ghostdog

My theory, and I have no more information than just an above average drunk in a bar. With a BG. Hopefully way more above average than I am drunk, but I am pretty drunk.

The business community is not freaking. Wall Street hasn't been freaking. Your stocks did good this week, right? What that tells you is that the fix is in. The pols are playing their games. There will be something at the last minute. Coming from the Senate. That gives the tea-baggers in the House a butt-covering face saver. The deal will kick the can down the road till after 2012.

If and when Wall Street starts to freak, the Repugs will fold like an accordion. But they are betting that Oprah will fold first.

Or it could go bad. Then, the only hope is that Oprah could go 14th amendment on their ass, but he doesn't have the balls. Then we are all fucked.

It is hard to predict about the debt ceiling. The Republicans seemed to have forgotten who they work for. These people so far have been mum. But maybe they know the fix is in, and that is why they are mum. You know, people sitting on piles of cash can wait for interest rates to go to the moon. Then they can buy bonds real cheap. If and when the dust settles, they will make buttloads of money.

Or...

I saw a blogger liken this to game of chicken, like in the movie Rebel Without a Cause. The guy in the driver's seat, House Speaker John Boner, knows the game and also knows the other guys riding in the car don't have their facts right. But the guy riding shot-gun in the GOP car, - the one who believes the car can fly — is trying to put his foot on top of Boner’s on the gas pedal.

Eff you China!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-discover-large-deposit-rare-minerals-used-ipads-120327460.html

 

Scientists Discover Large Deposit of Rare Minerals Used in iPads

 

Prior to this discovery, manufacturers and environmentalists alike expressed concern over the limited and dwindling supply of rare earth minerals. However, experts report that the minerals found in the Pacific may reinforce known land supply by 1,000 times.

 

The mud is rich in rare earth minerals like gadolinium, lutetium, terbium and dysprosium, which are especially important in the manufacturing of technology like hybrid cars and flat screens. China, which currently produces 97% of the world's rare earth metals, has at times threatened to cut exports of the materials, leading to fear that the prices of electronic devices could soar.

 

The best part is its OURS!

 

Japanese scientists announced their analysis of the deposits Monday, claiming the area around Hawaii is especially rich in minerals

 

 

 

if you are looking for stocks, be careful, I just saw this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-05/underwater-rare-earths-mining-economically-unviable-cfr-says.html?cmpid=yhoo

Yes, CS, on the stimulus part, I agree 100%.

But it was the GOP who wanted the tax cuts. The stimulus (sounds like something being ramrodded up my ass) was GWB's idea.

 

Now wasn't GWB a Republican?

I can find no source stating ARRA had anything to do with Bush. TARP was signed by Bush. Obama, Bidden, and McCain voted for it in the Senate.

TARP and ARRA are not the same thing.

On ARRA: There were spending, tax cuts (about 1/3 of it) and money transfered to the states which they normally would have spent anyway if they would have had the own money.

The tax cuts were largely saved, convincingly exposing the saw "tax cuts = new jobs" as a lie.

Consumers didn't spend their tax cuts because they had to repair their balance sheets. With resulting lack of demand, businesses just put theirs in the bank. Look at the data. These are facts.

Obama's policies of cutting taxes did not work.

Based on the gap between the economic capacity and actual GDP, the stimulus should have been twice as large and it should not have been wasted on tax cuts.

 

 

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

Cavanami, you are really bad at math.

BKKtraveller, not sure your point. Of course the price of gold has to be fixed by the government; otherwise it wouldn't be a gold standard. But there still are supply/demand pressures that are set by the market. The government also would have to have someone defend that exchange rate too. Even If you had currency made of gold, it could just evaporate if gold was suddenly in demand.

You know how those boner pills warn against having a boner longer than 4 hours. Suppose they could make a boner pill that made it ok for your boner to last 4 hours, and you could also come every 20 minutes. But the manufacturing process required 1 ounce of gold per pill, and to recover the spent gold (from the patient’s urine), it would cost $20,000 an ounce, (a give new meaning to the word golden shower).

All of a sudden, the demand for gold would go up, and the only way for whatever government agency is replacing the fed to defend the dollar is to steeply raise interest rates, making the dollar more valuable for investors to hold. Of course, to pay their lenders this high interest rate, they have to charge higher interest rates to the borrowers. The economy will tank.

I hope this example demonstrates the point.

No, I have not answered that because I haven’t tried to. I have been stating why Ron Paul is a bad idea, and presented facts to support that. In the broader picture, there is no guarantee that having a president that meets your ideal of NOT being beholden to special interests would come up with a good policy. Or even if they did, be able to get it passed.

However, I don’t think that your number one problem is anything new. I think when one reads US history in any detail, this is the way it has always been, starting with the Washington administration. I don’t think all problems stem from that one, nor is it my number one concern.

This problem pales in the problems future generations are going to have to face regarding energy sources, increased population, and climate change.

For these days, it has been said elsewhere by others, but I cannot improve on it: Cut corporate welfare. Cut the defense budget. Taxes go back to Clinton levels. Support the strong unions that created a middle class in the first place. Build infrastructure. Take the profit out of health care.

The Great Depression was caused by the Fed Reserve making the money supply shrink in the USA! They caused the depression!!

 

Add money to the supply...that caused your buying power to go down!!!

 

Buy gold tens years ago...exchange it to US dollars today and look at how much you can buy, a lot!

Take today's deflated dollar today and you can't buy squat.

Of course, the price of gold, it can only go up!

So why did the fed let the money supply decline? Wikipedia (so it must be true) has the answer

One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time, the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by the Federal Reserve Act, which required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes. A "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", particularly when they only had enough gold to cover 40% of the Federal Reserve Notes outstanding. During the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 making the private ownership of gold certificates, coins and bullion illegal, reducing the pressure on Federal Reserve gold

 

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, 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?

Say three Hail Mary's and wash your mouth out with Jaegermeister. Then you may come back.

 

Jaegermeister? That is worse than the LM laws in LOS!

I always found Mark Halperin to be a dick.

That does it, I will have to be off the board indefinitely.....

I'm no expert on the gold standard. Admittedly. I also would assume the genie is out of the bottle and we can't go back. The world has moved on without a gold standard. However, I'm not sure if you're saying it was always a bad idea or its just a bad idea now? We were on it for almost all of our history and became the number one nation while on it. Furthermore things got WORSE when we left. We had financial crisises before. However it wasn't due to being on the gold standard. It was from loose financial rules and which have now been corrected via regulations. During those past crisis the fundamentals of the country were solid for the future. Now, the fundamentals are not there and our future looks bleaker and the next generation isn't doing as well as the prior.

 

I think even Ron Paul knows we can't go back even if he was elected. My guess is he is smart enough to know that. We will have a proper accounting of the gold that is there though.

 

The number one thing about a Ron Paul presidency is that the special interests will not have power over the office. That is the biggest thing of all. Getting rid of their influence and power over the government MUST be the number one thing if we are ever going to make it back as a country. Every thing else is just conversation.

 

Neither party has ANYONE who will not be controlled or heavily influenced by the special interests, lobbies, etc.

 

You're getting bogged down in the gold standard, something that even if he's elected has little chance of coming to fruition instead of the big picture which is a government without influence from the special interest.

But the fact that Paul considers it a good thing is telling. He is not to be taken seriously.

It also is wrong to say it is WORSE since we left it. History says otherwise.

So when we had the gold standard (or silver backed currency) do you mean to say we had no recessions, panics, or depressions? There were bad ones. The Great Depression happened on the gold standard's watch. Hoover had to raise interest rates and taxes to cover the gold standard, which was the last thing that was needed in a deflationary economy. The quicker the countries got off the gold standard, the better they fared.

The fact is, gold is just a commodity, its price is subject to many pressures not related to a nation's economy. It can put deflationary pressures on an economy that would shut it down.

 

I agree we've let things go too far to be able to go back to a gold standard but the sentiment behind it is true. The fact is we've f*cked up our currency. It no longer has the power it once did. That's essentially the point. Our monetary policy sucks.

 

ONLY a Ron Paul can change the TSA and re-install our civil liberties. The others won't do, can't do or don't want to do sh*t about it.

 

Integrity goes a long way with me.

Then make Paul head of homeland security.

As for the Gold Standard, so because you perceive montary policy as sucking, you will turn to something which already has been shown by historical precedent to really fuck things up.

Gold is a commodity. Like every other commodity, its price goes up and down for a wide variety of reasons.

No, the Gold Standard is absolutely retarded, as medieval as leeches and blood letting. Look at the history of the early parts of the Great Depression.

One of the best arguments against it is here, from a Republican:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/22/frum.ron.paul.gold/

But what you said about the Gold Standard points to what both Obama and Romney can do better than Paul, and I am sure the same with Booker: Get things passed in Congress.

I think if you are a Senator or Congressman and you want to stop the agenda of the POTUS, the best thing you want is a true believer.

The ACA is not what I wanted to see, but it probably is the best that can be done with the reality on the ground. It at least moves the bar.

As far as Ron Paul, I understand the hesitance so I'll ask for your candidate? Or someone who should run and isn't.

 

The person who I think has the most integrity, good ideas and hopefully will run for President one day is Jersey City mayor Cory Booker. Phenominal guy.

I don't care about the candidate, I care about the policy. Sometimes the SOBs get shit passed. LBJ, certifiable SOB, got the Civil Rights act passed. Nobody knows for sure what would have happened, but had LHO missed, it may not have passed.

I too like Corey Booker. Great guy. It seems to me to be incoherent to advoate both Booker and Paul.

It is easy to like some of Paul's statements, he is not afraid to say things that politicians don't ever say.

But where it counts, his policies that he would want to get passed, those are retarded. Just like

leeches and blood letting. A case in point, the Gold Standard.

You want to know what is going on in the USA?

Follow the fucking money. Who is getting rich? Who isn't?

It is that elementary.

The Gubbamint? Errand boys sent by grocers to collect the bill. As it always has been. Oh, on further review, Ron Paul is a fucking retard. If he really is a decent guy, then he is just a fucking guppy in a shark tank.

I started picking jobs based almost on how good the benefits were. I would gladly take a 5k or even 10k a year lower salary for Job 1 against Job 2 if their medical and dental plans were far superior. Its gotten that bad and this is from a very healthy guy who works out regularly and never (knock on wood) had call in sick from work a day in his life (inherited those genes from my dad who had one sick day in almost 25 years at his job).

 

Thank God when Ron Paul becomes the 45th POTUS, he is going to fix that by instituting a single payer health care by the gubbermint.

Or, he may support the good old days of the 19th century where employers paid their workers in script instead of greenbacks or goldbacks. (That Lincoln sure was a Commie)

Hmmmmmmmmm, which side of the shorts does Paul hang? Only Borat knows for sure.

maybe the settlement was tiny to match the breasts?

..or not. the insurance companies love Romneycare, and even Boner told ABC News, “transforms Medicare into a plan that’s very similar to the President’s own healthcare bill.†or Coryn said "It’s exactly like Obamacare,†he said. “It is.â€

They (the GOP) just want to take it away from the uninsured.

Obama might win, he might lose. Just the same, the GOP's blowjob of the teabaggers might backfire on them. Their townhall meetings haven't been going well these days.

As for the debt ceiling, my prediction is there will be games played, great theatre, but at the last minute they will vote to raise it.

Hopefully Obama won't fold like a lawn chair and give away Medicare.

Obama is a moderate Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-shocking-truth-about-the-birthplace-of-obamas-policies/2011/04/15/AF6qINpE_blog.html

 

Obama largely ignored the recommendations of another panel, his deficit-reduction commission, in his 2012 budget proposal.

...

 

 

 

Obama's debt plan is to the right of Simpson-Bowles:

Superficially, the Obama plan and Simpson-Bowles are very similar. So I called Marc Goldwein, policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, to better understand where they diverge. His numbers surprised me. The White House’s plan is, if anything, substantially more conservative than the Simpson-Bowles framework. Here’s how it breaks down:

Over the next 10 years, Obama cuts $600 billion less from defense and $250 billion less from health care. He raises taxes by $450 billion less, and because Simpson-Bowles includes a Social Security reform while Obama merely calls for Social Security talks, he gets $300 billion from that pot. So of the $1.5 trillion difference, about a trillion dollars come from Obama’s more modest defense cuts and tax increases — both of which are normally understood as liberal priorities — while the remainder is a mix of Social Security and health-care reforms, some of which conservatives like, some of which liberals like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas_deficit_plan_is_more_conservative_less_ambitious_than_simpson_bowles/2011/04/13/AF12mgQE_blog.html

That Barry is a socialist.

Hmmmm. Gee. Reagan and Poppy Bush didn't issue official Easter proclamations either per this hard rightwing source.

 

I'll look forward to Fox's report on why they all hated Christianity and their kudos to Obama for lubing it too mutt. LOL!

 

 

 

But how much ya wanna bet Reagan and Daddy Bush didn't honour any Muslim holidays either? For a guy who is often charged with being a closet Muslim' date=' you'd think Obie would be on his toes a bit more. His popularity at the moment is at its lowest point ever, and this doesn't help any - even if a lot of hot air. The wingnuts vote - and the Teabaggers have shown enough strength to elect candidates or at least swing elections. Ignore this large voting block at your own risk.

 

Remember that Obama praised the USA's "Muslim heritage". Huh ... WTF is that, the war against the Barbary pirates? For someone supposedly highly intelligent, Obie has a habit of putting both feet in his mouth.

 

He must publicly respect all religions - or NONE. Is that so difficult to figure out, even for a follower of the Great Pumpkin? (And note that the White House did have a Halloween party. )

 

 

Quite frankly, I agree with those who claim Obie is a secular humanist who professes Christianity only for political reasons. Too many voters would not vote for an admitted atheist.

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bB4qnT18Ug

I wish you wingnutz would just be honest about the real reason they are obsessed with this subject. As Lee Atwater said: [color:purple]You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[/color]

 

I would at least respect you for telling the truth. Not for anything else, mind you. But at least for having the balls to say what they mean.

Right. I thought I was the only one who had that conclusion.

For some entertainment: