StupidNation

The economists you are saying it's not enough are the same ones who said we were in good shape 2 and 3 years ago. Go look up their views, they were calling other people who said the whole thing is a house of cards doomsday scare-mongers. Why should we believe them now when they were wrong before? Watch this if you want to laugh at "economists" vs a real one: That video shows "economists" 2 and 3 years ago telling us the lies we are hearing more of today. If you want a good economist on what's happening watch Peter Schiff.

In 1999 Congressman Ron Paul put the following in the congressional record: "Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 ....reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole." In the same congressional record Paul actually opposed the "deregulation" of the financial industry with changes to Glass Steagall in 1999. He put a statement in the congressional record citing the moral hazard evident to him after the bailout of Long Term Capital Management. "My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector..." http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...110899-glb.htm In 2003 Paul makes this most prescient point: "Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

Which is exactly your problem and why you can't understand institutionalized theft. Tax cuts are a reaction to an action, not created in a vacuum. When you tax productivity and give to the non-productive you eventually create what we have today in a country without manufacturing and increasing of wealth. When the credit card binge of consumers and the gov't is dry you're response will be to burn the rich, but I have bad news, there will be very few, and the ones that were got out or were drained dry. You can't have 53% of the country on the gov't check either through employment or "programs". Asking that to be cut in order to drop burdens on those paying for the 53% is (gulp) only reasonable and ethical. Or do you really believe "paying one's fair share" is really a nice way of saying "stealing".

Actually it's low-life hypocrisy.

So every perception of racism should be thought of before every objective action? And Holder calls people cowards for wanting to talk race when race is never talked by angry blacks except screaming at others every time there is a perception of race that is disagreeable? It seems you don't understand your own argument or the defense of Holder for that matter. If Holder is right, and there is cowardice, why didn't he grant the same cowardice to those who use labels instead of debate ideas? Why can't the idea be debated and not the perception? Why can't we discuss black crime or black groups as a fact higher than white crime without the same labels of race? Why is it every time someone mentions facts about race it is de facto racism? It seems Holder and you don't understand that the projection of labels over debating ideas is more a problem of the "left" than the people they accuse. How can one debate race, sexuality, or other social matters without an "ist" or "phobe" next to your name instead of honest discussion? Maybe you forget that those who perceive racism, instead of objective racism, are racists by their very nature, as real racism is the collectivizing of individuals into a color or belief that is unfair, and that to project things onto a race or belief through stereotypes is in fact racism itself? Don't worry, I know you don't realize your own position very well, nor does Holder for not calling out the people who protested the cartoon as racists.

Are you that stupid? The monkey was not meant to be Obama. That was his point, and you just don't get it. They never should have had to apologize period. The cartoon was turned into Obama as a monkey, but that wasn't the point at all. That's why you can't discuss race, because everything is racial and everything is discrimination. That's cowardly. Cowards hide behind labels and don't discuss issues. Discussing issues expose your intellect to weaknesses, and people know that, so they hide behind labels knowing they are unassailable because people are dumber today than ever before, so why debate when all you have to do is say you're "fill-in politically-correct statement here".

I think the saying "Change you can believe in" was really about the "change in our pockets" we are left with.

They were deregulated with backing by the gov't for their investments. That's not free-marketing as a problem, but gov't intervention of force feeding a market. Do you think investors would have flocked Fannie and Freddie if the gov't wasn't backing their investments, or do you honestly believe people were lining up to buy up liar loans with 620 credit scores as part of honest risk? Sadly, big gov't can be in big business. Liberals just don't understand the whole economy, if they did they should just start their own state and watch it go bankrupt in a very short time. They are parasites on the productive. Would the Constitution agree with you? Would the founding father? You know the answer, but pretend it's just inefficiency. The Constitution was made to limit gov't against the people, because they knew it was ineffective. They are all wrong since they left money reform. With sound money this "global" problem wouldn't be that big of a problem. Read the Constitution on money. We weren't always wrong. Politicians discovered how effective controlling the masses with money is... all you have to say is that other people are greedy and we'll steal for you. Everyone has been profiting on fiat currency and the attempt to line the pockets of others based on fake wealth at the expense of inflation has been the trick they sell us. We are poorer than ever before, and yet people think we are fine because we have cars we make payments, houses we make payments, and own nothing without the credit behind it. I agree with you.

I find nothing wrong with Holder's statement except for those that interpret and use it for media fodder. He is the "coward" for not wanting to repeal "hate crimes" and then he should be honest and stop the cowardly affirmative action. Then we can have a conversation. Until then he is hiding behind political correctness. Pat Buchanan makes some comment on this topic and is called a racist. Racism is interesting in that way, you can just call someone a racist and they have to defend themselves for a lifetime because racism is such a powerful form of demagoguery.

It was started by big gov't pushing big business. It wasn't the market, it was a deliberate attempt by the gov't to stimulate business by backing bad loans and forcing credit to the masses without free-market principles. Would you give a guy 100% financing with a 620 credit score without looking at their income? No one would, unless they could package it to the gov't. What made Fannie and Freddie so great was that it was gov't backed. No one minded the risk because they saw the gov't backing the loans. CNBC or MSNBC won't give you that view unless you watch Peter Schiff as a guest. Most of the "journalists" are nothing more than mouth-pieces of lies and misinformation. The free-market would never put the rates so low, and the rates wouldn't be so low today. There are still peaks and valleys in free-markets, but they aren't as bad as what we have now. Equity stripping is much greater and much worse with gov't backing because inflation is a tax on others and inflation is always worse than a recession and depression. Dollar crisis=loss of confidence in the market means people leave the market and money goes to other venues. We are doing nothing by attempting to re-inflate the bubble except destroying the dollar. You should probably get a more educated view, because so many throw out these lies of the "free-market" when we haven't had a free-market in 80 years. In the last 80 years gov't manipulated interest rates and dictates booms and busts. That's not a free-market. Compare the crash of 1920 to 1929.

Proudly Catholic, no need to recover from the truth... but anyway... 7 Day Adventists believe in Saturday Sabbaths from Jewish law, as well as unclean meats from Mossaic law. They are a weird eclectic band of people converted from Baptists who believed that Our Lord would return in the 1840's, ergo the name Adventist. When that didn't happen there factions went in different directions. They are very opposed to the Catholic Church out of all religions by manner of teaching and emphasis. I also recommend you relearn your own faith in a traditional fashion, and not in the neo-liberal, modernist fashion. You might find it extremely refreshing in this world with its depth in philosophy and theology. Go read St. Francis de Sales or St. Alphonsus Liguori. Oh, and Gene, Cosmology is what helped me. I guess it depends if your cosmology starts the proper epistemology first and foremost. Most colleges retard the intellect with their crypto-atheism they preach as a religion vs. unbiased mediums of learning.

And knock over Goodell screaming CRABTREE!!!! Honestly, anyone pushing the other stat guys just don't watch football

Actually I got both of your points, and your reasoning is moron and sophmoric. Showing others that make mistakes don't change the issue at hand. Your attempt at playing the hypocrisy line is commensurate with a meaningless argument.

While I find the cartoon somewhat humorous, we are falling because of entitlements and empire building with a touch of corporatism exporting our jobs. Tax cuts would help tremendously, but only if we slash spending. Why not realize that tax cuts as a "republican" are not the cause, but the effect of theft of individuals? I guess that might be hard to grasp when you look to steal others to pay for lazy-asses.

I think the solution is increasing welfare, giving people free money for not producing, increasing the strength of the legal profession and increasing lawsuits, having an empire across the world, and allowing illegals to destroy the country, and tax the producers of the nation and give it to non-producers. The solution overnight is to end corporate and income tax, stop welfare spending, stop military intervention worldwide, stop the bogus free-trade, and end regulation on manufacturing so we can compete with the world and bring back our jobs. Of course neither party really wants those things. It wouldn't help the corporatists or the socialists.

Actually that's not what it said. The article said it was going to cool until 2015 then go into hyper-drive of warming. You think very highly of yourself, and for someone so consistently wrong it's hard for me to fathom. Ummm... you avoided the wiki page of scientists, and secondly you haven't proved that the people listed as doctors aren't doctors, you assume that it must be wrong by a sheer question of quantity and ease of application. Have you verified they aren't all doctors? Do they screen people who say they have PhDs even if they lie? Could one assume that a mere 10% of those people could have PhDs and would therefore put that number in the thousands for safety's sake? My guess is you don't have an answer but you want to appear like you do... as always. Never said I accepted the site, I just posted a contrarian view that everyone accepts it who's a scientist. If you think I have time to nurse your sorry ass with giving my own stamp of approval of what I really believe about "X" website than you forget I don't take this board that seriously. It's not as if most of you could follow a logical argument, let alone a valid debate. I still find it odd you avoided the wiki page as well. If you want to impress people by insulting them, remember this, look in the mirror, you'll find a whole lot of stupidity in one showing.

This is worth watching, extremely funny: http://justinespired.blogspot.com/2009/02/...o-is-laugh.html

I was talking in context to the what he said in this talk, not his person or his choices as a man or president.

It's getting worse and a little blip is not the how you look at an economy. It's still a mess and getting worse. That's the bad news. The good news is that many new people will discover money and wealth because they didn't earn it. The bailout is the dumbest thing we could have done.

Actually he wasn't.

3rd and 5 in the 4th quarter, who do you throw it to: Fitzgerald, Boldin, Breaston or Evans? Evans would be #4 option in that position. Let me change the players but same down same quarter: Moss, Welker and Evans. Evans would be the 3rd choice Same downs and quarter who would you throw to: Reed or Evans? Reed every time, he went over the middle and was more of a threat to more of the field making him harder to cover. Let me be clear, numbers aren't everything. Devery Henderson had good numbers per play but he's not a #1. A #1 is a guy who carries a team, makes the rest of the field harder to play, and isn't one dimensional. 21st century football #1s are THE GUY who throw to 75% of the time on a slant or a fade when the game is on the line. Evans disappears. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Go watch some football.

First of all you should read Ramius's post. It's how actual data is analyzed objectively and not politically. Secondly, if you were on this board just 3 or 4 months ago someone how climate temperatures have been going down this decade, which scientists blamed global warming on the earth's cooling. Also, if you have a better memory you'll remember articles like this on global cooling from the 70's: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm The data is not clear that man is causing warming. Here's an article about NASA's scientists on the issue: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...media-report-it Read it again and again humming "goosefraba" Edit: just wanted to add this beauty from Wiki on a list of very qualified scientists against man-made global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming The petition project has a list of 31,000 doctors against man-made global warming: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Let me ask again genius... Temperatures have gone down in the last 8 years globally. Is that the effects of global warming? Most global warning idiots use the 90's as the proof of global warming. What about the 21st century? The 1970's? The data is not clear between a connection, I gave a great thread a couple of months ago about a group of scientists who laugh about the myth of human caused global warming now they are out of the money stealing loop.

You're actually both. If you think the money here is going to stimulate anything but big gov't and big business you're a moron. Look at the last 2 stimulus projects where we gave tax payers some money. How did that work? Look at the big stimulus they gave banks? How did that work? If the government will not deregulate businesses, lower taxes, and bring back manufacturing we are done. Obama, surprisingly to his credit, recently admitted this in his press conference. I want to see him do what needs to be done and bring back jobs. I don't see him doing it as he analyzes no production correctly but he'll want to keep high taxes and regulation extremely high.

Well the temperature has cooled in the last 8 years globally. Is that the effects of global warming?