We've been robbed by congress
Most of congress, over 90 percent get re-elected, even though they only had a 14 percent approval rating in August, why does everyone keep voting for the same guys? Now Paulson who used to be the head of Goldman Sach says he is surprised by the lack of regulation. Really? There is suddenly a meltdown looming. I think it was only a matter of time after all the lack lending standards that congress either approved or failed to toughen. Now Paulson wants to stick it to us by cycling trillions of dollars through a 700 billion account. Stick some in, remark the value of the loans down to keep the dollar amount in the account low, keep on going.
This video sums it up pretty good I thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO6P_yjKF…
This looks like it will rob us more than any stripper ever did. I never did like ROB's especially ones that act all nice and friendly like they want to help us. Call up your senators and complain. I heard it may be working. I think there may be a better solution. The guy in the link above says so in another video.
I thought the other thread was getting pretty long.
This video sums it up pretty good I thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO6P_yjKF…
This looks like it will rob us more than any stripper ever did. I never did like ROB's especially ones that act all nice and friendly like they want to help us. Call up your senators and complain. I heard it may be working. I think there may be a better solution. The guy in the link above says so in another video.
I thought the other thread was getting pretty long.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
13 comments
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/20…
WARNING: This description was written by actual economists and contains no political spin. So if you prefer to have a politically based sense of outrage about this crisis, you will need to get your explanations from TV pundits who like to shout out misinformation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5VeNwG3x…
Systemic? Sure it is possible that people keep electing individuals who are lowlifes and high quality people needn't run for office as a general rule. It is sorta like the student who gets an F. Blame the student? All 100 students received an F. Still blame the student?
I own some shares of stock that have a net asset value of $20 per share. So, in the supposedly free market economy of the U.S. how much are those shares worth? A penny a share? Thousand dollars per share? For years the shares have been trading at around $1.50 per share; the last price that I saw was 50 cents per share.
The rules of the game are usually all important especially where power is indirest, diversified, or those affected by the rule makers don't have a real voice. I've told the story about the Miami Arena numerous times. Candidate A aggressively opposes using tax dollars to build the stadium. Candidate B aggressively supports using tax dollars to build the stadium. Seems like the voters have a real choice. The operative word is "seems." Candidate A wins the election and within 10 days not only does he use tax dollars to build the stadium he lavishes more tax dollars on it than candidate B proposed. The courts? According to David Paul, a prominent attorney, payoffs where made up and down the line including the judge who heard the case. Just recently the government tore down the Miami arena, which is a small positive. Too bad it wasn't torn down immediately after being built or better yet was never built in the first place.
Taking from the example above with candidate A. Am I going to vote for him even though he is a lying crook and used tax dollars to build the stadium? Might be the best choice especially if candidate B has openly promised to spend and *borrow* more tax dollars on every imaginable program and service. While candidate A is a proven POS at least he isn't borrowing millions upon millions as candidate B is vowing to do. It is the old voting for the lesser of two evils. Of course, I haven't voted in over a decade and can't imagine ever voting again. Of all my alleged rights that one is totally worthless. Obama or McCain? You choose for me or flip a coin---the choice is meaningless. Ideally, President Bush could serve another decade. :)
Getting robbed by Congress is very much in the eyes of the beholder. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has "assets" in the form of non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities. These "assets" are like if you borrowed money from yourself. The fraudsters or ignorant would assert that of course these are assets otherwise people who own U.S. government debt might as well set them on fire if they aren't an asset.
You know what? The fraudster or ignorant are actually right if you match apples to apples and oranges to oranges. For example, you have a high net worth and you take out a small loan of $100,000 at 5% APR interest from a finance company. That is a real asset for the finance company because you have a high net worth and more likely than not the finance company will be repaid if full. Suppose, however, you give *yourself* a $100,000 at 5% APR interest. Does that still look like an asset or an accounting gimmick?
The fraudsters or ignorant will then come out with the full faith and credit BS as if the U.S. Congress has never repudiated its own debt. And, even if the Congress was contractually honest what difference would it make as far as issuing the debt or not. Ultimately, the Congress will need to print money, raise taxes, and or reduce benefits when the taxes from current workers is no longer sufficient to pay current benefiaries.
It is fraud on a MASSIVE scale. :)
This should be a slap in the face obvious, but some people just can't comprehend the government loaning itself money and creating a Trust Fund to hold this debt is just for cattle consumption.
discussion. American Express has already changed its credit standards. Other cards will follow after the last upcoming holiday binge.
Sounds like it is profitable for the card issuers to force people into default. That new bankruptcy law the card issuers paid for will really come in handy with some individuals never getting a fresh start. Ironically bankruptcy could be viewed as a form of private profits and socialized losses mentioned explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. Socialism alive and well in U.S. over 200 years ago! :)
http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/25/c…
It spells out in more detail than I care to study how to fix everything. I think only 1 percent of the population even wants to know all the details. I don't believe congress would be in that 1 percent so that is scary. Of course it wouldn't be the first time congress passes laws that they know nothing about.
I'd love to think of the bailout by Congress as just another example of government robbery and perhaps it is, but if this is robbery then the policy of endless war could also be seen as robbery. Even moreso the sugar program----government again transferring wealth from ordinary people to the super rich. Probably should be just a given that part of government services include robbery of the ordinary people.
IF Congress's giveaway saves the the ordinary working family far more money, then just doing nothing and gambling the meltdown won't be so brutal is it still robbery? Does the end result make a bit o difference? A thief could rob a bank and then he takes the proceeds and finds a cheap easy wonderful cure for cancer. He is still a thief. I'd say like a Robin Hood, but Robin Hood was stealing the people's money back from a crooked government.
Anyway, in the scheme of the U.S. government this robbery by Congress is hardly the most nefarious.
This money has to be PRINTED---No, few dollars actually are physically PRINTED nowadays. By PRINTED, I mean a computer bookkeeping entry. This PRINTED money is practically required. Can you imagine if the number of U.S. dollars in circulation was the same in 2008 as 1968?
The big difference is the U.S. dollar used to be backed by "hard assets" eg gold and silver. Now it is backed by debt e.g. T-Bills and bonds. It is a gimmick. The government PRINTS a dollar today and guarantees to repay it with interest over let's say over 30 years. And, where where does the government get this money for repayment plus interest? It PRINTS the money. Anyway, whether PRINTING money hurts an individual or not is an interesting question. The taxes? For the most part that is for 1) illusion to make it seem like the government isn't just PRINTING money and 2) for control.