Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,667
Nope. A guy named Karl Denninger who doesn't give a shit about God and Gays.

He's been on Dylan Ratigan, the only MSNBC program worth watching these days.
So I guess that means all the negative factors that engulf the Tea Party don't matter.

EDIT: I know the tea party came from a good place and was well intentioned in it's creation, but so were the Republican and Democratic parties and now they're just as bad, but for different reasons.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,667
Why would she stop them for that?
Because she thought that they were hating on Asians. The guy was merely making a point that China's 1 child policy is a reason immigrants from China would maybe come the US.

She's fucking weird dude, she has a doctorate in World Religions and she's minister of her own church and she thinks she sees dead people.

I read Birches by Robert Frost and she gave me a 75 because I wasn't dramatic enough.:andyandbarcelona:
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,277
So I guess that means all the negative factors that engulf the Tea Party don't matter.

EDIT: I know the tea party came from a good place and was well intentioned in it's creation, but so were the Republican and Democratic parties and now they're just as bad, but for different reasons.
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that somebody who advocates conservative monetary policy while not aligning themselves with one of the two major political parties is not necessarily an extremist. I think there is an organized effort to try to malign anybody who wants to establish a serious third party, which is why you have the likes of Chris Matthews trying to preach that anybody who doesn't like the policies of the Federal Reserve are right-wing extremists and members of the racist Tea Party. To understand a movement you have to understand where it originated, so as to not demean a good cause established by good people.

But since the Tea Party has been hijacked by Neo-Cons, they aren't the answer. It's just funny how this one group receives so much criticism when the likes of the Democrats are supporting Ben Bernanke and the Fed, Bush appointees and Keynesian economics-lovers, who will be the reason why (once again) you'll be left jobless while paying $5 per gallon at the pump. Hilarious how some think social issues are more important than the economy.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,667
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that somebody who advocates conservative monetary policy while not aligning themselves with one of the two major political parties is not necessarily an extremist. I think there is an organized effort to try to malign anybody who wants to establish a serious third party, which is why you have the likes of Chris Matthews trying to preach that anybody who doesn't like the policies of the Federal Reserve are right-wing extremists and members of the racist Tea Party. To understand a movement you have to understand where it originated, so as to not demean a good cause established by good people.

But since the Tea Party has been hijacked by Neo-Cons, they aren't the answer. It's just funny how this one group receives so much criticism when the likes of the Democrats are supporting Ben Bernanke and the Fed, Bush appointees and Keynesian economics-lovers, who will be the reason why (once again) you'll be left jobless while paying $5 per gallon at the pump. Hilarious how some think social issues are more important than the economy.
Most of that post really isn't needed. I understand the movement, as I realize the benefits of some of the platform of the Tea Party. But that's what you get when you try to start a movement inside of a major party rather than breaking away.

I find it funny how people tend to disregard the influence of social issues on the economy. Health Care for instance is a huge money pit when you consider the growth of Medicare and Medicaid over the last 20 years and their projected growth in the next 15. That's a ridiculous amount of mandatory spending that is growing every year. The economy is obviously important to the health of a nation but there are many variables that influence its growth.

People rail about how we need to fix the economy, but you never ever hear a viable solution. We just want a quick fix, no one in Washington is eager to actually sit down and crunch the numbers to see if we actually need a Federal Reserve system, whether or not bailing out certain banks or companies is a good idea or not, the long term implications of Medicare, etc. Which is why we have a half-assed health care plan and a half-assed jobs plan, neither of which address the real problems of the issues they're meant to help.

EDIT: As far as political parties go, I don't really care anymore. If there was a reasonable Tea Party Candidate, I'd probably give them a vote. If they were in the Christine Donaldson mold I wouldn't
 

Delle Alpi

Chemical Dean
May 26, 2009
8,679

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,277
Most of that post really isn't needed. I understand the movement, as I realize the benefits of some of the platform of the Tea Party. But that's what you get when you try to start a movement inside of a major party rather than breaking away.
The founder did not start the movement as a Republican. He started it as an independent. He only cares about the financial health and safety of the nation, along with the prosecution of fraud at all levels of the government and Wall Street, which is why I wish more people would care about these issues. He's fiscally very conservative, but he did vote for Obama because he was tired of the Neo-Cons.

So no, at the core, this movement was started to implement a "fuck you" policy towards the Republicans and Democrats. But neither parties want you to know that, as this knowledge would demean their ability to maintain the future of the two party system.

I find it funny how people tend to disregard the influence of social issues on the economy. Health Care for instance is a huge money pit when you consider the growth of Medicare and Medicaid over the last 20 years and their projected growth in the next 15. That's a ridiculous amount of mandatory spending that is growing every year. The economy is obviously important to the health of a nation but there are many variables that influence its growth.
People rail about how we need to fix the economy, but you never ever hear a viable solution. We just want a quick fix, no one in Washington is eager to actually sit down and crunch the numbers to see if we actually need a Federal Reserve system, whether or not bailing out certain banks or companies is a good idea or not, the long term implications of Medicare, etc. Which is why we have a half-assed health care plan and a half-assed jobs plan, neither of which address the real problems of the issues they're meant to help.
I suggest you take a look at what the likes of Karl Denninger, Peter Schiff, Mish Shedlock, Bill Black, Bill Still, Max Keiser, and other similar economists are advocating. Very forcefully at times, by the way. They are not "mainstream" Keynesian economists like that idiot Paul Krugman who claims the Fed needs to increase its balance sheet so a "desirable" amount of inflation can be forced upon the system. Apparently Democrats and Republicans (no matter what they claim) still think you can inflate your way out of economic distress like Japan, Argentina and Weimar tried to do. It's sheer idiocy.

There is a reason why we have adhered to the same economic policies for the last 30 years. The same folks that managed the Clinton economy were hired by the Bush administration and promoted by the Obama administration. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, et cetera... all of them played a roll in developing the disaster in the 90's under Clinton. Free lunch economics, accounting fraud, and corruption, stuff that inarguably wrecks a free market will be protected by these clowns.

The solutions to these problems are quite simple and are advocated by the individuals listed above. Prosecute fraudulent accounting activity by the large banks, prosecute fraudulent mortgage foreclosures by the large banks, make high-frequency trading and other market shenanigans illegal, put Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson in jail for sponsoring this crap under their oversight, destroy the Federal Reserve and restore monetary policy to the people, and allow interest rates to rise so that we can build a suitable economy for the future. You don't have to know multivariable calculus to look at a chart and see that the purchasing power of the US dollar has decreased over 90% since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. That's all central banks know how to do... rob the middle class of its purchasing power.

These solutions are proposed all the time, but nobody in the mainstream media or political parties advocate this stuff. It is quite simple, as long as we have Republicans or Democrats in office, the Federal Reserve system, along with systemic fraud in the economy, will go unchecked. As long as Washington is hijacked by Wall Street, we will face economic policy designed to support failed financial institutions at the expense of your purchasing power and future. Ben Bernanke and his clan of rogue bankers only care about one thing, and that is the future of their cohorts on Wall Street. If that means they debase the currency into oblivion, they will take those measures. They know the contagion of fraud and futility is so deep that they would rather make the problem worse than have it collapse before their friends drain every single cent out of the nation they possibly can.

EDIT: All of the folks I named in this post PREDICTED this current mess. Krugman, Bernanke, and the other folks who run policy DID NOT. Why were they promoted?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 297)