Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1fDAuBWdqxM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1fDAuBWdqxM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

“ The media and the Obama administration jumped all over Rush Limbaugh because he expressed a desire that Obama fails. We all better hope he fails. The only chance our economy has to succeed is for Obama to fail. We don’t want the country to fail. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want our country to fail. It’s because he wants our country to succeed that he wants Obama to fail in what he is trying to accomplish. Obama’s policies are going to make things worse. You can say ‘Obama is going to pour gasoline on the fire. I just hope it puts out the fire,’. Why would I want to hope that? I know that’s impossible. I know if I put gasoline on the fire it will make things worse. Should I hope Obama is successful in pouring a lot of gasoline on the fire? No. I should hope somebody tackles him, somebody stops him. That’s what we need. We need congress to stand up and stop Obama from doing it. But instead they’re just standing behind him handing him buckets of gasoline."

91023i2ndw;l

Peter Schiff for Senate 2010!
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

same guy who predicted the Housing bubble would collapse under BUSH?
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Ol Peter "wasn't in love" with ECONOMIC WHIZ BUSH 43 was he?

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
 
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Obama doubling -- TRIPLING! -- up on every failed "compassionate" Bush policy and Doc Sheep is cheerleading!

:clubbed:+signs11-
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Peter Schiff on Kudlow Report


<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/fds3VRIQe_0&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

March 13, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Credit Card Cancer
</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
This week, with his pronouncement that ?credit is the lifeblood of a healthy economy,? President Obama reiterated what has been one of his most common themes in diagnosing our economic problem. The president has relied on this bedrock belief to propose policies that place the restoration of credit as the highest priority. However, despite his seemingly earnest intentions, the president and his economic advisors have misdiagnosed the ailment. Savings, not credit, is the lifeblood of a healthy economy. When not used properly credit can be like a cancer that sickens an otherwise healthy economy.

What everyone seems to have forgotten at this point is that credit does not come from thin air. Even in a system in which bank reserves are leveraged many times, someone has to put savings in a bank for the bank to turn around and make a loan. As a result, the bedrock is the savings, which allows for the credit to flow. Credit extended without adequate savings inevitably leads an economy into disaster.

The primary mechanism that has injected credit where it does not belong is the massive credit card industry that has developed in the United States over the last generation. The ease with which these cards may be obtained and the degree to which Americans now rely on them for routine purchases has created a culture of credit that simply has no precedent in a healthy economy. Until this culture has been reformed, America?s fight to restore economic vitality will be a lost cause.

However, this week a much discussed opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by top banking analyst Meredith Whitney, indicated that many Americans besides the president are still looking toward credit as the means of economic salvation. In her piece, Ms. Whitney writes,

??Undeniably, consumers look at their unused credit balances as a "what if" reserve. "What if" my kid needs braces? "What if" my dog gets sick? "What if" I lose one of my jobs? This unused credit portion has grown to be relied on as a source of liquidity and a liquidity management tool for many U.S. consumers. If credit is taken away from what otherwise is an able borrower, that borrower's financial position weakens considerably. With two-thirds of the U.S. economy dependent upon consumer spending, we should tread carefully and act collectively.?

In order to keep the economy functioning, Ms. Whitney asks the credit card providers and the federal government to keep credit lines open, so that millions of Americans can keep on spending. However, while such actions would certainly keep our phony economy propped up a while longer, it would further weaken the very foundation upon which a real economy will eventually have to be rebuilt.

Without a doubt, Americans, and all other people for that matter, benefit from having access to ?rainy day money.? But Americans should be saving for a rainy day, not adopting the attitude that if it rains I?ll whip out my credit card. If Americans need to pay for a suddenly ill dog, to straighten their kid?s teeth, or to pull them through a period of unemployment, they should save some of their present earnings.

But saving money requires a reduction in spending, and that is something that modern economists, within and without the Administration, cannot abide. A drop in spending will create a sharper contraction in our economy ? which is now comprised of 70% consumer spending. But this is no reason to discourage the process. The option to go into debt in the event of an emergency is no substitute for building personal savings for such events. Not only does such a strategy jeopardize the solvency of individuals or families when they are at their most vulnerable, but it deprives society of badly needed savings.

Currently, with so many financially strapped Americans looking to draw on their credit lines, the fallacy of this ?savings substitute? is easily revealed. With lenders? capital depleted, and falling home prices, and rising unemployment putting borrowers at greater risk of default, credit is naturally harder to come by. Had only a small percentage of borrowers needed to access their credit card ?rainy day funds? there would have been no credit crisis. But with a deluge drenching so many at once, there was simply not enough credit umbrellas to go around. Had Americans actually been saving money instead, everyone would have his own umbrella and would not now be looking to borrow someone else?s.

Most importantly, as savers bank their earnings into ?rainy day funds,? in addition to earning interest, those savings are available to businesses to make capital investments, produce goods and services, and provide employment. Without access to those savings, such investments cannot be made, and society is worse off as a result.

Lastly, savings can always be relied upon whereas credit is ephemeral. Remarks this week from the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao should serve notice to all Americans that the day will soon come when the Chinese stop lending us their umbrellas. When that happens, the average American will be soaked to the bone.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".
<HR color=#018780 noShade SIZE=1>
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Interesting how Brucefan was very silent during the Bush financial fuck
of this country

Why was that?
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

March 19, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">A Test of Wills
</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Last weekend, Ben Bernanke took an unprecedented gamble for a sitting Fed Chairman: he granted a long-form interview to 60 Minutes, America?s most watched news program. There can be no doubt that the interview came about as the result of a coordinated strategy between the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. But was the decision to offer the public a rare look at the inner workings of the central bank an act of resolution or desperation

In the interview, Bernanke stressed the importance of political will to end the current crisis. No doubt Bernanke himself hoped that his candor alone would serve as a representation of that will. But talk is cheap. We all agree that reform must be undertaken, but to what end? Nothing in his discussion with 60 Minutes gave any indication that Bernanke was ready, or willing, to grapple with the real problems that underlie our economy.

While the need to ?cut wasteful government spending? has become a mantra of every political campaign for the last four decades, Washington has embarked on the largest expansion of government in our history. If Bernanke were hinting at a generational change that would reverse this sad record, now would indeed be the time to sell it to America. But what if all he meant to do was sell the same ?change? that Mr. Obama served to us during the campaign? This ?change? has revealed itself to be no more the same failed policies of the prior administration ? only more aggressive and more dangerous. For example, Obama?s latest stimulus package had some 8,000 earmarks?the very pork that Obama vowed in his campaign to stop. Breaking this system of unlimited spending would indeed require political will of epic proportions, but Mr. Bernanke has not addressed this issue in the slightest.

For decades, massive government spending was not financed through fiscally sound means such as taxes or government reserves but merely by the issuance of debt. In 2000, the published U.S. Treasury debt was a staggering $5 trillion. Today, it is approaching three times that number. If non-public debts and IOU?s are included, the national debt amounts to some $55 trillion!

In recent months alone, hundreds of billions of dollars of have been allocated by Congress for a short-term ?rescue? of the financial system. This all must be to set the stage for deeper reforms, right? Wrong. Instead, massive amounts were spent to bail out counterparties of AIG, such as Goldman Sachs, at par, rather than allowing them to pay for their recklessness. As if that were not enough, it is now emerging that tens of billions of the taxpayer funds were used to give bonuses to the very bandits who gambled away much of America?s financial future.

So far, the Government has given no indication that it will claw back these ill-gotten gains. On the contrary, the Administration has hidden behind a strict legal interpretation of the bonus agreements. Only this past Monday, under great grassroots pressure, did the Administration announce that they would even begin to resist the $165 million in AIG bonuses. This is how much political will it takes to resist AIG, in which the government has a controlling interest. How much would it take to achieve fundamental reform?

Did Ben Bernanke even have reform on his mind when he spoke, or was he hinting at something far more sinister? Perhaps he simply meant that the political class will need the fortitude to steamroll these policies over the American people despite the people sounding alarms about the price tag.

The Fed Chairman has access to prime information from many quarters and often well in advance of publication. Indeed, some information he receives is likely never published. Furthermore, Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Crash. As such, Bernanke must be well aware of the true threat that the current severe recession is morphing rapidly into a worldwide depression, possibly worse that 1929?1934. As such, it could threaten the vital international supply chains of major U.S corporate giants. What kind of political will could overcome their short-term pressures to serve the general good? Obviously, the kind of will the Fed Chairman cannot muster.

The American public is now in a mood of mounting anger. They know this so-called stimulus amounts to generational robbery. So yes, political will is essential, not to convince the people they are wrong, but to acknowledge that they?re right.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

That damn Barack

Nothing like fucking up 8 solid years of Bush's "economic gameplan"

Gosh .... up until Paulson getting involved and the market crashing
4000 pts in Bush's last 4 mths it was like living on Fantasy Island with
the Munchkin Man playing the role of Tatu
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Peter Schiff vs Steve Liesman March 19th, 2009.


<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/a_U4W2kMLGo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

March 20, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">The Mother of All Bells

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There is an old adage on Wall Street that no one rings a bell at major market tops or bottoms. That may be true in normal times, but as many have noticed, we are now completely through the looking glass. In this parallel reality, Ben Bernanke has just rung the loudest bell ever heard in the foreign exchange and government debt markets. Investors who ignore the clanging do so at their own peril. The bell?s reverberations will be felt by everyday Americans, whose lives are about to change in ways few can imagine. While nearly every facet of America?s economy has been devastated over the past six months, our national currency has thus far skipped through the carnage with nary a scratch. Ironically, the U.S dollar has been the beneficiary of the global economic crises which the United States set in motion. As a result, our economy has thus far been spared the full force of the storm.

This week the Federal Reserve finally made clear what should have been obvious for some time ? the only weapon that the Fed is willing to use to fight the economic downturn is a continuing torrent of pure, undiluted, inflation. The announcement should be seen as a game changer that redirects the fury of the financial storm directly onto our shores.

In its statement, the Fed announced its intention to purchase an additional $1 trillion worth of U.S. treasury and agency debt. The purchases, of course, will be made with money created out of thin air through the Fed?s printing presses. Few can doubt that they will persist with these operations until the economy returns to its former health. Whether or not this can ever be accomplished with a printing press alone has never been seriously considered. Bernanke himself admits that we are in uncharted waters, with no map or compass, just simply a hope that more dollars are the answer.

Rather than solving our problems, more inflation will only add to the crisis. Falling asset prices, the credit crunch, declining consumer spending, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and layoffs are all part of the necessary rebalancing of our economy. These wrenching movements, however painful, are the market?s attempts to resolve the serious problems at the root of our bubble economy. Attempts to literally paper-over these problems will lead to disaster.

Now that the Fed has recklessly shown its hand, the mad dash to get out of Treasuries and dollars should not be far off. The more the Fed prints to buy bonds the less the dollar is worth. Holders of our debt (read China and Japan) understand this dynamic. We must expect that they will not only refuse to buy new bonds, but they will look to unload those bonds they already own.

Under normal circumstances, if creditors grew concerned that inflation was eating into their returns, the Fed would raise interest rates to entice them to buy. However, the Fed will avoid this course of action as it fears higher rates are too heavy a burden for our debt laden economy to bear. To maintain artificially low rates, the Fed will be forced to purchase trillions more debt then it expects as it becomes the only buyer in a seller?s market.

Just last week, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao voiced concern about his country?s massive investments in U.S. government debt. In the most unequivocal statement yet by the Chinese leadership on this issue, Wen made it plain that he was concerned with depreciation, not default. With his fears now officially confirmed by the Fed statement, we must wonder when the Chinese will finally change course.

There is a growing consensus that if China no longer wants to buy our bonds, we can simply print the money and buy them ourselves. This na?ve view fails to consider the consequences implicit in such a change. When the Treasury sells bonds to China, no new dollars are printed. Instead, China prints yuan which it then uses to buy treasurers. This effectively allows America to export its inflation to China. However, now that we will be printing the money ourselves, the full inflationary impact will fall directly on us.

With such a policy in place, America has now become a banana republic. It won?t be too long before our living standards reflect our new status. Got Gold?

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".


 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Great job by Barack

he talked and ya realize how fuckin dense "hacks" like Beck and Limbaugh
truly are

Imagine cockehead boy Beck trying to take on Barack?


:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Peter Schiff on Morning Joe


<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/3AlD6U7O1pE&hl=en&fs=1 width=400 height=324 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

March 27, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">THE FAULT LINES EMERGE

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
For a few fleeting, horrifying moments this past week the fault lines that underlie the global economic crisis erupted into plain view. With deft and quick effort leaders in Washington, Europe and Asia papered over the fissures and fears largely subsided. But the shock of plain truths which resulted in violent currency movements are the latest reminder that the 21st century economic order will bear little resemblance to the world we now know.

The tremors began in Beijing, where a essay from the governor of the People?s Bank of China seemed to favor the creation of an IMF currency to replace the U.S. dollar as the world?s reserve. In Europe, the rotating president of the European Union, outgoing Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, characterized America?s plan to combat the widening global recession as the ?road to hell.? At same time, British Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan made headlines the world over with his stinging rebuke of the inflationary and debt-focused policies of the current UK government.

As a result of these clearly voiced frustrations, the U.S. dollar suffered a drubbing. However, Treasury secretary Geithner and his ministerial counterparts in Berlin, Paris and London did their best to convince everyone that the world is pulling together as one to combat the economic crisis. The charm offensive was effective in restoring calm.

Given the size and scope of the remedies that the Obama Administration is cajoling the world to adopt, it is likely that the unease will grow until many countries emerge in open revolt to America?s plans.

President Obama and the majority of our leadership on both sides of the aisle are confident that the right mix of monetary and fiscal policy can restart the spending party that defined America for a generation. And as the bleary-eyed revelers wisely reach for a cup of black coffee or stumble into a rehab center, Obama is pouring grain alcohol into the punch bowl hoping to lure the walking zombies back onto the dance floor. Europe and Asia fully understand that Obama will ask them to lend the booze.

Washington is telling us that our problems result from a lack of consumer spending. Therefore, the solution is for government spending to pick up the slack. However, if Americans are too broke to spend, then how can our government spend for us? The only money they have is taken from us through taxation. To postpone immediate tax hikes (adding interest for good measure), Washington plans to borrow more from abroad. However, if our foreign creditors refuse to pony up, much of the money will simply be printed instead.

Printing money is merely taxation in another form. Rather than robbing citizens of their money, government robs their money of its purchasing power. Many people assume that if government provides the funds we can spend our way back to prosperity. However, it?s not money we lack but production. If the government simply prints money and doles it out, we will not be able to buy more stuff; we will simply pay higher prices. The only way to buy more is to produce more. It is production that creates purchasing power, not the printing press!

Our current predicament resulted in part from our efforts to maintain consumer spending at unsustainable levels, primarily by the reckless extension of consumer credit. Pushing up consumer credit to levels not supported by market realities required government subsidies and guarantees. In addition, Wall Street pitched in with securitization and credit default swaps, which created a false sense of confidence among our creditors that high risk consumer loans could actually be repaid. However, now that all those gimmicks have blown up, the entire farce has been exposed. There is simply no way to sustain an economy based on consumer credit.

The Administration argues that more debt will restore growth which will then allow the repayment of borrowed money. First, our government has never, and will never, repay anything. Second, the assumption that additional borrowing and spending will restore growth is flawed. In fact, more consumer debt and government spending will undermine our economy and restrain growth.

To solve our problems we must first come to terms with their source. That is what the voices from abroad are telling us. We borrowed and spent ourselves to the brink of bankruptcy, and now we must save and produce ourselves back to prosperity.

Of course, this simple solution is rejected by Keynesian economists who insist that we must keep spending. The ?paradox of thrift,? as they call it, holds that if we stop spending the recession will worsen. While this is true, it is hardly a paradox. As they say in the fitness game, ?no pain, no gain.? No one said this was going to be easy, but the only way to rebuild a viable economy is to let the phony one collapse. If we follow the Keynesians, the fault lines will continue to widen until our wealth, our lifestyle, our very ability to prosper is swallowed up. The calls from abroad will only get louder until we face this ugly truth.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".

<HR color=#018780 noShade SIZE=1>Obama wants to take money out of your wallet

 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL




<!-- end header --> <hr> <!-- entry category --> <!-- date published --> February 28, 2009, 12:01 am <!-- date updated --> <!-- <abbr class="updated" title="2009-02-28T08:26:01-05:00">— Updated: 8:26 am</abbr> --> <!-- Title --> Bobby Jindal, the Exorcist

<!-- By line --> <address class="byline author vcard">By Charles M. Blow</address> <!-- Summary --> <!-- The Content --> <object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
A day after Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal?s widely ripped Howdy Doody-meets-Mister Rogers response to President Obama?s address, Max Blumenthal piled it on with an interesting article on The Daily Beast reiterating some things not widely known about the ?Bayou?s boy wonder.?
One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled ?Bobby Jindal?s Secret Past,? was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named Susan) when he was in college.
(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this fact for a while.)
In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the title ?Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare,? in which he recounted what happened.
The account is straight out of the movies.
Photo by AMC
Linda Blair in the 1973 movie The Exorcist.
According to Jindal, Susan was a ?charismatic Christian.? She had recently been diagnosed with cancer. Weeks before the diagnosis, one of her ?closest friends from home? had committed suicide. She was hysterical and erratic (I wonder why), and started having ?visions? and smelling like sulfur ?which supposedly accompanies the devil.?
Everything came to a head at a prayer meeting organized for Susan. Here are some excerpts from Jindal?s article:
?Suddenly, Susan emitted some strange guttural sounds and fell to the floor. She started thrashing about, as if in some sort of seizure. Susan?s sister must have recognized what was happening, for she ordered us to gather around and place our hands on Susan?s prostrate body.?
?I tentatively ap*proached the group and placed the edge of my finger*tip on her shoulder ? In a voice I had never heard before or since, Su*san accused me: ?Bobby, you cannot even love Susan.?
?The students, led by Susan?s sister and Louise, a member of a charismatic church, engaged in loud and desperate prayers while holding Susan with one hand. Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, ?Satan, I command you to leave this woman.? Others exhorted all ?demons to leave in the name of Christ.??
?Whenever I concentrated long enough to begin prayer, I felt some type of physical force distracting me. It was as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe. Being a biology major at the time, I greeted this feeling with skepticism and rational explanations. I checked my pulse for signs of nervousness and wondered what could cause such a sensation. Shortness of breath is a common symptom that can mean very little or may signal the onslaught of a fatal stroke. Though I could find no cause for my chest pains, I was very scared of what was happening to me and Susan. I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back; thus, I resigned myself to leav*ing it alone in an attempt to find peace for myself.?
?? the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence ?Jesus is Lord.? Over and over, she repeated ?Jesus is L..L..LL,? often ending in profanities.?
?Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed ?Jesus is Lord.? With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, ?Has something happened???
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Why Bobby Jindal Is Bad: The comprehensive post.

Oct 18th, 2007 by Daniel Z.

Bobby Jindal is Bad for Louisiana for many reasons.
Questionable Campaign Contributions:
Bobby Jindal has collected campaign contributions from many questionable sources. During his first run for Congress he accepted funds from Halliburton?s PAC (Halliburton is a company that overcharged and double charged the U.S. for services). He has also accepted money from Tom Delay?s ARMPAC and people connected to the Jack Abramoff scandal. He has violated the spirit of campaign finance laws by accepting contributions from people and their varied corporations, a legal activity that basically allows the wealthy to circumvent campaign finance limitations. He accepts money from people seeking to put a landfill in our state. He criticizes other candidates for their involvement in video poker but accepts money from people involved in the video poker industry (including John Georges himself during his last campaign for Congress). How is he not a hypocrite?
Questionable votes:
Jindal has voted against the troops, against children, against a bill that would bring funding for us to fix our dead zone, against gasoline consumers, against voting rights for U.S. Citizens, and against Louisiana in support of Bush?s failed policies in Iraq.
And when Bobby Jindal is not voting against Louisiana, he just doesn?t vote!
Questionable Campaign tactics:
Bobby Jindal claimed to be against negative ads on the Jim Brown show (and on nola.com). However, the very next week he released the ?clown? attack ad. He missed many debates in the campaign, what some pundits called political cowardice. He did not respect the intellectual property of Louisiana Universities. He stood by and allowed the Republican Party to tell incomplete stories about him. And he just blatantly lies.
Lack of Leadership:
Bobby Jindal was supposed to have all this clout, at least that is what his campaign and the media told everyone in 2004 and 2006. He was supposed to be going to washington with political capital to spend to get Louisiana what it needs.
The job of a Congressman is to work with other congressmen and use your clout to convince them to support the legislation that you also support.
Bobby Jindal has consistantly ignored this portion of his job. Look at the CAFTA vote. Instead of trying to convince people to vote against it, Bobby Jindal just sat in a corner and let the bill pass. Once the bill had enough votes to pass, jindal then cast his vote against CAFTA. So, instead of working against the bill, he sat and let the bill pass and then voted against it so he wouldn?t alienate louisiana industry that would be hurt by it.
And the same thing goes for this override vote. Instead of working to get his peers to support the legislation he claimed to support, he just sat back and did nothing.
If Bobby Jindal was a leader, he would lead others to vote with him. Bobby Jindal is obviously not a leader? and we need a leader to be our next governor.
Conclusion:
This should all be enough to tell you that Bobby Jindal is not the man he claims to be and that Louisiana would not be served well by electing him Governor. And how stupid are we as a state if we are going to elect someone governor who is a die hard Republican when the Federal Government will most likely be led by Democrats for most of our next governor?s term. Electing Bobby Jindal did not make sense in 2003 and it does not make sense now. If this post has not convinced you, then please read the rest of this blog and learn why as a choice for Governor, that Bobby Jindal is Bad.
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Bobby Jindal's Counsel Tied To Abramoff Scandal

<!-- Chicklets --> digg Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us <script showbranding="0" src="http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge.js" badgetype="logo" type="text/javascript">huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/bobby-jindals-counsel-tie_n_103765.html</script>http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/huffi...F27%2Fbobby-jindals-counsel-tie_n_103765.html <script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#tabs=email%2Cpost%2Cweb&charset=utf-8&style=default&publisher=89879177-51bf-4cf0-91c9-6326d062d5e6&offsetLeft=-180&offsetTop=15"></script>ShareThis

<!-- /Chicklets --> The Times Picayune | Robert Travis Scott | May 27, 2008 04:40 PM

<hr>
Read More: Abramoff Jindal, Bobby Jindal, Bobby Jindal Counsel, Bobby Jindal Jack Abramoff, Politics News <!-- Verticals -->

<script> SocialNetworkBadge.init("http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/bobby-jindals-counsel-tie_n_103765.html","Bobby%20Jindal%27s%20Counsel%20Tied%20To%20Abramoff%20Scandal", 0, 0); SocialNetworkBadge.write_badge_to("hp_social_network"); </script> Be the First to Submit
This Story to Digg
<script showbranding="0" src="http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge.js" badgetype="small">huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/bobby-jindals-counsel-tie_n_103765.html</script>Buzz up!
<!-- Photos -->



<!-- /Inline toolbox --> <!-- Subscribe user --> <script type="text/javascript"> document.write('
Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

<form id="politics_form"> <input type="text" class="input_edit" id="subscribe_user_email"> <input type="button" onClick="QuickSubscribeUser.pop(\'politics_form\', \'f28\'); return false;" class="submit_email_button" style="background-color: #03497E !important; color: #fff;font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; border: 1px solid #03497E !important;" value="SIGN UP"> </form>


'); </script> Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

<form id="politics_form"> <input class="input_edit" id="subscribe_user_email" type="text"> <input onclick="QuickSubscribeUser.pop('politics_form', 'f28'); return false;" class="submit_email_button" style="border: 1px solid rgb(3, 73, 126) ! important; background-color: rgb(3, 73, 126) ! important; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px;" value="SIGN UP" type="button"> </form>



<!--End Subscribe user --> Before becoming executive counsel this year to Gov. Bobby Jindal, Alexandria lawyer Jimmy Faircloth was a key figure in a high-risk business venture that is sparking new controversy in a Louisiana Indian tribe still shaken after becoming the victim of a national scandal.
From 2005 to 2007, Faircloth advised the Coushatta Indians to invest $30 million in a formerly bankrupt Israeli technology firm called MainNet, which so far has shown no financial return for the tribe and is dependent on monthly installments of Coushatta cash. The company also hired Faircloth's brother, on the attorney's suggestion, after the tribe began investing.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

April 24, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Here They Come To Save The Day
</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
With much fanfare this week, Congress and the Administration began a series of actions designed to protect over-leveraged consumers from the high fees imposed by credit card lenders. As with most other initiatives devised by government, this policy will create a host of unintended consequences that will undermine the benefit the program hopes to create.

Anyone who carries a credit card knows that billing practices have become much more aggressive, punitive, and seemingly arbitrary over recent years. Sadly, these fees have become one of the only means the companies can use to compensate for the increasing defaults on their unsecured loans.

By mandating that the credit card companies lower their fees, the government will severely hinder their tenuous profitability. In order to avoid bankruptcy, the companies will have to deny credit to marginal borrowers, which would reverse the ?easy access? policies that have defined the industry over the last generation. The resulting contraction in consumer credit will run contrary to current Administration efforts to keep Americans spending. The horns of this dilemma are completely missed in Washington.

In better times, when companies could make money from interest charged on a high-performing loan book, companies could perhaps compete on better customer service and transparency. Unfortunately, desperate times have called for desperate measures. And rather than seek to break their reliance on credit through harsh reductions in spending, many Americans have waded into the snake pit despite the costs.

Among other things, Congress objects to credit card issuers raising interest rates and cutting back on lines of credit for those borrowers deemed at heightened risk of default. One practice, called ?universal default?, in which card issuers take into account a cardholder?s total liabilities, not just what is owed on a single card, has drawn particular Congressional fire. In this system, delinquency on one account will often affect rates charged on all accounts, even those where the borrower is still current.

Also under scrutiny is the very concept of lenders raising rates on existing balances to reflect heightened risks, despite the fact that their ability to do so is spelled out in advance. The concept is similar to adjustable rate mortgages, where borrowers initially get lower rates but face the possibility of higher rates should circumstances change. Without the ability to raise rates, lenders will have no choice but to charge much higher rates from the start.

The bottom line is that credit card lending is a very risky business. The debts are unsecured and the probability of default is high, meaning big losses should borrowers choose not to pay. In addition, should a borrower file bankruptcy, credit card debt is often the first to be discharged. Given the risks, interest rates need to be very high to keep lenders in business.

One way to keep a lid on rates for those who do pay is for lenders to weed out those most likely to default. This can be accomplished through higher rates. Not only does this discourage riskier borrowers from taking on more debt, but it gives lenders a bigger cushion to absorb losses. However, by interfering with card issuers? attempts to better price risk and limit losses, the government will reduce credit availability.

The securitization process, infamously associated with mortgage debt, has also been utilized extensively with credit card debt and has greatly spurred the growth of consumer credit. As a result of securitization, lenders were able to immediately offload their loans to Wall Street, which repackaged and sold them to investors around the world. In this way, credit card issuers became more concerned with loan volume and less concerned with loan risk. However, now that huge losses in credit card-backed bonds have reduced investor demand (despite recent multi-billion dollar Fed purchases), card issuers need to hold loans on their own books. Greater prudence is resulting.

Ironically, this is the one potential silver lining to this cloud. By making credit card lending even riskier, this bill will actually make it harder for consumers to get credit. Since excess consumer credit is part of the problem, restricting that credit is part of the solution. However, while I approve of the ends, it is certainly not justified by the means.

It would be preferable to simply allow markets to function. Higher losses among credit card lenders and higher rates for credit card users would greatly diminish both the availability and desirability of consumer credit. Fear of loss and the absence of a secondary market to unload risk would force lenders to more judiciously extend credit. Simultaneously, higher rates would reduce the appeal of credit card debt, causing fewer Americans to partake.

These mechanisms would begin the painful process of weaning the nation from its addiction to credit. Ironically, this is what President Obama has said is necessary.

Of course, there is also a good chance that this silver lining will prove a mirage. When the banks attempt to restrict credit as a result of their business concerns, the government will most likely funnel more taxpayer ?bailout? money to banks to entice them to keep lending. In typical government fashion, rather than letting market forces work, our government will force bad decisions on companies and then subsidize resulting losses. Isn?t this starting to sound familiar?

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".
Ah, that's what he is selling.Gee let me get the credit card out and order it today.
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

The Right would rip Christ off the cross and start screaming how he was
a fuckup ....


Thank God for Fox News
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Peter Schiff From Orlando Florida criticizes the Obama administration economic policies " The Best thing that governement would do in the economy and the housing market is absolutely Nothing !" let the market forces work without any intervention



<EMBED src=http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x94nbg_peter-schiff-the-schiff-report-vide_news&related=0 width=220 height=200 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true">

</EMBED>Founders Keepers

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD background=/wp-content/themes/metro_10/images/ff_bg.gif>April 28th, 2009

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" - James Madison



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

June 3, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">There Goes The Country
</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yesterday, after a painfully long death spiral, General Motors finally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Oftentimes, bankruptcy portends rebirth. Unfortunately, the politically-inspired GM plan holds no such possibilities. Under the current deal, the restructuring of GM will cost taxpayers some $100 billion (after the hidden costs of interest and refinancing are included). Even then, it is highly unlikely that GM will ever be competitive or that its debts will ever be repaid. Far worse, the massive government bailout will delay rather than encourage broader economic recovery. And yet, U.S. stock markets rose on the GM announcement as if it were good news.

General Motors is but a microcosm of what most ails the U.S. economy. For decades, GM rested on its laurels. Its management yielded to innumerable, exorbitant trade union demands, passing the costs on to consumers in the form of lower quality products. The result was that higher quality foreign cars, eventually also produced domestically by American workers, severely eroded GM?s once dominant market position. The company?s autonomy was effectively extinguished by the growing debt needed to finance this downward spiral. Investors, believing that GM was ?too big to fail,? continued to accept the company?s high-risk paper.

In short, GM was brought to its knees by the abuse of trade union power and management?s unwillingness to fight back.

Contrary to general belief, GM is not a huge employer. It directly employs only some 60,000 workers. This is less than one tenth of one percent of the number of Americans presently unemployed. However, its trade union pension fund is being given billions of dollars of citizens? money and a major stake in the restructured company. Favoring GM workers over the millions of America?s unemployed is grossly inequitable. The reason, however, is found in the murky world of politics.

The United Auto Workers (UAW), GM?s primary union, was a major supporter of President Obama?s election campaign. Predictably, this Administration has moved aggressively to subsidize them. Obama has taken the position that GM workers are an ?elite? and entitled to privileges not afforded to other workers. If GM were any other company entering bankruptcy, many workers would have lost their jobs, pensions and health coverage. Not so under the protective blanket of Daddy Government.

In its fight for grotesque entitlements for this small, but heavily Democratic, subset of the workforce, the Administration has run roughshod over those who financed the American auto industry, even labeling some as ?unpatriotic? for failing to surrender their contract rights as bondholders. The notion that these stakeholders should ?cooperate? to reach an ?equitable? solution ignores the free-market cooperation that led to the original, contractual agreements. If I agree to give you half of my steak in return for half of your mashed potatoes when I finish my entr?e, and when I go to collect you have eaten 9/10 of your mashed potatoes, can you plead poverty? You ate the potatoes!

Aside from these considerations, the sheer logic of the deal is faulty. Has Obama ever heard of opportunity costs?

Having pursued a path to commercial failure for many decades, it is clear that GM?s management and workforce are moribund. However, the government has decided to pump massive amounts of citizens? money into this flaccid firm, without the practical ability to change its operations. Remember, the unions put Mr. Obama in office, and this project is meant to reward them. Will he have the courage to do what a profit-seeking management couldn?t, by cutting the fat from this company? Obama now claims that a new ?private sector? management team will be installed to make decisions independent of political control. This is farcical.

Economists believe that for each $1 billion spent on infrastructure projects, 35,000 wealth-generating jobs are created in the broader economy. The Administration is set on spending a minimum of $60 billion, and more likely $100 billion, to protect 60,000 workers at GM. Spent on much needed infrastructure, these same monies would create between 2.1 and 3.5 million real private sector jobs.

Furthermore, the money spent on GM represents a direct penalty against those foreign auto companies that manufacture domestically, who are fighting desperately for a piece of a decreasing market. American workers at these plants must surely feel unfairly discriminated against. Perhaps these competitors? ownership is overseas; but, while GM was shipping its manufacturing to Canada and Mexico, these firms were expanding their operations right here in America.

The federal bailout of GM exemplifies the grossly negative impact that government intervention has on the economy. As this type of behavior becomes ever more accepted and popular (barring a major change in voter sentiment), the prospects for the U.S. dollar and American stock markets is grim. Yet, American investors are bullish on the bad news. They are reading corrupt bankruptcy proceedings and profligate spending as a sign of effective governance. This highlights how desperately most investors, indeed most Americans, are clinging to the red herrings of ?hope? and ?change.?

As goes GM, so goes the country.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s latest book "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets".
 
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

What the fuck is a Peter Schiff, and why should anyone give a tinker's damn about who or what he wants to fail? :+clueless
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

What the fuck is a Peter Schiff, and why should anyone give a tinker's damn about who or what he wants to fail? :+clueless


Ah, great question, glad you asked



<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/2I0QN-FYkpw&hl=en&fs=1& width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>



Or, you can keep listening to Barney Frank, and the rest of the morons who dont have a clue about how and why we imploded

:thumbsup
 
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Or how about I gather my own facts and information and make my own decision, without having my thoughts filtered through entertainers with a ratings-driven agenda? I doubt that whatever a Peter Schiff is devotes any credence to my thoughts and desires; why should I care about his?
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Maybe Stewart just got a AHA ! moment

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/_nPbnQG-rcg&hl=en&fs=1& width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--google_ad_client = "pub-8132946737606752";google_ad_width = 250;google_ad_height = 250;google_ad_format = "250x250_as";google_ad_type = "text";google_color_border = "F5F5FF";google_color_bg = "F5F5FF";google_color_link = "22229C";google_color_text = "000000";google_color_url = "FFFFFF";//--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT>window.google_render_ad();</SCRIPT>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Less Government or Lower Wages? You Decide.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Peter Schiff[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Recently by Peter Schiff: 'Experts' Never Learn[/FONT]
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->******** type=text/javascript>var addthis_pub = "egarris";</SCRIPT>******** src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT> <!-- AddThis Button END -->
<!-- Copyright 2001-2002, Clickability, Inc. All rights reserved.-->******** language=javascript1.2 src="http://lewrockwell.com/click/button.js"></SCRIPT>******** language=JavaScript> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href; </SCRIPT><NOBR> </NOBR>​
<!--/* Start OpenX Javascript Tag v2.4.4 */-->******** type=text/javascript><!--//<![CDATA[ var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php'); var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ','; document.write ("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='"+m3_u); document.write ("?zoneid=5"); document.write ('&cb=' + m3_r); if (document.MAX_used != ',') document.write ("&exclude=" + document.MAX_used); document.write ("&loc=" + escape(window.location)); if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer)); if (document.context) document.write ("&context=" + escape(document.context)); if (document.mmm_fo) document.write ("&mmm_fo=1"); document.write ("'><\/scr"+"ipt>");//]]>--></SCRIPT>******** src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=18871805159&loc=http%3A//www.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff42.1.html&referer=http%3A//ronpaulnews.net/" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/...//www.goldworthfinancial.com/lewrockwell.html
<NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
<!--/* End OpenX Javascript Tag v2.4.4 */-->
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The nationwide revelry surrounding our apparent economic recovery was disrupted this week by the release of lower-than-expected retail sales data. However, rather than sending a chill up the spines of those hoping for a quick end to the downturn, the numbers should be welcomed. Though this may come as a surprise to most observers, lower retail sales are precisely what our economy needs.[/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]To return our economy to health, we must first allow market forces to ring out the excesses of the bubble years. Even government economists acknowledge that this decade’s spending boom resulted from a combination of asset bubbles and the dangerous overextension of consumer credit. Yet the same economists balk at the logical need for spending to drop now that the stimuli are no longer in effect. They argue for the resumption of spending by any means, regardless of its ultimate cost. This is a recipe for momentary gain and lasting pain.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]America’s economic vitality will never be restored until we rebuild our savings and pay down our debts. To build back up, we must change the pattern of capital flows from the phony economy. It is a painful process, but one that will leave our economy on a stronger foundation. Unfortunately, Americans cannot accomplish these goals unless they stop shopping, live within their means, and replenish their savings. Though this may be problematic for retailers, it is beneficial to the overall economy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But rather than accepting the market’s medicine, our government is overriding its own citizens’ responsible behavior. To do so, it has put borrowed money into consumers’ pockets, and then conjured various incentives for them to go out and spend it. This process requires more government bureaucracy, more debt, and more regulation at a time when we can’t afford any of it.[/FONT]
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=125 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IFRAME style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0470043601" frameBorder=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In contrast, I believe that we must restore the conditions that led to our economic preeminence. We must once again become the leader in economic freedom. This entails dismantling a significant portion of our federal and state governments, repealing countless unnecessary regulations, significantly lowering and simplifying taxes, and reinstituting sound money. If we accomplish these tasks, conditions will be ripe for a lasting recovery that solidifies our place at the top of the global economic totem pole.[/FONT]
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=125 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IFRAME style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0470043601" frameBorder=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]However, if we neglect these reforms, and instead continue on our present course of more government and less freedom, more borrowing and less savings, more spending and less production, then our standard of living is doomed to fall. As the world cuts us off from its savings and production, we will finally be forced to live within our means. On a practical level, imagine living without easy access to the cheap and abundant goods with the “made in China” label. Imagine Wal-Mart rolling up prices every week, while wages continue to fall. This pain would hit every American, not just retailers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There are two ways to rebalance the American economy. The right way is to restore competitiveness through diminished government spending, deregulation, lower taxes, and higher savings. Higher savings will facilitate capital formation, and lower taxes and fewer regulations will allow that capital to improve the competitiveness of American labor. Improved productivity and capital investment will translate into higher real wages and pave the way to higher future living standards.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Alternatively, if we don’t rebalance our economy on these terms, our foreign creditors will do it for us – and they may have no compunction about imposing harsh measures. This tough medicine will be delivered in the form of declining value for the dollar. This will effectively raise consumer prices and interest rates for all Americans and dramatically lower the real value of our wages. In other words, balance will be restored from abroad by forcing our living standards to match our diminished industrial capacity. If we cannot compete based on lower taxes and increased capital investment, our only alternative will be to do so based on cheap labor.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Though president Obama claims that his policies will not raise taxes on average Americans, the unfortunate truth is that the effect of his policies will be to lower wages. The choice is simple: either we shrink government and enjoy higher wages, or grow government and accept lower wages. As for me, I prefer the former. However, if we do not change course soon, we will all be stuck with the latter.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]August 15, 2009[/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital[/FONT]​
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

I hope he is doing better in 2009 than last year.


12 Ways Schiff Was Wrong in 2008 * Wrong about hyperinflation
* Wrong about the dollar
* Wrong about commodities except for gold
* Wrong about foreign currencies except for the Yen
* Wrong about foreign equities
* Wrong in timing
* Wrong in risk management
* Wrong in buy and hold thesis
* Wrong on decoupling
* Wrong on China
* Wrong on US treasuries
* Wrong on interest rates, both foreign and domestic
That's a lot of things to be wrong about, especially given all the "Peter Schiff Was Right" videos floating around everywhere. The one thing he was right about was the collapse of US equities and no part of his investment strategy sought to make a gain from that prediction.


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Thats funny, everything you wrote about in that list, he is right about in 2009, other then interest rates, and here is why

You will thank me one day for posting his thoughts.



The nation quickly descending into chaos



<STYLE>a.ovalbutton{background: transparent url('http://image.examiner.com/img/global-template/oval-gray-left.gif') no-repeat top left;display: block;float: left;line-height: 15px; height: 23px; padding-left: 5px; text-decoration: none; margin-right:5px}a:link.ovalbutton, a:visited.ovalbutton, a:active.ovalbutton{color: #494949; }a.ovalbutton span{background: transparent url('http://image.examiner.com/img/Global-Template/oval-gray-right.gif') no-repeat top right;display: block;padding: 4px 11px 4px 0;}a.ovalbutton:hover{ background-position: bottom left; color:#a82811;}a.ovalbutton:hover span{ background-position: bottom right;}.buttonwrapper{overflow: hidden;width: 100%;}</STYLE>





A very dangerous thing occurred last Thursday and Friday. The Federal Reserve monetized roughly 40% of the nation's enormous debt. This means that the Fed printed money to flow into the economy in order to cover over 40% of the debt burden the U.S. now carries.
Within days the U.S. government quickly sold off this portion of the debt, creating even more debt, leading Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to request from Congress a lifting of the debt ceiling so that we could cover our obligations. That, of course, will create even more debt.
This economic shop talk may sound like gobbledygook to most average citizens, like myself. But the bottom line is that what the Fed did last week will create what is known as 'hyper-inflation.' The cost of goods and services rises so fast that average citizens can't afford the basic essentials of living.
However, the dirty little secret among economists and government bureaucrats is that what's bad for the citizens in this scenario is actually good for the government. In a hyper-inflation scenario the government makes more money due to the tax structure being based upon percentages. Thus, the government makes more money without having to enact an official tax increase.
In a free, Constitutional Republic, a very careful balancing act must be undertaken by government in this situation. The amount of hyper-inflation that benefits government must be carefully balanced with the tolerance level of the public for the ever-rising costs of goods and services, or else the citizens will vote out every politicians who contributed to this dastardly plan.
The salient point here, though, is that we are headed for a round of heavy hyper-inflation. We'd better get set.
But this is not the only troublesome area.
Many economists who closely watch the mortgage and housing markets are saying that we are going to experience yet another major crisis with foreclosures within the next year or two. The reason? Homeowners will owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth on the market. One economist in particular stated on Fox News that this crisis will not only prevent a recovery but throw the nation back into a deeper recession or even a depression.
Barack Obama has stated, on the record, that the U.S. is 'out of money.'
For once in his life, he told the truth. We are broke. Yet at the worst point in at least 30 years for our economy, Obama and the Democrats wish to pass a 9 trillion-dollar healthcare plan, just so roughly 10 million Americans can have some insurance. And to boot, they want a cap-and-trade plan that will cripple business, decimate jobs, and add $1500-$3000 per year in extra energy costs to the average American family.
There are only 2 ways that the government can cover the costs of such a head-splitting load of debt, on top of the debt we already have. One is to raise taxes. The other is to print more money. Neither solution is acceptable. If inflation is headed through the roof, how will the citizens pay for more taxes? If the government continues to print more money, inflation will only continue to increase.
In short, the Barack Obama plan for the nation is a prescription for chaos. Some would argue we are already sliding into chaos without the healthcare plan or cap & trade. Obama and the Democrats have led us to a point in our history where the very survival of the Republic hangs in the balance. We are edging ever closer to a precipice, and if we fall off of it the Republic will be lost.
Obama and the Democrats who control Congress have given us snake-oil remedies that are leading us closer and closer to that precipice. Perhaps this is a slight hint as to why the citizens who shout at town hall meetings are so passionate.
And perhaps this is why the voices calling for a complete change in Congress, from top to bottom, are growing.
For more commentary on other issues, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
</EMBED>
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Thats funny, everything you wrote about in that list, he is right about in 2009, other then interest rates, and here is why
Where is the hyper inflation?
Where is the dollar at right now?
How much money has he made for his funds this year?
The only thing I see him right about is the treasury notes but 1000 other people have been right about that too.
He seems like a salesman getting ready to run for congress to me.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

August 21, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Dough for Dumps?

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
After having given away billions faster than even the optimists had anticipated, it was announced today that the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program is coming to an early end. But, based on the standards of economic analysis which prevail in Washington, Wall Street and academia, the program must be considered a master stroke of public policy. These experts will tell you that by mandating that citizens destroy older (but still working) vehicles to receive $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car, the program not only revved up the economy by encouraging Americans to borrow more, but it may have, perhaps, made some great strides in saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions.

With this solid win-win now on the books, the time has come to put the strategy to work in other areas. For instance, the government could use these lessons learned to help the moribund housing sector. I propose the "Dough for Dumps" stimulus program. Here's how it would work:

Homeowners struggling to make payments on environmentally inefficient homes can apply for government aid to destroy their old homes and receive guaranteed loans to buy newly constructed houses, provided they are furnished with the latest "green" advancements in energy systems and building materials. As with the "Cash for Clunkers" program, this plan would solve many problems at once.

First, it will help put a floor under falling home prices by reducing the glut of houses currently on the market. The best way to stop prices from falling, and thereby reduce the foreclosure wave, is to reduce supply.

Left alone, the market would do this by lowering prices, which would bring more buyers into the market. But this approach falls on the back of homeowners whose only crime was to overpay for a house. A more socially equitable method would be for all taxpayers to shoulder the burden through a government bulldozing program.

In addition to contracting the supply of homes, the program would also stimulate the economy by providing funds to hire environmentally savvy builders and contractors (not to mention the workers needed to demolish the old homes). The resulting demand would help to reduce unemployment, especially in the housing sector. Government incentives and subsidies could also give an important boost to the developers and manufacturers of "green" windows, solar heating systems, furnaces and water systems.

Once this program has rejuvenated the real estate market, citizens should also be encouraged to burn their old furniture and clothing, thereby sparking demand for new goods from our nation's struggling retailers. When you think about it, the possibilities are endless.

If these proposals seem ridiculous, it is because they are. But they are no less ridiculous than the "Cash for Clunkers" program that inspired them. All are examples of the "broken window" fallacy of economics, which argues that economic activity can be stimulated by the need to replace something that has been destroyed.

Unfortunately, many of our "best" economists subscribe to the notion. But society gains nothing from redundant activities. Digging holes just to fill them up does employ workers, but the work offers no benefit to anyone not receiving the wage. Absent government incentives, such a job would create no profit and could only exist as a result of a subsidy from someone else. Such work also prevents workers from accomplishing tasks that create real wealth and actually benefit society.

In the case of "Cash for Clunkers," the government provided an incentive for citizens to destroy otherwise working assets, fully owned by their users, in exchange for a smattering of "green" tech and a lot more debt. Could anyone look at our country now and determine that our problems stem from a lack of new cars? Given our level of economic output, it is likely that we already have too many cars. On the other hand, it should be obvious to anyone that American consumers are already burdened by too much debt. The program distorts the market by giving car owners a powerful incentive to take out new loans for cars they may not need.

The environmental benefits of the program are much more difficult to quantify and extremely unlikely to overcome the waste inherent in the wanton destruction of working assets. On a practical level, the premature shelving of working cars will add extra pressures to our waste management capacity, and create emissions and pollution through the compaction/incineration processes that accompanies disposal. On an abstract level, this program punishes every consumer who sought to be ahead of the curve in environmental responsibility by using their own resources to upgrade a clunker. Some may think twice before making such a move without government money on the table.

More fundamentally however is the question of making wise decisions in a recession. Given the fragility of our finances, we should use our resources wisely, pay down our debt, replenish our depleted savings, and make investments in time and energy that offer a tangible benefit. The "Cash for Clunkers" program is the exact opposite of what we need and a glaring example of the lack of economic understanding currently on tap in Washington

 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

Where is the hyper inflation?
Where is the dollar at right now?
How much money has he made for his funds this year?
The only thing I see him right about is the treasury notes but 1000 other people have been right about that too.
He seems like a salesman getting ready to run for congress to me.



Peter doesnt manage money, he owns a brokerage firm Tank.




 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

September 11, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Canary in the Coal Mine

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Like a battering ram in a medieval siege, gold keeps hammering away at the gate. For the third time in less than twelve months, the yellow metal is once again crashing into the $1,000 per ounce level. As of press time, it looks like gold will close above that level today and will set a new record in the process. Even if the breach is fleeting, who can doubt that it will mount another assault soon? In the meantime, there is no shortage of market analysts who are not buying gold while questioning the motives of those who are. Although they offer a variety of strained reasons, they nearly all agree that it has nothing to do with inflation, which is nearly universally considered dead and buried. As a self-confessed gold bug, I can assure all that inflation is the only reason I buy gold. And recently, I'm buying a lot.

When individuals choose to accumulate savings in the form of gold rather than interest-bearing paper deposits in government-insured accounts, there is only one reason for doing so: they fear that the interest will not be enough to compensate for their expected loss of purchasing power through inflation. This fear reflects both current inflation and the expectation for future inflation. While there are those who buy gold to speculate on its appreciation, the underlying factor that drives that appreciation in the first place will always be inflation. If governments were not creating inflation, there would be little investment advantage to owning gold.

Some believe that gold investors are primarily motivated by fear. It is often assumed that gold is the one asset class that holds its value when all other asset classes are falling due to market uncertainty. But this explanation brings us right back to inflation. When economies move into recession, there is always political pressure for governments to intervene. Their one tool is the printing press.

When governments act to prop up sagging markets, or bailout investors or depositors of failed institutions, they create inflation (print money) to pay for it. This, in effect, transfers capital from prudent investors to speculators. At the same time, it pulls the rug out from under the safest vehicles of traditional investment ? bonds and cash. It becomes hard for investors to protect their principal, much less grow their wealth. Some turn to gold, with its historically guaranteed ?floor? against losses, and others start making ever riskier investments to try to ?beat? the inflation rate.

Gold?s appeal as an asset of choice during times of political uncertainty, particularly during wartime, is again a function of its being a hedge against inflation. Wars are always expensive. They are also often unpopular, which makes paying for them through tax increases politically dangerous. As a result, they are almost always financed through the ?secret tax? of inflation. For a nation that loses a war, or suffers revolution or systemic civil conflict, there is always the chance that its currency could become worthless. While this may not be the kind of inflation that we read about in the business section, it is the ultimate form of the monetary malady ? whereby a currency loses all of its purchasing power.

Whenever the price of gold rises sharply, I always take it as an early warning sign that inflation expectations are rising. If those expectations are not met, its price will fall. If the market is correct, gold will maintain its gains. And if the inflation continues to intensify, so too will gold?s rise. Most analysts, however, simply look at the dubious CPI to determine the presence of inflation and inflation expectations. They perennially forget that prices are a lagging indicator and only a symptom of inflation, and may in fact not be rising at the moment when inflation kicks into high gear.

The anti-gold camp takes their greatest solace from the bond market, where things have been eerily quiet. They maintain that since bond yields have not risen much, inflation must not be a problem, and so the gold bugs are simply paranoid. The bond market, they tell us, is populated by ?vigilantes? who sound a bugle call at the first whiff of inflation. But this argument ignores the fact that central bankers themselves are the biggest bond buyers and are in effect ?vigilantes-in-chief.? Their outsized participation in the market has led to gross distortions. When the Fed or another central bank buys treasuries, real returns are not considered. Purchases are made for political reasons rather than investment merit, which renders meaningless the signals current bond prices are sending.

The gold-bashers also believe that reduced consumer demand due to unemployment will keep inflation pressures at bay for the foreseeable future. However, inflation will ultimately act to reduce the supply of goods much faster than unemployment reduces demand for goods, sending prices up despite lower demand. The stagflation of the 1970s is an example of such an outcome.

The bottom line is that gold is continuing its long-term bull run, and those who dismiss the message behind its rise do so at their own financial peril. When it comes to inflation, gold is the canary in the economic coal mine. Just as unseen toxins kill the canary before the miners succumb to the fumes, a spike in gold is a harbinger of reckless monetary devaluation. Our leading commentators think that since they can?t see or smell the gas, all those canaries (gold prices, commodity prices) must be dying of natural causes. Good luck to them when the toxins flood the mine.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

September 25, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">The Price of Pretense in Pittsburgh

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As another G20 meeting rolls around, this time on home soil, the time comes once again for the economically curious but politically unconnected to wonder what is really happening behind closed doors. But while admiring the pageantry, chuckling at the awkward group photos, and parsing the joint communiqu?s like newly found Dead Sea scrolls, the overwhelming majority of observers will miss the meeting?s dominant theme: hypocrisy.

Everyone agrees that the principal agenda item in Pittsburgh will be the need to rein in the ?global imbalances? that created the late economic crisis. Everyone also agrees that these imbalances involve too much spending and borrowing by Americans and too little of both by the Chinese and other developing nations. In his remarks this week at the United Nations, President Obama used his peerless rhetorical skill to frame the issues clearly and plainly. Noting that a return to pre-crisis economics is impossible, the president assured the world that his administration will pursue policies to increase savings and decrease spending at home and challenged his Chinese counterparts to enact measures with the opposite effect in their own country.

While this is roughly what needs to happen, President Obama is actually doing everything in his power to prevent it. In point of fact, every policy move undertaken by his administration has exacerbated the very imbalances he supposedly wants to curtail. To so seamlessly profess one goal while simultaneously undermining it is an impressive piece of political theater. Unfortunately, this particular drama is likely to have an unhappy ending ? and the ticket price will be staggering.

What exactly are the federal fiscal stimuli other than deliberate, but clumsy, efforts to get people, companies, and governments to spend money they don't have? Programs like tax credits for new homebuyers or ?cash for clunkers? are intended to encourage consumers to spend money that they otherwise might have saved. Grants to municipalities allow them to hire workers and spend money locally that they otherwise would have forgone.

Federal intervention in the mortgage and credit card debt markets, where they are now nearly the sole buyer, has been specifically undertaken to keep interest rates low and financial firms solvent ? so that Americans can keep buying homes and using their credit cards. While the Fed will continue to hand out free money to any and all borrowers for an ?extended period,? the abysmally low interest on deposits that such a policy creates disincentivizes personal savings even further.

In 2009, despite the tilted playing field, the American people have heroically managed to increase their savings (although clearly not as much as they would have in a free market). But President Obama?s runaway deficit spending is undermining their efforts. The simple truth is that government debt is our debt. So if a family manages, at some cost to their lifestyle, to squirrel away an extra $1,000 in saving this year, but the government adds $20,000 in new debt per household (each family?s approximate share of the $1.8 trillion fiscal 2009 deficit), that family ends up owing $19,000 more than they did at the beginning of the year!

So much for our end of the bargain. How about on the other side of the Pacific? Will the Chinese restore balance by increasing their spending? How can they while they are lending us all their money? Remember, any money the Chinese spend is money they cannot loan to us. So, if China really wanted to spur domestic consumption, the best way to do so would be to stop buying our debt. Even better, they could sell Treasuries they already own and distribute the proceeds to their citizens to spend.

However, the Obama administration is heavily lobbying the Chinese to get them to step up to the plate and buy record amounts of new Treasury debt. Obama cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim he wants the Chinese to spend more, but then beg the Chinese government to take money away from Chinese consumers and loan it to the United States Treasury.

In the end, Obama will get precisely what he publicly claims to desire but privately dreads. The Chinese government will come to its senses and stop buying Treasuries. This will cause the U.S. dollar to collapse, but it will also allow Chinese citizens to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Once the Chinese begin consuming more of their own products, those products will no longer be available to Americans. Once they start spending more of their incomes on themselves, those funds will no longer be available for us to borrow. Unfortunately, that is when our real economic crisis will begin. The worst part is that the longer these imbalances are allowed to continue, the larger they grow and the more painful the ultimate adjustment process becomes.

But for now, it?s all pomp, circumstance and hypocrisy in Pittsburgh. Why yes, Madam Finance Minister, I'd love another of those crab cakes!

<HR color=#018780 noShade SIZE=1>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Peter Schiff wants Obama to fail too! LOL

October 2, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">The Recovery That Isn?t


</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
For those market boosters who are prattling on about the possibility of a ?jobless recovery,? I offer an invitation to join me for a breakfast of ?fat-free bacon,? ?eggless omelets,? and ?no-carb bread.? As unappetizing as such a meal may sound, it would nevertheless offer more substance than the oxymoronic concept of an economic resurgence without job creation.

Those who do cling to the absurd belief that, absent exponential productivity gains, the economy can expand while workers are being laid off will undergo a massive test of their convictions now that it?s clear the employment picture is bleak. Today?s weaker-than-expected report on non-farm payrolls revealed that employers shed 263,000 jobs in September. The losses propelled the headline unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 9.8%. U6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics? most complete measure of unemployment, has risen to a dismal 17%. This figure includes those people who want to work full time, but have simply given up looking, or who have accepted part-time work in the interim. As it is similar to the methodology used during the Great Depression, U6 offers better historical perspective on the severity of our current crisis.

Taken together with yesterday?s larger-than-expected pickup in unemployment claims (first time claims rose by 17,000 to 551,000), today?s report makes it certain that the job market is still contracting, even while some indicators like GDP and consumer confidence are moving in the opposite direction.

There is no question that the sense of panic has temporarily subsided. In recent interviews, Treasury Secretary Geithner has been almost giddy in his descriptions of the recovery ? all the while crediting his own policies for averting disaster. Americans are once again taking the government?s bait by spending money they don?t have to buy things they can?t afford. Evidence of this trend was contained in data released earlier this week which showed that even while income growth was largely stagnant, U.S. consumers showed the biggest month-over-month increase in personal spending in ten years! With the same report showing a 25% drop in the savings rate, the source of the spending money is clear. But depleting savings and increasing borrowing does not a recovery make.

To really recuperate, the government must allow market forces to restructure our economy. The government and individuals must rein in their spending; we must replenish our stock of savings, allow interest rates to rise, asset prices to adjust to economic reality, insolvent businesses to fail, and wages to reflect productivity. To accomplish these goals, subsidies that distort market forces must be removed and regulations that undermine our competitiveness must be repealed.

None of this can be accomplished without a degree of short-term economic pain. However, if we endure it, the payback will be a real recovery with plenty of new jobs that don?t rely on government stimulus money. If we refuse to allow the economy to experience a real recession, we will never have the benefit of a real recovery. Instead, we get the ?jobless recovery,? a veneer of apparently positive indicators that merely obscures the underlying rot.

Over the last few decades, our industrial job market has atrophied while service- and public-sector jobs have grown unsustainably. We must restore balance. New jobs will have to come from areas that produce goods; bloated service and government sectors must be allowed to shrink. By propping up the sectors that need to contract, and running staggering budget deficits, the government cuts off the capital necessary to fund sectors that need to expand.

In truth, many of the service-sector jobs that exist today, such as real estate sales, mortgage finance, home improvement, and auto sales, were created in an environment of ever-increasing home equity, rising stock prices, and almost unlimited access to cheap consumer credit. With home equity gone, stock markets flat, and credit depleted, Americans find themselves needing to save rather than spend. But Washington has put through policies that have counteracted our good instincts.

While we were focusing our economy on consumer spending, much of the rest of the world was saving for the future. As such, we must begin to produce more for export, so that we can sell goods to those who have the savings to pay for them. That is the only way we can repay our debts, replenish our savings, repair our infrastructure, and rebuild our industrial base.

Another prerequisite to any real economic expansion is the potential for business owners to earn profits. With increased regulation and higher taxes on the way, these incentives are being diminished. In fact, via a phenomenon called ?regime uncertainty,? our current policy path is actually encouraging businesses to contract in order to prepare for a more hostile business environment.

Robust economies utilize all spare capacity, or restructure it for better use. Having 17% of our able-bodied population sitting at home or working part-time at Cinnabon indicates that our present policies are weakening the economy ? even if GDP is growing. There is no ?jobless recovery,? only senseless cheerleading.




<HR color=#018780 noShade SIZE=1>

</SCRIPT>
 
Top