[aldante]

flu
zerohedge is a favorite

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV]So you’re saying that because RP might come in 2nd place in Virgina, that’s evidence that he’s electable in a general election?

Sorry.

Fail.[/quote]

HAHA

The BURN The Burn!!! Sorry SK I simply could not resist!!
Ta ta

[aldante]

Captcha,
I guess that gives SK in cv less outs.

[aldante]

Captcha,
I guess that gives SK in cv less outs.

[aldante]

Pray tell SK, what does “guarantee” electibliity? The only thing I know to does is getting more electoral votes then the next guy.
And I thank you for your in depth analysis. But it does not change my summation of what I discussed above. (in fact it reinforces my point)
Btw Ron Paul did not vote for the NDAA. He was on the campaign trail trying to change a country that would even consider having it come to the floor for a vote. And unlike any other candidate he has denouced it’s passage.

[aldante]

I find it hilarious that the pundits here are talking about a certain candidates “electability” as if the whole idea of the primaries are not to find that out. And yes I am referring to the media “pundits” as well as those “pundits” here. The “electability” argument is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sway public opinion. And as I have mentioned before if the voters in each state of the primaries are not the ultimate voice of who is electable then why have the primaries?
So those here and in the media call some one “extreme” and “unelectable” , knowing that people want to be reasonable and elect a candidate who can change the policies of the current administration. In a way it’s being the judge, jury, and executioner of the argument. In other words it’s a fallacy. I will not buy into that.
IMHO, the primary debate should be about the ideas each candidate brings to the table. Hash those out with logic, facts, and mature discussion. But to discuss someone’s “electability”? Come on people.
By the way I have seen people call Dr. Paul an extremist but there is nothing more extreme in this debate then all of the other candidates supporting the NDAA. Dr. Paul is the only one who has a reasonable stance on that issue. If one believes in the Bill of Rights that is. I make the prior statement because I believe that one of the main characteristics which separates America from any other country now or through history is due process. NDAA basically makes the President a king who can take away that right at will. That is extremism to the nth degree.
The reason that I support Dr. Paul is that he’s the only one who has a detailed plan to substantially change the current direction of this administration.

[aldante]

Wow SD was that directed at me?
I guess if I don’t hear then I know…..

[aldante]

I noticed in your resonableness and unbiased nature you were not able to give any examples of Bernanke being correct.
You simply do not have a grasp of the facts or of history as it happened.
Bernanke said the exact opposite. He never said that housing was going down. On 7/16/2008he said this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/16/business/main4265793.shtml?source=related_story

For those who like facts instead of throwing around monikers, shares of fnma and fhlc jumped 13.8% and 14.6% respectively in one day! Again, just because I am passionate about not wanting to get ripped off with my own tax money does not make me an “passionate ideologue…. rarely use or respond to reason, logic, evidence, or facts”. If you had read any of the links that I have added you would be responding to the facts that I am putting forth.

Of course if you disagree with those fact please let me know why.

You on the other hand have not shown me any evidence showing Bernanke’s long term estimates for the economy have panning out. Did you or did you not read the “Mea culpa” article that I posted earlier? Are you stating that there are not facts in that piece? You may want to ask yourself which one of us is blind here.

And yes my arguement is that if the Government were smaller people would take more responsibility for their own behavior. That is not my unique Idea though. I think that you can go back through the ages and hear it time and time again. Adam Smith got pretty famous discovering that law…the law of self preservation.
Or maybe you would like to explain to me why all of the sudden in 200(?) people, normal people in droves started lying on their mortgage application. Please spare me the “the unregulated bankers did it arguement” Those individuals bought cars, took vacations, purchased stocks, bought more houses by lying about their income. That was on them dude no one else. The banks made it easier becasue their loans were being bought and securitized and given a AAA rating immediately.

As soon as you make the Governemt responsible for deciding what is right and what is wrong you have to accept that your sense of right and wrong may not agree with who is in charge at the moment. No people need to know that lying is just wrong. That if they lied about their income to get into a million dollar house – that they deserve to have it taken away when they do not make their payments. But according to your glorious regulators – those poor liers, need to be bailed out. No that is not right. If that makes me an idealouge so be it.

[aldante]

Corruption is much easier to hide with the size and scope. Yea or nay?

[aldante]

[quote=zk][quote=aldante]ZK,
Where do the trillions of dollars come from?[/quote]

We all know where the trillions of dollars came from. The question is where did they go. And a lot of them were spent where they wouldn’t have to have been had there been effective regulation. I don’t understand your response to swave. Your theory that the SEC was terribly and horribly ineffective is, in my opinion, correct. So you want to downsize it? How is that going to help?[/quote]

ZK,
How is making something incompetent bigger an improvement?
So we agree that the trillions are coming from the taxpayer? That the FED is able to print money exponentially based on the fact that the U.S. taxpayer must pay their taxes or go to jail right?
The vast majority of the $$ goes to multinational “defense” contractors and companies. This is why the absolute best thing that America does is make weapons. No one even comes close to our ingenuity. Then there are the permanent banker/governement families that sit right next to the FED as the money is being created. If you look at who the top regulators are, they all tend to know one another because they congregate in the same place. That place is Washington D.C. where they draw up “laws” that enable them to continually grow and protect their own wealth.
The reason that I say a smaller “Government” is that people are given a false sense of security by the pronouncements and actions of these regulators. People act on those pronouncements.

Here is a what if: Do you think that if Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke came to the public in summer of 2008 and said ” The Housing market is overbought, please avoid buying a house until the dust settles” billions of dollars would have been saved by those people who bought their house becasue at that time becasue they trusted these “Regulators?” BTW: This is exactly what Paulson was saying to the insiders….this is going down..stay away form Fannie and Freddie.
No these really “smart and trusted” authorities created an atmoshpere that encouraged capital to be misdirected on a very large scale. That is why your tax money this very morning is being pledged to bail out some very wealthy people in Europe.
Please give me examples of how many times Bernanke has been right on the economy. In the mean time here is a link you may enjoy:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/ny-fed-issues-mea-culpa-nobody-saw-6pm-black-friday

The same thing is played out day after day after day. Our futures are being used (via a tax system legitmized by the use of Force) to create wealth for the wealthy.
If the regulators missed Madoff and the biggest bubble ever how in the HELL can anyone believe that they will get it right the next time????? How big do you want the Governement to be?

BTW, what if one of those really powerful people who were ever elected, or vetted by the public is a percription drug addict? Or just plain incompetent? Or evil? How much power do you suggest we give these folks?

No thanks ZK. A great example is when BAC wanted to add a fee to their debit cards. The government did not act. People did and BofA quickly changed their mind.

If you have not already take 30 minutes and read “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat. He explains why governemt is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and at the same time needs to be kept to its proper SIZE.

[aldante]

ZK,
Where do the trillions of dollars come from?

[aldante]

Svelte,
Very cute but I did not call anyone idiotic. I think it is possible for completely smart,rational, and virtuous people to do or say idiotic things…..

[aldante]

swave
You may not know that Madoff was in the “in” crowd at the sec. Because he was in charge of the NASD.
Here is the problem with your breaucracy:
Since 1991, Madoff and his wife have contributed about $240,000 to federal candidates, parties and committees, including $25,000 a year from 2005 through 2008 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Committee has returned $100,000 of the Madoffs’ contributions to Irving Picard, the bankruptcy trustee who oversees all claims. Senator Charles E. Schumer returned almost $30,000 received from Madoff and his relatives to the trustee, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd donated $1,500 to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, a Madoff victim.[45]

The Madoff family gained access to Washington’s lawmakers and regulators through the industry’s top trade group. The Madoff family has long-standing, high-level ties to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the primary securities industry organization.[46] Bernard Madoff sat on the Board of Directors of the Securities Industry Association, which merged with the Bond Market Association in 2006 to form SIFMA.[47]

Madoff’s brother Peter then served two terms as a member of SIFMA’s Board of Directors. He stepped down from the Board of Directors of SIFMA in December 2008, as news of the Ponzi scheme broke.[46] From 2000 to 2008 the two Madoff brothers gave $56,000 to SIFMA, and tens of thousands of dollars more to sponsor SIFMA industry meetings.[48] Bernard Madoff’s niece Shana Madoff was active on the Executive Committee of SIFMA’s Compliance & Legal Division, but resigned her SIFMA position shortly after her uncle’s arrest.[49]

Its called access dude and we do not have it. Do you have any idea how he fooled people? He printed up his own statements!!! Wow very sophisticated.

A citizen (competitor) figured it out with no access. His name was Harry Markopolus and and he was ridiculed and put off by your regulators. Markopolus went to the SEC multiple times. You want to protect the part of this story that failed? IF YOU BLESSED REGULATORS COULLD NOT FIND THE GREATEST PONZI SCHEME EVER what exactly can they do? Why are you placing your faith and my tax dollars with them??? Please respond I gots to know bro.

My theory: the SEC was 1. Terribly and horribly ineffective or 2. Conflicted because Madoff knew too many of their bosses.

[aldante]

And there is so much historical evidence in your favor as well. I mean, there was never any concentration of power, corruption, or insider trading back in the good ol’ days of small government.

BTW, It’s supposed to get a bit chilly later this week. I’m off to the Standard Oil shop to buy some kerosene…[/quote]

Wow spoken like a true sage. That is the same logic that first graders use when they hit their buddy…”he did it first”. But you have made my point once again. The bigger the government the bigger the corruption. TBTF is our new moniker.

I am not argueing that corruption does not take place, it always has through history. But how many of these a-holes are in jail, or better still really paid for their crimes? None. By making silly arguements just to be right we are perpetuating a broken system. At least get the casues and conditions right. The banks never could have reached their current size in a true free market. But the FRN that is in your wallet is supposedly legal tender while silver and gold are not? You talk about regulation and big government and the Federal Reserve System has a monopoly on every single paper or digital dollar. And if you compete with them you get thrown in jail for haveing the gall to use metal as a means of exchange. That is called being FORCED into submission. That is the system that you want to back. You want men and women to be forced to “give”, while rich elites with conncections to the FED are taking millions! No thanks.

[aldante]

Hey CA Renter,
The smaller the government the easier it is to see who is being corrupted. The larger the harder. So we agree that accountability is the issue. I also agree with your solution because I think that if the revovling door was shut down the size of our government would subside. The lawmakers are employeed to make laws. Everyone agrees that K street writes the laws. So if there are less people on K street there would be less laws.
I think that our country is in trouble becasue it is a welfare state, and no one is more on welfare then our large corporations.
I simply disagree that a larger government is better. The waste is astounding and the regulations (becasue regulators want to make regulations) impeed freedom. A normal, honest hard working individual needs much more capital to start their own business today becasue of regulation.

[Author]

Posts