The Fed, the Dollar, and the Crisis

Channel: CNBC
Show: Squawk Box
Date: 05/17/2010


Becky Quick: Let’s get to our next guest right now, Representative Ron Paul. He’s a member of the Financial Services and Joint Economic Committees, and Congressman, thank you for joining us.

Ron Paul: Thank you for having me.

Becky Quick: I’m not sure if you heard the conversation we were just having, but obviously the euro was under pressure earlier again this morning, hitting a 4 year low. You had gold prices that originally this morning were quite a bit higher. This is something, I guess, you’ve seen coming for some time with the problems with Greece. You think this is just the beginning?

Ron Paul: Yes, this shouldn’t surprise anybody. But, you know, how long should we have been anticipating this? I’ve anticipated the problem since 1971 because the system that replaced Bretton Woods was a non-viable system. And this is proving the point.

So this is the unwinding of the system and until we replace it with something else, you’re going to continue to see this. Some people think that what’s happening in Greece will spread to this country, and I see it somewhat differently. I see that the system that was devised in 1971 where we gained the power to issue the reserve currency of the world as building a system around the world. So we literally created the system that spread.

And it’s still trusted. The dollar is still trusted, people still buy treasury bills. But all of that will come to an end because the type of problem that Greece is following will eventually hit the United States because everything has too much debt. And you can’t correct the problems of debt with creating more debt and expect the Fed to endlessly create money and credit.

That is not the answer, even though it makes people feel better and will sort of delay some of the problems that we have. But we’re in for a lot more trouble, as far as I can see.

Becky Quick: Although we have seen a very strong global economy, there are a lot of companies and CEOs who have come and talked about the incredible strength they’ve seen. Is there a way that we can grow our way out of this debt that’s been issued and get back on the right path?

Ron Paul: I don’t think so, unless you do some other things. You’d have to cut taxes drastically, you’d have to cut spending drastically. Then you could. But politically you can’t cut any spending, you can’t cut spending from overseas and you can’t cut welfare spending. So people will resort to more spending, more deficits, and more inflation; inflation of the money supply. And that just temporizes things.

But if you see a GDP number go up and say, “Oh, there is economic growth” it’s about equivalent to money that we’ve created. And you don’t have any more growth than the artificial stimulus of the money that we put in. Most people say, “Well, that’s good. It’s working.” But it really isn’t. We have not allowed the liquidation of debt, we have not allowed the elimination of the malinvestment, it’s still in the system, we still have millions of houses to be sold.

And Washington is struggling up there on how to stimulate home building. Just momentarily “when are we going to build houses again” and “when are we going to manufacture automobiles again.” That is not going to come just by government spending more money and running up more debt.

Becky Quick: No, you’re right. But, Congressman, one of the ways that your party has been trying to cut back spending to get rid of some of the earmarks. And I believe you are one of the congressmen who refuses to adhere to this GOP moratorium on earmarks.

Ron Paul: Well, yes. But you have to understand what I’m talking about. I’ve never voted for an earmark because I never vote for appropriation bills. Therefore I’m on record for not voting for any of that spending. But what I make the point…

Becky Quick: You and Congressman Young were the first to submit earmark request in violation of the moratorium.

Ron Paul: Okay, but that’s a different issue. That issue is who designates how the money should be spent. To me it’s a constitutional issue. If you vote against an earmark when there is a single vote to cut 50 million dollars out of some project, if you vote to do that, you just to the administration, the executive branch to spend it; and that’s wrong. It should always be the Congress that designates how this money should be spent.

And besides, some return of highway funds is considered evil in an earmark, but if you designate a billion dollars to build an embassy overseas, that’s never an earmark. So I just don’t like the process. But the most important thing is if you’re a fiscal conservative you will always vote against the appropriation, because there is too much.

So I’m on record for never voting for earmarks, at the same time I work very hard to protect the prerogatives of the Congress and responsibilities of the Congress and never delivering more power to the executive branch.

Becky Quick: Let’s talk a little bit about your thoughts about Goldman Sachs. You’ve made some statements recently where you’ve said all that public anger at Goldman Sachs should really be directed at the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul: Absolutely. The Federal Reserve, and if you want to go one step further back, you have to go back to the people who allowed the Congress to create the Federal Reserve system thinking that it would be forever able to take care of all the people from cradle to grave. So yes. But the Federal Reserve, behind the scenes, has the power to create money out thin air.

I mean, it’s absolutely bizarre and never in the history of the world has any one single bank been given the power to create the reserve currency of the world like we’ve had since 1971. So yes, they can bail out their friends and let the people they don’t like fail, and create a trillion dollars or more out of thin air in order to prop up some companies at the expense of others. It’s not viable, it makes no sense.

When the history of this time is written, people will say, “How in the world did they believe that a few people in a secret room can decide what interest rates should be, how much the money supply should be, who should fail, what bad assets, what worthless assets the tax payers have to buy?” It’s absolutely bizarre and yet the American people right now I think are waking up to it.

The Federal Reserve is a big issue and those individuals in the Senate who’ve voted against auditing the Fed, there will be a political price to pay for that, just as much as those who voted for the bailout. Because now the people know the TARP funds were a political bailout, and they’ve been punished for this, like Bennett was punished. But right now those who vote to enhance the Fed will get punished politically because the people are waking up and they realize the Fed is the culprit.

Becky Quick: You scored a huge victory in this fight against the Fed earlier when the House passed legislation that included your bill that would actually extend the audits of the Fed to go ahead to monetary policy as well. But it’s expected that when and if the Senate passes its version, when it goes to committee between the two Houses, that your amendment’s very likely to get stripped out. What do you think about that?

Ron Paul: Well, that’s possible. I’m surprised we’ve done this well. My main goal was to call attention to the American people of the importance of the Federal Reserve, and in economic terms we’ve achieved a whole lot. Win or lose, the people are not going to forget about the Federal Reserve.

So in some ways it will prove my point. Let’s say they strip my amendment out and they put in a watered down version and you don’t really have an audit of the Fed, it would just prove to the American people that this show is run by the Federal Reserve, they have unbelievable powers. We’ve had this crisis, they’re to blame for so much for it, and we’re going to give them more power.

Not only are we not going to have them audited in the true sense of the word, they’re going to end up with more power, more regulations, more control over the consumers. And it won’t go well with the American people. They’ll realize then how powerful the institution is, and those who benefit by the creation of money and credit.

I mean, you can’t have a military-industrial complex, you can’t run these wars without the Fed. You can’t have a welfare state without the Fed. So if you truly believe in limited government, you have to say sound money. This whole experiment of the last 35 years or so is a failure and that’s what we’re involved in right now.

Male News Anchor: I wonder how confident you are in that. I know it’s what you’d like to see happen, this renewed vigilance among the American people and demanding fiscal discipline from the leaders. But some of the pollsters who have advised the different teams on the UK elections say that the voters want more financial regulation, not less, want more government involvement, and not more markets. I wonder if you think that’s true.

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think that’s a pretty good point. I think you could even point to Greece. You think by now the Greek people would realize what the problem is. We might realize it and I certainly think I understand it. But 60% of the people are on the dole over there, so they’re yelling and screaming and rioting not because of the views I hold, but because they want more stuff. They don’t want one penny cut.

Buy you know why I don’t worry about that? It is because markets are more powerful than governments. Markets are even more powerful than the Fed. We fixed the price of gold at 35 dollars an ounce for years, but we knew the market couldn’t sustain it. You just can’t print money and think that the ratio of dollars to gold would remain the same. So that’s why we knew the Bretton Woods agreement would break down. This is why we knew in the year 2000 that the dollar would crash in measurement towards gold.

But the market will answer that question, not the political people in Washington.

Becky Quick: Congressman, you’ve been worried about it since 1971, though, and if you were betting against the markets you would have lost a lot of money with that view.

Ron Paul: Well, how would you say that, because since 1971 systematically I was so foolish as to buy gold coins at $35 an ounce. And that was my reserve. See, I’m on a reserve gold standard, and I don’t feel that badly about that, because my reserves now are in pretty good shape because of that belief and conviction. And I knew in 1971 that paper would lose its value.

Now, that gold surge recently, as people are discovering, “Oh, they’re really printing money.” Well, they’ve been really printing money for way too long, it’s just that they’re accelerating it, and you can expect a lot more price inflation. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of price inflation already. If you look at the cost of medical care and education and the cost of government, the cost of food – many of these things are still going up.

But the government says, “Oh, it’s only 2%, there is no inflation. So we have license to print.” No way, no way. They’re just kidding themselves and they’re kidding the American people that the Fed can keep doing what they’re doing because the economic laws will bring this to an end, and probably in the not too distant future.

Becky Quick: Alright, Congressman Paul, thank you very much for your time today. We appreciate it.

Ron Paul: Thank you.


    POLAND is NOT in the euro, did NOT want money from the IMF, did NOT buy swine-flu vaccins, the country has 2-3%-growth and GUESS WHAT?!

    THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT&MILITARY TOP DIED IN A PLANE CRASH on the way to a memorial of the Stalin 1940-massacre!

    Explain THAT to me!

    • Forest


      A terrible, accidental, tragedy?

      What is it about RP that attracts wingnuts? Just fascinating.

  • Joker and the Thief

    “So tell me, Kemosabes, why would you complain about low interest rates when your goal is NO interest rates?”

    Read carefully:

    No interest rates is NOT the goal.

    The goal is MARKET BASED interest rates. The market would determine the price of borrowing/lending through the function of supply and demand.

    Interest rates would not go to zero. Seriously dude, why would a business price their product at zero? All this would do is guarantee bankruptcy for the business foolish enough to do so.

    • gkon


      Fred who said anything about wanting interest rates at zero? Without a federal reserve interest rates would most likely go up, a better question would be why do you want interest rates so low?


      • fred the protectionist

        “Without a federal reserve interest rates would most likely go up”

        Without the Federal Reserve, banks wouldn’t be required to loan from the FED to maintain it’s 10% reserve requirement. So interest would effectively be 0%, banks could loan out all of their reserves; and they would.

        • Matt

          Why do you believe that if reserve requirements were 0%, that the interest rate would also be 0%?

          That doesn’t make any sense. The one has very little to do with the other!

          A 0% reserve requirement simply means that banks can lend out all the money they have on deposit. If you deposit $100 and there is a 10% reserve requirement, they can loan out $90.91 of your money. With a 0% reserve requirement they can loan out 100% of your money. It doesn’t have a lot of effect on the interest rate.

          But anyway, why would they loan out ANY of your money? What if you want it back? What if everyone wants their money back at the same time? The bank would fail immediately. It’s a gigantic fraud, and it only works thanks to the Federal Reserve because they stand ready to provide any amounts of money to banks that have overextended themselves (i.e. loaned out your money).

          Without the Fed (assuming that the practice of fractional reserve banking remains legal) banks could only loan out as much as they could get away with in the eyes of depositors (i.e. not much).

          Without the Fed and with fractional reserve banking made illegal (best option IMO), banks would have to remain 100% honest. They couldn’t loan out YOUR money at all unless you specifically authorized them to do so.

          Anyway, most of those points are moot because the reserve requirements ARE already 0%. They are 0% on savings accounts and thanks to Greenspan’s “sweeps” banks can transfer your money from checking account to savings accounts each night and loan it out without any restrictions.

          Check out this article:

        • Citizen

          Fred the P…
          has the distinct political persuasion of a typical Nationalist-Socialist (NAZI) circa 1930’s Germany. His redundant, irrational and impassioned “protectionist” rants are superficial arguments that lack any substantive merit related to the subject under discussion. He has little if any rational reasoning ability and never answers with a sincere response; characteristic of a maniacal mental state.
          I’ve been reading this Ron Paul blog site for over a year and I’ve read many of Fred’s profuse and rapacious rants that are generally filled with insults, derisions and sophomoric taunts. His statements are irrational and devoid of logic and he rambles on in circles. He has yet to make a cogent argument either for or against the subject in focus. Fred typically pops off subject with ridicule against Ron Paul’s campaign against the FED with inane statements about free trade and sweat shop slave wages as reason for America’s economic woes.
          Fred the Protectionists is a SOCIOPATH* engaged in self serving covert hostility toward sincere Ron Paul supporters.
          *Manipulative and Conning
          They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.” (

        • fred the protectionist

          “Why do you believe that if reserve requirements were 0%, that the interest rate would also be 0%?”

          Why would you complain about low interest rate when your goal is NO interest rate?


          Citizen, CUT AND PASTE? You bad person.

    • fred the protectionist

      No FED = Zero Interest Rate, banks would NOT be REQUIRED to hold 10% reserves.

      • My brain hurts…

        when I read your posts. They simply make no sense at all. There is no logical progression or chain of reasoning in them. They are all over the place and disjointed. It’s very sad.

        It’s already been asked but why would a bank loan out all reserves? It’s as if you don’t even know that banks function as BOTH money warehouses and lending institutions. They can’t just loan out the money they have on deposit. It doesn’t belong to the bank. The bank is merely holding the money for depositors. The money can be withdrawn by its proper owners at anytime. This provides a (free market) regulation on poor business practices, fraud, etc.

        • fred the protectionist

          “It’s already been asked but why would a bank loan out all reserves?”

          To make more money. Duh. You do realize banks make their money on Usury don’t you.

  • dumbest thing I’ve ever read

    “An unregulated private bank, with no FED, could loan out an unlimited amount of money.”

    Sure, they could try to do that. The only problem is that no one would accept their worthless paper tickets as a form of payment for real goods and services.

    • EndtheFed

      You’ll have to excuse the trolls, they seem to have a hard time understanding logical things, such as supply and demand. They think the invisible hand of the market is a magical myth, like unicorns.

      • I know

        I used to post on here somewhat regular. It was fun for a while and the trolls helped me improve my arguments but the discussion just kept going in circles and off on tangents. It got old.

        • fred the protectionist

          So tell me, Kemosabes, why would you complain about low interest rates when your goal is NO interest rates?

  • greg

    what’s bizarre in these threads is the fact that many talk theory, but he/she who’s owned/handled gold and cash over a couple of decades would concretely know.
    too much theory and too much intellectualism when the experience class trumps it all. consequential knowledge knows better than a degree from anywhere.

    • Forest

      Yes! The anti-intellectual is still alive!

      By the way, next time you go in for surgery, don’t ask if they had a schooling – I mean “consequential knowledge knows better than a degree from anywhere.”

      Silly schools and their learning and stuff.

      • Agreed

        I too would feel much more comfortable going to a surgeon with plenty of experience (consequential knowledge) than to some new grad with nothing but a freshly framed diploma and untested nerves.

      • Forest

        Even if that ‘surgeon’ had no formal education in human physiology? Really?

        Doctor: “Well HUH, I mean, I don’t know EXACTLY why it hurts, but ya know, in my experience it’s nothing a little bloodletting can’t fix!”

        Does this magically adept doctor accept chickens for checkups too?

        • ‘surgeon’

          Why did you put surgeon in quotes? Usually this a douchey move done to ridicule someone in a digital debate when they misspell a word. I know because I’ve done it plenty. But it can’t be that because I spelled the word correctly. The only other option is that you have your head up your ass.

          You better get to a surgeon with the quickness.

          From what I recall, you were quite fond of wikipedia…

          I see you still love building strawmen.


        • Forest

          Well, being that the individual in this example does not have official education or accreditation – instead possessing of only “consequential knowledge” about surgery I was using the term exceptionally loosely. Hence the quotes.

          Thanks for the benefit of a doubt though. Appreciate it.

      • Gotcha

        Thanks for clearing it up. You can now go back to making no sense whatsoever.



    is then, if I understand it correctly, [pretty brilliant comment “gkon”: “if you eliminate risk, you make success illegal”], that the world (America for starters) never has seen true entrepreneurial “capitalism” in action ever since the Marxist “gradual income tax” was imposed in the 19th century. Yes of course the income tax and the IRS can be abolished if the USA retreats from the now 2 (!) ungoing wars, concentrates only on defending its own borders and airspace – which should be easy being an “island” bordered by two oceans-, at the same time time getting away from all these monoliths, NATO, the UN, the IMF, etc. deleting the “war-on-drugs” (and the “Gulags” it created), phasing out the CIA (with alleged hard-drug imports), ending the largely off-shore FED-cartel, with a currency backed by gold, and slicing off 1/2 to 2/3 of “Big Government”, restoring the classic “Confederacy”-idea, etc.etc. North America is a marvelously beautiful continent, who needs a “Superpower” or a “World Empire”? (yeah Idiot Savants, Kissinger and the like).

    The rest of the world will say it is “isolationism”, retreat in an inconquerable fortress, but (like “gkon” defines it) “capitalism” is FREE TRADE. Right on. As long as you keep that going and avoid economic protectionism above all (in particular with China and India now) there is no “isolationism”.

    One important factor is:

    in this radical strategy you wil have to FIRE burocrats, officials, even military and in general people who chose their riskless secure jobs with the aim NEVER to get fired (like “normal” workers have to face lay-offs sometimes). So they will oppose the “Ron Paul Revolution” and cook up a “counterrevolution”. That’s OK.

    But I predict that this pretty massive unemployment generated by the lay-off of Big Government will be temporary. Psychology rules over economy. After WW-2 “economists” predicted the all economies would collaps due to the phasing out of heavy war industry. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. On the contrary. The relief of stress and paranoia to PEACE led to an economic boom in the 50/60’s the world had never seen.

    [Note that there was a baby-boom in Europe AGAIN after the Fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall!]

    I think that with implementation of the RON PAUL proposals America will “boom” to a level unheard of. Economically, technologically and culturally.The potential is all there with still high class universities Harvard, MIT, UCLA, U name it.

    Yes, let’s have pure undiluted “capitalism” because historically it never really got off the ground. Freedom, Prosperity and PEACE.

    Can you imagine how inspired and hard workers will work when they do not have to pay income tax on their labour? Is there a civilization in history that had a system like that ever? You will see a productive power surpassing the highest level reached in the USA in the 50s.

    Capitalism makes the “rich richer and the poor poorer?” WE DON’T KNOW THAT because the system was never fully implemented and what we do know now that under the present quasi-socialist system the rich DO get richer and poor DO get poorer.

    – I called all this a “Swiss” ideology in a previous post somewhere and maybe people were not pleased with that. Or thought it was a joke. But look at Switzerland. It stayed out of TWO apocalyptic world wars in the very midst of it, it is the wealthiest country in the world, it is a Confederacy of 26 cantons speaking at least three languages and it has a currency backed up by gold. OF COURSE! And don’t tell me mr. Orson Welles that the Swiss only invented the “cuckoo clock”. They brought up at least two supergeniuses Leonard Euler and ALBERT EINSTEIN. Without the latter, I would not even be writing this in an electronic medium in real time. Yo.-

    • greg

      that could be all fine and dandy if you don’t consider that all entities or countries where america keeps its feet wet. The one obvious reason for the $’s flotation, even now its gotta be in plain site, and that is all countries must be indebted to the U.S. somehow or they’d have abandoned this currency long ago. why else? would it not be the case? the participation is beyond gold, realistically. there’s something else going on.

    • Forest

      Man, it’s going to be tough to find a “burocrat” if you really want to “FIRE burocrats,”.

      Did you mean ‘burrocrat’?

      Or like those stupid “military” with their “riskless jobs” and stuff?

      Jeezus. The freak flag is flying high today!

  • gkon

    @Fred, If regulation were to stipulate that the banks were required to have in reserve 100% of the money needed for loans, they still would be able to “borrow” that money at incredibly low interest rates from a Federal Reserve bank, then turn around and charge significantly higher interest rates to the consumer. The problem is that they “crate this money” by borrow from the Fed, something I or you cannot do. If this “middleman” were to be removed form the equation the banks issuing credit would not be able to borrow from the Federal reserve and would be forced to limit investments, as they would be limited by the funds available in reserve from bank members.

    The benefit to this is that the rate of return would be much higher for those saving. Because banks have access to easy money they do not require depositors. This is why your credit card interest rate is 14% yet your money market account is 4%, there is little incentive for the banks to get it’s depositors to deposit more money. In turn low interest rates in savings account give little incentive for the average depositor to save money, instead it is much more desirable to forgo future economic activity and instead participate in current economic activity, which equates to spending.

    By the way the Federal Reserve is hardly a government bank, and to issue “credit” to banks it does not have to actually print money, it allows them to show an increase in available funds; but the mechanism that allows banks, creditors, mortgage companies ect. to do this is the Federal Reserve System. The way these institutions use Fractional Reserve Banking is no secret, and the comparisons drawn between the U.S. and the World Regarding bubbles is invalid because almost every major national bank is loaded with Reserve Notes anyway. The Banking system was tied together years ago.

    And Capitalism did not cause this. A quasi government-private bank hybrid running the money supply is not capitalism. A housing market subsidized by the Federal Government is not Capitalism. Corporate interests backed by Federal Policy is not Capitalism. Bailouts are not Capitalism. At best this is corporatism or a type of soft economic fascism. Capitalism is not pro-business, it is not pro corporate, it is pro-free markets. Is it perfect, no, this is why the risk factor has been completely ignored as of late, because of government reassurance. If you remove the risk and failure component of capitalism you make success illegitimate.

    • fred the protectionist

      No gkon. The Federal Reserve FORCES banks to have a 10% reserve, so they can loan out 10 times of what they actually have in the vault. If you get rid of the Federal Reserve, then banks would be free to loan out an infinite amount of money.

      So why complain about low interest rates when your solution would be ZERO interest rate?

      Does not compute.

      Illogical Jim.

      • EndtheFed

        Fred, don’t you remember your goldsmith example? When the goldsmith is found out to be fraudulent, a bank run occurs and the goldsmith’s business folds UNLESS he can borrow newly created money from the lender of last resort.

        Therefore, the Fed enables the fraud of fractional reserve banking to go on a little longer. If you get rid of the central bank, the goldsmiths that are insolvent will be put out of business.

        We complain about low interest rates because they are SET BY THE FED. When they are allowed to operate properly, they are set according to supply and demand for money. Hence, the solution would be far from “zero interest rates”.

        It is you who is illogical.

        • Forest

          “When the goldsmith is found out to be fraudulent, a bank run occurs”

          Incorrect. So in this libertarian world, how does one find out if a bank is fraudulent? Right, when they can’t get their money out (planning epic FAIL #1). So sorry, you lose.

          A bank run ACTUALLY occurs when, due to panic or frenzy, after seeing EVERYONE at another bank UNABLE to get their money they go to an otherwise sound institution to withdrawal their funds because they have just realized they IN NO WAY are capable of determining what is fraudulent and what is not fraudulent (planning epic Fail #2).

          But this is all cleansing, good for the system. I mean, BANK RUNS RULE!

        • EndtheFed

          So the initial “panic, or “frenzy” occurs for no reason? Just like the economic collapse was a phenomenon, right?


          The simple fact is, if the bank was not insolvent, a bank run (in the traditional sense) could not occur.


        • fred the protectionist

          Libertarian say: “Fred, don’t you remember your goldsmith example? When the goldsmith is found out to be fraudulent, a bank run occurs and the goldsmith’s business folds UNLESS he can borrow newly created money from the lender of last resort.”

          Wrong Kemosabe, if there is a bank run, running to the Federal Reserve to get to 10% not save a bank, you will need at least 50%. In a bank run, banks will turn to the FDIC, Kemosabe, not the Federal Reserve.

      • yeah…

        Without the Fed, the banks would set the interest rate at zero and distribute worthless confetti money. Then they would be REALLY be powerful. I mean, we all know the best way to generate a profit in a free market is to create a worthless product and then give it away.

        • fred the protectionist

          Without the FED, banks would no longer be FORCED to have 10% reserves in their vault, which effectively means banks would no longer need to borrow money from the FED to MAINTAIN that 10% reserve in their vault, which would basically mean 0% interest rate.

          So why complain about low interest rate when your goal is 0% interest rate? Illogical Jim.

    • Joan

      I agree. People blame Wall Street and the banks and AIG for the mortgage crisis and economic meltdown, but it was FannieMae and FreddieMac that caused the meltdown. The government’s socialist experiment of give everyone a house. You can’t take people who have been dependent on the government paying their rent, where the property owner has been responsible for all property repairs and for their appliances and hand them a home and expect they will not only make the mortgage payments, but they will somehow pay for a roof or pay for plumbing repairs or buy their own refrigerator, and pay property taxes. No way it will work. The funny thing is that Obama is an ideolog, take the U.S. down, go socialist, but he went into office two months after the Dems homes for all social experiment took the country down, and almost took all of world’s economies down. That’s how the taxpayers got stuck paying for a bailout. AIG came up short having to insure all the bad loans and Wall Street had those loans dumped on them, so, of course, they bet against the bad loans. Then, the middle class and poor lose their jobs to pay for the politicians social experiment. Now, people who took the government’s mortgage bailouts are going under again. The Dems should have been happy giving people free rent when they can’t pay their own way, never mind giving them a home.

      • greg

        trying to point at a specific achieves only futility when all culprits are interlaced.

      • fred the protectionist

        Wrong, a few hundred thousand bad mortgages would not bring down the world economy. You seem to have a problem with cause and effect, the mortgage meltdown is a symptom, not a cause.

  • Carl66

    The nice thing about owning gold or silver, is when you cash it out, or trade it, unlike the stock market, it can be done in such a way that there are no fees and no taxes to eat into those millions of dollars promised by the stock market.

    And to add one more shovel of dirt to the mound, on a bad day, gold will never go to zero…

    The main difference between gold and stocks. “Control” and “No Control”

    What the tax man can’t find, he can’t take.

    • Forest

      Felony tax evasion is in the HOOOOUSE!

    • LG

      Forest, you seem to be the only dissenter here. And I find it very curious that all of whom you do not agree with have at least one thumbs down.


      • Forest

        Hmmmm, I could care less what you think about the stupid thumbds up/thumbs down.

        I point out someone suggesting a felony tax offense and i get… Two thumbs down?


    • fred the protectionist

      never say never

    • LG

      Ok, it’s obviously you then. Don’t quit your day job yet Forest. We really need you to give everyone a thumbs down to help build you foolish case, as if a -1 really helps at all. 😉

  • greg

    i’m just reading and reading and I get no conclusion as to if there is a problem, which there clearly seems to be. Is there a problem? Yes! where is the source?….
    one side points a guilty finger, while the accused and all their lil’ helpers go on high pitched denial attempting to deflect the pointing fingers to nothing. As if there isn’t a problem. SO!. Is there a problem? if your twisting your neck, you’re a damned fool. let’s listen to a deflector make sense of all this for us witnesses affected. we’re waiting. all i’m hearing sense wise, is Peter Schiff and Ron Paul and Thomas Sowell and it goes on and on……………….is this a case of the affected, hearing what they want to hear? ….. or are is it, not hearing the proper connections and incidentals from the accused?
    let’s have a show of hands for the cry babies who lost their homes and american dreams. (sarcasm) it’s nobody’s fault. dog eat dog. the predators got us.

    • Forest

      “let’s have a show of hands for the cry babies who lost their homes and american dreams. (sarcasm) it’s nobody’s fault. dog eat dog. the predators got us.”


      • greg

        oh i’m sure there’s a root cause.
        water goes every which way once that one particular spot erodes or gives way in a burst dam.
        It’s easy to be skeptic of the defenders of the alleged culprits who go about it being just short of an act of god. bustling pockets are on the defense, though

      • greg

        you talk as if there are no gatekeepers to speak of. that would mean this economic fiasco happened under free market, right.

        • fred the protectionist

          Free Trade and Open Borders caused these economic woes.

          When you shrink and weaken the middle class, and the future shows a non-existent middle class, then bad things happen.

    • Joan

      It was our government’s socialism that created the mortgage crisis. The government forced banks to make home loans to low income people without even checking if they had a job. A lot of the people who lost their homes were people who did not qualify for home loans but who were given home loans because the government forced the banks to do so. Some of them were flipping houses. The more homes sold, the higher the prices went, so many bought homes with loans where their payments double after one year, thinking they were going to make 100K on the home price going up in one year and sell. At some point home prices can’t continue to go up. Homes worth about 125K were I live were selling for 500K when there are no jobs, if you can find one, it pays minimum wage. People were selling high in big cities in California and moving to inland farm lands where homes were much cheaper, not realizing there is no job market, tons of smog, heat, no culture, nothing there. Now, those same homes are selling for 100-125K and this area has one of the highest rates of foreclosures. Same problem with Las Vegas and cities in Arizona, which have the highest rates of foreclosures. Tons of people left California and moved to Nevada and Arizona to buy homes much cheaper. Problem is low wage jobs, massive illegal immigration, no ocean, so lots of smog, unbearable heat several months of the year. Many people went back to CA. They did the same thing in the 1990s. People from CA moved to Oregon and Washington state to buy cheap homes. Oops, it rains 8-9 months out of the year, everyday, never ending rain and ice storms, it stops after 45 days for one day and starts again the next day. That’s how you create a housing bubble, pay inflated prices for homes in areas that are not worth what you are paying. Eventually the market is going to come back down to reality.

      • Forest

        “It was our government’s socialism that created the mortgage crisis. The government forced banks to make home loans to low income people without even checking if they had a job.”

        If this is true, then why did Commercial Real Estate (CRE), of which lending is not guaranteed by the government/Fanne/Freddie, also experience a bubble?

        If that is also true, why were there property bubbles across the world and NOT just the United States?

        • Joan

          The housing bubble is from what I said in my earlier post. See, tons of people in big cities had homes that the values went way, way up. During the Clinton administration, home prices in San Francisco, CA for example, went from like a home that sold for 200K in a bad neighborhood, over a few years, it was worth 700K. People found themselves with homes valued at over a million, and paid maybe 150K for them back in the day. So, tons of people decided to sell high and move to other states where they could buy a mansion for 200K. A lot of buying and selling was going on. For example, where I live now is a dump, homes aren’t worth anything because there’s no job market, it’s a massive welfare town. Well, people from San Francisco didn’t know the culture here, so they sold high and came up here and bought brand new houses cheap. That ran the values up way above what the houses up here were worth. It lasted about five years until folks found out there’s no job market, no culture, it’s full of smog, there’s nothing to do, so anyone who could get out, went back home. Then, the prices tanked, went from 500K for a house to 100K. Anyone who didn’t sell high here during the bubble is stuck for life now. It’s so bad here, they were building new cities and had to stop mid stream and stop building and take losses, sell cheap.

          What happens is when everyone gets a home loan, everyone is buying so prices go up. When old money comes in and buys high, prices go up. When old money realizes they made a mistake and leaves, the prices go back down. The only markets that have held their value is Manhattan in NY and San Francisco and coastal cities in So. Cal., like Malibu and Manhattan Beach. Property values in SF have held steady in the millions for a house and the values went up 12.7 percent last year, with the recession, while areas with low wages and bad weather totally tanked.

          Prices in SF were so high that people were looking at places like Montana going, wow, you can buy a mansion for nothing, let’s move. Yeah, until you get there and it snows for six months and jobs pay nothing.

        • fred the protectionist

          Maybe it’s cause the rich had so much money, no-no they couldn’t invest in building factories cause all those jobs went to cheap foreign labor, so they had to sink their money somewhere.

          And maybe it was because the population was skyrocketing up past 300 million Americans, and high population density means high land values.

          And maybe it was because the vast middle class were losing their jobs at phenomenal rates from cheap foreign labor, so they chose real estate as a profession and sank their energies into that, which drove up real estate. How many real estate agents did you know, not just did business with, but personally? There were allot.

        • Joan

          No Fred. These were people who paid 100K for a house back in the 70s, regular people, then the prices went up and up, they suddenly owned homes worth 700K to a million. They figured sell, move some place cheaper to live. I agree about overpopulation and each generation is poorer. The largest transfer of wealth in this country was from the WWII generation to the baby boomer generation. I know people who the old timers were filthy rich, but their two kids were never-do-wells, they each had several children, the family money is gone, now their kids and grandkids are on welfare. Plus, welfare and SS started paying more and more while good paying jobs left the country.

          Yeah, the mortgage brokers up here made a fortune until it all collapsed. Now, poor rich folks have to leave their 4,000 sq. foot homes, too bad for them. They had a good run.

          Most people don’t have a clue how to make money. Most folks spend all of it, most men let their wives spend all it. The old folks had no educations, the WWII people, they saved their money and bought up properties cheap, most had their own small businesses and the wife worked in the business with them and wasn’t allowed to spend the money at the mall. There was no Walmart, no all service stores. It was about making real money, that’s because they lived through the Depession when there was no welfare. That’s why they only had one or two kids, there were no fall back programs. Those people created estates out of nothing. Today, everyone just lets the wife spend the money at the mall, oh well, they will have a pension, SS and Medicare, good enough. That’s the problem. If men took 2/3rd of the money their wives spend at the mall and invested in in one house, then another, then another, they would be sitting nice by the time they retire.

        • fred the protectionist

          The people involved in real estate; and there were very many, a disproportionate amount of people; didn’t just buy and sell, they sat on property. I’m living between 2 empty houses right now from people sitting on property waiting for it to go up. Actually one guy is just wierd and won’t sell it, screw him I don’t know what his agenda is.

          When you have lots of buyers, the price goes up. It’s simple supply and demand.

          Why did a disproportionate amount of middle class folks get involved in real estate? Cause they can’t make money in manufacturing, you open-border free-traders destroyed all those jobs.

      • LG

        Joan, have you been watching Glenn Beck a little too much? I’m not sure you know what socialism is. You should probably read the definition.

        Socialism is an economic policy, not a government policy.

        The mortgage meltdown happened because Alan Greenspan, fmr Fed Chairman, thought it would be a good idea to give banks full control of how they decided to lend money, rather than regulate it.

        See, regulation does work…

        But too much will hurt more than help.

        Please look up the definition of socialism though, I’m not sure even FOX news knows what it means.

        • Joan

          Socialism is SOCIAL security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, goverment backed home loans for people who don’t have jobs. What do you think Greece was rioting over? Greece is a socialist country. They were rioting over taking smaller pensions. CA and NJ last week renegotiated state pensions because they cannot pay what they promised, it’s the exact same issue. The Tea Party people fighting Obama taking 500 billion out of their socialist Medicare plan, that’s socialism. Paying 5K into a health plan and receiving a million in free health care over 25-35 years retired, that’s the definition of socialism. That’s why it would cost over 100 trillion dollars to fund the two biggest socialist programs in the country, SS and Medicare, just for one more generation, just to pay what it has promised to pay one group of people.

          Socialism is promising state workers 90-100 percent of their salaries in pensions, funded by taxpayers. That’s what socialism is.

          I went into a bank when money was flowing freely to cash a check, and Wells Fargo took me aside and tried to give me a big line of credit when I had bad credit and wasn’t working. Okay then. Heck, I should have taken the loans. Now, credit is beyond dried up.

      • fred the protectionist

        A few hundred thousand bad loans, in America, does not bring the world economy down.

        • Joan

          Fred, There were millions and millions of foreclosures, now the people that used the government mortgage rescue plan are going under for a second time, more foreclosures are expected. When there’s foreclosures all over the place and houses are not selling, the prices go down, down, down, there’s less work in home maintenance, less work for roofers, plumbers, etc. The banks went under from all of the bad loans. Socialism tanked the country two months before we got a socialist president. Yahoo.

          How’s Little Freddie and Fred the Dog? I see your whole family joined the boards.

        • LG

          Joan, you seriously need to get off your “socialism” soap box. I know it’s a catchy word these days, and it seems to get the attention you desire but it is far from accurrate.

          Socialism is not what caused the collapse. IT WAS CAPITALISM! It was also capitalism that inflated the real estate market. Capitalist agendas gave bankers the authority to lend to anyone with a pulse, and they did just that.

          Seriously, pull your head out of the FOX news agenda. That rhetoric has your facts all wrong.

          Look back, and determine what in fact caused the banks to lend unscrupulously. This was a capitalism agenda that had a focus on opportunity to expand the credit markets, without regulation.

          This is far from socialism. Socialism would have prevented it believe it or not.

          Again, read socialism… I don’t think you truly understand the definition because you are seem to be nothing more than a sock puppet for FOX news.

        • fred the protectionist

          The SUBPRIME mortgage market IN AMERICA was only 1/5th of the morgage market. It could not mathematically bring the world economy to it’s knees.

          And those foreclosures happened (not all SUBPRIME) because when people lose their jobs, they they tend to not be able to pay their bills, you know you know you know.

        • Joan

          No Fred, it went the other way around. Who doesn’t get how loose credit was being given out 3-4 years ago? Lots and lots of those folks were trying to flip houses. I watched houses in CA go up 100K a year for several years during the boom, then again with the loose mortgage money. People knew the payments would go way up, they figured the home would go up in value 100K in one year, sell it and move on. The unemployment came AFTER the mortgages went under. After a few million mortgages defaulted, the layoffs started.

        • fred the protectionist

          Joan, every banker, everyone at the FED, every politician, everybody thought the 2000’s was going to be a free-trade paradise where we’d all be RICH RICH RICH from exploiting cheap foreign labor. So everyone, including the FED, leveraged against the future.

          Unemployment came BEFORE the housing market crashed. You can’t just destroy 3 million high middle class jobs, and all of the service jobs around the factories, and expect nothing bad to happen.

        • Joan

          The government told banks they had to give out all of those home loans no matter what, the mortgage brokers were happy to do it, they made a fortune in commissions, they knew the real estate market was going to tank. They were giving out loans by making up jobs people had, not checking to see if they had a job. The mortgage brokers could have cared less. People heard their friend or relative flipped a house and made 100K on increased property value in a year, word got out anyone could get a home loan, so everyone rolled the dice. Whenever you buy in a high market, you take a gamble. When you see a house selling for 500K and there are very few jobs and the jobs are low wage in that area, that tells you that house is really worth less than 100K at the end of the buying spree. If you buy high, you might as well go play in Las Vegas. It’s their own fault. You have to buy in a market that has lots of jobs, in a diserable place to live that has limited space to build. Buying in sprawling suburbs is always a loser. Now is the time to buy, and, as always, the rich are buying up property cheap.

          Donald Trump said this is the first time in the history of this country that’s he can’t afford to build buildings, he can buy property up so much cheaper than building new property.

          Most folks are bad with money. The average person doesn’t think beyond let the wife spend all the money at the mall, work for wages, hope for the best, over half of them end up in divorce, which tanks their income for good. People who work hard for their money have to think about how to buy property cheap at the right time in the right markets, and never mind you have to spend every cent at the mall. They have to consider the expenses of having children and of divorce, and they have to consider the tax benefits of having their own businesses. Most folks just run around and have kids and spend money and hope for the best. A lot of women nowadays have kids on purpose to live off of the government, because these social programs Ron Paul would get rid of have allowed people to use having children as a vehicle to live off of the government all of their lives. It empowers those who are really bad with money and not intelligent enough to reproduce on their own to have children by living off of taxpayers, then the prisions get loaded up with their offspring, their grown kids end up on welfare, on and on the socialism goes.

        • fred the protectionist

          And subprime mortgages are only a fraction of the market, and only a fraction of those were bad. That could not bring the world economy down to it’s knees, neocon. You neocons are sooo Yesterday.

      • LG

        You live in a capitalist country, with welfare programs. Quit watching FOX news.

        IF we had socialism, we’d probably be better off considering the current situation that capitalism has brought us. It might have saved property values from skyrocketing like you pointed out earlier because it is capitalism that brought that.

        Why do you Tea Baggers love to call all the programs that were in effect prior to Obama’s administration socialist all of a sudden? Why are you trying to overthrough our Government when you were gladley taking your “socialist-called” money before? Do you have an FHA home loan? Have you ever used Medicare? I bet you have…

        Obama reduces taxes, and you say he raises them
        Obama creates healthcare reform, and you say “i don’t need it”, yet we have the worst cases of insurance fraud, pre-condiftion denials, and the highest costs.

        Most of you naysayers are hipocrites are far from real logic.

        You say things like “Cessate from the union” while asking for Government aid.

        • Joan

          I’m not a Tea Bagger, I hate Glenn Beck, I would like the country to have universal health care and pay for it. I want to get the Tea Bag people off of their greed about SS and Medicare. They need to do a single payer Medicare for all system, insure everyone and do a VAT tax to pay for it. I’m pointing out how socialist this country really is. It is. Half the country is living off of Social Security, everyone wants to keep it, then they all say they hate socialim. I’m saying they are lying, they love socialism, they are letting Beck fill their heads with BS and they need to realize they like all of the social programs, but, be willing to pay for them. Greece isn’t one bit more socialist than we are.

          Half the country doesn’t pay taxes, 75 million people are on SS, and 75 million more are scheduled to go on it over the next ten years, plus every young person who backdoors it and goes onto disability. That is over half the population. Where is the 100 trillion dollars for these two huge social programs going to come from unless the people who are fighting to keep them admit they want them and negotiate for a VAT tax to fund them?

          With an overweight and obese younger generation getting diabetes and with many more children having autism and other illnesses, there is no longer a young, healthy pool of people for private medical insurance companies to have to offset the costs of care for older people. Everyone wants to pay 5K into Medicare and then get a million in care for 25-35 years. Someone has to pay for it. Why not go VAT tax and universal care, which would bring in the amount needed to fund Medicare and to give people the expensive tests and surgeries they all want? Private insurance is making 3 percent profit now, in ten years it will be -10 percent with younger generations being sick. Medicare needs 50 trillion to give out the free health care. Where’s the money going to come from without a tax, and, who is going to settle for rationed care instead?

          Sweden is socialist, they make money from capitalism too, they use their tax money to fund social programs, we use our tax money to fund social programs. We have far bigger debts in state pensions and in SS and Medicare than any socialist country on Earth. I live in CA, the governor said last week that CA is much worse off than Greece is.

        • Joan

          LG, the social program of forcing banks to give out loans to people with no income verification is what tanked the economy. I’m not following what a news channel is saying. It looks like Wall Street was to blame, but if you look at every side of it, what everyone did, all Wall Street did is when they saw the government forced banks to make those bad loans, those guys are smart, they simply figured out how to make money of bad loans. That’s what Wall Street does and that’s the situation they were put in. I worked at AIG long ago. AIG simply carried the insurance for all of those mortgages, so they would have gone bankrupt covering the banks bad loans.

          What I see is the corporations took so many jobs out of the country, people are going onto socialism, SS and welfare to survive. People like it, but they don’t want higher taxes to pay for it.

          I worked for lawyers for over 20 years, I like them, a lot. They pay better than other businesses because they charge the client for everything, for the secretary, the paralegal’s work, everything. And, they can’t take the jobs out of the country. Heck, they have different filing regulations in every county. If anyone wants to make a lot of money and never get held up by the Feds, become a lawyer. Every time the politicians make a new law, it’s more business for the lawyers. Gay marriage yahoo, more business for divorce lawyers, the new health care bill, yahoo, more malpractice suits for the lawyers over rationed care. They’re making a fotune right now defending the Wall Street firms. Never mind becoming a doctor, which the government practially owns, become a lawyer. There’s a tiny bit of capitalism left in this country, but not much. It’s the rich, lawyers, Wall Street, Hollywood and slave wage jobs and welfare and SS, that’s our economy at this point.

  • Oh and The FED’S BOYFRIEND NAMED FED(FRED), BEN, & JOAN! Deficits do matter!
    If we continue to spend the way we do we are going to be like Greece, and that means raising taxes.

    • fred the protectionist

      You know, when you destroy the middle class with your open borders and free trade, the tax base shrinks therefore it causes budget deficits.

      Hey this is your wonderful free-trade utopia you guys predicted in the 1990’s, well enjoy the “service economy”, this is it.

  • Gfcardi

    Oh, Becky you’re not so Quick. Why oh why don’t you think before you squawk? Well, my little bimbo, if you had researched the market returns from the 70’s you would have seen that adjusted for inflation the real rate of return is about 3X (see, for example, for the NYSE data). Gold, on the other hand is about an order or magnitude greater ROR.

    Ron Paul OWNED these Squawk Box pikers! Bazinga!!!!

    • Forest

      Or, you could say that Gold is up 44% in the past 30 years.

      Meanwhile the S&P 500 is up 22-fold.

      United States Treasuries are up 11-fold.

      Hell, the average checking account is up 92% over that same timeframe.

      Keep those blinders on and your pseudo-‘pwnage’ fist pumps to yourself, chump.

      • EndtheFed

        Forest, you really need to learn what inflation does.
        Did you notice that GFcardi said the words “adjusted for inflation”? Those words actually mean something, believe it or not. People must be sick of telling you that by now.

        Gold is not professed to be a good investment in terms of return, it’s a sound investment because it cannot be instantly diluted (counterfeited) by the government.

        • Forest

          EndtheFed says: “Gold is not professed to be a good investment in terms of return,”

          That’s possibly the damndest true thing you have ever said, because now, even 30 years later “On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.”

          Further EndtheFed, you still reading from the Paulbot script? You must have missed the crux of GFCardi’s argument, where he/she concludes with “Gold, on the other hand is about an order or magnitude greater ROR.” Rate of Return is, if you didn’t know, a way of quantifying the relative efficacy of the RETURN ON an investment – maybe you and GFCardi need to discuss amongst yourselves so as to stop contradicting each other.

          So your point is, gold can’t be diluted so that is why it is useful? Sorry, the point is, if you simply put your dollars in a simple checking account over the past 30 years, your net worth would be double than if you had bought gold. So when is halving your net worth a good idea? Even in hindsight?

          But hey, who cares if you could have had $10,000 in Gold or $220,000 in a Mutual Fund right now (actual numbers) I mean if you think gold is pretty to look at while waiting for your inevitable, oncoming economic rapture, right?

        • EndtheFed

          The reason gold has a greater return on investment in this example is because the S&P is adjusted for inflation.

          Sure, you might make a higher return on investment in terms of inflated dollars. It’s the purchasing power that counts.

          You seriously need to read up on inflation, and purchasing power so that you can stop stepping on your dick.

        • Forest

          EndtheFed says: “Sure, you might make a higher return on investment in terms of inflated dollars. It’s the purchasing power that counts.”

          So we both invested $10,000 30 years ago. I bought $10,000 worth of an S&P 500 mutual fund, and you bought $10,000 worth of Gold.

          Now, 30 years later I have $220,000 worth of purchasing power if i sell my Mutual Fund, while you have $15,0000 worth of gold – ALL OF THIS IS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. Literally, EVEN AFTER INFLATION MY NET WORTH IS FIFTEEN TIMES YOURS – THIS IS A FACT.

          Maybe you need to stop parroting the word ‘inflation’ and learn some simple ‘rithmetic. All this paul-speak seems to be clouding your common sense.

          On the other hand, my parrot might be better equipped to handle the simplicity of these calculations in an unbiased, less fervent, manner.

        • EndtheFed

          Do you realize what the gold price was in the 70s?

          If I bought $10 000 worth of gold at $35 an ounce, I would have 285.7 gold ounces.

          285.7 times $1200 = $342 840.00

          I would have earned $120 000 more than you, and done this without a rate of return. This increase in the amount of dollars my gold sells for is the direct result of protecting against the devaluation of the dollar.

          If your rate of return is less than inflation, it doesn’t matter how much “return” you get, the money won’t buy as much as it did when you intially invested it. That is the equivelent of renting a business space for more than the business brings in. Nice.

          Like I said, read up on purchasing power and inflation.

        • LG

          I think the point being made here is, in the end, gold will still be here. However, the fate of the dollar is not as gauranteed. Especially if we keep throwing money at our problems, like the FED does.

          And, private banks do not create real money. They create debt. This is the psycology that is screwing with the American consumers.

          Debt = Money.

          How do we pay the debt? Well, money.

          How do we get money? Well, debt.

          Rinse and repeat, and add interest… which will ultimately destroy the value of money itself. It’s mathematically impossible for the value of the dollar to decrease any more than 100% since it’s creation, and we’re just about there.

        • EndtheFed

          You are right LG, it’s rinse and repeat. However, don’t let Forest’s bogus example sway you; in this example gold is the better investment since their has been such massive inflation of the dollar.

          My explanation of this is awaiting moderation.

          I’ll provide a summary for you.

          $10 000 dollars worth of gold in the 1970s, depending on when it was purchased, could mean a weight of 285.7 ounces. At today’s gold price in terms of dollars 285.7 ounces of gold is worth $342 840.

        • Forest

          EndtheFed says: “At today’s gold price in terms of dollars 285.7 ounces of gold is worth $342 840.”

          OK, had you taken that same $10,000 and invested in in a total stock market return index in 1970, you would have $34,670,000. Yes, that is THIRTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. You still want your gold?

          Noone is arguing that gold ‘isn’t going to be here’ LG.

          Just making the ORIGINAL point which was, fine, invest in gold if you wish, but don’t tell me how smart you are when I have a hypothetical THIRTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS and you have a measly hypothetical $342,000 sitting in a can in your back yard.

        • longshotlouie

          Hard to decide if Forest is just a lousy liar or just ignorant beyond measurement.

          $10,000.00 turned into $34 million+????????

        • Forest

          Or you could have dropped a cool $10k on a little Berkshire Hathaway in 1965? You’d have roughly what, $64 million?

          Nah, give me that $342k in GOLD!

          I mean, who knows what will happen tomorrow – gotta have gold!

        • LG

          Sure, you can make more money investing in other places than gold, that is a moot point to me. But, we’re not all investors so let’s stick to Gold vs. Dollar.

          The US dollar loses it’s value by design. It’s a fiat currency that is worth nothing more than faith in a system that seems to be failing. It is not back by gold, nor is it owned by our country. It is owned by the private Fed reserve system that prints it and lends it to our government and it’s consumers at interest.

          Now, how do you pay that interest back if all you have is a dollar with the cost of interest tied to it? You can’t, and therefor it is doomed to fail until a new currency picks up where it left off.

          Gold however is inflation proof, universal, and it’s real.

          Therefor, if I had to choose, yes, gold please.

        • EndtheFed

          Don’t you remember me saying that gold is not professed to be a good investment in terms of return? How could it be, when IT DOESN’T EARN A RETURN. Therefore comparing gold to any other random investment is comparing apples to oranges.

          Forest your numbers are all over the place and you don’t show how you arrived at them.
          First you said my gold would only be worth $10 000, then it was $15000, and your investment was going to be, first, $220 000 and now it’s 34 million. How about sticking to the example you provided.

          You have totally missed the point, which is that during times of inflation, gold holds it’s purchasing power. If you invest to receive a 10% return, and the real rate of inflation is 12%, you lose 2% of your purchasing power.
          It’s as simple as that.

          If you invested in gold instead, you would have saved your wealth from incurring a 12% deterioration.

          Now, to understand the effects of inflation, take what you have just learned and apply it to people who are living day to day and can’t afford to invest. They are completely vulnerable to the deterioration of wealth because they are being forced to hold dollars. GOLD WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PROTECT THEIR WEALTH. But you simply choose to ignore that. Ignorance is bliss, except for when you finally realize that the system you support is robbing the poor and paying the rich… Are you rich?

        • EndtheFed

          Yes, Forest, if we could all invest in retrospect, we would all have quite a nice fortune wouldn’t we? That way we wouldn’t have to worry about that pesky risk factor.

          The reality is that the uncertainty of how quickly the Fed is going to expand the supply of the currency is unknown. You either bet that the return on your investment is going to beat inflation, or you bet that the monetary expansion is not going to be that bad. Considering that the dollar has been devalued by 96%, it’s a fairly safe bet to hold gold.

          If you held a dollar since 1913, it would only buy you 4 cents worth of the real goods it would have bought then.
          If you held a 1913 dollar’s worth of gold until today, it would still buy you roughly a dollar’s worth of real goods today.

          Purchasing power.

        • EndtheFed

          Your hypothetical 34 million would be even larger had you switched it over to gold during periods in which inflation is greater than your rate of return. The dollar is a depreciating store of value, there is no getting around it.

          The only thing lost by holding gold is the opportunity cost of other investments. Other investments demand a return because they have an associated risk (meaning they could fail). What you gain is a store of value that isn’t deteriorated at the whims of the Fed. The ideal situation is one in which you are free to switch between gold and dollars whenever you please.

        • Forest


          It’s like a Goldline commercial all over again! Too bad Ron Paul didn’t still have his Gold store any longer or he could sell you gold coins instead of just books and kool aid!

          Go ahead and decry about how gold is the ONLY investment that is inflation proof, the simple statement that belies ALL of your comments is:

          After 30 years “On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.”

          OUCH. Does common sense hurt? Do you just cover your ears and pretend like you didn’t see that?

          I guess free markets need suckers too, thank you, we appreciate it.

        • Forest

          Actually EndtheFed, lets not use the hypotheticals you used:

          “You have totally missed the point, which is that during times of inflation, gold holds it’s purchasing power. If you invest to receive a 10% return, and the real rate of inflation is 12%, you lose 2% of your purchasing power.”

          How about, EndtheFed, lets use an ACTUAL example of how gold DOES NOT hold its value in times of inflation.

          Lets say you bought Gold in 1980 for $800 an ounce and, as gold then and now is valued in US Dollars, your inflation-adjusted cost basis for that gold would be roughly $2,100.

          Thus, EVEN IF GOLD EXPLODED BY 75% tomorrow from its current spot of $1193, your investment has LOST 44% OF ITS PURCHASING POWER.

          So how does gold magically hold it’s purchasing power? Or will you re-state to more accurately say ‘it can lose a lot of its purchasing power too’?

          At least investment advisors are required to mention the downside, nothing better than losing your shirt and praying for a crash the whole time.

        • fred the protectionist

          Gold is not professed to be a good investment in terms of return, it’s a sound investment because it cannot be instantly diluted (counterfeited) by the government.”

          Yes it can.

        • EndtheFed

          Forest, do me a favour and provide me with the math that you used to come up with those numbers. Keep in mind that changes in the gold price in terms of dollars are usually the result of the devaluation of the purchasing power of the dollar, not changes in the purchasing power of gold.

          And Fred, please fill me in on the technological discovery that allows governments to counterfeit gold.
          Mining gold doesn’t qualify as counterfeiting because it costs a substantial amount of money, time and resources to mine gold. Much of the newly mined gold is used in production as opposed to money.

          Besides, the government doesn’t have a monopoly on gold mining, and then force you to use gold.

        • Forest

          Ummm, do any of you know about compound interest? Has a ronbot ever taken a course in basic economics, even accidentally?

          I would LOVE to provide the math on compound interest and return on dividends but would you be admitting that you cannot?

          Please provide, as I have done, where over the past 30+ years (since ronulans were indoctrinated) that gold, on an inflation-adjusted basis, has outperformed the united states free markets.

          I look forward to your reply.

        • EndtheFed

          Compound interest is taught in basic Finance class. Supply and demand is taught in basic Economics class.

          Forest said: “Please provide, as I have done, where over the past 30+ that gold … has outperformed the united states free markets.”

          What exactly did you provide? Some broken english that, as far as I can tell, is mostly gibberish. It certainly does nothing to show how any market outperformed anything.

          Forest said:
          “Lets say you bought Gold in 1980 for $800 an ounce and, as gold then and now is valued in US Dollars, your inflation-adjusted cost basis for that gold would be roughly $2,100.”

          If I bought an ounce of gold for $800 I could sell it today for $1200, at a premium of $400.
          However, the $1200 in today’s dollars would buy me the same amount of real goods as the $800 in the 1980s’ dollars because the $400 premium represents the devaluation of the purchasing power of the dollar since then.

          If your point is that I could have earned a rate of return by investing in something other than gold, we have already been over this. I also could have lost all of my money in a risky investment, or my purchasing power could have been confiscated by inflation. The point is that gold is safer because it’s purchasing power isn’t at the mercy of the government.
          Aren’t you getting tired of ignoring that point?

        • fred the protectionist

          Libertarian say: “And Fred, please fill me in on the technological discovery that allows governments to counterfeit gold.”

          How many times have you Conspiracy Theorist Libertariano’s cried, “Counterfeit gold at Fort Knox!!!!!”

          Anyways here’s an article I randomly googled on how to Counterfeit Gold: You know you can randomly google things too, try it.

        • EndtheFed

          OHH, you found it on THE INTERNET???
          Fred, you must be right then, if it’s on the internet it must be true.

          Good work, wthout you the world may never have known how to counterfeit gold. Did you find it on the same page that shows you how to connect a tube and a can to your engine and make your car run off water in 10 short minutes??


        • EndtheFed

          Forest, all you did to come up with that calculation was adjust $800 for price inflation according to the CPI since 1980. That only tells you how much that same amount of real goods from the 80s would cost now, in terms of dollars.

          In other words, groceries that cost $800 in 1980, would cost about $2100 in today’s dollars. This tells us that the purchasing power of dollars in terms of goods went down.

          Gold can be used to measure monetary inflation in a similar way that the CPI measures price inflation. The price of gold went from 800 to 1200 in terms of dollars since 1980, which means the dollar as been depreciated by that amount.

        • fred the protectionist

          LIbertarian say: “How do Joo Counterfeit Gold?”

          Me say: “like so”

          Libertarian say: “Good work, wthout you the world may never have known how to counterfeit gold. Did you find it on the same page that shows you how to connect a tube and a can to your engine and make your car run off water in 10 short minutes??”



  • tx1234

    Personally I’m glad to see someone finally talking about the Fed. To me the biggest reason why we’ve had non-stop bubbles for the past 30+ years is because every single time the economy goes in the crapper, the Fed deflates interest rates to a point where money is dirt-cheap, which in turn leads to people investing in yet another frivolous nation-wide bubble of sorts. The basic idea behind the Fed’s control of interest rates is indeed all about manipulating consumer spending.

    That sounds like a good thing but in the end all its led to has been rampant amounts of personal debt, and as mentioned, neverending bubbles. I’m a bit old fashioned and feel people should have to actually pay for things and be forced to save for things like houses, cars, and college. This sounds cruel but if they did, this would actually be good for the consumer because prices would ultimately have to come down. To this day housing prices and colleges are way, way overpriced. They remain as such simply because the Fed is keeping key interest rates at artificially low levels.

    • fred the protectionist

      Wrong, it isn’t the FED that prints the money, it is the private banks who loan out the money which creates money out of thin air. It is the FED that restricts the actions of private banks.

      As low as the interest rate is today yesterday or tommorrow, without the FED it would be zero. An unregulated private bank, with no FED, could loan out an unlimited amount of money.

      • theone

        well there are only 2 places that print money… philly and denver… and i’m pretty sure private banks do NOT own those places…. so no, private banks do NOT print money. yes, the Fed DOES print money, because they own the mints

        • Forest

          theone says: “so no, private banks do NOT print money.”

          Reeeeeeally… So what is a credit card? A home equity loan? Are you really flat-out saying that the fed has to physically print a dollar so that private sources can create credit?

          The ignorance and misunderstanding of how the real world works, as jaded by this blinding hatred of the Fed, on these boards is just stunning.

        • EndtheFed

          If a private bank has loans that exceed it’s mandated 10% reserves, they borrow more money from the Fed (who then creates it out of thin air). Must be nice to be able to earn interest on money that doesn’t exist, huh?

          On a true gold standard, the farce of 10% is blown out of the water by a 100% reserve. Which means that the money must actually exist before it is handed out.

          The Connection to Interest Rates:
          Without the Fed, interest rates would be set by the market. The interest rate is supposed to be the supply and demand for money. If the money that banks loan had to actually exist, the interest rate would increase when additional resources need to be released into the system. Only productive investments which are sustainable in the economy would take place. Artificially low interest rates set by the Fed amounts to price controls, and results in malinvestment that creates unsustainable bubbles.

          Interest Rates Should Work Like This:
          The market-set interest rate indicates the future consumption wishes of the economy. If consumers wish to forego consumption today and save for consumption in the future, interest rates would go down, indicating to the businessman that now is a good time to invest for the added consumption that will take place in the future.

          If the market-set interest rates go up, it means that consumers wish to forego consumption in the future for consumption today. This means that people are spending and not saving, so the interest rate reacts accordingly by going up. This indicates to businessmen that now is a bad time to invest for production in the future because consumers have indicated that they wish to consume now.

          This is the reason that artificially low interest rates are a mis-allocation of resources that results in malinvestment — in other words, it causes us to produce things that nobody wants. The Fed causes the rational allocation of production through time to be distorted. What a great way to ruin an economy.

          By your logic, we could all build widgets that nobody wants and get paid by the government for the rest of eternity. You don’t see any problems in that because that’s essentially the system you are defending.

        • Forest

          EndtheFed says: “If a private bank has loans that exceed it’s mandated 10% reserves, they borrow more money from the Fed”

          Actually no. That is incorrect or misleading in about 50 different ways. The most obvious is… What if the institution making the loan isn’t a bank? What if it is a credit card company, or a mortgage originator? Or a private equity firm? Or a student loan company? Or a car loan company?

          Please tell me, EndtheFed, when those private, non banking, companies create credit, how would moving to a gold standard and a 100% reserve environment affect them? Riiiiight, it WOULD NOT.

          EndtheFed says: “This is the reason that artificially low interest rates are a mis-allocation of resources that results in malinvestment”

          So then why did other countries, who had far higher interest rates and much tighter monetary policy, also experience the same bubble?

          Oh I forgot, the United States Federal Reserve is your omnipotent, all-encompassing boogeyman that is responsible for EVERYTHING BAD. It helps to remind myself where you are coming from.

        • LG

          Forest, none of it is possible if it weren’t for the debt system created by the Fed.

          They lend us our own money at interest.

          How can you possibly see this as right?

          Our founding fathers specifically said that a private banking system is as dangerous as army, and it would surely lead us to trouble.

          They knew then, before the destruction. Here we are during the destruction and you favor the Fed? People like you deserve it…

          He who controls the money controls the people. A corporation controls us, and not even our own Government. Wake up man…

        • EndtheFed

          LG, I would’t say they deserve to be robbed, I’d say they deserve to be freed. In this case, the old saying “knowledge is power” is very true. You are right that they do deserve some of the blame for letting things get to where they are, since much of society has dropped it’s guard against monetary exploitation. I think education is key. Their misunderstandings stem from a lack of education regarding things like the constitution, sound money, and free markets.


          A lack of comprehension of the operation of supply and demand in the market leads them to assume that free market operation is somehow magical or mythical, like a unicorn;

          “Just raise interest rates and let that magical free market unicorn fart rainbows over the planet – that will make everything ok, right! Who’s with me!!!” — Forest

          As far as I can tell the knowledge is spreading, so it will be increasingly difficult for the Fed to maintain it’s power structure from here on out. Even though we may never seem to get through to Fred or Forest, other people will read these posts, and I believe that a critical thinker will consider both sides of our arguments and conclude that one side is clearly lacking in common sense and substance.

        • fred the protectionist

          Libertarian say: “On a true gold standard, the farce of 10% is blown out of the water by a 100% reserve. Which means that the money must actually exist before it is handed out.”

          Wrong, it is regulation (the FED) which requires banks to hold 10% reserves. It would take regulation to require banks to hold 100% of their reserves. You guys are so dumb.

        • EndtheFed

          Fred has apparently never heard of fraud laws.

      • forest

        What would you do if you were already successfully audited by several government organizations and subject to not only irrational populist hatred but political pressure, AND CONSPIRATORIAL RAMBLINGS including BIZARRE accusations about funding watergate and dropping cash in iraq?

        I wish ron paul and his texas anti fraud laws would focus on things like… ENRON. Instead he wants to expand government influence even further, after FAILING time and time again.

        Don’t forget enron, and ron paul calling for the ‘day of reckoning’ for the united states back in 1981.

        Why y’all both ascribe him to be a political deity while he has been a failure over and over I have no idea why.

      • fforest

        What would you do if you were already successfully audited by several government organizations and subject to not only irrational populist hatred but political pressure, AND CONSPIRATORIAL RAMBLINGS including BIZARRE accusations about funding watergate and dropping cash in iraq?

        I wish ron paul and his texas anti fraud laws would focus on things like… ENRON. Instead he wants to expand government influence even further, after FAILING time and time again.

        Don’t forget enron, and ron paul calling for the ‘day of reckoning’ for the united states back in 1981.

        Why y’all both ascribe him to be a political deity while he has been a failure over and over I have no idea why.

    • Forest

      “the Fed deflates interest rates to a point where money is dirt-cheap, which in turn leads to people investing in yet another frivolous nation-wide bubble of sorts.”

      So then your solution is to… Leave interest rates high all of the time then?

      So no Fannie/Freddie influence, no straight up fraud by mortgage originators, no incorrect credit ratings, no distortions created by currency pegs or foreign investment, no private industry ‘shadow banking’ credit creation, no abuse of credit creation by the individual investor.

      “Just raise interest rates and let that magical free market unicorn fart rainbows over the planet – that will make everything ok, right! Who’s with me!!!”

      It’s amazing how Ronbots fear and villify the Fed to the point that it is the single most powerful entity on the planet.

      But, I guess this has been explained time and time again as a consequence of the paranoid style of American politics:
      “The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman–sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced.”

      • fred the protectionist

        Forest their solution would be NO interest rate, no FED and no REGULATION, letting private banks lend out an infinite amount of money. They complain about low interest rates, their solution would be NO interest rate.

        The FED doesn’t “ALLOW” private banks to….. The FED “PREVENTS” private banks from lending out more then 10% of their reserves. So without the FED “PREVENTING” banks from loaning an infinite amount of money, the Ronulans would effectively make the interest rate ZERO.

        • EndtheFed

          Wow. You guys must really think we can’t make an economy work without the Fed.

          I believe that instead of “the Fed prevents banks from lending out more than 10% of their reserves”, you meant to say the “Fed requires the banks to hold at least 10% of their outstanding loans in reserve”. The way you said it doesn’t even make sense.

          They get their money from the Fed, and if they want to make a loan that they don’t have the reserves for, they simply increase their reserves by borrowing new money created by the Fed.

        • EndtheFed

          Fred the P said : “They complain about low interest rates, their solution would be NO interest rate.”

          The solution is no ARTIFICIAL interest rate.

        • fred the protectionist

          “I believe that instead of “the Fed prevents banks from lending out more than 10% of their reserves”, you meant to say the “Fed requires the banks to hold at least 10% of their outstanding loans in reserve”. The way you said it doesn’t even make sense.”

          Awww, poor baby lacks historical perspective.

          OK children sit down let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was this bank owned by a Jew. *waves finger* Oooooh. And this Jew printed IOU’s for gold coin he had in his Jew bank. And everyone trusted these IOU’s as infallable. Eventually the Jew got greedy and loaned out more of these paper IOU’s then he actually had in the vault. Then a couple Christians came into the bank simultaneously asking to exchange their IOU’s for their gold coin but the Jew loaned most of it out. Then the “Run on Bank” was invented. End of story.

          The Federal Reserve FORCES banks to have a minimum amount of reserves, the Federal Reserve doesn’t ALLOW them to do anything. It’s called regulation, your a Libertarian nut you should understand what regulation is. Regulation = shackles on the free market, right Libertarian’o? Well that’s what the FED does, it puts shackles on banks with their reserve requirement of a pathetic 10%. The FDIC is responsible for that low 10% number, blame them.

        • fred the protectionist

          Libertarian say: “Fred the P said : “They complain about low interest rates, their solution would be NO interest rate.”

          The solution is no ARTIFICIAL interest rate.”


          Anything above 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% interest rate is artificial. Why would you bitch about a low interest rate when your solution would be a ZERO interest rate? That’s like complaining about NAFTA when your solution would be NAFTA on steroids. Oh I forgot, Libertarians are craaaaaaaazy.

        • EndtheFed

          Fred, your ramblings are getting worse.

          (sarcasm) Yes, I don’t like the artificially low interest rate, so my solution would be NO interest rate (sarcasm).

          Do you even try to make sense when you post?

        • fred the protectionist

          That’s right, you’re a fruitloop. You complain about low interest rate, but if you abolish the FED the interest rate would be effectively be ZERO.

        • EndtheFed

          Please provide an example from history that evidences your claim.

          The idea of a true gold standard is to have 100% reserve of gold money so that nobody can expand the paper money supply beyond their gold holdings. If they do, they run the risk of being punished for fraud.

        • fred the protectionist

          Oh so you want to abolish all Banks and Usury, ok gotcha.

        • EndtheFed

          How does a system with term limits on interest earning accounts, and banks that are not insolvent translate into “abolish all banks and usury”?

          I don’t know if your on drugs, or if you need to be, but your responses indicate that you have no grasp on reality. Certain words mean certain things.

        • fred the protectionist

          You know what sounds crazy? A pro-slavery neo-Feudalist trying to sound like a populist. Now that’s nutto.

  • Bruce Goguen

    I love how these commentators always try to get Ron Paul to slip up, and every time he makes them look like fools. Dr. Paul keep fighting, you are our only hope. You are truly the only American Hero in Congress. Thank you for standing up for Americans. We are all watching and taking note.

  • Dfens

    Ronny and Randy want us to unilaterally eliminate all protections for the US market. They want foreign currencies to compete with the American dollar as our national currency too. Thier insanly radical policies would plunge us it a much deeper hole than Greece’s economy has faced to date, even though Greece is a clear example of how these exact policies have failed. These Libertarian Globalists are nothing but Manchurian candidates. They have sold out their country. They have sold our our way of life. And the Fed is the scapegoat. How convenient. No doubt a page out of the playbook of their Communist Chinese masters.

    • longshotlouie

      Libertarian Globalists? When were these libertarians in power?

      Do you still write that Bizarro Blog?

      • fred the protectionist

        Free Trade is globalist in nature.

        Free Trade + Isolationism is what I like to call “one night stand globalism”. After the factories have been exported to cheap foreign labor countries, and when those countries get into financial trouble, the Libertarians would abandon them to their fate including the investment in those factories. So I call you guys “one night stand globalists”.

        • wait…we have a new contender

          “Free Trade + Isolationism is what I like to call “one night stand globalism”.

          Strange. Free trade + Isolationism is what I like to call a “contradiction”.

        • fred the protectionist

          Libertarians claim they aren’t Isolationists when they really are Isolationists.

          I’m a Pat Buchanan supporter, so that means i’m also an Isolationist and not afraid to admit it or utter the word. LIbertariano’s are afraid of admitting who they really are. They’re afraid of words, like self-regulating political correctness.

        • congratulations….

          on typing something and saying nothing.


        • EndtheFed

          Yes… ALL libertarians are surely “afraid” of words.

          HAHAH. Did you forget to get your prescription filled for this week?

  • Chris

    Everytime i watch this network this guy tries to cut Ron Paul and they try to catch him slipping. It’s so funny because everyone thinks it takes rocket science to run the country, when it really doesn’t. It says obey the Universal law of free-will. They wonder, how can he be so right? Surely, he has to be hypocrite let’s try to dig some dirt. Then they just end up failing and agreeing with him anyway. That is how the law of free – will is and it is futile to resist. Bow to the laws of nature and instead flow with the tides of change, not against. It will make your change a lot more enjoyable in the coming years =)

  • If the US ever elects Mr. Paul to President, that will be the day when I will envy all those who carry the US citizenship. Not before.

  • Charlie

    When the day comes (and it will) when the results of a complete audit of the Fed is revealed to the people, anger won’t even begin to describe what will happen. I called both of my US senators to let them know I will work hard to see them defeated for voting against an audit. I urge everyone to do the same if your senator voted nay. Only 1/3 of senators are up for re-election in November but call them anyway and let them know you will not forget.

    • Forest

      “When the day comes (and it will) when the results of a complete audit of the Fed is revealed to the people”

      And if nothing is found AFTER THE COMPLETE AUDIT has been conducted, then Ron Paul supporters will simply layer another conspiracy over it and say ‘TPTB didn’t want the truth to get out there’…

      You can’t keep a good conspiracy theorist down!

      • Charlie

        Our resident TROLL types again!

        • Ben

          Charlie, you clearly don’t understand the word ‘troll’. It’s meaning has become obscured lately.

          A troll is someone who visits a website just to spew profanity. So, for example, if someone came to this website and started talking about lewd sexual acts with Ron Paul’s mother or something, that would be a troll.

          A troll is not someone who simply disagrees with you or takes a position that generally doesn’t jive with the philosophy website. This is a pro-Paul site, but that doesn’t mean that a person with an negative opinion of Paul is a troll.

          I agree with Forrest on this one. I’m no supporter of the fed. I would have voted to audit it if I had been in Congress. But I understand the frustration of trying to convince Paulbots of anything they don’t want to believe. No amount of proof sways them; they simply concoct another conspiracy theory to explain why the truth hasn’t come to light.

          That’s why the Ron Paul Lunatic Express is full of birthers, truthers, Alex Jones wannabes, white supremacists, KKK members, and various other tinfoil hat misfits.

        • Joan

          Ben, great post. I think people define a troll as someone who thinks for themselves. I don’t mind Fred, for example, sharing his opposing points of view. Always good to debate people, learn what they know and, sometimes he’s right. No one person knows everything or is right all of the time. I notice too that this website attracts people with illnesses, people who live off of the government but are in here to oppose government spending, many are super-religious, one has a website talking about killing women who have abortions, no murder of unborn children but he wants to murder the mother. I’ve seen people say you get cancer if you don’t like yourself, or you get cancer if you are evil. The Crazy Train is loaded full. The strangest thing is they are supposed to be Libertarian, no goverment help, but I haven’ met one person who doesn’t fight and fight over wanting Social Security and Medicare. They want the biggest social programs then hate socialism. In reality, the Dems are taking their socialism away from them, gutting Medicare, making it rationed care, talking about means testing Social Security, and they are all complaining and protesting to keep their socialism. It’s all a lot of nonsense. If you see things as they are and talk about it, then you’re a troll. I think these people better figure it out they love their socialism and fight for a VAT tax to pay for all of the trillions of dollars of socialism they want.

        • Ben Translated

          baaaaahhh BAAAAHHH

        • Ben Translated

          The amusing part is that Ben and Joan (both trolls) actually believe their own propaganda.
          Almost as amusing, they don’t realize that their efforts are wasted since this is not an MSM site.

          We will have to settle for the amusement factor.

        • Joan

          Ben Translated just proved my point, personal attacks instead of discussing issues. Same old stuff. You’re the ones screaming for Medicare and disability payments from the government, while you say you want smaller government and less taxes, not me. All you people talking about it’s your SS disability pension, it’s your SS retirement pension, you are “entitled” to have your children on government disability, no one will discuss giving it up, then you claim you hate socialism. I’m a Republican, not a liberal. I’m listening to what people are saying. Each one is saying they are on the government or they want lots of money from the government but they want smaller government for everyone else. Each person ignores pollution, overpopulation, anything where they would have to give up anything, and it’s not like anyone is nice or human even. It is the Crazy Train.

          If you want to debate things fine, explain to me how you want all his free money from the government but want to get rid of the government.

      • Jim

        @Forest If the Fed has nothing to hide then why are they fighting being audited? And why did Helicopter Ben go on the dog and pony show with televised meetings awhile back telling people how neccesary the bailouts where and how the Fed does such a good job.

        • fred the protectionist

          Why do they fight being audited?

          Hey when you’re audited do you fight back like a Libertarian, or do you bend over and take it like a progre-ssive?

          “What do they have to hide”? OMG I can’t believe I heard a Libertarian say that. When you’re pulled over by the police, do you let them rummage through your stuff like a progre-ssive, cause you have “nothing to hide”? OMG OMG

        • EndtheFed

          The government works for the people. We should have as much transparency as we want, and if they don’t like it they can go represent a different constituency.

        • fred the protectionist

          HAHA, what’s the matter, did I turn your mindless political cliches against you?

          That’s all Libertarianism is, a mindless collection of political cliches. George Orwell warned about that in his essay on Politics and the English Language:

          “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought”

        • EndtheFed

          Is that what your after, your goal is to “corrupt thought through language”? lol

          At least that would make a small amount of sense out of your apparently senseless posts.