Ron Paul schools Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke once again.

[SarasotaBuc Fan]

I find it funny that the rightwingers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and that witch Coulter talk like all of our national spending was initiated only by President Obama......that he started off w/ a zero balance and generated all this debt alone. I recall that GWB had gotten a lot of criticism regarding NOT including war expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget. But I'm sure that our current debt and deficit has come from our war effort that Bush place our country into for the last ten plus years...then there's that prescription drug benefit that I recall hearing about that GWB paid for.

Those people are not conservative. They are liberals that act conservative. (hannity and limbaugh)  They preach many liberal values, yet disagree with the liberal philosophy of giving to the poor.

[CBWx2]

Let's look at the Debt held by the Public since TARP was initiated. I will be gennerous and say that even though 700 billion was set as the maximum amount available, only about 500 billion has been distributed or held in reserve. Looking at the Debt held by the public  in reserve, the dedt increased 500 billion from Dec 1, 2008 until March of 2009. Let's just say that that entire amount was TARP. Now, if as you say the entire amount has been paid back, there should be a corresponding decrease in the public debt by 500 billion sometime between March 2008 and today. Nowhere is there any significant decrease by that amount to be found. Or, let's put it another way. I borrow $100 to give to a friend, the friend pays me back but I don't pay back the loan. Has that fact that the friend paid me back any bearing on whether my debt hasn't been effected? The bank bailout may or may not have contributed to the debt, but certainly the pay back has done nothing to reduce it either.

I'm certainly not going to disagree with you here, except to point out that this wasn't really the argument Paul was making. But is this Bernanke's fault? Or should congress or the Treasury Dept. be held accountable?

Keynesian economics does not support direct payments to consumers, you know that. It promotes "priming the pump" by either increasing the money supply, which the Fed has done and Paul objects to, or it promotes payments by the government to purchase goods to stimulate the pump.

Yes, but it's a focus on the demand side of the economic spectrum. Any departure from supply side economics from a conservative is a welcome change.

What Benanke fails to mention is the fact that the dollar is falling due to his policies. Paul missed a golden opportunity there.

True, but is this the most important factor in our economy? What I mean by this is, as the economy rebounds, so will the strength of the dollar, so I don't get the focus on the strength of the dollar being the primary economic indicator for Libertarians. Flexible currency value is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

This area is mostly true, however, gold can be money if it is in the form of a coin.

True, but so could copper, or tin. No precious metals are used to make coins anymore because the value of the metals used has to be less than the value of the coin, otherwise you are loosing money by minting it.

Or, if I take a gold brick down to the store for a loaf of bread I'm sure the manager would be more then willing to "trade".[/b]

True as well, but I'm sure a store manager would trade me a loaf of bread for my Dan Marino rookie card too. That certainly doesn't make it money.

But why is it  "tradition", that's the real question? Could it be because gold as opposed to any paper currency is universally accepted? Could it be that gold represents diversification providing for security to the paper currency, just in case.

Can't that be said about pretty much any precious metal or gem? If the U.S. economy tanks, you are going to have to sell your gold to be able to actually purchase things in any market you turn to. The value of your gold will be assessed at the current market rate, and you will receive a form of actual currency in exchange for it. The same can be said for just about any asset.

Could it be that gold can both be broken down into smaller portions and at the same time have the ability to put back together, unlike diamonds? Once again Berneake gave the most shallow answer available to him.

The world is far past the time of using actual gold as money. This idea is an antiquated one. And outside of Paul and the Ludwig Von Mises crew, there aren't many economists that see a return to the gold standard as anything less than a complete disaster waiting to happen.

[CBWx2]

Those people are not conservative. They are liberals that act conservative. (hannity and limbaugh)  They preach many liberal values...

Like what, pray tell?

[Vatican_Assassin]

This is a good read for anyone claiming only President Obama is responsible for the current debt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Obama took office in January of 2009, the federal debt was about $10 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of GDP. Today it's about $14.3 trillion, which is close to 100 percent of GDP. By the end of Obama's third year, the debt will have risen by about $5.5 trillion, or 55 percent. That's partly because of all the stimulus spending enacted under Obama, meant to help end the worst recession since the 1930s. But it's specious to say that Obama should have foregone all that extra spending just to keep the debt under control. Any president, Democrat or Republican, would have been under severe pressure to do something to ease the pain of the recession, and it's worth keeping in mind that President George W. Bush, a Republican, enacted a smaller stimulus plan in 2008, when the magnitude of the nascent recession was still unknown. We have new doubts today about the effectiveness of stimulus spending, but in 2008 and 2009 it was widely considered one of the most effective ways to battle a recession.


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2011/07/15/who-to-blame-for-the-debt-fiasco

Damn! 4 tril$ + in a 2=3 year timespan? Dubya couldnt even do that much damage in 8 years. So much for that stimulus "ending" the recession so you say, even though it wasnt the only thing your boy wasted it away on.

[Morgan]

If I weren't such a patriotic American I'd almost like to see what our country would be like had the gov't not intervened and kept the measly $250/family tax rebate that scholar GWB provided.

[dbucfan]

If I weren't such a patriotic American I'd almost like to see what our country would be like had the gov't not intervened and kept the measly $250/family tax rebate that scholar GWB provided.

Hang in there - you might have a real blast with the cuts to the military budget (impact on vets?) along with taxing individuals and businesses that create jobs. 

[Vatican_Assassin]

What are you going to say Morgan about your boy Obama when your military pension starts to slowly dwindle away because it will eventually. Do you really think the govt cares about retired military? They hate you and fear you, because if there were ever an uprising a majority of the people leading it would more than likely be ex military that are already trained to do so, along with retired lawman.

[Biggs3535]

Speaking of schooling, Jake Tapper took it to WH Press Secretary Jay Carney



(starts at about 10:20)



    TAPPER:  The worst-case scenario here is a default, right?

    CARNEY:  That is a bad scenario.  I’m not sure — I mean –

    TAPPER:  Is it worse –

    CARNEY:  You know, there are things you could anticipate. But I — yes.

    TAPPER:  Is it worse than voting on the debt ceiling again next year?

    CARNEY:  The uncertainty created by regular votes on whether or not, for the first time — you know, and if you think it’s — there’s — there are political –

    TAPPER:  Weren’t there regular votes on raising the debt ceiling during the Bush years?

    CARNEY:  There are — well, but it had not — it had not become — look — yeah, boy, there were.  It’s funny that you should mention it, because — (laughter) –

    TAPPER:  There were.  Every year –

    CARNEY: — collectively, the Republican negotiators in these room — in this room with the president have voted to raise the debt limit 25 times.  The speaker of the House has voted six times.  The majority leader of the House has voted to raise the debt limit five times in his career in the House.  Senator McConnell has voted to raise the debt limit eight times; Senator Kyl, six times.

    TAPPER:  Senator Obama voted against it one time.

    CARNEY:  He — and he has made very clear that he now views that as a mistake.

    REPORTER:  Over what period is that?

    TAPPER:  My point — my point is, which is –

    CARNEY:  Since 1990.

    TAPPER:  — which is — I don’t understand this ultimatum that the president brought into the room with him that this needs to extend into 2013.

    CARNEY:  Because the kind of atmosphere that’s created now that has brought us to the brink of doing something that has never been done before is unlikely to improve in an election year.  And we are not, as I said before, the kind of country that wants to or should put in doubt in the global economic market — you know, or raise the question, on a regular basis, whether or not we’re going to default on our obligations. I mean, as Caren (Bohan of Reuters) just mentioned, we have rating agencies putting us on warning; I mean, this is not good for our economy.  So if we do this regularly, you can bet that it will have a negative impact on our economic prospects, on our growth and our job creation because it creates uncertainty about the economic environment that we’re — that businesses are operating in.

    TAPPER:  You’re comparing it to extending the debt ceiling to 2013. I’m not; I’m comparing it to default.  Which is worse?  Because the president is saying essentially he would rather have it default than have to vote on this again next year.  That doesn’t make any sense.

    CARNEY:  He is saying that leaders should lead, and we have to do the right thing here.  You can, as a piece of political analysis, have an opinion about it.  The president’s position is, this is not what the United States should do –

    TAPPER: I’m analyzing your own statements.

    CARNEY:  — and he doesn’t believe we will do it.  And we think — we think we can get to an agreement that’s significant.  And remember, this is all because of an arbitrary connection that was established between the amount by which Congress would have to raise the debt ceiling and the amount by which –

    TAPPER: And if I was asking questions of Steele or Buck…

    CARNEY: — we should — I mean, and a completely unrelated and arbitrary, political and essentially meaningless connection between the two.

    TAPPER:  OK, so that‘s Boehner’s ultimatum, and I’ll — and I’ll ask them about that later.  But I’m asking you about the president.

    CARNEY:  So — but Jake, let me answer the question.  We do not think that that is the way that this country should operate.  The president’s made it very clear.

    TAPPER:  What the president made clear in the meeting was that he will not –

    CARNEY:  Both are bad; I can’t choose which is worse for you.

    TAPPER:  Really?  They — it — you can’t.  Default might not be as bad as voting on this next year?

    CARNEY:  Jake, I’ve answered the question.

    TAPPER:  No, you guys are painting a very cataclysmic picture

    CARNEY:  Jake –

    TAPPER:  — that I’m not challenging — on how bad a default would be. I don’t understand why that is preferable –

    CARNEY:  Because we don’t have to get there.  We’re not going to default, Jake.  We’re not going to default.  I think I, in the answer to two previous questions before I got to you, made clear that no one in the room thinks we‘re going to default and the president and the vice president don’t think we’re going to default.  So it‘s a hypothetical that we don’t even have to entertain.

[dbucfan]

Water line is here _ _ _

Carney is here      X

Tough place to speak from.

[CBWx2]

Let me ask you two questions here.

1. Were it a Republican president in the White House, do you think there would be any resistance to extending the debt limit to 2013?

2. If the Republicans had given Obama the same treatment on the issue that G.W. Bush got, which was an unequivocal yes with no political posturing whatsoever, do you think that Obama would care about having this conversation again in 2012?

I mean, seriously. When has anyone tried to "get something" out of a vote to raise the debt ceiling before? Aside from the fact that it might not even be constitutional to do so (a funny little factoid for those who claim to love the constitution so much), Obama shouldn't trust that this exact same thing would not happen a year from now. We all know that it would. Besides, I'm not sure what the Republicans think they would get out of campaigning on this issue anyway. Is there an army of Americans that agree with them on it? Not that I've seen.

[dbucfan]

1.  If spending was in its' current state and the debt threatening the nations economy - yes.  Especially with impending HC changes and costs indicating it might not be the advertised solution it was purported to be.

2.  Given the circumstances of lack of economic recovery as predicted, the continuation of increasing regulations precluding job growth, and the lack of hitting the goals promised with the past "plans" I suspect Barry would like this not to be an issue during his re-election campaign.  As for the Army that might not be in line with Barry's thinking - perhaps the 2010 elections might indicate your assessment isn't too solidly grounded.  And the 'eat our peas' comment might well come back to haunt him.  And perhaps not, but frankly Barry on the economy isn't really a confidence builder. 

[CBWx2]

1.  If spending was in its' current state and the debt threatening the nations economy - yes.  Especially with impending HC changes and costs indicating it might not be the advertised solution it was purported to be.

I'm sure this has everything to do with the R's simply wanting to bring down the deficit, and not because they see a D in front of Obama's name. Give me a break dude. Tax increases would be on the table if they cared about the debt. We've went over this before.

2.  Given the circumstances of lack of economic recovery as predicted, the continuation of increasing regulations precluding job growth, and the lack of hitting the goals promised with the past "plans" I suspect Barry would like this not to be an issue during his re-election campaign.  As for the Army that might not be in line with Barry's thinking - perhaps the 2010 elections might indicate your assessment isn't too solidly grounded.  And the 'eat our peas' comment might well come back to haunt him.  And perhaps not, but frankly Barry on the economy isn't really a confidence builder.

You honestly think that the 2010 elections were about spending? Seriously, is that what you think? Re-run in 2012 on the premise of no tax increases on the wealthy and spending cuts that threaten to decrease SS and Medicare benefits and see how fast that "mandate" that the Tea Party folks think that they have evaporates into thin air.

[dbucfan]

Didn't you ask my opinion?  I know I didn't ask for yours. 

[CBWx2]

Didn't you ask my opinion?  I know I didn't ask for yours.

My apologies. I forgot you don't like to be disagreed with or to have your world view challenged in any way. I will try to refrain from questioning your baseless statements from now on.

[dbucfan]

You asked for my opinion - I gave it to you.  There is nothing challenging there.  I am not curious about your opinions - if I was I would ask.  This really isn't that hard to get CBX - hasn't a thing to do with challenging anyone's thoughts - including my own. 

As is your norm you now go to disparaging remarks - and you seemingly don't understand why I don't wish to discuss this with you - you have to be kidding.