Obama on Fiscal Responsibility

[Good Old Neon]

wake up people your an idiot if you can't see it , i think we could all use a healthy dose of that anyone disagree?

 

 

 

have you read my last thread americans dont give a fuck about argentina or FACTS!!!!! lol

 

I

[rareair]

There has already been a test run of this in Argentina. Another central bank controlled country. Again, it is laid out for people to see.

 

argentina and the united states have far more differences than commonalities and your reliance on that example as to why you know what will happen in the future is absurd.

[Panther]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...ive-easing.html

 

titile of this article IMF poised to print billions of dollars in 'global quantitative easing'

 

.......... but I ask this what alternative solution to global currency can anyone here provide?

cause if you can't you should just shut up this is similar to the bailout , you see

[futureage1]

You chide him for quoting the journal, yet you seem to be parroting the Michelle Bachmann argument that Obama is trying to institute a rodl wide currency. What's the evidence? If any of it comes from that batsh*t crazy Bachman, well that has all been debunked. Debunked in thhe real world even though fox kept pushing this notion. Does it come from a random quote from China about a new standard currency? What is the reason for the hysteria?

 

Fox and Bachman I defend on no levels. They are part of the problem and in on it too when they say the GOP will save you. Funny Fox didn't care about these NWO initiatives when Bush and Co. were carrying them out. What started as a legit demonstration against bailouts has been stolen by the GOP when everybody knows that the real purpose was a demonstration against BOTH parties carrying out world Govt. initiatives. People like Glen Beck are put on air to discredit legit concerns. Anyone who advocates violence like Beck,Bachman and Co. are not touting a solution. I agree they prey on weak minded people , which is unfortunate. I personally don't believe in left and right anymore. It has been obvious to me for some time there are no differences in the parties and both carry out the same agenda. Reading history it is obvious our last real President was JFK.

 

As far as China and world reserve currency, there are tons of articles posted about it in this thread. It is being carried out as we speak. Switching reserve currency is an obvious first step to implementing a global currency. But destruction of the dollar has to happen first and is, as we speak. It would be helpful for people to read the thread before posting arguments that I post no articles backing up my opinion. In fact reading some of the articles might show you that I'm not making any of this up.

[Panther]

argentina and the united states have far more differences than commonalities and your reliance on that example as to why you know what will happen in the future is absurd.

 

 

what ? thats such general bullshit, first of all I didnt say I know what will happen in the future.

all I did was provide an example of the same thing happening in another country, why can't you just take it for what it is and try to learn something.

Because it can happen here even though we've been promised that it cant, right? the great depression never happened its as real as petter pan.

this generation has never expirenced real hard times..... and I just dont wannnnnna okay you cant make me

[futureage1]

argentina and the united states have far more differences than commonalities and your reliance on that example as to why you know what will happen in the future is absurd.

 

No, they are very similar. But I'm tired of arguing with you about it. This is a free country and I respect your opinion about it.

[MattZ]

No, they are very similar. But I'm tired of arguing with you about it. This is a free country and I respect your opinion about it.

 

Argentina's GDP is $260 Billion. As in, a third of our $700 billion bailout. Coming in just ahead of Finland ($246B)!

 

(USA's gdp is 13.8 trillion, fwiw)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_(nominal)

 

(also, rareair, is that Dave Kingman?)

[Panther]

I

[ZenLunatic]

The end is coming.....

[futureage1]

Argentina's GDP is $260 Billion. As in, a third of our $700 billion bailout. Coming in just ahead of Finland ($246B)!

 

(USA's gdp is 13.8 trillion, fwiw)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_(nominal)

 

(also, rareair, is that Dave Kingman?)

 

Given that the bailout now stands at 12.8 trillion that's some pretty outdated information. And news flash with the contraction now we won't hit 13.8 trillion either. Sure we are bigger but you know the saying: the bigger they are the harder they fall. So Argentina's collapse will look tame compared to ours. I don't know when it becomes clear how fucked we are already.

[austrya]

Actually my birth name is robert zimmerman but I knewi would never make it on this board without a flashy name.

So I picked up a poetry book by the poet PANTHER Thomas and destiny took hold, one thing was for certain not only was this new world

not run by god but it wasn't run by the devil eather....

 

a quate from PANTHER CHRONICHLES ... soon to be released as a VC exclusive

 

 

Holy shit! PANTHER is BOB DYLAN!!

[MattZ]

Given that the bailout now stands at 12.8 trillion that's some pretty outdated information. And news flash with the contraction now we won't hit 13.8 trillion either. Sure we are bigger but you know the saying: the bigger they are the harder they fall. So Argentina's collapse will look tame compared to ours. I don't know when it becomes clear how fucked we are already.

 

I am aware of the saying. I don't see how it is relevant to whether we are, or are not, similar to Argentina which is what you asserted above and what I responded to, with evidence. You continue to make statements without evidence (e.g., how are we similar to Argentina?), and your conclusions don't become evidence simply because you reiterate them.

 

Also, it is possible to have inflation without collapse. It is also possible to fight inflation. I expect that this country is headed down that path. I am not ready to accept that we are headed for collapse.

 

And you have yet to react to the fact that Goldman is offering to pay back bailout funds. Something that you insisted no bank would ever do. Instead you focused on whether they were or weren't profitable. Sure, we can argue about that. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that they are planning to make taxpayers whole. Again, something the bailout opponents insisted would never happen. Come to think of it, here is a link to the news story from the NY Times

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/...g/?ref=business

[futureage1]

I am aware of the saying. I don't see how it is relevant to whether we are, or are not, similar to Argentina which is what you asserted above and what I responded to, with evidence. You continue to make statements without evidence (e.g., how are we similar to Argentina?), and your conclusions don't become evidence simply because you reiterate them.

 

Also, it is possible to have inflation without collapse. It is also possible to fight inflation. I expect that this country is headed down that path. I am not ready to accept that we are headed for collapse.

 

And you have yet to react to the fact that Goldman is offering to pay back bailout funds. Something that you insisted no bank would ever do. Instead you focused on whether they were or weren't profitable. Sure, we can argue about that. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that they are planning to make taxpayers whole. Come to think of it, here is a link to the news story from the NY Times

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/...g/?ref=business

 

Goldman Sachs are not paying anything back when it is from AIG that is also our money. Do you see the rip off now with AIG saying they can't pay back the loans? Article is posted a few pages back.

 

Argentina

[caliber66]

Say, for example, I loan John 30 bucks and Jim 75 bucks. If John gets the 40 bucks he owes from Jim and gives me my 30, how has John not paid back the 30 he borrowed from me?

[futureage1]

Say, for example, I loan John 30 bucks and Jim 75 bucks. If John gets the 40 bucks he owes from Jim and gives me my 30, how has John not paid back the 30 he borrowed from me?

 

The problem with your equation is you are in reality only getting the $40 from John. Jim (AIG) stiffed you. But John stiffed you too since he got the money from Jim knowing Jim had no intention of paying you back. John just doesn't want you to know he stiffed you too and knew you were never getting all your money back.

 

It explains why AIG threw all the parties and paid out the bonuses.

 

And Goldman Sachs is still paying us back with our own money from AIG, claiming it's profits. Nothing could be further from the definition of profits.

[rareair]

(also, rareair, is that Dave Kingman?)

 

it is. i like kingman but love the old uni.

[caliber66]

The problem with your equation is you are in reality only getting the $40 from John. Jim (AIG) stiffed you. But John stiffed you too since he got the money from Jim knowing Jim had no intention of paying you back. John just doesn't want you to know he stiffed you too and knew you were never getting all your money back.

 

It explains why AIG threw all the parties and paid out the bonuses.

 

And Goldman Sachs is still paying us back with our own money from AIG, claiming it's profits. Nothing could be further from the definition of profits.

No. I got my 30 back from John. If giving John his 40 makes Jim less likely to pay me the 75 he owes me, I'm still only out 75, not 105. John is not "not paying anything back."

 

It doesn't matter what Goldman is calling the money (profits, windfall, pillage), as long as it is coming back to the Treasury - which it seems to be.

[futureage1]

No. I got my 30 back from John. If giving John his 40 makes Jim less likely to pay me the 75 he owes me, I'm still only out 75, not 105. John is not "not paying anything back."

 

It doesn't matter what Goldman is calling the money (profits, windfall, pillage), as long as it is coming back to the Treasury - which it seems to be.

 

You are still out all the money. I didn't add anything to it. How do we get anything back if we originated all the money that is being paid back? It's ridiculous to claim we got paid back. We didn't increase the debt to 75 to 105 but we are still out the whole 75. How did we get any money back giving it all out originally? It's moving all the same money around giving s small piece back and keeping a real big chunk for yourself. It's classic Madoff being perpetrated on a massive scale.

 

I can't believe I'm arguing math problems. Beyond lame I'm going to quit posting. Believe whatever fairy tale you like about getting money back that all originated from taxpayers.

[caliber66]

You are still out all the money. I didn't add anything to it. How do we get anything back if we originated all the money that is being paid back? It's ridiculous to claim we got paid back. We didn't increase the debt to 75 to 105 but we are still out the whole 75. How did we get any money back giving it all out originally? It's moving all the same money around giving s small piece back and keeping a real big chunk for yourself. It's classic Madoff being perpetrated on a massive scale.

 

I can't believe I'm arguing math problems. Beyond lame I'm going to quit posting. Believe whatever fairy tale you like about getting money back that all originated from taxpayers.

Look, I have loaned out $105, and been paid back $30. It's possible that I'm never going to see the $75, and that's bad, but you can't say that I haven't received back $30 because I clearly have. You said Goldman didn't pay back anything. That's false. AIG may not be paying back anything, but that's a different matter.

 

Believe whatever fuzzy math you like about losing all the taxpayer money that was loaned to the banking industry.

[futureage1]

Look, I have loaned out $105, and been paid back $30. It's possible that I'm never going to see the $75, and that's bad, but you can't say that I haven't received back $30 because I clearly have. You said Goldman didn't pay back anything. That's false. AIG may not be paying back anything, but that's a different matter.

 

Believe whatever fuzzy math you like about losing all the taxpayer money that was loaned to the banking industry.

 

That is so pathetic I spent a day defending myself against GS cheerleaders. Good luck with that if you are satisfied with the results you just laid out. I see people spent no time learning anything from articles posted. Just defending what they have been told to think by the very people ripping you off. I have nothing more to say this board is beyond depressing. Sleep tight knowing how open minded you are as you cheer your own countries demise.

[bobbob1313]

That is so pathetic I spent a day defending myself against GS cheerleaders. Good luck with that if you are satisfied with the results you just laid out. I see people spent no time learning anything from articles posted. Just defending what they have been told to think by the very people ripping you off. I have nothing more to say this board is beyond depressing. Sleep tight knowing how open minded you are as you cheer your own countries demise.

 

I wish I knew anything as well as as this guy knows everything.

[Sir Stewart]

I wish I knew anything as well as as this guy knows everything.

 

You know that David Eckstein's the greatest ballplayer in the game's history, so that's something.

[caliber66]

That is so pathetic I spent a day defending myself against GS cheerleaders. Good luck with that if you are satisfied with the results you just laid out. I see people spent no time learning anything from articles posted. Just defending what they have been told to think by the very people ripping you off. I have nothing more to say this board is beyond depressing. Sleep tight knowing how open minded you are as you cheer your own countries demise.

I'm not a cheerleader, and I'm not saying that the American taxpayers are getting a good deal here. You said that Goldman Sachs is not paying anything back, which is a demonstrably false statement, however you care to spin it. I never said anything about being satisfied with any results, nor did you until this post (except when putting words in others' mouths) - your original position was that Goldman didn't pay any money back to the government, and that was the only point I was addressing.

[Panther]

I wish I knew anything as well as as this guy knows everything.

 

 

C'mon thats a load of crap, he laid out his opinions clearly and many people "out there" agree with these opinions.

Your exagerating and generalizing , its not absurd to have these types of opinions about the banking industry so stop acting like it is.

I think mjority of the people here are clearly clinging to oneside of the argument and if you cant tell its you who are being stubbern.

 

At the same time many of you have expressed reasnable and educated opinions on the current economic situation and there are many people "out there"

who agree that this thing can be turned around, thats fine. But keep it at that, stop acting like its absurd to feel like we the masses to quote Obamma have been HOODWINKED , BAMBOUSOULED. Its not insane to feel like as far as the economy goes it cant be fixed.

 

That is how I feeel, when the initial economic collapse occurred last september it did not come as a shock to me. In my eyes it was an intentinal mess

it was a sabatoge situation and now we are begging to see the grand solution , dont agree no biggie the truth is the truth w.e it is.

Infact its a funny little thing the truth you see it dosent care about liberals or conservatives viewpoints or agendas it simply is what it is.

 

I think this entire argument is a major miss communication, for example MattZ you and Futerage have been engaging in a economic debate an that is all fine and well and much neeeded at this point in time. But constantly claiming that Futerage has provided no evidence is lunacy and has more to do with the fact that many of you correct me if Im wrong feel like people who take N.W.O claims seriously are ideaolagy warriors, or nuts. Are many , yes, are all no.

 

for example I could post a video of Ron Paul being asked about the N.W.O and expressing his serious worries for American soverignty.

Now are all of you smarter in the ways of international politics than Ron Paul, obviously the answer is no , so what makes you all qualified

to disreguard these claims without any reasearch or even the slightest intrest in what they in"truth" mean?

 

 

This is my honest opinion that many people simple eather dont want to hear that crap, dont care, dont think about how things really work(dose anyone understand money?) or do care are intrested and simply and strongly disagree thats fine. But I have my opinions on why you disagree and I am entitled to them, briefly I assume many of you read Noam Choamsky and others of that Ilk .Personaly I dont have an ounce of respect for someone like Noam Choamsky so in my eyes youy are as crazy as I am in your eyes the only diffrence is you are on the side of cpnventional wisdom, well fuck convention wisdom I want the truth.

 

JUST GIMME SOME TRUTH

[MattZ]

Also, for the record, Goldman is issuing new stock ($5 BN) to raise money to pay back TARP. Raising private capital. The idea that Goldman is using AIG money to pay back the government is not only irrelevant if it were true (thanks caliber), but frankly, it's false.

 

Yes, I understand that dollars are fungible. I also understand that the only reason that Goldman is doing this is to enrich themselves (i.e., to avoid being subject to compensation restrictions imposed by the government). Those seem like the proper criticisms of Goldman here. But you cannot avoid the FACTS!!! (hey panther) which is that Goldman (1) doesnt have to pay the money back but will (as some have insisted they wouldn't), and (2) they are raising $5BN of private capital.

 

Nowhere have I (or anyone else) been cheerleaders for Goldman. There are no winners here. My only point in this back and forth is to state the case that things are not as cut and dry as some try to make it seem. It's not a foregone conclusion that this country will collapse. You know why? Because it was never a foregone conclusion that we'd "never see this money again." Even though some insisted it was.

 

Also, futureage1, as for Argentina, I am somewhat familiar with what happened in Argentina. I would never suggest that the policies of the government weren't similar in some respects. I wouldn't suggest that runaway inflation didn't cripple that nation. What I am suggesting is that simply because it happened there doesn't mean it will happen here. We are a completely different economy, relying on completely different factors, with a completely different set of facts that we are trying to solve for. Inflation does not, by definition, equal collapse. We will likely have inflation (stagflation, actually?). No one is suggesting that the next 5 years will be easy.

 

Ok, seriously, I am imposing a hiatus on myself from this thread for now. My head hurts. futureage1, I defer to you for the final word if you want it.