Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 19, 2011, 05:47:51 AM
-
-
Interviewer is hot.
-
-
-
-
Love Peter but I really wish he would let people finish speaking before he starts going off.
-
Team Obama take note - OBAMA IS CAUSING HIGH GAS PRICES!
-
Ha ha ha ha- nails obama to the wall over his 2006 vote on the debt ceiling.
-
Love Peter but I really wish he would let people finish speaking before he starts going off.
Hehe thought the same thing
He's got some good points though.
Was'nt he financial something for Ron Paul.?
-
-
Boom - where are those morons - blacken, vince, straw, benny, dr. chimp, blacken, magoo, and the rest of Team Moron?
-
-
More Celente, and this will be an epic thread.
-
More Celente, and this will be an epic thread.
No prob.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LMFAO!
-
AND OF COURSE - ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL TIME
-
-
-
Ha ha ha - Schiff nails it again.
-
-
CUE IN FOR 240 AND TU!
[youtube][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4KfVM5Ed3c&feature=related/youtube]
-
I'm so not watching all of these videos... Can I get a synopsis of ANOTHER persons opinion?
-
I'm so not watching all of these videos... Can I get a synopsis of ANOTHER persons opinion?
Schiff's discussion on a consumption tax vs income tax is WELL WORTH your 10 minutes.
-
Schiff's discussion on a consumption tax vs income tax is WELL WORTH your 10 minutes.
I'm not against a consumption tax... but if you're going to do that, then understand that the consumption tax will have to be pretty fucking high.
-
-
Ha has ha ha ha - Celente nails Obamabots to the wall.
-
-
-
-
&feature=feedu
Brillant
-
&feature=feedu
Brillant
I would love to see schiff grill geithner
-
Obama - OWNED!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
schiff for president
-
Obama's war against the Food Supp industry.
-
-
-
-
-
Please Vince, 240, Blacken, Straw, Chad, Garebear, or any other kneepadding fool refute this.
-
Looks like he was right. Dead on.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/double-dip-recession-more-depression-says-peter-schiff-124843251.html%20?sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=
Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, isn't one of those guests Nesto and I have to badger for opinions. Ask him a question and the long-time bear will tell you exactly what he thinks with vigor, even when he has an aching throat. Schiff thinks the U.S. is headed not just for a recession but rather a full-blown depression. On the upside, he believes the coming economic situation will look familiar.
"The Depression [in the wake of the financial crisis] was temporarily interrupted by a bunch of stimulus which ultimately weakened the economy further," says Schiff. He adds the government's likely knee-jerk response of stimulating is, "probably going to be the fatal dose, the lethal dose" prior to "a complete economic collapse."
Which is precisely why Schiff wasn't among those expecting a debt deal relief rally last Monday morning. The attention paid to the deal was a "massive victory for propaganda that would have done Goebbels proud" (yes, this Goebbels). Schiff believes the real crisis wasn't the debt ceiling but spending and debt, both of which were effectively worsened by the deal.
"The reckless thing to do was to raise the debt ceiling" he says. Exacerbating matters Schiff thinks the ceiling is going to have to be raised yet again before President Obama leaves office. Not that the chance for DC to spend more freely will help the economy. "The reason we can't grow the economy is because the government is in the way... There's no jobs because there's no recovery."
By way of a cheery goodbye Schiff concludes, "We're on a collision course for disaster. All we can do, all your viewers can do is brace for impact...Buy gold. Buy silver... Get as far away as you can from U.S. currency and the U.S. economy."
The clip itself is must viewing, at least for those not given to panic.
________________________ ______________
Video at sight.
Brace for impact.
-
Celente : we face Obamageddon.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Excellent thread continues.
-
-
One of the best Schiff shows recently. Zimbabwe has a printing press, maybe they deserve a triple AAA rating too. lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
And of course - the famous one.
-
RIP Mark Haynes
-
-
LMFAO!!!!!
WHERE IS STRAW MAN? ? ? ? ?
-
-
-
KRUGMAN = OWNED!
-
-
-
-
-
-
hA HA HA - Peter nails it on Ron Paul and Gold
-
-
-
Good video. Screw obama and his supporters, freaking communist dirtbags.
-
-
Job Killer in Chief(Another Peter Schiff home run)
Safe haven /Europacific Capital ^ | Sep 2, 2011 | Peter Schiff
This morning many on Wall Street were stunned by the big fat zero put up by the August jobs report, the worst showing in 11 months. The data convinced many previously optimistic economists that the United States will slip back into recession. I believe that we have been in one giant recession all along that was only temporarily interrupted by trillions of useless and destructive deficit and stimulus spending. Unfortunately, the August numbers will increase the talk of government efforts to stimulate the economy.
But while President Obama prepares to unveil a new plan for the Federal Government to create jobs, evidence is rapidly piling up on how his Administration is actively destroying jobs with stunning efficiency. Recent examples of this trend are enough to make anyone with even a casual respect for America's former economic prowess hang their head in disgust.
The assault on private sector employment began in April when the democrat controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint seeking to force Boeing aircraft to move Boeing's newly opened non-union production facilities in South Carolina back to its union controlled plants in Washington State. Although Boeing simply says that it is looking to open a cost effective domestic manufacturing facility (an endangered species) to employ American workers, the NLRB alleges that the company was punishing union workers in Washington for past strikes. Despite a lack of any direct evidence that Boeing was being punitive, and the fact that the company was not laying off any union workers, the NLRB has not backed down. Against little public support and nearly universal revulsion among business leaders, the NLRB is continuing its campaign to keep Boeing from exercising its freedoms and to employ people in a manner that makes sense for its business.
The Boeing move served notice that the Obama's loyalties were firmly tied to the Union interests that were so critical to his election in 2008. This week, the anti-business tendencies of the administration came into even sharper focus.
In the telecommunications industry, service provider AT&T made the seemingly essential move in its attempt to acquire wireless specialist T-Mobile. But the Justice Department sued to block the $39 billion deal on antitrust grounds, saying that the merger between the second and fourth largest cell phone providers would unfairly restrict competition and raise prices.
In so doing, the DOJ seems to be operating under the assumption, without any direct evidence, that at least four companies are needed to provide healthy choice in the marketplace, and that three providers simply won't cut it. More broadly, competition may increasingly come from outside the telecommunications sector (in particular from cable and satellite industries). Plus, with the speed of technological change, who knows what types of competitors will arise in the years to come. The situation reminds me of the broken merger in 2004 and 2005 between Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video. Based on antitrust concerns emanating from the Justice Department, Blockbuster backed off from the deal. Of course, just a few years later the whole sector was made obsolete by Netflix, and any advantage Blockbuster would have gained would have only been temporary.
In light of the current and future competition that is sure to change the way consumers talk with one another over great distances, AT&T and T-Mobile are much better positioned to survive as a combined entity. In any event if AT&T can't buy T-Mobile, someone else will. The company's parent, Deutsche Telecom, has stated its intention to divest itself of its American subsidiary.
So why not help American business survive in an increasingly competitive market?
Most likely antitrust lawyers at the DOJ have been otherwise bored with the lack of merger deals to scrutinize (another downside to a weak economy), and this transaction just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the legal activism will certainly cost jobs. Even the unions recognize this and have supported the merger.
But the absurdity of the current environment reached a peak when the DOJ, and agents from, get this, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service, raided the Nashville factory of the legendary Gibson Guitar company. The raid resulted in agents carting off more than a half million dollars of supplies and essentially shutting the company down. The take down of one of America's commercial icons apparently resulted from Gibson's purchase of partially finished ebony and rosewood guitar fingerboards (these endangered trees are carefully managed) from an Indian supplier.
Now here's the interesting part. The Indian government had issued no complaint about the transactions and there was no evidence that the company had violated U.S. law.
The DOJ acted simply on suspicion that Gibson had violated Indian law. Since when do U.S. companies have to make sure that they comply with laws of every country in the world before they produce a product?
I had the good fortune on interviewing Henry Juszkiewicz, the CEO of Gibson on my radio show this Thursday.
After speaking to him, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the stunning economic incompetence of our government officials, who in the cause of arbitrary regulatory nitpicking, seem willing to sacrifice the reputation and prospects of one of the few remaining American manufacturers. God help us all.
On the other side of the coin, the government's own efforts to create jobs in the private sector have met with little success. It was announced yesterday that Solyndra LLC of Fremont California, a manufacturer of solar panel has filed for bankruptcy protection and has laid off its remaining 1,100 workers. The development is notable because the company was a veritable poster child of the Obama Administration. The president himself visited their facilities in May of 2010 and touted the company as the template for America's "green technology" future. As a result of its politically advantageous profile the company was able to secure $535 million in loans guaranteed by the government.
But apparently government blessing does not guarantee market success. Unfortunately, Solyndra could not sell its products profitably despite the government support and cheerleading. Instead $535 million in investment capital was diverted from potentially money making enterprises to a money losing enterprise. This is what happens when government calls the shots.
When it comes to the financial sector, the government can't seem to decide whether it wants to preserve jobs or destroy them. After bailing out the banks three years ago (and making some of them too big to fail), it was reported today that the government is preparing to launch a multi-billion dollar lawsuit to recoup losses that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered on mortgage backed bonds (loans that the government itself encouraged the banks to make). If the government were to prevail, job losses would surely emerge in the sector, and the government may need to bail out the banks once again!
So as we wait with eager anticipation as to what the President may reveal in his jobs speech next week, you can be sure that it's not going to help America regain its competitive edge. The sooner we regard the government as a job killer rather than a job creator, the sooner we can all get back to work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
Celente Forecasts Winter of Discontent; October Will Be Month of the Big Unraveling
SHTFPlan.com ^ | 9/12/11 | Mac Slavo
Posted on September 12, 2011 10:48:24 PM EDT by Kartographer
Gerald Celente On Collapse and Depression:
When is it going to collapse? As I’ve said, I’ve never seen a summer like this. I think we’re going to see the Winter of Discontent… You’re going to start seeing an unraveling more and more every day as you watch the news. So, October is my month, and it’s only a guesstimate, that we’re going to see the big unraveling.
Even if it doesn’t happen in October, because you don’t know what phony schemes they’re going to come up with, it’s going to happen eventually. And, that’s why I’m fully invested in gold.
(Excerpt) Read more at shtfplan.com ...
-
http://www.ct.gov/dob/cwp/view.asp?a=2246&q=434452
http://www.ct.gov/dob/cwp/view.asp?a=2246&q=434452
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Unprecedented Presidential Posturing (Peter Schiff)
Safe Haven/Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. ^ | April 12, 2012 | Peter Schiff
Posted on April 13, 2012 11:21:26 PM EDT by sickoflibs
Last week, responding to President Obama's latest populist assault on the wealthy, I issued a commentary in which I explained why his ideas about American economic history were fundamentally flawed. As dangerous and erroneous as those views are, at least I can cut the President some slack for commenting on a subject in which he really has no basis for expertise. Hailing from academia and local community organizing, Barack Obama likely did not spend huge amounts of time boning up on economic history. However, there are other subjects where he should find firmer footing. Constitutional law certainly comes to mind. After all, Obama rose to national prominence based on his status as a legal scholar. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was elected president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the top ranked schools in the country.
Based on these achievements, it is simply stunning that he made so many fundamental errors last week in his analysis of the Supreme Court's review of his sweeping health care legislation. Not only did he make grossly inaccurate statements with regards to the health care legislation, and the history of Supreme Court decisions that relate to it, but he also showed little understanding of the very purpose that the Court serves within the constitutional framework of the U.S. government. These remarks either indicate that a Harvard degree isn't worth the paper it's written on or that there is nothing Obama won't say to advance his political agenda.
In his apparently off-the-cuff remarks he stated that "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what will be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Before even turning to the more nuanced parts of that statement, I would ask the President what he considers to be a "strong majority?" His health care legislation (dubbed "Obamacare" by Republicans), passed the House of Representatives in March 2010 on a nearly party line vote of 220-221 (some would call this result "a squeaker.") What's more, just six months later, the slim majority that voted to pass the legislation was voted out of existence. Not only would the law stand no chance of passage in the current Congress, the majority of Americans still show misgivings about the expansion of federal power that the law involves. So much for a groundswell of national support. But that's just the appetizer.
Obama claimed that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. Is he kidding? Every seventh or eighth grader who has taken a civics course knows that the Supreme Court acts as a check on the executive and legislative branches of government (who can often disregard the Constitution in their quests for votes and power). The intent of the framers of the constitution was affirmed in 1803 by the landmark case "Marbury v. Madison" in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the doctrine of "judicial review," whereby the Court can strike down any law that it feels to be unconstitutional. Is it possible that they never got around to that case at Harvard?
Since Marbury the Supreme Court has undone sweeping economic policies many times. Perhaps the most significant example was in 1895 when the Income Tax Act of 1894 was undone by Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust. By ruling that the new income tax did not conform to the taxing powers delegated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court derailed the revenue seeking agenda of the federal government. Proponents of the tax had to revert to the constitutional amendment process, a workaround that took 18 years and ultimately resulted in the 16th Amendment.
Forty years after Pollock the Supreme Court struck again when it invalidated the National Recovery Act (NRA), Franklin Roosevelt's signature piece of Depression Era legislation. The NRA was truly an "unprecedented" intrusion into the commercial lives of Americans which injected U.S. government micromanagement into almost every facet of commercial activity. It told merchants and industries how much they could charge for particular products, how much they should pay workers, how long workers could work, how employers could negotiate with unions, and established "codes of fair competition" for all business to follow.
In a unanimous decision in the 1935 Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the NRA. The Court ruled that the Act's draconian economic engineering was too broad an interpretation of the Constitution's infamous "commerce clause." After the ruling, Justice Louis Brendeis (not known for his strict adherence to conservative constitutional interpretation) famously remarked to a presidential aide, "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the President that we're not going to let this government centralize everything." Wow, President Obama, now that's a whole lot of precedent.
What is perhaps even more shocking than Obama's ignorance on these subjects is the media's reluctance to really hold his feet to the fire. Imagine if Sarah Palin had made similarly ignorant statements during the presidential campaign of 2008. She would have been absolutely crucified in the press for her lack of understanding of the basics of federal checks and balances. But Sarah Palin would have had an excuse, she was a sports reporter, turned small town mayor, turned one-term governor of Alaska. She never taught a class in constitutional law at an elite law school.
Although subsequent statements by the President and his spokespeople have attempted to "clarify" (and soften) his originally indefensible remarks, the impression he made will be hard to erase. My hope is that his attempt to intimidate the court into upholding his law will backfire, and what is left of judicial independence will save us from Obama's impractical health care plan. If so we will have John Marshall to thank.
-
-
-
-
-