Friday
Aug072009
Peter Schiff Annihilates The Federal Reserve While Discussing A Possible Senate Run Against Chris Dodd
Peter Schiff yesterday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. There is a ton of material in here besides the Senate discussion. Schiff articulates clearly that the financial crisis has passed but the economic one is still squarely upon us. His targets are moral hazard, Greenspan, Bernanke and the Fed. Scarborough mentions the SEC decision in 2004 that allowed leverage to balloon for the lucky 5, and also takes a shot at Paulson. Excellent discussion.
See also:
Peter Schiff: Of Course We're Not Going To Payback The Chinese
Complete Peter Schiff Collection
Clips are the same except the youtube version has approximately 45 seconds of lead-in to Schiff.
Aug 7, 2009 at 3:46 AM
Reader Comments (26)
BUSH and his gang created this and started GIVING cash to the banks before Obama was elected.
Around 8.20
Schiff says that government increased the cost of healthcare because it gave subsidies to the insurance industries.
Anyone want explain that to me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3tCeBaNik
Where's Obama (Waldo)
"Schiff says that government increased the cost of healthcare because it gave subsidies to the insurance industries.
Anyone want explain that to me?"
Read this in a paper recently:
"The problem is that subsidizing insurance exacerbates moral hazard, the tendency of people with insurance to consume too much health care. This is a crucial reason for rapidly increasing health expenditures.
Policy must therefore accept a trade-off: subsidizing health insurance will increase some people’s perceptions of fairness, but it will make the health care market less efficient.
A reasonable balancing of these two concerns suggests subsidizing insurance for the truly poor, but no more. In fact, the U.S. already does that via Medicaid. The uninsured are mainly people with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, or people eligible but fail to apply. Thus expansion of subsidized insurance to the currently uninsured, whatever their number, is likely to generate substantial inefficiency relative to any increase in “fairness” it creates."
Miron, Jeffrey A. How Many Uninsured? It Does Not Matter.
I have said in other threads that I live in Europe.
Yeah we all bankrupt over here. Those pesky health insurance charges!
As for the sentence:
"Thus expansion of subsidized insurance to the currently uninsured, whatever their number, is likely to generate substantial inefficiency relative to any increase in “fairness” it creates"
It is gibberish.
I may be wrong but this site is about the bailout and not health care.
The point being:
How much money did the US government give to the banks in the bailout?
Go on give a number? I dare ya.
How many trillion?
Yet you guys are happy with your profit making ponzi scheme that is your "healthcare system"
It is not the fact that Americans wish to defend your poor healthcare system. Hey it's a free world.
But it is the fact that Americans attack people who wish to share the burden of healthcare through society?
You attack the bailout because it is "unfair"?
Yet you support your biased "healthcare for the rich" system because?
Bailout politics is indeed about unfairness -- Us vs. Them -- and not about healthcare per se. Sometimes it's Us vs. The Bankers (and their bondholders). At other times, it's This Generation vs. My Children's Generation. In the case of healthcare entitlement programs, the unfairness is generational. This is true of all the govt.'s debt. The Baby Boomers reap the rich rewards of govt profligacy; my children and my children's children will likely pay the price. I ususally appreciate your comments, but back off. Allie isn't as off-topic as you're making her out to be. If you really think that American protestors are defending "healthcare for the rich," you're really not paying attention.
Nontheless, you'll like this:
"At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to 'keep your government hands off my Medicare,' which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html
I'd be the last to argue that there aren't some real dumbasses out there.
Talking of dumbasses
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion."
She talks about a "death panel" HUH?
About her down syndrome child that would have to "stand in front of Obamas "death Panel"
And in the next breath talks about dignity and human rights. Anyone else see the irony?
Worth the two and half minutes for the punchline
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/currents-viral-video-film-school-heckles-haulers/
:-)
Where's Obama (Waldo)
Where's Obama (Waldo)"
gobias, cease and desist. That's twice in the same thread. (Haven't you found him yet? ;-)
I watched the video...pretty funny...also the Palin death panel is bizarre but that's no surprise given the source...
@ Allie...
Thanks for that Schiff link...watching it now...
"BUT it was NOT Obama. It was BUSH!!!
BUSH and his gang created this and started GIVING cash to the banks before Obama was elected."
Many sheeple still have blinders on and believe "cookie cutter" candidate B who receives contributions from the same sources will somehow be different. To the "tribute" receiver goes the spoils, and the conservative christian right completely ignore what their own are doing.
wikipedia tells us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provides an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but had been born as British subjects before the American Revolution (or were born after the Revolution, but before 1787). Without this exception, ten subsequent presidents would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve.[1]
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Despite its various references to citizenship, the Constitution as ratified failed to provide any definition of citizenship itself, let alone "natural born" citizenship. Some have argued that this was a deliberate attempt by the drafters to avoid addressing the contentious issue of slavery.[2] This changed with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Its Citizenship Clause provided that
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ”
Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[15]
The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the "United States"? This does not affect citizenship via jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[16] The State Department also asserts that "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[17] This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents. Ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision to settle the matter once an American citizen born abroad runs for and wins the presidency.
It's funny, with this last election, that "cookie cutter" candidate A is born in Hawaii, with a foreign sounding name. And "cookie cutter" candidate B is born in Panama with an American sounding name. Yet no one mentions candidate B's misgivings. Just another example of the "perversion of truth".
This article was created in this fashion to prevent the King from buying an election and returning America to English control. Today the Constitution is continually perverted by both parties, especially the Christian right.
They say a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, our weakest link is the sheeple, and yet no one can figure out what is wrong.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
GEORGE SANTAYANA
You think Obama has free rein to continue everything that Bush has started, the war and the bailouts.
You reference Wikipedia like it is the unbiased gospel (I use that term loosely with you).
You use the term sheeple which I think is a clever lib term for people who will believe anything, like the global warming fanatics.
You quote an atheist who wrote a novel about personal growth (very fitting).
You consider the Constitutional requirements a "cookie cutter" issue that is fair game for misuse.
You attack McCain and the Christian right for undermining the Constitution so you are using the fair is fair argument for Obama.
You consider people who believe in God as the weakest link, I assume that you include most of the Founding Fathers.
Well, I think you will be at home here at dailybail.
How do you feel about Krugman?
I believe;
• Bush started it, Obama continues it, and it needs to stop
• In the constitution as it was meant to be
• Sheeple are people who don’t think at all
• Even an atheist can create a relevant quote
• They all have undermined the Constitution, and no, fair is not fair
• “Cookie cutter” was a reference to both candidates who sup at the same trough
• I consider people who do not think to be sheeple, not all the Christian right
• King George did not consider our Founders Conservative
I honor Mccain as a veteran, but my point was he also may have eligability issues, and received contributions from the same sources. I to believe everything the government touches, they screw up, look at their track record.
I think the fact that you twisted and distorted my post only proves my point.
So as you read this, just cover your eyes and sing la, la, la, la, la, and la, la, la, la, la, and keep worrying about the camps that are already built.
P.S. the lib jab was funny, those who know me find it amusing. dig deeper, the truth is more complex.
"History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
All issues have been handled this way ever since. Pay close attention to the line "By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd."
You see Globius, they knew of the sheeple even then. I have stated before that in a country that the majority rule, the majority does not vote.
You cannot make change from the top down, as the candidates halve been purchased long before they get to you. You must make change from the bottom up. Deny the predictable non-votes (sheeple, and yes, many go to church) and get the majority to assume its rightful place.
The manifesto also states;
"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance."
Unless you are a banker considering the rest of us a "lower order", your jabs at the Daily Bail are unwarranted. As Steve states, "The Daily Bail was created to fight the immoral transfer of trillions in debt from failed, private banks onto the backs of future generations", I would hope you would agree with that.
No light jab Globius, when I responded to Morton I knew it would draw you out. Tactics are tactics, you must work on your predictability, if you want to change the established norm. The powers that be will use that against you.
I on the other hand have huge shoulders. Do not compartmentalize that which you do not understand, think outside the box.
"way worse than a lib, today we have a two party system controled by the same people. With all manner of debate controled by those above the parties. As the banker manifesto of 1892 states;
"History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism."
My response:
And so we have the abortion issue and a few others to keep the natives busy while the looting continues...I hvae linked to this manifesto several times...it haunts us.
And yet again, work par excellence! I drink to you.
It is amazing how chillingly clear a little historical perspective can shed light on a long term problem, and amazingly how easy the people are manipulated. We are after all, Pavlov's dogs.
@ Spidey
Yet again, thanks
To those still with blinders on:
Obama did it, no, Bush did it, no, Carter did it, no, space aliens did it. To the moooooon!!!!!!!
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
John Milton (1608-1674)
Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say:" This is my country."
Benjamin Franklin
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.
David Hume (1711-1776)
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered…staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
George Washington (1732-1799)
(spoken with a thick Irish accent...)
Spaaaaceballs. That's all we are.