Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Paulson Threatened Martial Law To Get Bailout!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 435315" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>No offense Tie but you are only looking at the superfical effects of the economy and not looking at the underlying specifics, therefore in your mind the underlying causes were not present because in your view the economy was good. This view also would seem to suggest the contention of blaming the democrats for the housing bubble as bogus before election 2006' because 2 years ago everything was perfect and the democrats did not hold majority control of Congress. It also proves a problem in McCain's claim of sounding the alarm back in 2005' which admittedly he did. His party ignored him just as it had Ron Paul back in 2002' and even in the 1990's. Seems McCain like Paul was the victim of that "loud ally cat on a fence" thinking. <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /> </p><p> </p><p>If it's all happened since Jan. of 07' and democrat control of Congress, then how can Clinton be at fault in any of the cause (he is) how can Carter (again he is) but then you can't discount all republican actions either and this also contradicts your earlier very correct statements in other threads that the cause is across the board. Also you would have to hold some blame to republicans post 2006' because in the Senate was not filibuster proof nor did we hear the Bush adminstration use the veto pen to kill the democrat action which it would have done since they lacked a veto proof supermajority. Bush also could have used executive orders and adminstrative orders to his various dept. heads to start heading this off but instead he choose to ignore. Had he done the right thing, he would not have had a cakewalk on his war policy which he had and then would have had to prove his contentions. In effect he bought democrat silence on his foreign policy via domestic economic abuses and he's done this from day one!</p><p> </p><p>Bush and democrats used each other like a couple of dirty whores seeing who could get more for turning tricks!</p><p> </p><p>On a bit of comedy note, your contention of all things great 2 years ago or I should say you suggesting as such in your above explaination IMO sounds like someone who visited a brothel 2 years ago to the day and has now learned such visit gave them HIV. They now contend that they would exchange all of this to go back 1 year, 364 days ago when everything was all good. Truth is, the underlying action had already infected the victim and it's just a matter of going forward before the truth manifests itself. You just want a time when you didn't know what was coming rather than not having the problem there at all. Ignorance is bliss I guess.</p><p> </p><p>Same will hold true at some point of all this massive debt creation and pumping of fiat money into the economy and the resulting tidalwave of inflation. It is one sure way to raise the GDP and slim the debt to GDP ratio and keep the fiction going. Who cares if the fixed income senoirs face a real troubling future in this scenario, you voted for the winning team right? But then to understand this historical truism of banking and fiat money creation, you'd have to read and learn some history. It ain't come down your circles of information so it's just not true!</p><p> </p><p>Then again, you could always blow it off as another loud ally cat on the fence making noise!</p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 435315, member: 2189"] No offense Tie but you are only looking at the superfical effects of the economy and not looking at the underlying specifics, therefore in your mind the underlying causes were not present because in your view the economy was good. This view also would seem to suggest the contention of blaming the democrats for the housing bubble as bogus before election 2006' because 2 years ago everything was perfect and the democrats did not hold majority control of Congress. It also proves a problem in McCain's claim of sounding the alarm back in 2005' which admittedly he did. His party ignored him just as it had Ron Paul back in 2002' and even in the 1990's. Seems McCain like Paul was the victim of that "loud ally cat on a fence" thinking. :wink2: If it's all happened since Jan. of 07' and democrat control of Congress, then how can Clinton be at fault in any of the cause (he is) how can Carter (again he is) but then you can't discount all republican actions either and this also contradicts your earlier very correct statements in other threads that the cause is across the board. Also you would have to hold some blame to republicans post 2006' because in the Senate was not filibuster proof nor did we hear the Bush adminstration use the veto pen to kill the democrat action which it would have done since they lacked a veto proof supermajority. Bush also could have used executive orders and adminstrative orders to his various dept. heads to start heading this off but instead he choose to ignore. Had he done the right thing, he would not have had a cakewalk on his war policy which he had and then would have had to prove his contentions. In effect he bought democrat silence on his foreign policy via domestic economic abuses and he's done this from day one! Bush and democrats used each other like a couple of dirty whores seeing who could get more for turning tricks! On a bit of comedy note, your contention of all things great 2 years ago or I should say you suggesting as such in your above explaination IMO sounds like someone who visited a brothel 2 years ago to the day and has now learned such visit gave them HIV. They now contend that they would exchange all of this to go back 1 year, 364 days ago when everything was all good. Truth is, the underlying action had already infected the victim and it's just a matter of going forward before the truth manifests itself. You just want a time when you didn't know what was coming rather than not having the problem there at all. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Same will hold true at some point of all this massive debt creation and pumping of fiat money into the economy and the resulting tidalwave of inflation. It is one sure way to raise the GDP and slim the debt to GDP ratio and keep the fiction going. Who cares if the fixed income senoirs face a real troubling future in this scenario, you voted for the winning team right? But then to understand this historical truism of banking and fiat money creation, you'd have to read and learn some history. It ain't come down your circles of information so it's just not true! Then again, you could always blow it off as another loud ally cat on the fence making noise! :wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Paulson Threatened Martial Law To Get Bailout!
Top