislation to raise the debt ceiling in a must-pass defense spending bill headed to the House floor next week.
Republicans vowed to block such a move, despite the potential consequences.
"It will be an opportunity for us to point out the excessive spending that's going on in this Congress," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio).
Treasury officials have told congressional leaders that they must raise the cap before Dec. 31 or risk running out of money for Social Security checks and veterans' payments due in early January, Democrats said. By law, the Treasury can borrow no more than Congress legally permits.
The House voted this year to raise the debt limit to nearly $13 trillion, but the Senate never acted on the matter. Now, the issue is complicated by the competing demands of moderates in both chambers, who are expressing increasing concern about the nation's rising debt load.
Obama called this week for a jobs bill to combat the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate. That could add billions of dollars to budget deficits already driven to record heights by the worst recession in a generation and the emergency measures intended to ease its effects.
Conrad and other Senate moderates have threatened to vote against increasing the debt limit unless Congress creates the task force, composed primarily of lawmakers, to address the budget problem. Conrad and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) introduced legislation Wednesday to create such a body.
"We understand in the short term you add to debt to avert [economic] collapse. We understand that. We also understand at some point you need to pivot to address our long-term debt, because at some point, it's unsustainable," Conrad said Thursday.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 11, 2009 05:33PM
Well, at the rate they are increasing the pay of Federal workers, it seems like pretty soon they will be printing money on toilet paper... But in reading the articles, it appears there are conflicting stories and issues.
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The article seems to want you to believe that this is the reason...
And yet...
Army Times - White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/
(Bush had advocated for a 3% military pay hike and Congress wanted to give them 3.5% which he said was too much.
Obama stands firm on 2 percent civilian pay hike
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0809/083109ar1.htm
But hey, good thing Congress didn't have a problemprinting raising money to pay for all these salary hikes during a recession.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2009 05:35PM by Registered Voter.
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The article seems to want you to believe that this is the reason...
Quote
•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.
•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.
•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
And yet...
Army Times - White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/
(Bush had advocated for a 3% military pay hike and Congress wanted to give them 3.5% which he said was too much.
Obama stands firm on 2 percent civilian pay hike
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0809/083109ar1.htm
Quote
...
"A national emergency... has existed since Sept. 11, 2001," Obama wrote in an Aug. 31 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Likewise, with unemployment at 9.5 percent in June to cite just one economic indicator, few would disagree that our country is facing serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare. The growth in federal requirements is straining the federal budget."
* House passes 2 percent pay raise 07/17/09
* Senate committee endorses 2.9 percent federal pay raise 07/09/09
* House, Senate panels advance competing federal pay raises 07/08/09
* Pay and benefits legislation awaits lawmakers 07/07/09
* Senate Defense bill to raise military pay by 3.4 percent 06/24/09
Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag echoed Obama's sentiments in a July 9 letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. But, Orszag wrote, "The administration shares your commitment to a strong civil service....The administration is therefore committed in future years to the principle of pay parity between the annual pay increase for the federal civilian workforce and members of the armed services."
Under the law governing pay for civilian federal employees, workers are entitled to an across-the-board raise equal to 0.5 percentage points less than the growth in the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index. This year, that would have been a 2.4 percent raise, plus an increase in locality pay. But Obama said the $22.6 billion required to implement that pay hike would be too costly. Congress could still override the president's plan.
Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, criticized Obama for refusing to acknowledge that he simply does not want to raise federal pay.
"We're operating under a fiction where every year, every president cites a national emergency to avoid a pay raise the law otherwise requires for the federal workforce," Stier said. "That's not a way to run a railroad or a way to run a government.... It becomes Kabuki theater, and for an administration that wants transparency, this is not transparency."
Large sections of Obama's letter, including the reference to Sept. 11, and, with one minor alteration, the entire final paragraph, in which the president argued that his proposed raise would not affect federal hiring, are copied verbatim from a similar letter ( http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1436/federal-2008-pay-raise-latest-twist-process.html ) President George W. Bush sent to Congress in 2007, regarding the 2008 pay raise.
...
But hey, good thing Congress didn't have a problem
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2009 05:35PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: December 11, 2009 06:21PM
Um, remind me--where were you guys 4 years ago?
The line is not likely to make this week's eulogies to Ronald Reagan, but when Vice President Cheney allegedly declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he summed up an enduring argument from the former president's economic legacy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer
The line is not likely to make this week's eulogies to Ronald Reagan, but when Vice President Cheney allegedly declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he summed up an enduring argument from the former president's economic legacy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 11, 2009 06:28PM
God that argument again? Cheney is no longer in office, and my understanding is that Obama was NOT Bush/Cheney. So if you want to keep acting like what Bush and Cheney did was ok, then why even vote for Obama? You make it sound like Bush and Cheney could do no wrong now that Obama has taken up their policy mantle.
Obama has deficits 4 TIMES the size of what Bush/Cheney had - so while running a deficit is one thing, running the monetary system into the ground is another thing entirely. In one thread you bitch about gold price hawkers, where the price of gold is so high now due to the severely over printed US Dollar, and then in this thread you blithely toss off the issue. Which is it? Because if deficits don't matter, then why would you complain about the price of gold or people profiting from advertising it? Money is meaningless or does it matter?
You folks that want to push this Cheney argument are funny. Ready to pull it out of your pocket at a moments notice, and yet you have no clue what Reagan's economic policy was, or why it failed. Why did it fail again? Anyone? Oh right, because Congress can't stop spending money like drunken sailors. And yes, 4 years ago, and before that even - I was against this BS deficit spending. They should have given Reagan the line item veto that he asked for years ago.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2009 06:29PM by Registered Voter.
Obama has deficits 4 TIMES the size of what Bush/Cheney had - so while running a deficit is one thing, running the monetary system into the ground is another thing entirely. In one thread you bitch about gold price hawkers, where the price of gold is so high now due to the severely over printed US Dollar, and then in this thread you blithely toss off the issue. Which is it? Because if deficits don't matter, then why would you complain about the price of gold or people profiting from advertising it? Money is meaningless or does it matter?
You folks that want to push this Cheney argument are funny. Ready to pull it out of your pocket at a moments notice, and yet you have no clue what Reagan's economic policy was, or why it failed. Why did it fail again? Anyone? Oh right, because Congress can't stop spending money like drunken sailors. And yes, 4 years ago, and before that even - I was against this BS deficit spending. They should have given Reagan the line item veto that he asked for years ago.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2009 06:29PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 11, 2009 06:35PM
One factor not accounted for in the articles is the ever expanding pay locality adjustments. Designed to equalize pay amongst high cost areas such as DC...NYC...San Francisco..Los Angeles...it has been expanded. As an example..a few years ago the Harrisburg, PA area was included in the DC pay locality area. Overnight the people working in the affected area recieved a 7% pay increase.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: December 11, 2009 06:39PM
Calm down there, sparky. In no way did I ever believe what Bush/Cheney did was okay. You did--but didn't bother ever raising any of these concerns about deficits back then. I spoke out about the deficits then. Obama's programs are only responsible for about 20% of the current deficit--the rest was left to him courtesy of the last administration. And unfortunately, we have to spend now to fix the gigantic, fucked up mess they left behind. Hopefully, we'll be on a course of fiscal sanity soon.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God that argument again? Cheney is no longer in
> office, and my understanding is that Obama was NOT
> Bush/Cheney. So if you want to keep acting like
> what Bush and Cheney did was ok, then why even
> vote for Obama? You make it sound like Bush and
> Cheney could do no wrong now that Obama has taken
> up their policy mantle.
>
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God that argument again? Cheney is no longer in
> office, and my understanding is that Obama was NOT
> Bush/Cheney. So if you want to keep acting like
> what Bush and Cheney did was ok, then why even
> vote for Obama? You make it sound like Bush and
> Cheney could do no wrong now that Obama has taken
> up their policy mantle.
>
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 12, 2009 12:38AM
Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Calm down there, sparky. In no way did I ever
> believe what Bush/Cheney did was okay. You
> did--but didn't bother ever raising any of these
> concerns about deficits back then. I spoke out
> about the deficits then. Obama's programs are
> only responsible for about 20% of the current
> deficit--the rest was left to him courtesy of the
> last administration. And unfortunately, we have
> to spend now to fix the gigantic, fucked up mess
> they left behind. Hopefully, we'll be on a course
> of fiscal sanity soon.
>
You have no clue what I did or did not speak out about. I wrote plenty of letters against new spending. With Congress lifting the debt ceiling again I don't think fiscal sanity is coming soon.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Calm down there, sparky. In no way did I ever
> believe what Bush/Cheney did was okay. You
> did--but didn't bother ever raising any of these
> concerns about deficits back then. I spoke out
> about the deficits then. Obama's programs are
> only responsible for about 20% of the current
> deficit--the rest was left to him courtesy of the
> last administration. And unfortunately, we have
> to spend now to fix the gigantic, fucked up mess
> they left behind. Hopefully, we'll be on a course
> of fiscal sanity soon.
>
You have no clue what I did or did not speak out about. I wrote plenty of letters against new spending. With Congress lifting the debt ceiling again I don't think fiscal sanity is coming soon.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Mr. Misery
()
Date: December 12, 2009 03:45AM
heeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, buddays!........................what'cha guys talkin' bout.....?? The federal deficit..........??
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: December 12, 2009 09:03AM
RV was for deficits before he was against them...
deal with it!
deal with it!
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 12, 2009 09:40AM
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV was for deficits before he was against them...
>
> deal with it!
Dono-nuthin.
9/11 happened, deal with it.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV was for deficits before he was against them...
>
> deal with it!
Dono-nuthin.
9/11 happened, deal with it.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: December 12, 2009 10:11AM
Hopefully Sarah Palin will help institute a one-world currency in 2012, and we can get this Armageddon thing over with quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 12, 2009 10:26AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully Sarah Palin will help institute a
> one-world currency in 2012, and we can get this
> Armageddon thing over with quickly.
Bah. Well, maybe she will get her picture printed on the new currency. That's it - instead of old fuddy duddies from our important people, we should have pictures of hot girls and MILFs on our money.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully Sarah Palin will help institute a
> one-world currency in 2012, and we can get this
> Armageddon thing over with quickly.
Bah. Well, maybe she will get her picture printed on the new currency. That's it - instead of old fuddy duddies from our important people, we should have pictures of hot girls and MILFs on our money.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 12, 2009 11:04AM
Well. After the 2010 elections I expect will be when all the new tax plans get passed to pay for all the spending they are racking up. Even if the Republicans get a big boost in the election (as evidenced by current polls) it appears the Democrats are setting them up to have to be the bad guys in heavy involvement in tax increases. And we all sit here and say "yeah, business as usual". These folks on the Hill have no concept of being a person once they get elected - it is all about setting the next guy up for the fall.
Democrats plan nearly $2 trillion debt limit hike
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091211/D9CHCOIG0.html
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Democrats plan nearly $2 trillion debt limit hike
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091211/D9CHCOIG0.html
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: December 12, 2009 01:38PM
I was discussing gold earlier this week with my accountant. He and I concluded that if things really go to hell, shotgun shells and cans of tuna will be worth more than gold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Steve Wilhite
()
Date: December 12, 2009 03:01PM
The great liberal and media myth of the financial crisis of 2008 is that the crisis was caused by the failure of the free market; that "deregulation" and "unfettered free markets" wrecked the economy; that unless there was a massive infusion of gov't regulation, the economy would be "wrecked forever."
Hogwash.
The crisis was caused by excessive and intrusive gov't intervention, from politicians' favorite toys, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to wastefull affirmative action programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, which, along with the Fed's easy credit and cheap money policies, made the Housing Bubble possible.
It was the Federal reserve's subsidy of the enormous debt that guaranteed there would be a housing bubble. With housing prices soaring through the stratosphere, and historically cheap credit, the money part proved too intoxicating to millions of Americans. It was 1929 all over again.
No, it is not the free market that failed; it was years and years of intrusive gov't policies that prevented the free market from working as intended.
The real villans do not reside on Wall St; the real villans reside in Washington D.C.
Bureaucrats and politicians in Washington manipuate the value of our money. Because of their reckless interference in the free market we are all suffering; liberals, conservatives alike.
Hogwash.
The crisis was caused by excessive and intrusive gov't intervention, from politicians' favorite toys, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to wastefull affirmative action programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, which, along with the Fed's easy credit and cheap money policies, made the Housing Bubble possible.
It was the Federal reserve's subsidy of the enormous debt that guaranteed there would be a housing bubble. With housing prices soaring through the stratosphere, and historically cheap credit, the money part proved too intoxicating to millions of Americans. It was 1929 all over again.
No, it is not the free market that failed; it was years and years of intrusive gov't policies that prevented the free market from working as intended.
The real villans do not reside on Wall St; the real villans reside in Washington D.C.
Bureaucrats and politicians in Washington manipuate the value of our money. Because of their reckless interference in the free market we are all suffering; liberals, conservatives alike.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 12, 2009 03:16PM
While surfing TV channels late last night I caught a GB show. It was about Stocks, TBills and GGG.
Stocks was normal investment with risk
TBills was in the middle, represented as a doorway. He described it as the place folks went during an earthquake, and "safe". He said if you could follow the investments of Soros you should watch his (his are all very well hidden though so it was merely speculative) and move to TBills when he does.
GGG was God, Gold and Guns. That was where you went when the whole system went to hell. He said no one had been on that side of the doorway - really - it was just that was where people figured you had to go if the doorway was no longer available as a "safe" spot.
It was interesting in a goofy, Glenn Beckian sort of way. The reason it intrigued me was the whole discussion we had about Fox folks promoting gold. I am not sure that Beck does - he didn't seem to be promoting it too strongly in the discussion he was having. I think what bugs me the most about him is he seems to be very much a "born again" type - he just barely manages to keep most of it in check while he is on the air. My brother has a friend like him - I can't sit in the same room with them for more then 5 minutes when they are on a "roll".
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2009 03:17PM by Registered Voter.
Stocks was normal investment with risk
TBills was in the middle, represented as a doorway. He described it as the place folks went during an earthquake, and "safe". He said if you could follow the investments of Soros you should watch his (his are all very well hidden though so it was merely speculative) and move to TBills when he does.
GGG was God, Gold and Guns. That was where you went when the whole system went to hell. He said no one had been on that side of the doorway - really - it was just that was where people figured you had to go if the doorway was no longer available as a "safe" spot.
It was interesting in a goofy, Glenn Beckian sort of way. The reason it intrigued me was the whole discussion we had about Fox folks promoting gold. I am not sure that Beck does - he didn't seem to be promoting it too strongly in the discussion he was having. I think what bugs me the most about him is he seems to be very much a "born again" type - he just barely manages to keep most of it in check while he is on the air. My brother has a friend like him - I can't sit in the same room with them for more then 5 minutes when they are on a "roll".
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2009 03:17PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Ace of Spades
()
Date: December 12, 2009 03:23PM
.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Ace of Spades
()
Date: December 12, 2009 03:33PM
Glenn Beck needs to cut his Prozacs in half.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Beck - Not So Mellow Gold | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
Re: Pretty soon we will run out of paper to print money
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 12, 2009 03:33PM
Yeah, that chart is going to look a lot like AGW now won't it. I think the Congress has succeeded in making a hockey stick...
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University