Usa Thread

[cavanami]

The USA did fine for 200 years WITHOUT the Fed Reserve. Since the Fed Reserve has been in power, we have had several depressions and recessions...which they were *** suppose *** to prevent but they did not, in fact they fueled the depressions and the "gang" (JP Morgan, Rockerfellers) bought up failed banks for pennies on the dollar.

 

It is a scam with international PRIVATE bankers cashing in at the US taxpayers expense!

 

This is the new American Socialism...gov backs poor private business decisions and the taxpayer pays the freight!!!

 

Little risk for the private business but the business gets all the profits will the taxpayers get farked!!!

[Bangkoktraveler]

 

The financial panics didn't happen because we were on the gold standard or because of it. They happened for varioius reasons OTHER than the gold standard. We created legislation like Glass-Steagal and others to stop similar types of panics. It was a total different financial world back then.

 

Nor did I say it did. What I said was that in the Great Depression' date=' the gold standard made it worse because it limited what could be done to expand the monetary base, and also that countries that went off it did better sooner than those that didn’t. OTOH, the 1987 crash turned out to be a minor blip (on the broader scale of the economy) because the Fed was free to pump liquidity as it saw fit.

I saw an analysis written in the mid 90s that noted at that time, gold had a 1000% increase in price since it was let to float in 1971; whereas the DOW goes up 700% and consumer prices 250%. Do the math on the deflation that would have to occur if you had to keep the price of gold from rising.

Ron Paul appears to think deflation is good. You might think deflation is good if you are sitting on piles of cash, but if you run a business where you have to borrow to replenish your inventory, when you sell it, you are getting back less than you put in. So it is contractionary.

There are other scenarios: suppose you are on the gold standard and another country with a big economy such as China or Germany goes on it (or off it). More pressures on the supply/demand of gold that your economy has nothing to do with. BTW, Germany did that with silver and that is considered to be a cause of the Panic of 1878, which was very severe.

I remember seeing Paul respond to a question on corporate fraud, but his answer dodged the question. His response might have had true statements, but they had little to do with the question. In other words, he is a typical politician. Plus his ideology brings the worst of the 19th century. Remember how companies would not pay their workers in money, but in company script. Would this be an outcome from Paul’s ideas on competition of currency? As I understand this and other statements he has made, it would sanction this. Maybe he is just dumb and hasn’t thought it out?

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

The gold market in the USA's past was not set by the market but the value of gold was set by the government.

[Bangkoktraveler]

The USA did fine for 200 years WITHOUT the Fed Reserve. Since the Fed Reserve has been in power, we have had several depressions and recessions...which they were *** suppose *** to prevent but they did not, in fact they fueled the depressions and the "gang" (JP Morgan, Rockerfellers) bought up failed banks for pennies on the dollar.

 

It is a scam with international PRIVATE bankers cashing in at the US taxpayers expense!

 

This is the new American Socialism...gov backs poor private business decisions and the taxpayer pays the freight!!!

 

Little risk for the private business but the business gets all the profits will the taxpayers get farked!!!

 

 

 

I got to agree with you 100%!

[Flashermac]

 

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

 

 

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report†on the economic impact of the “stimulus,†released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus†did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

 

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus†in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus†(which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of†the legislation), the “stimulus†has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

 

In other words, the government could simply have written a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,†and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

 

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus†had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus†than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus†has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

 

[color:red]Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for.[/color]

 

In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus†has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

 

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus†was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

 

[color:red]All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.â€[/color]

 

 

 

Link

 

[Flashermac]

Britain Holds Tribute to President Ronald Reagan

 

 

As Fourth of July celebrations get under way across the United States, London will hold its own tribute to America's 40th President, Ronald Reagan, with the unveiling of a bronze statue outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square.

 

Former president Reagan will stand alongside other celebrated US heads of state such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower and was considered important enough for Westminster City Council to break its rule specifying that ten years must pass after a subject's death before they can be immortalized in statue form.

 

Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be in London for the unveiling of the memorial, along with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. Baroness Thatcher, Reagan's closest foreign ally and one half of the 'Special Relationship' which came to epitomize the 1980s and contribute to the demise of the Cold War will probably be too frail to attend the ceremony celebrating the man she referred to as "the second most important man in my life."

 

The $1 million statue is the latest in a number that have been unveiled across the world, celebrating 100 years since Reagan's birth and in recognition of his contribution to the fall of Communism in Europe. Indeed a quote attributed to Lady Thatcher that "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot" will be etched on the statue's plinth which will be displayed with a portion of the Berlin Wall.

 

Former special assistant to Ronald Reagan Mary Jo Jacobi told CNBC.com ahead of attending that ceremony that Reagan would have reacted to the tribute with humility.

 

"I think he would be moved and a bit perhaps surprised by it all because he was a very humble man. I do think that there was a very special place in his heart for Margaret Thatcher and for the United Kingdom, our closest ally in his view, so I think he would be particularly thrilled to have this statue here in London," she told CNBC.com

 

Jacobi, who has met every US president since Lyndon Johnson, said Reagan stands apart from subsequent presidents as he was able to articulate and execute a clear vision for the United States.

 

"He connected with the common person in the United States and in many parts of the world, and I think that that's a rare gift, we haven't seen it since. Bill Clinton was very good at empathy, President Obama was very good at articulating a vague notion of hope and change, but not a clear vision of what that hope and change would look like or feel like and that was the difference with Ronald Reagan," she explained.

 

 

A More Secure Era

 

 

American historian, writer and research fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London Dr Tim Stanley echoed Jacobi's comments, telling CNBC.com that "it is unlikely for a while that any other (recent) president will be honored this way."

 

"The jury is still out on Barack Obama's record and any statue of George W. Bush is likely to attract unflattering graffiti. Reagan's memorial is a reminder of the last period of history when Britain and America acted in concert, doing what was unquestionably morally right," he added.

 

Tim Stanley said it would have been "unthinkable" to have such a memorial to Reagan a quarter of a century ago, but he has come to represent a more secure epoch, when Britain and the United States held the moral high ground in foreign affairs.

 

"The unveiling reflects broad acceptance among historians and the public that President Reagan's bold, aggressive strategy exhausted the Soviet Union and defeated Communism," he explained.

 

"Just as Americans hanker for the 1980s as a period of low unemployment and 'Morning in America,' so the Brits can feel some nostalgia for a decade in which we helped the US to win the Cold War. Unlike the War on Terror, which is complex and controversial, the Cold War was a straight fight between good and evil. We were with Ronald Reagan on the right side of history and so his statue feels right at home here in London," he added.

 

But how would the former President feel about the current uncertainty gripping the United States as Democrats and Republicans race to reach a deal on the budget before the August deadline?

 

Jacobi told CNBC.com he would be "appalled" with the current stalemate on Capitol Hill and "the fact that America hasn't had an approved budget in two years, the fact that the leaders have largely been absent from the debate and have not really gotten in and gotten their hands dirty… I think he'd be shocked," she said.

 

"You would have seen a great deal more engagement, yes by the President himself, but most importantly by the President's people in working with the Congress regardless of party, to craft something that would work for America, a budget that would work for America," she added.

 

Ronald Reagan was also unlikely to have presided over such bad relations between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress, Jacobi said, preferring to see disagreements as "challenges", rather than brand political opponents as "enemies".

 

"He understood the difference between being disagreed with and being disliked. And so many times, not just in public life, in life, someone disagrees with you, you think they're not your friend, you think they don't like you and it's just a matter of a disagreement and he used to say: 'We have no enemies, we just have challenges'."

 

 

 

Link

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

....... Ronald Reagan leading the calvary thru the gates of Fort Appache.

 

If Ronald Reagan had only known Fort Apache was not fortified. In reality, the 'fort' looked like a village located in the heart of Apache land.

[Hugh_Hoy]

[color:red]All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.â€[/color]

 

 

 

Link

 

I've said all along that Obama is BAD for my country. If he'd been born in the U.S., I'd call him a traitor. :content:

 

 

(Only Itsmedave has had the balls--among the libtards on the board--to try to defend our WANKER-in-Chief.)

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

 

 

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report†on the economic impact of the “stimulus,†released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus†did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

 

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus†in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus†(which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of†the legislation), the “stimulus†has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

 

In other words, the government could simply have written a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,†and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

 

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus†had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus†than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus†has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

 

[color:red]Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for.[/color]

 

In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus†has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

 

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus†was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

 

[color:red]All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.â€[/color]

 

 

 

Link

 

 

Obama bailed out Wall Street and the auto manufacturers exactly like [color:red]GWB[/color] had already put in motion to have done.

 

Obama bowed to the Republicans by extending more tax breaks for the wealthy oil companies. As of yet, we have not experienced the tinkle down effect of the transfer of wealth from the oil companies to the lower classess as a result of this decision. But then, the tinkle down effect might be piss and we have felt that effect.

[Bangkoktraveler]

In order for Obama to get out of the mess GWB left behind, he would have to be God or Jesus Christ himself.

 

No wonder the Republicans hail him as [color:red]"The Great One!"[/color]

[Steve]

 

Jacobi, who has met every US president since Lyndon Johnson, said Reagan stands apart from subsequent presidents as he was able to articulate and execute a clear vision for the United States.

 

"He connected with the common person in the United States and in many parts of the world, and I think that that's a rare gift, we haven't seen it since.

 

 

I've got nothing personal against Reagan. I think one of if not the greatest achievements of his presidency was restoring America's self confidence. We were down in the dumps about ourselves with the Iranian hostage crisis and seemingly impotent to do anything about it. Giving the country back its self confidence was a big thing.

 

However, the deification of him I believe is unwarranted based on the reasons Republicans give First, that he ended the USSR. I've posted this before. The war in Afghanistan did that (take note Obama). That war was the first full scale war the USSR got involved in since WW2. All others were war by proxy (Korean, Vietnam and Angolan wars) or very small wars where they committed a small number of troops. The war in Afghanistan starte in 1979 for them and included up to 200,000 soviet troops. Housing, feeding and supplying them killed an already fragile economy that had breadlines going back at least a decade earlier. Lastly, its a slap in the face of every President before him who had put pressure on the USSR for decades. Also, it was under the elder Bush that the USSR actually fell and the Berlin Wall came down.

 

Second, the economy. Reagan took office in 1981 and the recession acdtually deepened for about a year or so. It wasn't until Volcker cut interest rates at the fed that the economy took off. Short term Treasury bills were hitting over 10% return. Why put money into the stock market when government debt and corporate bonds were paying guaranteed rates ranging up to the high teens. By slashing interest rates drastically, big money had no choice but to go back to stocks and that caused the big rally of the '80s. The Reagan tax cut was offset by taking away tax benefits from other sources such as tax deferred anuities through TEFRA as well as tax benefits from whole life and other formrs of life insurance.

 

I think the reason he is being touted by Republicans is that they haven't had a successful president in some time. Before Reagan it was Nixon. One would have to go back to Ike to find a successful Republican.

 

Also, his medical issues garnered sympathy. I think Clinton may be remembered in a much greater light later as well. I think his impeachment will be seen as more vincictive than anything else.

 

So, I do think Reagan did some good. But not as good as some claim.