burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Jan 7, 2011 0:57:22 GMT -5
who do they think they are, how dare they, that stuff belongs to us , doesn't it?
Do you think before you post something? You're goddamn right it belongs to us. Who do you think gave them all the technology to be able to utilize all the resources? You American idiots gave these third world countries all they needed to get started. There is only so much for the taking. You have opened a Pandora's box. Now we will all have to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 7, 2011 11:38:00 GMT -5
You've got that right Burns. And all the globalists think I am a sour old biddy because I believe in America first. After all, I am a lower-income, blue collar person. A slight haircut in income may mean that these jokers downgrade from Rolls Royces to Bentleys, but I get kicked to the curb. Hello, hot air grate. This is why mismanagement of the money supply absolutely enrages me. Inflation always affects the poor and middle class the worst. |
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 7, 2011 12:59:35 GMT -5
Absolutely. And in honor of your point, and for numismatists everywhere I did a short article about the dislocation of the money supply during the American Civil War. I briefly touch on the weird denominations like the two and three cent pieces, the "greenback", fractional currencies and the enclosed stamp currency. And people think this is something new. Ahh yes, James Barton Longacre's two and three cent pieces and the infamous Longacre Doubling, LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 7, 2011 13:42:46 GMT -5
Breaking News from Newsmax.com
Money Magazine: Inflation Wave Coming Breaking news for whom? I predicted this outcome 2.5 years ago, once the bailouts started. Devalue the currency and you end up with higher prices in the things that matter. So Friedman was a little off with his 18 month lag time for a delta in the money supply to flood into prices...no biggie, the outcome is baked in the cake. The (price) inflation we will eventually get will make the Nixon/Carter years look like a walk in the park. Oh well, those who have planned will do fine. Those who look to the govt. to be smart with the money supply, well... This is not breaking news for many of us who have been calling for the collapse of our economy. It is, however, just one piece of evidence to show the "optimists" that we were right all along. Rather than just allow the big banks to fail, and the whole system reset itself (1-2 years), our government has made what we are all to face a thousand times worse. They have also taken a 1-2 year reset, and turned it into a 10-15 year nightmare. The likes of which we cannot even begin to understand. We are now starting to see the pieces starting to crack under the pressure and come apart. |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 9, 2011 1:37:37 GMT -5
The Liberals are going to play up this shooting event to try to take the focus off of our economy for as long as they are able.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 9, 2011 1:52:10 GMT -5
The Liberals are going to play up this shooting event to try to take the focus off of our economy for as long as they are able. For the average dude, that is how they will see it. One side against another. If you read 1984, you will see it is all Newspeak. Don't get caught in the left/right polarization trap. Let the Paul Begalas and Rush Limbaughs continue to do that.  |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 9, 2011 2:06:42 GMT -5
traelin0, I'm trying to speak to the economy, and the massive problems that have only been exacerbated by the politicians in office. It just so happens that the Left seems dead set on destroying our whole nation via the economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 9, 2011 2:10:12 GMT -5
traelin0, I'm trying to speak to the economy, and the massive problems that have only been exacerbated by the politicians in office. It just so happens that the Left seems dead set on destroying our whole nation via the economy. What is the difference between Bush, Obama, or Clinton? I see no difference. They all spend like drunken sailors on liberty. They all destroy the fundamentals of this country. They are all too chickenshit to cut the spending and let those who starve the producers get their comeuppance without having to extend and pretend and, inevitably, make it that much worse. I'd say they're all cowards, but that would be too kind. Either one accepts our rule of law prima facie, or one doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 9, 2011 2:18:59 GMT -5
traelin0, I'm trying to speak to the economy, and the massive problems that have only been exacerbated by the politicians in office. It just so happens that the Left seems dead set on destroying our whole nation via the economy. What is the difference between Bush, Obama, or Clinton? I see no difference. They all spend like drunken sailors on liberty. They all destroy the fundamentals of this country. They are all too chickenshit to cut the spending and let those who starve the producers get their comeuppins without having to extend and pretend and, inevitably, make it that much worse. I'd say they're all cowards, but that would be too kind. Either one accepts our rule of law prima facie, or one doesn't. All three are "Progressives". As I have stated on previous posts. Left wing Progressives want the UN to run the "One 'World Order". Right wing Progressives want the U.S. to run the "One World Order". Both are unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 9, 2011 2:21:13 GMT -5
All three are "Progressives". As I have stated on previous posts. Left wing Progressives want the UN to run the "One 'World Order". Right wing Progressives want the U.S. to run the "One World Order". Both are unconstitutional. Name me one POTUS since Teddy Roosevelt who wasn't completely Progressive, JFK and Coolidge aside. Reagan? OK, but he destroyed us in other ways. He sure spent like a Progressive. Harding? OK sure, I'll cede that one. Sooooo other than Harding, JFK, and Coolidge? LOL |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 9, 2011 2:34:08 GMT -5
If you recall, it was the Dems that spent (under Regan). I'll concede that Carter made us so militarily vulnerable, by eviscerating our military, that Regan had no choice but to rebuild what Carter single handidly almost destroyed. Under Carter and the DNC spending worse than the proverbial drunken sailor, it caused the FED to raise interest rates to 21%. Something that Regan inherited and had to work 24/7 to undo, and make us militarily/economically strong again.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 9, 2011 2:38:12 GMT -5
If you recall, it was the Dems that spent (under Regan). I'll concede that Carter made us so militarily vulnerable, by eviscerating our military, that Regan had no choice but to rebuild what Carter single handidly almost destroyed. Under Carter and the DNC spending worse than the proverbial drunken sailor, it caused the FED to raise interest rates to 21%. Something that Regan inherited and had to work 24/7 to undo, and make us militarily strong again. Blaming the Dems under Reagan for all profligacy is like solely blaming the Republicans for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Both Clinton and Reagan had the power of veto. The Dems under Reagan were not the ones who pissed away Volcker's miraculous, last second hockey save of the dollar. The Dems were not the ones who implemented EO 12631, which is directly attributable to the financial takeover of our economy. The Dems were not the ones who failed to follow through on their promise of abolishing the Dept. of Education. (Remember that campaign promise by Reagan?) The Dems were not the ones who ignored the calls by sound money advocates to get us back on a gold standard of some sort. The Dems were not the ones who nominated Alan Greenspan to chair the FED. Reagan was a douche. |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 9, 2011 2:50:38 GMT -5
I will say that Regan is one of the presidents who "actually" walked into a total mess created by Carter and the DNC. Although I have to agree that he was unable to get all that he wanted to get done, his work did bring about a very successful/prosperous decade as a result of his two terms in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 9, 2011 2:59:25 GMT -5
I will say that Regan is one of the presidents who "actually" walked into a total mess created by Carter and the DNC. Although I have to agree that he was unable to get all that he wanted to get done, his work did bring about a very successful/prosperous decade as a result of his two terms in office. His Morning in America was built upon fraud and financial paper shuffling. We have been bleeding red ink and manufacturing ever since he pissed away Volcker's save of the dollar. |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 9, 2011 3:12:45 GMT -5
We've been bleeding manufacturing since NAFTA. Er that would be Billy Clinton.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 9, 2011 3:19:09 GMT -5
That only sealed the deal. Same with pushing for China's admittance to the WTO under Clinton. And GHWB was the one pushing NAFTA. The names don't matter, they're all the same faces to me. Voting is pointless and so is violence. Prepare yourself peacefully for what is going to come and don't even pay attention to anything DC says or does. Nothing is going to change until we get a currency crisis. It gives them big heads and they're a bunch of private sector rejects -- assuming they even tried their hands in the private sector.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jan 9, 2011 18:35:34 GMT -5
I'll have to let dh know of your generous offer! Do you handle divorces in the US?  Keep in mind that Canadian law grants divorces when the wife yells "Je vous divorcer" in public three times. |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 10, 2011 1:27:54 GMT -5
I am still hoping that the recent higher interest rates resulting from sinking treasury prices will slowly choke off enough excess money to avert this crisis. Never did I expect to see all of this go so far. It's like the Irish peasant my mom told be about who decided that since the medicine the doctor gave her child would cure him in a week or so, it would be best to give it all at once and cure the child immediately. And you know what that medicine did. About a year ago, we were looking at around 120% interest rates to even hope to reel all of the cash back in. As ridiculous as that sounded, a year ago, you don't even want to know how much our interest would have to be set at, today, to even hope to start an actual recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 10, 2011 1:31:11 GMT -5
About a year ago, we were looking at around 120% interest rates to even hope to reel all of the cash back in. As ridiculous as that sounded, a year ago, you don't even want to know how much our interest would have to be set at, today, to even hope to start an actual recovery.Using a back of the envelope calculation, it would approximately be a mere 11.1% interest rate to send us to insolvency. news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1294297560.php |
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 10, 2011 1:39:57 GMT -5
Financial Times: U.S. Debt to Hit $20 Trillion in 10 Years
Wednesday, 21 Apr 2010 08:51 PM Article Font Size
While the global financial system remains transfixed by the problems of Greece and several other European countries risking default over their massive debts, the real threat is whether the credit standing and currency stability of the world’s biggest borrower, the United States, will be jeopardized by its disastrous outlook on deficits and debt.
That’s the fear raised in a devastating Op-Ed on the Financial Times website written by Roger Altman, a former deputy U.S. Treasury secretary under President Clinton who is now chairman of Evercore Partner, a leading global advisory and investment firm.
“America’s fiscal picture is even worse than it looks,” Altman writes. “The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just projected that over 10 years, cumulative deficits will reach $9.7 trillion and federal debt 90 percent of gross domestic product – nearly equal to Italy’s.
Editor's note: Senator Predicts Obama Financial "Meltdown." Dick Morris Says Prepare. Click Here Now. . .
“Global capital markets are unlikely to accept that credit erosion,” Altman says. “If they revolt, as in 1979, ugly changes in fiscal and monetary policy will be imposed on Washington. More than Afghanistan or unemployment, this is President Barack Obama’s greatest vulnerability.”
The financial outlook for the United States is frightening. The CBO projects the size of the federal debt to increase by nearly 250 percent over 10 years, from $7.5 trillion to a whopping $20 trillion.
The only remote comparison to such a debt load occurred during World War II, a global conflict that killed 50 million people, Altman and other analysts have written.
But there is no real comparison even in the 1940s and '50s for such a rise in indebtedness – nothing remotely like it has occurred since record keeping began in 1792, Altman writes.
“It is so rapid that, by 2020, the Treasury may borrow about $5 trillion per year to refinance maturing debt and raise new money; annual interest payments on those borrowings will exceed all domestic discretionary spending and rival the defense budget,” Altman writes in Financial Times.
“Unfortunately, the healthcare bill has little positive budget impact in this period.
“Why is this outlook dangerous? Because dollar interest rates would be so high as to choke private investment and global growth,” Altman points out.
Altman makes clear that this mess is not entirely Obama’s doing. But the massive spending programs his administration proffers have taken a potential catastrophe in the making and made it much worse.
The severe fiscal decline during the past year reflects a continuation of the Bush deficits and the lower revenue and countercyclical spending triggered by the recession. Obama’s own initiatives are responsible for only 15 percent of the deterioration.
But Obama now owns this crisis. The economy is simply too weak right now to handle a severe deficit reduction plan, Altman says. And the budget commission Obama has appointed to study deficit reduction will not report until December, meaning much of 2011 could by consumed by further debate with little tough action.
But Altman says the solution is clear to everyone: “The deficit/GDP ratio must be reduced by at least 2 percent, or about $300 billion in annual spending. It must include large spending cuts, such as to entitlements, and new revenue."
Altman says it also must come from higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends, or a new tax, such as a progressive value-added tax (VAT).
But that clearly will be anathema to fiscal conservatives, especially in the wake of the enactment of the largest piece of social spending legislation in the past half century, the Obama healthcare law.
But to do nothing is unthinkable, Altman writes. “The second possible course is the opposite: government paralysis and 10 years of fiscal erosion. Debt reaches 90 percent of GDP. Interest rates go much higher, but the world’s capital markets finance these needs without serious instability.
“History suggests a third outcome is the likely one: one imposed by global markets. Yes, there may be calm in currency and credit markets over the next year or two. But the chances that they would accept such a long-term fiscal slide are low. Here, the 1979 dollar crash is instructive. The Iranian oil embargo, stagflation and a weakening dollar were roiling markets. Amid this nervousness, President Jimmy Carter submitted his budget, incorporating a larger than expected deficit.”
That triggered a plunge in the dollar that destabilized markets, forcing Carter to resubmit a tighter budget and the Fed to raise interest rates. Both actions harmed the economy and severely injured his presidency.
“America’s addiction to debt poses a similar threat now,” Altman concludes. “To avoid an imposed and ugly solution, Obama will have to invest all his political capital in a budget agreement next year. He will be advised that cutting spending and raising taxes is too risky for his 2012 re-election. But the alternative could be much worse.”
Read more: Financial Times: U.S. Debt to Hit $20 Trillion in 10 Years
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
|
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Jan 10, 2011 1:50:29 GMT -5
The Fed Has Us Painted Into a CornerCategory: Economics, Politics / Tag: gold, inflation, lew rockwell, paul volcker, peter schiff, the fed / I was listening to the Lew Rockwell show from back in September the other day where Peter Schiff is describing the un-winnable position the Fed is now in. I don’t think people understand just how bad things are right now. Here’s the audio:
Lew Rockwell Show – 165. Gold, Not Paper:
It gets real interesting starting around the 10:19 mark. He compares the recession of 1980 to the recession we have now. In 1980 the Fed had enough room to raise interest rates to bring inflation back down and protect the dollar. This is confirmed by the Fed’s historical stat page:
Year: Averaged Rate
1955: 1.79
1956: 2.73
1957: 3.11
1958: 1.57
1959: 3.31
1960: 3.21
1961: 1.95
1962: 2.71
1963: 3.18
1964: 3.50 1965: 4.07
1966: 5.11
1967: 4.22
1968: 5.66
1969: 8.21
1970: 7.17
1971: 4.67
1972: 4.44
1973: 8.74
1974: 10.51 1975: 5.82
1976: 5.05
1977: 5.54
1978: 7.94
1979: 11.20
1980: 13.35
1981: 16.39
1982: 12.24
1983: 9.09
1984: 10.23 1985: 8.10
1986: 6.80
1987: 6.66
1988: 7.57
1989: 9.21
1990: 8.10
1991: 5.69
1992: 3.52
1993: 3.02
1994: 4.21 1995: 5.83
1996: 5.30
1997: 5.46
1998: 5.35
1999: 4.97
2000: 6.24
2001: 3.88
2002: 1.67
2003: 1.13
2004: 1.35 2005: 3.22
2006: 4.97
2007: 5.02
2008: 1.92
2009: 0.16
–FederalReserve.gov, Historical Rates
In 1981, the federal funds rate averaged 16%. The actual monthly peak was in June of 1981 when the funds rate hit a whopping 19.10%. The prime rate hit a titanic 21.5% in January of 1981.
So, why did the Fed raise rates so high? Well, here’s an article from that time period explaining:
Top officials at the Federal Reserve Board, including its chairman, Paul A. Volcker, say that their policy of reducing the expansion of money and credit will mean little or no economic growth in 1981 and continuing high interest rates. In a series of interviews, the officials said that the lack of improvement in the prospects for curbing inflation had renewed their conviction that the Federal Reserve should maintain a tight monetary policy in the absence of a dramatic shift in the economic outlook.
–Steven Rattner, NY Times (1/5/1981)
This is exactly what Schiff is talking about. To combat surging inflation, the Fed raised the rates in order to tighten the money supply. Higher rates mean less borrowing, more savings and thus less money in circulation. They had to raise rates high enough to induce savings by even the super wealthy as much as possible. Nothing will curb your enthusiasm for that new business expansion like a 20% interest rate on a construction loan. Ouch.
Their tactic was mostly successful(as much as possible considering it’s central planning) and inflation did come down. They essentially bought the economy some time so that wages and savings could start to catch up a little bit to surging consumer prices. We’re facing essentially the same problem now. Consumer prices are starting to rise as all of that quantitative easing (i.e., money printing) of the last two years is now working its inflationary magic. So why has the Fed lowered rates to an all-time low this time when they raised them to an all time high last time? The answer is multi-faceted, but Schiff pointed out that the national debt is key.
With the national debt as high as it is, the only way the government can pay the interest on it’s debt is to keep rates low. Most of the debt our government has is now in the form of short-term debt, because the rates on short-term treasury bonds are the cheapest:
Since 2000, the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note has fallen from 6 percent to 3 percent. The U.S. Treasury has lowered its interest costs further by shifting toward cheaper short-term debt. Thus, nearly half of government debt will need to be refinanced in the next 12 months, and nearly two-thirds will require refinancing within 36 months. So even though the national debt has surged since 2000, the annual net interest costs have actually declined from $223 billion to $209 billion.
–Brian Reidl, Heritage.org
Schiff likens it to being leveraged up on a short-term adjustable rate mortgage. Sure, those 3-5 year ARM’s have awesome, low rates. And, because the rate is so low, you can afford a bigger house. But if the rate ever goes up you’ll be in a world of hurt. So, because the government is now leveraged up with debt that has to be re-purchased every 12-36 months, if the Fed raised rates to something like 9 percent, the government would literally default almost overnight. That’s the catch-22 we’re in. Raising rates is the only way to fight the coming inflation, but that’s the one thing they can’t do because it would bankrupt the government. The only out left for them is to devalue the currency by printing more money, so that they can stay ahead of the debt payments. That’s why we keep hearing Bernanke talk about the need for more quantitative easing. Folks, this is bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 10, 2011 9:07:23 GMT -5
Financial Times: U.S. Debt to Hit $20 Trillion in 10 Years That projection is pointless because there's no way the world will wait 10 years to shut us down. |
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 10, 2011 9:09:13 GMT -5
Right now, savers are essentially being marched out and shot. No wonder everyone hates to save. The dollar is the perfect carry trade vehicle, to be sure. I them as soon as I earn them, for whatever investment I'm interested in. I've been eyeballing Aussie bonds but I don't know enough about foreign bonds markets at this point in time. |
|
