Messages

1

General Discussion / A song to learn to sing

« on: October 28, 2011, 12:22:28 pm »

We can learn from those who fought before us.

http://youtu.be/ta6UmkqzZA0

2

War Room / Re: End the fed

« on: October 22, 2011, 01:24:19 pm »

How is it a good thing that it cost $20 to buy something that cost $1 in 1913?

Is that your idea of progress?

If it still cost a $1 today we would have a serious problem. In 1913 the US population was less than 100,000,000 it is now near 350,000,000. The simple increase in population we have seen would show that inflation is inevitable in a growing economy as we have a larger number of people dealing with the same basic amount of resources therefore demand would have increased more than supply would have increased and the basic laws of economics shows that prices would go up. Recently Michelle Bachmann said that if elected she would get gas prices back down to $2 a gallon. This is a problem because we can't increase the supply of gasoline by that much in the next few years, it is completely impossible and so the only way to bring the price down by that much is to lower demand to the level that the market would only support gasoline being $2 a gallon. $2 a gallon gas sounds great but the only way we are going to get there in the period of time that Bachmann is talking about is by putting so many people out of work and therefore getting so many cars off the road because people aren't driving to work and can't afford to drive anywhere else that gas prices drop. The way capitalism works prices are supposed to go up what we have to hope for is that the price increases are slow and gradual. So yes, it is a good thing that something that cost $1 in 1913 costs $20 today.

Are you trying to tell me that we have to produce MORE gas to lower the cost? lol

It has nothing to do with the trillions we printed?

You can get a gallon of gas for a dime right now.

Find a silver dime and its worth over $3. Thats what its all about.

Thats what you sit and carry water for.

A hidden tax on you. You OWS kids crack me up.

GET THE BANKERS!!!! no no, not THOSE bankers....

OK, obviously you are not interested in a debate as you have failed to acknowledge the points anyone who doesn't agree with you has made. I feel that you are quite lucky though in that the anti-fed cult is the first cult you came across instead of one that might be more dangerous. You have drank the kool-aid and facts mean absolutely nothing to you, you will believe what anyone on youtube says as long as they support and don't question your beliefs. People who think like you, in general not just about the fed, are a major reason why we are in the situation we are in today, they research to find entertainment instead of to find the truth. You aren't worth my time any more but I do appreciate your continued posting as it is so completely mis-informed and ridiculous that you are doing a great job of showing people how silly and ignorant the position of the anti-fed people is.

3

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 22, 2011, 01:17:47 pm »

Are you telling me there is no system of checks and balances in our political process? lol

You dont see the difference between the supreme court and the FED?

How are you arguing with me about this then?

Can you not read or are you simply choosing to not read what I have typed? I can see that most of the things you are railing about against the fed are also true of the Supreme Court which is what I said. I also never said that there were no checks and balances in our political process, but the Supreme Court, like the Fed, is separate from the political process to a great extent. In fact it is separated to a greater extent than the Fed in many ways, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life while the Fed chair only occupies that position for 14 years at a term. The Supreme Court has a greater impact on our country, our society, and even our economy than the Fed and no one can second guess their decisions. Why are you not opposed to the Supreme Court? You still haven't answered my question and I am guessing it is because you aren't comfortable with the answer you would have to give if you are being truthful with yourself. Either that or you just haven't found a youtube video you can link to yet that you think will explain away your lack of knowledge.

4

War Room / Re: End the fed

« on: October 22, 2011, 01:09:22 pm »

How is it a good thing that it cost $20 to buy something that cost $1 in 1913?

Is that your idea of progress?

If it still cost a $1 today we would have a serious problem. In 1913 the US population was less than 100,000,000 it is now near 350,000,000. The simple increase in population we have seen would show that inflation is inevitable in a growing economy as we have a larger number of people dealing with the same basic amount of resources therefore demand would have increased more than supply would have increased and the basic laws of economics shows that prices would go up. Recently Michelle Bachmann said that if elected she would get gas prices back down to $2 a gallon. This is a problem because we can't increase the supply of gasoline by that much in the next few years, it is completely impossible and so the only way to bring the price down by that much is to lower demand to the level that the market would only support gasoline being $2 a gallon. $2 a gallon gas sounds great but the only way we are going to get there in the period of time that Bachmann is talking about is by putting so many people out of work and therefore getting so many cars off the road because people aren't driving to work and can't afford to drive anywhere else that gas prices drop. The way capitalism works prices are supposed to go up what we have to hope for is that the price increases are slow and gradual. So yes, it is a good thing that something that cost $1 in 1913 costs $20 today.

5

War Room / Re: End the fed

« on: October 22, 2011, 11:41:44 am »

Since the Federal Reserve System was brought into force into 1914, the United States economy has grown at a slower pace than it did before 1914, despite significantly improved productivity. The rate of inflation has been substantially worse since the introduction of the Federal Reserve, despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was around during the greatest period of deflation in US History—the Great Depression.

Interesting points, not relevant points, but interesting. If you look at this graph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg you can get a real feel for the way inflation rates have changed over time in our country. When you say the "inflation rate has been substantially worse" what do you mean? The inflation rate has been higher? Well I would hope so! You see inflation is not always a bad thing, It shows significant demand in an economy and when you see economic growth it is almost always accompanied by inflation. Demand creates jobs, the unemployment level goes down, the cost of labor goes up, this causes the price of goods and services to go up, there you go, inflation! Seeing some inflation right now would be a pretty great thing because it would mean our economy still has a pulse. But if you look at that graph I linked to, take a look at the pre 1914 period combined with the post 1914 period. The rate of inflation stands out less to me than the fact that inflation is more stable, fewer wild swings in prices. You see inflation can be good, but crazy wild swings in prices ae never good. We have seen fewer of those swings since 1914.

Now lets talk about the rate of economic growth. I STRONGLY suggest that you read up on a man named Hyman Minsky. Minsky was an economist for whom a term was coined, the "Minsky Moment". Minsky looked at the business cycle and especially at the really big crashes and really big rises in our economy and developed a theory. If we start with the Great Depression we can see that right before the depression started was a time of low regulation on businesses and the financial industry and a time of remarkable growth in our economy. Then the depression. Then a period of stable, steady growth that, on a graph, looks somewhat flat but at some point starts shooting up very quickly until it drops off suddenly. Minskysaw this and realized that during and after the depression lots of regulations were passed on businesses and financial institutions. These regulations made sense and kept the businesses and financial institutions from taking too many risks on high return but crazy investments. This allowed for a good reat of growth in our economy but not a sudden sharp upturn. After a while people tend to forget about the last big downturn and the business and financial leaders start moaning about all the money they could be making if they weren't hindered by all the regulations. So the regulations get lifted and, surprise surprise surprise, the economy starts growing by leaps and bounds as our financial system is flooded with money from high risk but very profitable investments. It keeps going up as people keep coming up with new, crazy ass, ways to make money, but then Lady Luck starts cashing in at some point and the risks catch up with the profits and we crash like crazy. You see fast economic growth is not a good thing, we should try for steady, sustainable growth which can only be maintained with strong oversight of the business and financial communities and that oversight has to come from the government, there is no one else who can provide it.

So your examples of lower growth and higher inflation being things the fed has done to the economy (and while they may correlate you have not shown any causation at all) fail to scare me as they are both good things for our economy. Read up on economics and you will see this too.

6

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 22, 2011, 02:05:33 am »

Yes, but considering the situation of what a lobbying corporation is there could be regulations to make them "non-profit" with a cap on expenditures or something like that. Constitutionality is the hurdle but I think there is just as much a problem with eliminating these companies based on the current Supreme Court's ideas on the First Amendment. Either situation would more or less bring test cases forward to the Supreme Court to decide on their legality.

If we can eliminate corporate personhood, which would take a constitutional amendment itself, then the constitutional issues of eliminating lobbying groups would pretty much go away, at least if the amendment to eliminate corporate personhood was adopted correctly. The amendment would need to state that only individuals are granted rights under the constitution and so even if lobbyists were allowed to remain they could only speak for individuals which would greatly reduce their impact and possibly lead to their dwindling away even without legislative action being taken against them. But without corporate personhood it would be very easy to pass laws saying who a group could speak for as long as the speech of the individual members of that group wasn't limited.

7

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 22, 2011, 01:54:24 am »

I do have problems with the third one simply because there are some lobbies out there that do push for good things. Not everyone has the time or energy to push for legislation like people working for lobbies does, but lobbies with money do seem to hold the most influence. Limiting contributions to lobbying groups would be a start as well as eliminating any form of corporate funding for them. Setting in place salary caps for people who work at lobbying firms as well as caps on operational budgets should be a start. Donation limits should be limited per person to some percentage of their budgeting capacity.

I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater if that concern makes sense.

You are right, there are many lobbyists pushing for good legislation, however I can't see how our constitution would allow keeping corporate money out of a for profit company that lobbies on their behalf. If we eliminate lobbying all together we would have a situation where each of our voices would carry the same weight with our elected officials on every issue. If a union or a corporation or any other group supported a particular piece of legislation they would have the right to lobby their members or employees in an attempt to get them to contact their representatives but each voice would still equal one vote. It may make it easier to pass some bills and harder to pass other, but in the end it is the most democratic way of handling things and the only way I can see to keep big money interests from gaining too much power.

8

War Room / Re: Republican Debate

« on: October 22, 2011, 01:38:28 am »

Oh missed one point, if Keynesian economics doesn't work explain how we got out of the Great Depression (and when you say WW2 I want you to remember just about every business was contracted by the US government and US expenditures increased 4x from New Deal levels).

Don't leave out the longest period of economic expansion our nation has ever enjoyed from 1945 to 1963 when the top income tax bracket paid between 77% and 95% and when presidents like Eisenhower put millions of people to work building the interstate system, that was Keynesian economics at work durring the good times. Of course Reagan also used Keynesian economic principles to boost our economy when he spent like mad on our military, sure, he claimed it was to shut down the USSR but it was government spending that stimulated the economy. People say that Keynesian economics never works and yet I can't find a time when it hasn't worked. Right now we need to put Keynesian economics to work in a huge way. We keep hearing supply side proposals put forward when what we have is a demand problem. The demand problem won't be fixed until the poor and middle class have some cash in their pockets to spend and they won't have that till they have jobs. Well guess what, the private sector won't create jobs. It is against the private sector's best interests to create jobs as hiring people reduces profits. The private sector only hires when demand exceeds what the private sector is capable of producing and since demand is so weak right now the only place jobs can come from is the government. Oh yeah, here's a question for all the fed haters out there, if the fed is so powerful then why can't the fed boost demand? They have been trying for years now by keeping interest rates near zero but still there is severely limited demand, you guys act like they can just snap their fingers and make things happen and increasing demand would benefit the people who you think run the fed, so if they are so powerful why can't they do this?
And as far as a true free market economy never having existed, you are right, it never has existed. The closet we have ever come was the period directly before the Great Depression and the second closest was the period right before the current economic crises started. When you let the capitalists run things history shows that they run things into the ground.

9

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 22, 2011, 12:59:33 am »

I also find it HILARIOUS that you quote corporate media about this kind of stuff, the same corporate media you are protesting b/c they are controlled by, yes thats correct, THE BANKS!!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Here is Glenn Beck, its no msnbc or USA today but you know, thats just splitting hairs. hahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmW3ytfhZ9M

Occupy, is there anyone who disagrees with your beliefes that you would say is a good source or are they all in cahoots with the Fed? I have the feeling your answer will speak very loudly about your beliefes, sadly you won't hear it.

10

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 22, 2011, 12:57:01 am »

Central bankers are not elected by the people but are appointed by their governments. Nevertheless, they wield power that exceeds that of many political leaders. Their decisions affect entire economies, and a single word from their lips is capable of moving financial markets. They set interest rates, thereby determining the cost of borrowing and the speed of global financial currents

This makes me wonder, do you want to abolish the US Supreme Court as well? The Supreme Court Justices are not elected but instead are appointed by the government. Nevertheless they wield power that exceeds that of ALL political leaders. They have to answer to absolutely no one. Many claim that they change our Constitution and write legislation all the time without any system of checks and balances. They can't be vetoed. They can not be second guessed. They are the most powerful part of our government and they can create things like the opening for unlimited political spending by corporations and banks through the Citizens United ruling. So, when the Supreme Court holds more power than the Fed could ever hope to and since we have no say so in how the wield this power, why aren't you going after the Supreme Court? Just waiting for someone like Ron Paul to get you started?

11

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 22, 2011, 12:45:40 am »

The Fed is very independent, it has to be so it can make decisions quickly and without the political pressures it would be subject to if a democratic or republican controlled congress controlled the Fed. It's that simple. You said several things that are true, but the links you posted take these tidbits of fact and go off on crazy tangents with them. Listen, I don't think the fed has done a great job in the past couple of decades mainly because of Greenspan and his infatuation with Chicago School Economics, but the fact that the fed has been doing a bad job and has been mis-managed to some extent does not make it the evil economic overlord bent on world domination that you want it to be to fulfill some wild fantasy of yours. Read some good, basic, sound, information for a change and see if it doesn't settle you down a bit. I wish the fed was more exciting, sadly it isn't!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7762302/ns/business-answer_desk/t/just-who-owns-federal-reserve/#.TqJURfu9jJg

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2007-09-19-federal-reserve_N.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

12

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 21, 2011, 05:48:27 pm »

OK, here's something constructive, here are the main three things I would like to see addressed:

1. End corporate personhood, which will allow the second thing I want to happen

2. Campaign finance reform, no one can donate more than $500 to any candidate per election cycle, no organization of any type, business, PAC, union, can donate to any campaign. If you can't vote you can't donate. Individuals can only donate to candidates who they can actually vote for, therefore I couldn't donate to the campaign of a candidate running for governor in New York.

3. End lobbying. No more citizenship by proxy, you can only speak to your representatives for yourself, not for anyone else.

This will get money out of politics and give us all an equal voice in our government, our representatives will then have to start working for what is in the best interest of all of their constituents instead of just the wealthy ones and the corporations will no longer have such a stronghold on our government.

13

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 21, 2011, 05:27:06 pm »

The FED was not set up by the government.
The POTUS is given a list of choices by the FED. He doesnt just get to appoint whoever he wants. The FED gives him a list, he chooses from the list.
The FED is not a government agency. The employees are not government employees.

End the Fed, establish sound money. Allow gold and silver to be legalized.

The world will go on without a central bank robbing from the American people and giving it to politicians and wall street, I promise.

Believe what you want but even a cursory knowledge of the actual creation of the fed and the current running of the fed shows that you are wrong. People believing the propaganda about things like trickle down economics and how deregulation would help everyone is how we got into the hole we are in, look at history not at conspiracy theories. We have all heard that the truth shall set us free, no one has ever said that conspiracy theories will set us free.

14

War Room / Re: My 3 Demands - A Clear Message

« on: October 21, 2011, 12:52:06 pm »

The Fed was set up by the government, the chairman and the board of governors are appointed by the president and have to be confirmed by the senate. Yes, the fed was set up to work in an independent fashion but that was so it would not be effected by partisan politics and could act in the best interest of the US economy. Has it always acted in the best interest of the US economy? Of course not, but this has often been because they THOUGHT they were acting in the best interest of our economy and just wound up being wrong. When it comes to economic and monetary it is easier to find people who are wrong than right most of the time.

But to say that the fed is not part of our government is 100% wrong, completely and totally wrong. To say that we need to end the fed is wrong, doing so would leave a major vacuum in our monetary policy and would completely demolish our economy and probably bring down many other countries with us. It is comforting to have a scapegoat we can blame everything on, comforting but not productive, and the fed is being used by many people, Ron Paul in particular, as a scapegoat.

15

War Room / The Tennessee State Constitution

« on: October 17, 2011, 02:19:17 am »

Just thought some of you might find this section of the Tennessee state constitution interesting.

ARTICLE I.
Declaration of Rights.
Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the
advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right
to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Is the state government of Tennessee working for your peace, safety, and happiness? Or is it working for some other group besides the people of the state? According to our state constitution we have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the government as we see fit. I wonder how many of our elected officials have read this?