There will be blood: Niall Ferguson

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Gandalf: The problem is not Obama, and Hillary would not have been more effective. The problem is that all of these various rogues (Rubin, Gramm, Summers et al) have been involved and instrumental in the various policies and legislation necessary to de-regulate the finance and banking industries. They’re all dirty and it doesn’t matter whether they’re Republicans (Gramm) or Democrats (Rubin, Summers).

If Hillary had won, we’d have Rubin at the helm (and he’s another nefarious character in his right; see his policy recommendations as Treasury Secretary for Clinton) and if McCain had won I don’t doubt that Gramm would be heavily involved.

Everyone in this mess has something to hide and definitely something to gain in terms of maintaining the status quo ante.[/quote]

The fact is that no matter who won, the ultimate “players” would be the same. This should be alarming to all Americans.

[CA renter]

Except for Ron Paul…which explains why he was so marginalized in the media and why he **supposedly** got so few votes when all I saw in the real world (and on the internet) was support for RP. Something was very strange about all that, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Except for Ron Paul…which explains why he was so marginalized in the media and why he **supposedly** got so few votes when all I saw in the real world (and on the internet) was support for RP. Something was very strange about all that, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Except for Ron Paul…which explains why he was so marginalized in the media and why he **supposedly** got so few votes when all I saw in the real world (and on the internet) was support for RP. Something was very strange about all that, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Except for Ron Paul…which explains why he was so marginalized in the media and why he **supposedly** got so few votes when all I saw in the real world (and on the internet) was support for RP. Something was very strange about all that, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Except for Ron Paul…which explains why he was so marginalized in the media and why he **supposedly** got so few votes when all I saw in the real world (and on the internet) was support for RP. Something was very strange about all that, IMHO.

[Arraya]

The confusing nature of this multifaceted and paradoxical situation is interesting. On one hand we have the political. Most of the parties involved in implementing the deregulation and helping the banksters were on the left, which the right wing media so helpfully points out. However, the deregulation was done under the Right’s interpretation what is needed for the “free market”, which is now a talking point of the left.

OTOH, The Federal Reserve, a non-partisan entity who I am especially critical of, encouraged and amplified the problem while employed by our country to protect from these situations. The Fed’s psychological invisibility cloak is finally broken. They are under the spot light now and than is bad for them. If any “party” had the view to see where this was going it was the Fed and they should be under the utmost scrutiny.

At this point I would say that the majority of the politicos do not sufficiently understand the problem and just read from their parties “economic crisis” cliff notes that is jam packed full talking points as if unknowingly following a script. I always cringe when I hear the pre-written partisan pablum that politicians spew out. I have no tolerance for that anymore.

Yet, on another level we let the political engineers of the whole thing and a former member of the Fed in charge of fixing it. I don’t even think I have to mention how destined-to-fail that is.

What a clusterfuck!

[Arraya]

The confusing nature of this multifaceted and paradoxical situation is interesting. On one hand we have the political. Most of the parties involved in implementing the deregulation and helping the banksters were on the left, which the right wing media so helpfully points out. However, the deregulation was done under the Right’s interpretation what is needed for the “free market”, which is now a talking point of the left.

OTOH, The Federal Reserve, a non-partisan entity who I am especially critical of, encouraged and amplified the problem while employed by our country to protect from these situations. The Fed’s psychological invisibility cloak is finally broken. They are under the spot light now and than is bad for them. If any “party” had the view to see where this was going it was the Fed and they should be under the utmost scrutiny.

At this point I would say that the majority of the politicos do not sufficiently understand the problem and just read from their parties “economic crisis” cliff notes that is jam packed full talking points as if unknowingly following a script. I always cringe when I hear the pre-written partisan pablum that politicians spew out. I have no tolerance for that anymore.

Yet, on another level we let the political engineers of the whole thing and a former member of the Fed in charge of fixing it. I don’t even think I have to mention how destined-to-fail that is.

What a clusterfuck!

[Arraya]

The confusing nature of this multifaceted and paradoxical situation is interesting. On one hand we have the political. Most of the parties involved in implementing the deregulation and helping the banksters were on the left, which the right wing media so helpfully points out. However, the deregulation was done under the Right’s interpretation what is needed for the “free market”, which is now a talking point of the left.

OTOH, The Federal Reserve, a non-partisan entity who I am especially critical of, encouraged and amplified the problem while employed by our country to protect from these situations. The Fed’s psychological invisibility cloak is finally broken. They are under the spot light now and than is bad for them. If any “party” had the view to see where this was going it was the Fed and they should be under the utmost scrutiny.

At this point I would say that the majority of the politicos do not sufficiently understand the problem and just read from their parties “economic crisis” cliff notes that is jam packed full talking points as if unknowingly following a script. I always cringe when I hear the pre-written partisan pablum that politicians spew out. I have no tolerance for that anymore.

Yet, on another level we let the political engineers of the whole thing and a former member of the Fed in charge of fixing it. I don’t even think I have to mention how destined-to-fail that is.

What a clusterfuck!

[Arraya]

The confusing nature of this multifaceted and paradoxical situation is interesting. On one hand we have the political. Most of the parties involved in implementing the deregulation and helping the banksters were on the left, which the right wing media so helpfully points out. However, the deregulation was done under the Right’s interpretation what is needed for the “free market”, which is now a talking point of the left.

OTOH, The Federal Reserve, a non-partisan entity who I am especially critical of, encouraged and amplified the problem while employed by our country to protect from these situations. The Fed’s psychological invisibility cloak is finally broken. They are under the spot light now and than is bad for them. If any “party” had the view to see where this was going it was the Fed and they should be under the utmost scrutiny.

At this point I would say that the majority of the politicos do not sufficiently understand the problem and just read from their parties “economic crisis” cliff notes that is jam packed full talking points as if unknowingly following a script. I always cringe when I hear the pre-written partisan pablum that politicians spew out. I have no tolerance for that anymore.

Yet, on another level we let the political engineers of the whole thing and a former member of the Fed in charge of fixing it. I don’t even think I have to mention how destined-to-fail that is.

What a clusterfuck!

[Arraya]

The confusing nature of this multifaceted and paradoxical situation is interesting. On one hand we have the political. Most of the parties involved in implementing the deregulation and helping the banksters were on the left, which the right wing media so helpfully points out. However, the deregulation was done under the Right’s interpretation what is needed for the “free market”, which is now a talking point of the left.

OTOH, The Federal Reserve, a non-partisan entity who I am especially critical of, encouraged and amplified the problem while employed by our country to protect from these situations. The Fed’s psychological invisibility cloak is finally broken. They are under the spot light now and than is bad for them. If any “party” had the view to see where this was going it was the Fed and they should be under the utmost scrutiny.

At this point I would say that the majority of the politicos do not sufficiently understand the problem and just read from their parties “economic crisis” cliff notes that is jam packed full talking points as if unknowingly following a script. I always cringe when I hear the pre-written partisan pablum that politicians spew out. I have no tolerance for that anymore.

Yet, on another level we let the political engineers of the whole thing and a former member of the Fed in charge of fixing it. I don’t even think I have to mention how destined-to-fail that is.

What a clusterfuck!

[barnaby33]

Why do you keep bringing up that nut job? He wasn’t the answer to anything, he was just bombastic. For a guy who’s been in the house as long as he has and sits on the house financial services committee, he’s had a chance to affect change. He didn’t do it. He talks a lot about financial austerity and the gold standard, but its all talk.

I’ve personally watched him have a golden chance to nail BERSPANKME to the wall in testimony (under oath) and he didn’t do it. The idea that he is somehow different is just ludicrous, or that he even understands the scope of the problem.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Why do you keep bringing up that nut job? He wasn’t the answer to anything, he was just bombastic. For a guy who’s been in the house as long as he has and sits on the house financial services committee, he’s had a chance to affect change. He didn’t do it. He talks a lot about financial austerity and the gold standard, but its all talk.

I’ve personally watched him have a golden chance to nail BERSPANKME to the wall in testimony (under oath) and he didn’t do it. The idea that he is somehow different is just ludicrous, or that he even understands the scope of the problem.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Why do you keep bringing up that nut job? He wasn’t the answer to anything, he was just bombastic. For a guy who’s been in the house as long as he has and sits on the house financial services committee, he’s had a chance to affect change. He didn’t do it. He talks a lot about financial austerity and the gold standard, but its all talk.

I’ve personally watched him have a golden chance to nail BERSPANKME to the wall in testimony (under oath) and he didn’t do it. The idea that he is somehow different is just ludicrous, or that he even understands the scope of the problem.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Why do you keep bringing up that nut job? He wasn’t the answer to anything, he was just bombastic. For a guy who’s been in the house as long as he has and sits on the house financial services committee, he’s had a chance to affect change. He didn’t do it. He talks a lot about financial austerity and the gold standard, but its all talk.

I’ve personally watched him have a golden chance to nail BERSPANKME to the wall in testimony (under oath) and he didn’t do it. The idea that he is somehow different is just ludicrous, or that he even understands the scope of the problem.
Josh

[Author]

Posts