Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[Hash Zeppelin]

^I hate Obama for somethings, but for other things I love the guy. Like he isn't retarded. I would vote for him for president over anyone except Ron Paul. The Market is back up to where it was before the crash. It is not where is should be, but it is better than if we had John and Sarah. Obama is highly educated and understands the economy, McCain and Palin can't spell economy.

The G.O.P. is full of angry racist children right now. If president "Kunta Kinte" does it than it is bad. They attack it. Even if it is what they wanted 6 months before that. It is impossible for Obama to govern when he is dealing with idiots that just say no to everything for the sake of saying no. Excuse my langue here, but the G.O.P. will never agree with a black guy. They can not bring them selves, as they see it, to agree with a negro. they dont even think he should have the right to vote. they just want a white christian plutocracy. they are not interested in capitalism or democracy. they were all brought up in a very socially limited wealthy class. meaning they were only around rich white ass holes there whole lives and do not even know that half B.S. they are promoting is unconstitutional.

I love Ron Paul, but Fuck the Republicans as much as the democrats.

 

[draztik]

Ron Paul Assaults Ben Bernanke On Parallel Currencies
http://youtu.be/H4uL6CSiGrU

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS7CXYjV_io&feature=related
I like this video.

and this one! Ron Paul says Audit the Fed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NCRZ1iUZBk

 

[bentom187]

goodbye right to peacfully protest.
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^this should be stickied as a major thread. this is also a violation of property laws because that means you cant protest in your own home from a balcony if it is too close to a politician.

These ass holes know they are about to be over thrown and are doing everything they can to set up a way to make sure they don't get there heads chopped off in the process.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I think the point drastik was trying to make is that the "regulations" you cling to don't mean shit when the same companies ripping us off are the ones writing the regulations.

Its just a placebo for the masses. We get a news blurb about new regulations, see some guys in suits, then get tossed to a ten minute story about which terrors useless tv star is pregnant. Then we finish our coffe and head off to work content that the government cares.

Then goldman gets 14 billion from us to help pay the 16 billion in bonuses they "earned"

Both entities require scrutiny. Ever since Bonzo said gub was the problem, Americans stopped scrutinizing monied interests.

The dialog is no longer how to manage gub, it's this vs that. As long as one stays out of jail, they're free to get so rich they puke all over themselves and everybody in proximity.

Naturally, folks that get puked all over get pissed. But this guy's a corporate executive so he ain't the problem.

 

[bentom187]

^this should be stickied as a major thread. this is also a violation of property laws because that means you cant protest in your own home from a balcony if it is too close to a politician.

These ass holes know they are about to be over thrown and are doing everything they can to set up a way to make sure they don't get there heads chopped off in the process.

yup we went from protecting the people to protecting the politicians.
Why isnt the writing on the wall.
NDAA
SOPA
ACTA
HR 347
the repealing of FOIA
AGENDA 21 :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
somthing is seriously wrong.

im not saying theres a conspiracy,im saying this is real and in our face,one then asks the question why,i dont pretend to know why ,all i know is these violate the constitution in almost all ways,wich is bad for personal and national sovereignty mainly basic human rights.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I must spread more reputation around before spreading it it bentom187 again.

Both entities require scrutiny. Ever since Bonzo said gub was the problem, Americans stopped scrutinizing monied interests.

The dialog is no longer how to manage gub, it's this vs that. As long as one stays out of jail, they're free to get so rich they puke all over themselves and everybody in proximity.

Naturally, folks that get puked all over get pissed. But this guy's a corporate executive so he ain't the problem.

The problem is the greed of a few always wins over the majority of the people because the government is for sale. There is only one way to prevent the government from being for sale. Take away the appeal of purchasing the government. That appeal is power in the business world. If they had no power over business, then no business would want to purchase the power of the government. Corporate Lobbyist would cease to exist. Citizens united would be useless. The more power any organization has the more susceptible it is too greed. It also makes it harder to maintain checks and balances.

Another point i like to make is, as long as the government and the private corporations are separate you have the right to boycott any company that is immoral in your opinion, and if enough people agree the company must adapt or go out of business. Worked for Rosa Parks. When the government has power in the business world then they get to tell you what is moral. With things like cannabis, wars, and television content.

 

[GP73LPC]

goodbye right to peacfully protest.
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

thanks for the link...

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS and MAKE EVERYONE YOU CAN AWARE.

OUR GOVT IS WIPING THEIR ASSES WITH THE CONSTITUTION !!!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I must spread more reputation around before spreading it it bentom187 again.



The problem is the greed of a few always wins over the majority of the people because the government is for sale. There is only one way to prevent the government from being for sale. Take away the appeal of purchasing the government. That appeal is power in the business world. If they had no power over business, then no business would want to purchase the power of the government. Corporate Lobbyist would cease to exist. Citizens united would be useless. The more power any organization has the more susceptible it is too greed. It also makes it harder to maintain checks and balances.

Another point i like to make is, as long as the government and the private corporations are separate you have the right to boycott any company that is immoral in your opinion, and if enough people agree the company must adapt or go out of business. Worked for Rosa Parks. When the government has power in the business world then they get to tell you what is moral. With things like cannabis, wars, and television content.

S&L dereg - S&L bust

telecom dereg - telecom bust

energy dereg - energy bust

Wall Street dereg - Wall Street bust

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

Bentoms link that is being discussed, for those of you who don't like links, originally appearing on rt.com, no author listed. End of the first amendment as we know it.

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone —rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

F

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

S&L dereg - S&L bust

telecom dereg - telecom bust

energy dereg - energy bust

Wall Street dereg - Wall Street bust

if there was no regulation then there would have been no bubble to bust. Capitalism is cycle. the more you do to hinder it, the longer the cycle takes, and historically, the long parts are the down swing. A regulation is only a temporary patch to fix a leaking hole. it treats the symptom not the problem.

i am not against government over sight. where the government looks through your records and makes sure you are not causing rolling black out to increase the price of power, or putting money in off shore accounts to avoid paying one dollar in taxes. That kind of thing is illegal already.

the answer is not to limit capitalism, bu to increase the transparency of business. Business ethics can also be enforced by the public's buying power, however they must know the common practices of the business.

this leads me to the fact that most people are apathetic and do not care. Why let the people that dont care run everything by protecting them. I say let them fail. the computer i am typing this on was made in a sweat shop in china, just like 90 percent of electronics, including apple. they are fucked up too, I am not just insulting windows machines. dont wanna start that ghey battle.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

Someone should go ahead and give that its own thread, because it will get buried in here and some of the more terrifying parts need highlighting.

Protesting foreign dignitaries, so if you protest amadenijhad, u committed a federal crime. Protest set or near a super bowl, the g8 summit, nato, the republican national convention, etc.

I had thought about hitting up the RNC too, but fuck that now, it will be a federal crime, then I will be a suspected terrorist and can be thrown in a hole for the rest of my life thanks to ndaa.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^yup the first amendment is gone. time to start planning my move to another country

 

[GP73LPC]

^yup the first amendment is gone. time to start planning my move to another country

i hear Spain is nice...

i've been thinking about a move for several years...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

if there was no regulation then there would have been no bubble to bust. Capitalism is cycle. the more you do to hinder it, the longer the cycle takes, and historically, the long parts are the down swing.

Don't forget, we've already been there. In my best Arnold impersonation, "It was very bad."

We've been regulation free - thus no regulations were broken. The top did fine and the rest fell apart. Eventually people said, "This sucks" and started voting for people who legislated their better interests.

We have two basic choices. We can do nothing and watch the top control wealth and cater to themselves. Or, we can allow greedy bastards to make the kind of money that doesn't strafe the economy while regulating their attempts to get rich at our expense.

I realize you and I disagree on a few things. If we managed an aspect of gub, even to the point of moral and ethical standards befitting a couple of weed-tokin lawmakers, we'd have to balance our opinions on the needs of everybody before we allow a few to lay waste. Enter big money and best wishes. IMO, it needs to go.

Corporate execs are no different than loggers. Some loggers would manage their exploits and some would clear cut everything into memory. Gub finds the point where those fuck heads can satiate their greed while still protecting something for future generations.

The human race might be swell as a whole but within there's scavengers, predators, vultures and vampire squid. Saying these guys need us out of their way (even more) sounds like we need to like rip offs better.

 

[SpasticGramps]

The Market is back up to where it was before the crash. It is not where is should be, but it is better than if we had John and Sarah.

I can't emphasize the fact that the Market is not the economy enough. It's constantly stated by market professionals on CNBC and Bloomberg that the only reason the market has rallied so much since 2009 is because of QE1, QE2, LTRO1, LTRO2, Dollar Swap lines, and ZIRP. That's over $7 trillion of freshly printed liquidity given to TBTF to buy assets with to prop the market up.

We have more people on food stamps the ever before, unemployment is incredibly high, the housing market continues to deteriorate yet the "market" is close to reaching new highs??????? That's quite a paradox to reconcile.

The market use to be a discounting mechanism. Now it's a centrally managed mechanism to control perception that things are fine because so many people equate DOW up = economy good.

 

[whodare]

i hear Spain is nice...

i've been thinking about a move for several years...

Might want to reconsider Spain lol beautiful though, great food and nightlife too.

Spain Becomes One of Europe's Highest Taxed Countries

by Juan Ramón Rallo, Ángel Martín Oro and Adrià Pérez Martí

Juan Ramón Rallo is associate professor of applied economics at King Juan Carlos University, Ángel Martín Oro is director of the Observatorio de Coyuntura Económica at the Instituto Juan de Mariana, and Adrià Pérez Martí is tax consultant at JPB Asesores, all based in Spain.

Last year's election of Spain's conservative People's Party opened up an opportunity to implement much needed fiscal and structural reforms. However, merely a week following the December 21, 2011, inauguration of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, the government announced a significant tax hike that will have pernicious effects on the Spanish economy.

The main reason for the tax hikes, according to Spain's new leadership, was that the government would miss its budget deficit target for 2011. While the previous Socialist Party government had promised the figure would be 6 percent of GDP, the revised data showed a budget deficit of 8 percent, a difference of approximately 20 billion euros ($26.3 billion).1 That change makes it more challenging for the government to fulfill its deficit pledge of 4.4 percent by the end of 2012.

While the government claimed that missing the target for 2011 was unexpected, few if any independent analysts believed the previous administration's official estimates. Nonetheless, the Rajoy administration seized the opportunity to announce one of the largest tax increases in recent Spanish history — which aims to raise 6 billion euros ($7.9 billion) — along with a spending cut of nearly 9 billion euros ($11.8 billion). The measure mainly consists of a so-called solidarity surtax to come on top of tax rates on income and capital gains; it also includes an increase in real estate taxes. The government announced the tax hike as "temporary" and "inevitable." In fact, the measure demonstrates nothing more than a lack of political will to cut excessive and unsustainable public spending.

Spanish Income Taxes among the Highest in Europe

Following the tax increase, Spanish individuals will be paying one of the highest personal income tax rates in Europe.2 For instance, from 2012 onwards, only Sweden and Belgium, with 56.4 percent and 53.7 percent, respectively, will have a higher top marginal income tax rate than Spain, which stands at 52 percent.3 However, if one takes into account local surcharges imposed by some Spanish regional governments, the top marginal rates rise further. In Catalonia, for example, the top tax rate is 56 percent.

It is important to also consider the structure of personal income tax brackets and compare Spain with other major European countries, such as France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. As we can see in Figure 1, personal income tax rates in Spain will be among the highest for any income bracket in the countries considered.

As for the tax on capital gains, the rates will no longer remain low and competitive, relative to other European countries. Before the tax increase, capital gains were taxed at a progressive rate of 19 percent for the first 6,000 euros and 21 percent for gains above that amount. Now, there will be three different rates: 21 percent for the first 6,000 euros, 25 percent from 6,000 to 24,000 euros, and 27 percent for capital gains above 24,000 euros. Thus, the rates will now be as high as in Germany and considerably higher than those of Italy, and the top rate will almost match those of Finland and Norway.

All of those countries enjoy a considerably higher income per capita than Spain and thus can more easily withstand higher taxes than a poorer country.4 With Rajoy's tax hike, Spain suffers from the worst of both worlds: very high taxes combined with decreasing income and employment levels. At 23 percent, Spain has the highest unemployment rate in the European Union.
*

The tax increase is especially harmful given the 1.5 percent economic contraction expected for 2012. The new measures are going to further hinder the economic recovery in two ways. First, the higher income taxes will take away a portion of the disposable income that many over-indebted families need to repay their debts. Second, the tax hike on capital gains will reduce the incentive for Spanish individuals to save. Similarly, the tax increase will diminish the appeal for foreigners to invest in Spain. By decreasing the availability of capital — which is essential to finance the restructuring of the productive and banking sectors — higher taxes on capital gains will only worsen the country's economic prospects.

The Problem Is Too Much Spending

The Rajoy administration claims that the tax increase represents an essential and inevitable policy change to reduce the deficit and fulfill the budget target for 2012. However, given the anti-growth bias of these tax hikes, the taxes can hardly be expected to generate substantial revenues to significantly reduce the deficit. The real problem behind Spain's dire public finances is not an insufficient level of government revenues; rather, it is a problem of excessive spending. This becomes evident by looking at the evolution of both government spending and revenue from 2001 to 2007 in absolute (nominal) terms in a set of European countries. The data show that while government revenues increased substantially in Ireland and Spain due to a period of unsustainable credit-induced growth, government spending also increased the most in Ireland, followed by Spain and Greece (see Figure 2).

The picture is somewhat different if one pays attention to the ratio of government spending to GDP from 2001 to 2007. This figure increased slightly from 38.6 percent to 39.2 percent in Spain. But the data should be interpreted with caution, given that GDP was growing at an artificially high rate. (It is notable that the Spanish trend contrasts with that of Germany where spending fell from 47.8 percent of GDP in 2001 to 43.6 percent in 2007.5)

Instead of looking at the recorded budget balance — which shows a surplus of around 2 percent in 2006 and 2007 — consider the structural budget balance, that is, the budget balance adjusted for cyclical factors,6 which shows that there was not a single surplus year from 2001 to 2007. This lack of surplus is caused by the government financing a large volume of long-term spending, such as social benefits or public sector wages, with short-term and temporary revenues — mainly produced by the housing bubble. It should come as no surprise that the deficit soared when the bubble burst.

In other policy areas, the Rajoy administration has been somewhat more sensible. For instance, the recently approved labor reform is a step in the right direction. It addresses an important cause of rigidity in the labor market by establishing the primacy of individual agreements — between firms and workers — over collective agreements in which labor unions have much weight. The effect of this reform on job growth, however, is uncertain because such growth also depends on other factors — such as the rate of credit expansion or the international context — that are independent of the labor market. The financial reform, on the other hand, postpones the day of reckoning without addressing the root of the problem, because not all bank losses have been recognized and the financial sector will continue to be far from well-capitalized. Thus, the reform leaves the door open for a further injection of public funds into the banking sector. In addition, very little is known about forthcoming reforms to remove obstacles to entrepreneurial activity that make starting a business extremely burdensome.7


The Case for Cutting Spending Is Clear

It appears that Spain's new conservative government considers raising taxes to near Scandinavian levels its most urgent policy action.8 Rajoy's priorities should instead be to implement measures to increase productivity, employment, and entrepreneurship, and put public finances in order.

Raising taxes will only put an additional drag on private sector recovery by reducing workers' disposable income — and consequently, their ability to consume, save, or repay their large amounts of outstanding debt — and by decreasing foreign investment. Moreover, high taxes and high public spending are negatively correlated with economic growth and entrepreneurship.9 To reduce the deficit, cutting government spending substantially would be a better alternative than raising taxes. (The Spanish government could even fulfill its deficit pledge of 3 percent in 2013 and keep basic social services through a deficit reduction policy that relies solely on spending cuts.)10 That public spending should adjust downward to more reasonable levels — as is the case in the private sector — is supported by recent empirical work that shows that the impact of tax hikes on short-term growth is worse than that of spending cuts.11

 

[mrcreosote]

T bills arent borrowing silly...
T bills generate revenue.
Just ask DB

Hehe,

It's true...
Timmy just takes a pencil and adds a l to a --
Public sector (voters) unions are saved and makes Krugman look like a sage.

It's called Dee, di, dee Economics.
And all is well.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Did CSNBC and Bloomberg forget to mention QE is supposed to allow banks to write off their losses while instead they're consolidating (and) retaining their toxic debt? Depends on the angle they wish to portray. What are CSNBC and Bloomberg coming to?

IMO, these bank executives who take the money yet refuse to play the applicables doesn't bode well for market oversight nor personal accountability.

Sure you can say if it weren't offered it wouldn't be taken. But these are the guys that took other shit they didn't own because there were too few regulations to stop em. I can unlock the door and let the greedy bastard walk in but nothing says I have to be x distance away before the greedy bastard will behave.

It's there. If nobody does anything to stop it, somebody will take it.