Hello Everyone, For those of you who don't know me my name is Julian M. I produce and mix melodic techno/deep house/progressive house and I am also a current college student nice to meet you all and I hope you respond to this thread
I am neither a democrat nor republican, and my political philosophy could be summarily described as practical libertarianism which unlike Ron Paul's philosophy supports a woman's right to choose and a more gradual reduction in government spending and a gradual and safe transition to a non-interventionist foreign policy
As a practical libertarian I obviously don't really respect either major party's platform for "change" but when John McCain decided that he wanted to select sarah palin as his running mate I originally thought nothing of it
But with each growing day it is becoming more and more obvious that John McCain's health is a serious liability and what is also becoming more obvious is that Sarah Palin folksy charm- despite her utter incompetence and utter inability to lead a nation or be a likable figurehead in the world arena- still draws crowds everywhere she goes even without John McCain.... sometimes even drawing more people than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS HAVE A FAVORABLE VIEW OF A WOMAN WHO IS NOT ONLY INCOMPETENT AND FRANKLY STUPID, BUT ALSO A WOMAN WHO EPITOMIZES EVERYTHING WOMEN SHOULD BE AGAINST (equal pay for an equal day's work, overturning roe v. wade and even preventing raped women or women who engage in incest from having abortions, might I mention her antiquated beliefs and the wasilla assembly of god?) STILL BE SO POPULAR AMONG AMERICA AT LARGE THAT JOHN MCCAIN ESSENTIALLY STILL HAS A CHANCE AT THE PRESIDENCY?
Despite what the favorability polls may show you what remains unrecognized is how easily swayed the American public is
(especially less-intelligent people who are easily swayed by fear-mongering, and frankly less-intelligent white working class women who go to church regularly who harbor either overt or subconscious prejudice against and resentment for Barack Obama, most of which probably subconsciously feel especially in these trying times betrayed by the fact that a half-black man from humble beginnings employed his intellectual brilliance to rise to worldwide stardom and to a presidency that is guaranteed (in their delusional minds) to make minorities have more power, which they resent considering they are losing their power due to the economic collapse which they were not judicious enough to prepare for)
Another important thing to note is that pollsters often miss key segments of the population when they do their surveys and usually there sampling size is not inclusive enough to accurately reflect day-to-day voter preferences much less predict whether or not on election day the people who vote that have doubts about black people and doubts about john mccain and sarah palin will subconsciously dupe themselves into buying the visceral folksy fairy-tales and colloquial language of the McCain fantasy of reform and pull the lever for McCain/Palin because they trust the white guy "war hero" and the gal who speaks in words they can understand (because face it many americans are not smart enough to understand the "big words" of obama and have grown to distrust people they do not understand
Imagine lets say all of the sudden there is another 9/11 type event in this country or an event where the manipulative news media covering non-existent or existent prospects of major tensions with other threatening countries a day or two before the election? then what happens? those stupid white bigots will vote essentially for sarah palin to become president!
This scenario worries me but it was easily avoidable, all john mccain had to do to avoid this nightmare situation was simply to select a somewhat fiscally responsible republican who is both intelligent and whose age is not a concern ( mitt romney perhaps? even tho he has hardly proven himself to be fiscally responsible)
RON PAUL would have been the right choice for the republican party nominee and if he would have been selected Obama would not stand a chance against someone with cross-party appeal a consistent voting record principled integrity who is both fiscally responsible, prescient and anti-war. In these times of government skepticism it makes me wonder whether if this crisis had happened about 8 months earlier Ron Paul would have been elected.
I am afraid for america's future and as ron paul so presciently warned before both the 1987 crash and the current crisis years in advance what would happen (did I mention he predicted that the iraq war would be waged without passing through congress in early 2002 and that it would continue to no avail and only compound the problems we currently face??? A FULL YEAR BEFORE WMDs were claimed to exist. Despite his rational arguments to end the wars we face, improve border security, eliminate taxes, end the failed war on drugs and let innocent non-violent drug offenders (like several of my friends who currently sit in jail for growing marijuana and peacefully smoking it for Personakl consumption) THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT HEAR THAT MESSAGE BECAUSE THE MEDIA DID NOT GIVE RON PAUL AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS.
OUTRAGE IS THE ONLY WORD THAT CROSSES MY MIND WHEN REFLECTING BACK ON THE SAD TRUTH OF THE VICTORIOUS MCPALIN EMPIRE AND HOW POORLY IT REFLECTS ON THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WHOLE
I AM SO OUTRAGED THAT EVEN AS SOMEONE WHO RECOGNIZES THAT MCCAIN AND OBAMA ARE BOTH SO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ON MANY POLICY ISSUES THAT I WOULD DARE CALL THEM BOTH REPUBLICRATS, THAT I WOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA/BIDEN (I am registered voter in the key swing state of colorado) TO AVERT THE DISASTER OF A PALIN PRESIDENCY
WHO HERE AGREES WITH ME?
do u think folksy charm is all that is required to lead this country in the most trying time in world history since world war II?
Please respond i want to know what you think about her popularity, and how badly that reflects on the stupidity of our country
WHAT A DISGRACE TO AMERICA THAT WOMAN IS!
MATT DAMON SAYS IT BEST
If you are a foreigner what do you think of this disgrace of a woman?
How do you view her folksy charm? Do you think it will improve foreign relations? Does it lower your opinion of the once great nation that thrived on liberty and prospered because of that liberty to see the neocons hijack elections time and time again?
I would like to know?
SORRY about the length of this post but this issue disturbs me greatly!
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 09:03:
LMFAO this is the perfect interpretation of this otherwise tragic event
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-09-2008 09:11:
i agree with everything you've said, but please try to form better paragraphs and no need for the yelling
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 09:45:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i agree with everything you've said, but please try to form better paragraphs and no need for the yelling
Lol yes i did use caps lock to emphasize certain points
so i guess you could say i was figuratively yelling through the keyboard haha. And as far as paragraph formation? well lets just say this is not an essay I am writing for class or the scholastic aptitude test this is just a forum on a website. So observing paragraph formalities not my primary concern, the words I use and how I use them are more of a concern
So your from New Zealand eh? I hear the Tasmanian devil is on the verge of extinction haha
You are lucky to live in such a nice country, I did have the privilege of visiting the north island, I especially liked the culture there!
Posted by Capitalizt on Oct-09-2008 11:09:
Re: Sarah Palin's Domestic Popularity??
"awww...She's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom."
I swear...one night I turned to C-span, at least 2 woman callers said something to this effect when calling in about her. They like her because they can relate to her better than they can relate to Obama. The same thing happened in 2000 with Bush. There was general conensus that Bush was a more "normal" guy than Al Gore...someone you could go to the bar and have a few drinks and laughs with.
Sadly a huge chunk of Americans are actually stupid enough to vote based on that criteria..
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-09-2008 11:35:
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
the words I use and how I use them are more of a concern
well, trust me when i say people will not read your words when you do not form proper paragraphs. clumps of text arent fun to read.
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Oct-09-2008 11:40:
quote:
With Barack Obama pulling ahead in key battle ground states, the question becomes what has been sinking the McCain campaign. The answer, from recent polling, is clear � Sarah Palin has become incredibly unpopular:
In Florida � Palin gets a negative 36 - 39 percent favorability, down from 47 - 23 percent September 11.
In Ohio � Palin�s favorability is split 35 - 35 percent, compared to 41 - 22 percent last time.
In Pennsylvania � Palin�s favorability is a negative 34 - 37 percent, down from 39 - 26 percent.
Nationally, Palin also has the lowest favorable ratings on the Presidential tickets, with a 52% unfavorable rating
Imagine if instead of Bahbahbahbombiran McCain who admits he doesn't know much about the economy was not the republican nominee and this guy was? OBAMA would be dead in the water because 64% of the american people are against the bailout and this guy voted against it
Imagine what the race would look like IF THIS GUY WAS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE?
If he was able to participate in the debates all of them, and the media actually reported on Ron Paul like they failed to do throughout the primary campaign Paul wins by a landslide
the only hope mccain has right now is to appoint mitt romney or ron paul as VP candidates of course ron paul wouldn't accept an offer like that McCain stands for exactly what Paul is against on almost every issue, he would never sell his soul to the Neocons
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 12:19:
Re: Re: Sarah Palin's Domestic Popularity??
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
"awww...She's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom."
I swear...one night I turned to C-span, at least 2 woman callers said something to this effect when calling in about her. They like her because they can relate to her better than they can relate to Obama. The same thing happened in 2000 with Bush. There was general conensus that Bush was a more "normal" guy than Al Gore...someone you could go to the bar and have a few drinks and laughs with.
Sadly a huge chunk of Americans are actually stupid enough to vote based on that criteria..
Yes its true, but the saddest part is while the media focuses on gaffes like McCain saying "that one" or discussions about Campaign tactics
The majority of the American People who rely on the mainstream media will not hear anything about any third party candidates at all! that goes for Nader, Barr, Baldwin, McKinney etc.
They Do Not exist as far as the MSM is concerned
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 12:39:
Get this an article that is over 7 months old is the most popular article on fox business news network entitled "Time to listen to ron paul?" Even newscorp is failing to prevent his message from being heard!
Punditty Poll: If Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had won the Republican nomination, who would you vote for Nov. 4 in a contest between Paul (R) and Obama (D)?
The poll was launched Sept. 29, 2008, and closed at approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Oct. 7.
RESULTS: 1,102 votes cast
Ron Paul: 79 percent (870 votes)
Barack Obama 20 percent (228 votes)
Other - 4 votes
"Suppose that even after the conventions, Paul was trailing 55 to 40 with a mere 5 percent of the voters undecided. Assuming that events on Wall Street would have played out the in roughly the same way, how would voters have reacted to one candidate being adamantly opposed to the bailout while the other tried to portray it as a much-needed rescue?*
We will never know. But we can be pretty sure that large numbers of party-line and independent voters who had been tuning out Paul�s economic message would have suddenly found his words and theories very interesting, and as the GOP nominee, Paul would have had the national platform from which to share them. If the Republican Party would have stayed true to its roots, as Paul urged throughout the primary campaign, and nominated the one candidate who has consistently warned about the dangers of fiat currency and a central banking system with the power to manipulate the credit markets, Americans might well be on the verge of electing Ron Paul president of the United States."
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, trust me when i say people will not read your words when you do not form proper paragraphs. clumps of text arent fun to read.
yeah, trust me when i say that you will never be a cool person.
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Oct-09-2008 13:22:
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
Imagine what the race would look like IF THIS GUY WAS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE?
It would look a lot like this: Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Oct-09-2008 13:26:
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
Assuming that events on Wall Street would have played out the in roughly the same way, how would voters have reacted to one candidate being adamantly opposed to the bailout while the other tried to portray it as a much-needed rescue?*
Are you insane? Voters may not have been happy with the bailout as crafted, but you can bet they're savvy enough to understand that something needed to happen. Even the most free market of economists are criticizing Congress for taking TOO LONG to pass the package - failure to do anything (as you seem to advocate) would be absolutely insane.
Posted by Krypton on Oct-09-2008 17:05:
Judging by the quality of our public schools, it's no surprise to me Americans are probably the most dumbed down country compared to other industrialized countries. No surprise to me people vote based on the most idiotic criteria ever thought. ooohh, she's a hockey mom, I'm voting for her!!
Posted by LazFX on Oct-09-2008 17:10:
Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican base aka Q5's kind of people
He's got the bloodlines!
OMG RUN EVERYONE!!!
fucking tards
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 18:11:
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Are you insane? Voters may not have been happy with the bailout as crafted, but you can bet they're savvy enough to understand that something needed to happen. Even the most free market of economists are criticizing Congress for taking TOO LONG to pass the package - failure to do anything (as you seem to advocate) would be absolutely insane.
I am not insane ok here are the facts because I have been criticized for not sourcing material and providing backing to my arguments. Why the bailout plan regardless of how soon it was passed is a failure
1. The moment the bailout was passed the Dow jones was up 150 dollars by the end of the day it was down about 250 a 400 point loss in the Dow Jones which has only continued to plummet since the time the bailout has passed clearly the market made its verdict on how successful the bailout was!
And as far as not being timely enough to save the markets take a look at the letter sent by 231 top economists warning about the bailout sent to congress
.............(This letter was sent to Congress on Wed Sept 24 2008 regarding the Treasury plan as outlined on that date. It does not reflect all signatories views on subesquent plans or modifications of the bill)
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers� expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons WE ASK CONGRESS NOT TO RUSH, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come."
WELL IT LOOKS LIKE MANY ECONOMISTS WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN BOTH OF US COMBINED THOUGHT THAT A QUICK BAILOUT PASSAGE WAS NOT THE SOLUTION AND SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED CONGRESS NOT TO RUSH? SO THE TIMELINESS ARGUMENT IS SOMEWHAT VALID IN THAT BUSH PROPOSED AN ABSURD PROPOSAL AND RELIED ON FEAR-MONGERING (like he did to win the white house in 2004) HOPING IT WOULD GET PASSED BUT THE ABSURDITY OF THAT BILL COULD NOT BE RATIONALLY PASSED AND IF THEY GOT IT WRONG IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE DEVASTATING THAN IF NO BAILOUT HAPPENED AT ALL IN FACT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE
as you can see below look at these names, the number of them, the nobel laureates involved? does that spell credibility to you?
Signed (updated at 9/27/2008 6:00PM CT)
Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Ackerberg Daniel (UCLA)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Ales Laurence (Carnegie Mellon University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Blank Emily (Howard University)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Bollinger, Christopher R. (University of Kentucky)
Bossi, Luca (University of Miami)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J.(UCLA)
Cabral Luis (New York University)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Clementi, Gian Luca (New York University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Cooley, Thomas (New York University)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Darity, William (Duke University)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dub� Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan H�lya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Fair Ray (Yale University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez, Raquel (New York University)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Gregory, Karl D. (Oakland University)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch G�nter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hollifield Burton (Carnegie Mellon University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Jovanovic Boyan (New York University)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karaivanov Alexander (Simon Fraser University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Letson David (University of Miami)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Ludvigson, Sydney C. (New York University)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Meeropol, Michael (Western New England College)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moeller, Thomas (Texas Christian University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Moskowitz, Tobias J. (University of Chicago)
Munger Michael C. (Duke University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nair Harikesh (Stanford University)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pearce David (New York University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Pippenger, Michael K. (University of Alaska)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Platt Brennan C. (Brigham Young University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Ray, Debraj (New York University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Rizzo, Mario (New York University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Roussanov Nikolai (University of Pennsylvania)
Routledge Bryan R. (Carnegie Mellon University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Samaniego Roberto (George Washington University)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Schaniel William C. (University of West Georgia)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spatt Chester (Carnegie Mellon University)
Spear Stephen (Carnegie Mellon University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Troske Kenneth (University of Kentucky)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Vargas Hernan (University of Phoenix)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Walker Douglas O. (Regent University)
Walker, Todd (Indiana University)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfenzon, Daniel (Columbia University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Wu Yangru (Rutgers University)
Yue Vivian Z. (New York University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)
OF COURSE THERE WAS A MODIFIED BAILOUT PLAN BUT IT FAILED BECAUSE IT ONLY ADDRESSED 5-10% OF US ASSETS AND DID NOT ALLAY CONCERNS NOR EXPEDITE THE PROCESS OF DELIVERING THE MONEY TO ESSENTIALLY ARTIFICIALLY SOLVENT INSTITUTIONS.
3. BUT More than a week before the 775 point drop on the dow last monday occured an insider had this to say about the current situation the same day congress was briefed about the crisis
Now understand that there is no solution to this fast and vicious destruction of America's financial markets and financial companies until and unless the lying stops.
It has NOT stopped and in fact has gotten materially worse.
Folks, this meltdown will not stop until either:
* ALL financials mark everything to the market, ALL OTC derivatives are traded on an exchange or declared void, and ALL balance sheets are transparent so we can determine who is broke and who is not.
OR
* The market has completely imploded with every financial stock worth zero as the hedge funds and others short each in turn into the ground, forcing each to be bailed out in turn.
Those are the ONLY TWO CHOICES.
Nothing else HAS WORKED and nothing else WILL WORK. With each bailout you simply give people another target and a new way to kill the next company in line. This process will proceed from firm to firm until NONE ARE LEFT and credit availability in the economy is ZERO.
The Fed has expended more than half of their balance sheet, in excess of four hundred billion dollars. It has not stopped the cascade.
The Government has spent nearly a trillion dollars we do not have in bailouts and other miscellaneous nonsense. It has not stopped the cascade.
Indeed, all that has happened is that the velocity of the crash has accelerated dramatically.
There is NO WAY to fix this through adding "more liquidity" - the problem IS AND HAS BEEN THE LIQUIDITY in that this allows BANKRUPT companies to continue to operate and LIE instead of forcing them into the open where they can be liquidated under Chapter 11.
We are here precisely because of the intentional provision of far TOO MUCH liquidity by Alan Greenspan and now by Ben Bernanke.
You cannot solve someone's drinking problem by giving them another bottle of whiskey!
THE LIQUIDITY SWAMP MUST BE DRAINED.
We cannot have a "financial system" that is based on fraud and theft. We cannot have "financial institutions" that claim to be solvent when they in fact are not unless they are able to make up values that are much higher than the REAL value for their so-called "assets".
Wayne Angell was on "Fast Money" tonight claiming that the balance sheet of The Fed is "infinite" and that "they can't be downgraded."
Wayne, you need to be charged with treason for spewing that crap on national television.
Sure, "in theory" The Fed's balance sheet is infinite - they can coordinate with Treasury to print as much money as they want.
So was Weimar Germany's.
The word for what Wayne was promoting on Fast Money this evening is HYPERINFLATION where you find that a wheelbarrow is worth more than all the $100 bills you can stuff into it.
Does anyone remember how hyperinflation worked out for them? I seem to remember a gentlemen with the first name of "Adolf" that the world got out of that little exercise of an "infinite balance sheet."
Why does this path inevitably lead to political failure? Because as soon as lenders discern that this is occurring they shut off credit entirely.
Think about it - you have $1,000 to lend out. You detect that the government is printing and intentionally devaluing your money. If you lend it out at 10% interest but the government is hyperinflating at 100% a year, you lose about half of the money's value every year! So if you lend me that $1,000 when I pay you back you can only buy half as much as you could before! For obvious reasons you're not going to allow that - you will instead immediately spend your $1,000 on something of physical value such as land before it can be debased.
Hyperinflation kills all credit availability instantly for this reason and any credit-based economy immediately implodes. This results in enormous and immediate mass unemployment and a resulting rupture of the social and political fabric of a nation.
As for not being able to be downgraded, you obviously didn't hear S&P today, which stated quite clearly that the United States "AAA" credit rating is not a right and must be earned. Can't be downgraded eh? Oh yes The Fed can be - along with everything else.
Folks, we require over $2 billion a day in foreign investment in order to pay our bills.
This is what came out from China today:
"BEIJING, Sept 17 (Reuters) - Threatened by a "financial tsunami," the world must consider building a financial order no longer dependent on the United States, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Wednesday.
"The eruption of the U.S. sub-prime crisis has exposed massive loopholes in the United States' financial oversight and supervision," writes the commentator, Shi Jianxun.
"The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States."
"Infinite Balance Sheet" eh? See what foreign governments think of that sort of garbage?
Please understand - if foreign governments withdraw their support of our government funding via either scaling back their Treasury purchases or outright refusal to buy (or worse, they dump them on the market into this "fear spike" we're seeing now), we are absolutely and instantaneously screwed.
Michael Bloomberg, one of the few intelligent commentators out there (and a billionaire by his own hand) said exactly the same thing today:
"WASHINGTON (AP) � New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is warning a 'next wave' of financial pain may come when foreign entities stop buying U.S. debt.
The billionaire mayor is speaking to an audience at Georgetown University, telling them it's not clear who is going to continue buying U.S. debt as financial firms try to cope with a crisis of confidence on Wall Street."
Mr. Bloomberg sees the same thing I do, but he's a bit more polite than I am about it.
Then there was S&P which made this quite clear as well:
"The $85 billion bailout of AIG on Tuesday by the U.S. Federal Reserve "has weakened the fiscal profile of the United States," S&P's John Chambers told Reuters in an interview.
"Lack of a pro-active stance could have resulted in further financial stress and put pressure on the U.S. triple-A rating," Chambers said. "There's no God-given gift of a AAA rating, and the U.S. has to earn it like everyone else."
Is that clear enough?""
IT SHOULD BE CLEAR IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF THE CREDIT CRISIS RIGHT NOW THE OPINIONS OF THE MOST ACCOMPLISHED ECONOMISTS IN THE WORLD ARE AGAINST THE BAILOUT FOR ITS LONG TERM IMPACT
WE HAVE A 10.6 Trillion Dollar Debt according to wikipedia According to Barack Obama we have a 10 Trillion Dollar Debt According to Ron Paul WHO I TRUST THE MOST WE HAVE AN 11.3 Trillion Dollar Debt
THIS BAILOUT WILL NOT HELP THE DEBT CRISIS AND IN THE LONG TERM THE LONG AUCTION PROCESS INVOLVED WILL TAKE WEEKS IF NOT MONTHS TO FULLY TAKE EFFECT BECAUSE THE BAIL OUT PASSED IS A FAILURE
IF WE PASS MORE BAILOUTS LIKE WE DID TODAY WITH AIG GUESS WHAT??? EITHER OUR NATIONAL DEBT CONTINUES TO GO UP ILLIQUIDITY RISES AND CONFIDENCE IN THE U.S. DOLLAR FAILS THUS INFLATION GOES UP! DOLLAR VALUE IS DESTROYED AND THUS A BREAKDOWN IN THE BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT WILL OCCUR>>>>>>>>>> IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THE CONFIDENCE ISSUE, NOT BY BAILING OUT COMPANIES OR SEIZING BANKS, BUT BY CUTTING SPENDING AND RAISING REVENUE VIA SOME FORM OF TAXATION (GROWING AND TAXING MARIJUANA WOULD EMPLOY MANY PEOPLE IF IT WERE DECRIMINALIZED IT IS LESS HARMFUL THAN ALCOHOL AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD REAP MASSIVE PROFITS BY TAXING IT HEAVILY) TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A FISCAL SURPLUS ASAP
MY ADVICE LOOK INTO THE ETF MARKET DIVERSIFY YOUR PORTFOLIO and BUY COMMODITIES LIKE GOLD (The ultimate hedge against inflation) to safeguard your portfolio do not touch the stocks you are confident will benefit from this in the long term but sell those that people have no confidence in (I.E. General Motors) FOREX MARKETS ARE RIPE WITH OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW!Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 18:26:
I revised my initial post to reflect the current trend and warn about foregone conclusions
"
Despite what the favorability polls may show you what remains unrecognized is how easily swayed the American public is
(especially less-intelligent people who are easily swayed by fear-mongering, and frankly less-intelligent white working class women who go to church regularly who harbor either overt or subconscious prejudice against and resentment for Barack Obama, most of which probably subconsciously feel especially in these trying times betrayed by the fact that a half-black man from humble beginnings employed his intellectual brilliance to rise to worldwide stardom and to a presidency that is guaranteed (in their delusional minds) to make minorities have more power, which they resent considering they are losing their power due to the economic collapse which they were not judicious enough to prepare for)
Another important thing to note is that pollsters often miss key segments of the population when they do their surveys and usually there sampling size is not inclusive enough to accurately reflect day-to-day voter preferences much less predict whether or not on election day the people who vote that have doubts about black people and doubts about john mccain and sarah palin will subconsciously dupe themselves into buying the visceral folksy fairy-tales and colloquial language of the McCain fantasy of reform and pull the lever for McCain/Palin because they trust the white guy "war hero" and the gal who speaks in words they can understand (because face it many americans are not smart enough to understand the "big words" of obama and have grown to distrust people they do not understand
Imagine lets say all of the sudden there is another 9/11 type event in this country or an event where the manipulative news media covering non-existent or existent prospects of major tensions with other threatening countries a day or two before the election? then what happens? those stupid white bigots will vote essentially for sarah palin to become president!
This scenario worries me but it was easily avoidable, all john mccain had to do to avoid this nightmare situation was simply to select a somewhat fiscally responsible republican who is both intelligent and whose age is not a concern ( mitt romney perhaps? even tho he has hardly proven himself to be fiscally responsible)
RON PAUL would have been the right choice for the republican party nominee and if he would have been selected Obama would not stand a chance against someone with cross-party appeal a consistent voting record principled integrity who is both fiscally responsible, prescient and anti-war. In these times of government skepticism it makes me wonder whether if this crisis had happened about 8 months earlier Ron Paul would have been elected.
I am afraid for america's future and as ron paul so presciently warned before both the 1987 crash and the current crisis years in advance what would happen (did I mention he predicted that the iraq war would be waged without passing through congress in early 2002 and that it would continue to no avail and only compound the problems we currently face??? A FULL YEAR BEFORE WMDs were claimed to exist. Despite his rational arguments to end the wars we face, improve border security, eliminate taxes, end the failed war on drugs and let innocent non-violent drug offenders (like several of my friends who currently sit in jail for growing marijuana and peacefully smoking it for Personakl consumption)go free, eliminate the patriot act (which enables the government to conduct surveillance on the american people without warrants and cooperates with telecom companies to do so for the "war on terror", return to sound monetary policy and reform the federal reserve system so that a better alternative to the currently eroding bretton woods agreement which the austrian school of economics which ron paul subscribes to predicted would fail (just as that same school predicted the great depression, the economic turmoil in the early 70s, late 80s, the dot com crash, the sub-prime mortgage failures, and yes the current crisis we face.
.......That is the school of economics that should be tought in concomitance with traditional economics found in most american textbooks, because it has proven time and time again to be the most predictive of future events............
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT HEAR THAT MESSAGE BECAUSE THE MEDIA DID NOT GIVE RON PAUL AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS.
OUTRAGE IS THE ONLY WORD THAT CROSSES MY MIND WHEN REFLECTING BACK ON THE SAD TRUTH OF THE VICTORIOUS MCPALIN EMPIRE AND HOW POORLY IT REFLECTS ON THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WHOLE"
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 18:57:
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
It would look a lot like this:
Posted by Funkesthesiac69 on Oct-09-2008 18:59:
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
LMFAO at the absurdity of that picture, I wish you could have actually seen how massive his rallies were, at one point fixed noise reporters like the anti-semite sean hannity were chased down by an angry mob of ron paul supporters or what about this?
The media never had to censor this video because they never even mentioned that he staged an alternative convention in saint paul which drew over 18,000 people despite the fact that he lost the republican nomination. These people are committed!
Most of them are smarter than you are for outright dismissing a candidate with a lot of good ideas (even though some of whom happen to believe in outrightly absurd conspiracy theories), others know that the government has strayed much from the days of liberty and privacy and recognize and respect the truth that man preaches look at the guys voting record and tell me this guy has ever sold his soul to special interests he is committed to upholding the constitution as all members of congress are expected to do when they take their oath "i do solemnly swear to uphold the constitution....."
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-09-2008 21:27:
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
Report
Punditty Poll: If Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had won the Republican nomination, who would you vote for Nov. 4 in a contest between Paul (R) and Obama (D)?
The poll was launched Sept. 29, 2008, and closed at approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Oct. 7.
RESULTS: 1,102 votes cast
Ron Paul: 79 percent (870 votes)
Barack Obama 20 percent (228 votes)
Other - 4 votes
"Suppose that even after the conventions, Paul was trailing 55 to 40 with a mere 5 percent of the voters undecided. Assuming that events on Wall Street would have played out the in roughly the same way, how would voters have reacted to one candidate being adamantly opposed to the bailout while the other tried to portray it as a much-needed rescue?*
We will never know. But we can be pretty sure that large numbers of party-line and independent voters who had been tuning out Paul�s economic message would have suddenly found his words and theories very interesting, and as the GOP nominee, Paul would have had the national platform from which to share them. If the Republican Party would have stayed true to its roots, as Paul urged throughout the primary campaign, and nominated the one candidate who has consistently warned about the dangers of fiat currency and a central banking system with the power to manipulate the credit markets, Americans might well be on the verge of electing Ron Paul president of the United States."
what nonsense. your ilk's internet polls are absolutely meaningless. ron paul got soundly thrashed in the presidential campaign, give it up. nobody wants that evolution-denying anti-abortionist economically-ignorant moonbat anywhere near the top job (asides from a few crazy young kids).
Sarah Palin's Domestic Popularity(Revised)??
