Why does Obama make liberals rage so hard?

[Cephius]

Vajra, is that you? Your doom and gloom posts are hilarious, dude. Ron Paul in 2012, riots in the streets, anything else you want to predict?

Also I like how you blame Clinton for the bursting of the dot-com bubble and then admit at the same time that it would have happened anyway and he was simply lucky to get out when he did. Tell me, what could he (or anyone else) have done to prevent it from happening?

You do realize that Bosnia was a NATO-led effort even though there's no doubt the US was a prime player, it wasn't the only one. In fact I remember Clinton being very opposed to a ground invasion, something NATO considered very strongly towards the end of the war.

My point is you could compile a similiar list for every single President and leader throughout time of shit that went wrong under their watch.

[Rothbardian]

Vajra, is that you? Your doom and gloom posts are hilarious, dude. Ron Paul in 2012, riots in the streets, anything else you want to predict?

Also I like how you blame Clinton for the bursting of the dot-com bubble and then admit at the same time that it would have happened anyway and he was simply lucky to get out when he did. Tell me, what could he (or anyone else) have done to prevent it from happening?

You do realize that Bosnia was a NATO-led effort even though there's no doubt the US was a prime player, it wasn't the only one. In fact I remember Clinton being very opposed to a ground invasion, something NATO considered very strongly towards the end of the war.

My point is you could compile a similiar list for every single President and leader throughout time of shit that went wrong under their watch.

First off Clinton appointed Greenspan. He is directly responsible for the Dot-Com bubble. Of course, as soon as Greenspan lowered interest rates and pushed easy credit it was enivitable. Clinton was lucky to get out of office before the burst. As you can see the booms are getting much shorter in duration therefore its only logical to assume that the President will now be responsible for his own booms instead of the 8 yearish time frame. This only speaks to the increasing absurd amount of private and public debt held. This is why Obama / Bernanke cannot raise interest rates therefore the bust is coming. I suspect sometime between late 2010 and 2012. (This time it's a bubble in the currency)

What could he have done? First off not re-appointing Greenspan. Second not influencing the Fed decision to drastically lower interest rates and allow for easy credit expansion. Among a myriad of other policies he enacted which allowed for the ridiculous ease of credit. So you are telling me that the President has no decision when US troops go to war? Boy do I long for the days of the old anti-war left.

Any more excuses for your boy you would like to conjure up? He was the reason shit went wrong! WACO, Ruby-Ridge, Brady Act, 1994 Firearms Act, etc.! Stop being so blindingly partisan.

I'm sure it's funny. Just like Schiff was laughed at for 5 years while we tried to tell people what was coming. Used to it by this point.

[Demosthenes11]

Half your list is shit the office of the President had no control over what-so-ever, do you really believe the shit you write? Bush was in office when the Patriots won their super bowls and the Red Sox won their World Series, CLEARLY HE IS A BOSTON SPORTS CONSPIRATOR AND THE WORST PRESIDENT SINCE 1918

you know i never thought of it this way
bush '12 FOUR MORE YEARS

[Zoolander]

Ugh, and in comes Libertarians. Half of me wants to debate, other half realizes that debating with Libertarians is about as productive as arguing with a rock.

I'll just say that while I do agree Greenspan helped perpetuate and create a lot of the economic problems we have today, shit was going GREAT at the time. Who in their right mind would get rid of the person that essentially controls the U.S. economy when everyone is happy and the numbers are so ungodly good? Greenspan was also HIGHLY regarded back in the day, it is only recently with the aid of 20/20 hindsight that we are seeing the mistakes he made. Some of you are putting way too much emphasis on the position of President, especially in domestic affairs. Sure the president makes appointments, but through your train of logic then the people really responsible for all the political problems are you, me and every other American, since we appoint the presidents. I dunno, Clinton does get more credit than he deserved, but Presidents are not omnipotent Gods.

[Demosthenes11]

I dunno, Clinton does get more credit than he deserved, but Presidents are not omnipotent Gods.

http://therealbarackobama.files.word...ce-dot-com.jpg

[Cephius]

you know i never thought of it this way
bush '12 FOUR MORE YEARS

Fun Fact: Even though the Yankees have won 27 championships in the last 100 years, they haven't won under a Republican President since 1958 (Eisenhower). Every championship in the 60s 70s and 90s was under a Democrat. They came close in 2001 and 2004 under Bush but had weird, almost unthinkable collapses at the last moment to lose. Then in comes Obama in 2009 and bam, championship. C O N S P I R A C Y

[Rothbardian]

Ugh, and in comes Libertarians. Half of me wants to debate, other half realizes that debating with Libertarians is about as productive as arguing with a rock.

I'll just say that while I do agree Greenspan helped perpetuate and create a lot of the economic problems we have today, shit was going GREAT at the time. Who in their right mind would get rid of the person that essentially controls the U.S. economy when everyone is happy and the numbers are so ungodly good? Greenspan was also HIGHLY regarded back in the day, it is only recently with the aid of 20/20 hindsight that we are seeing the mistakes he made. Some of you are putting way too much emphasis on the position of President, especially in domestic affairs. Sure the president makes appointments, but through your train of logic then the people really responsible for all the political problems are you, me and every other American, since we appoint the presidents. I dunno, Clinton does get more credit than he deserved, but Presidents are not omnipotent Gods.

Hindsight? Perhaps in the minds of the Economic illiterate and the Neo-Classicists/Monetarists.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=59
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=68


Anyone who will bother to read Human Action and Man, Economy, State, Power & Market can easily identify when a bubble is happening and why it happens. It goes to no extreme to wonder then, why is it only Austrians see this coming?

The blind leading the blind.....no one listens, and then they say to us...you only know this in hindsight.. FALSE. We've known this since 1912 when Ludwig Von Mises penned the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. (We've also warned people, prior to every bust in history, still no one listens..however today more people are..thankfully)

[willriker]

You know, the more i hear about clinton... the more i realize that he wasnt a very good president. Would i go as far as to call him a republican? Sure i feel that some of his decisions can be interpeted as coming from the republican camp.

His influence on how inflation is calculated would be a prime example of this. I mean how can a system say that we had single digit inflation, year to year, of bushes reign. It was clintons system. There are other examples of republican tendancies of Clinton. But there are also many Democratic policies put into effect under Bill Clintons time in office as well.

Personaly, i dont think that a single person is entirely republican or democratic. Certainly Bill Clinton was not 100% democratic. Heck, let me use my grandfather-in-law as an example. This guy sits infront of fox news and mumbles every racial slur you can imagine every time an african american is shown doing something wrong. And when Obama comes on, oof.. his blood presure spikes. Also, he is the most ardent republican i know. But, this man loves his medicare and social security.

Noone is entirely democratic or republican. everyone is a mixture of both. This include clinton.

[Zoolander]

Ok, economic illiterate, keep telling yourself that. One again the whiny, gospel preaching shows itself where anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is an illiterate idiot who just "doesn't get it." That kind of method for conducting yourselves is a major reason why you will never break through to a level of actual relevance in the world. You seem to make liberal use of "we" as well, as if you were 100 years old and have been at the center of the libertarian movement. Keep thinking you are surrounded by idiots and only you and your fellow brethren have accept Ron Paul, and thus salvation, into your lives. All you do is alienate yourselves from everyone else through your inability to come down to earth and in turn waste the good points/ideas you do have.

[Rothbardian]

Ok, economic illiterate, keep telling yourself that. One again the whiny, gospel preaching shows itself again. That kind of method for conducting yourselves is a major reason why you will never break through to a level of actual relevance in the world. You seem to make liberal use of "we" as well, as if you were 100 years old and have been at the center of the libertarian movement. Keep thinking you are surrounded by idiots and only you and your fellow brethren have accept Ron Paul, and thus salvation, into your lives. All you do is alienate yourselves from everyone else through your inability to come down to earth and in turn waste the good points/ideas you do have.

I was merely correcting your assertion that the only reason I am saying these things is because of hindsight. That is false. Accordingly, only those people who are economic illiterate, or in the Neo-Classicist/Monetarist realm would say such things.

Well I'm only 23, but I've been an Austro-Libertarian for years and years. When I say "we", it is specifying Austrians.

I am sure I am surrounded by many idiots, as we all are, but more are ignorant. They have never been exposed to Austrian Economics, and the media is vastly Keynesian and Monetarist. People think the most highly praised and exponent of free-markets is Milton Friedman. There again, the media manipulates. So, no I do not hold it against people, but I do hold to this.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. - Rothbard

Also seems to me the whiny, Gospel preaching comes mostly from the Keynes camp. Where have you been the last 3 years? Must have this now! We need more inflation! We need more Stimulus! Now now now, no time to read the bills! Whenever someone says the opposite like Schiff, or Ron Paul, or Marc Faber they get laughed at and run off the stage. Yet, we are right the vast majority of the time....Who again is conducting themselves in a fashion that supposes itself to cordiality? Certainly not any of the orthodoxy thats for sure.

[Kyreth]

The blind leading the blind.....no one listens, and then they say to us...you only know this in hindsight.. FALSE. We've known this since 1912 when Ludwig Von Mises penned the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. (We've also warned people, prior to every bust in history, still no one listens..however today more people are..thankfully)

Those who don't learn history may well be doomed to repeat it, but frankly the people doing the repeating don't give a shit about boom and bust cycles. They care about getting maximum profit out of whatever the system allows or can be cheated out of, and fuck long-term economic stability.

The government will ensure that the economy survives, for it's own sake and leave the vast majority of the people causing said instability untouched, save for handy scapegoats (like, oh...Madoff.). Then the cycle will repeat itself, whenever and where-ever possible.

And as far as debt goes- without a material restraint (which we gave up around the point where the gold standard went bye-bye), the cycle is perpetuated indefinitely as well, until we end up with a more permament and lethal collapse. Till then, the unwritten rule is "There will always be more money."

[willriker]

i stopped reading when you deemed Nadoff to be a scapegoat of some consperacy by the government to leave everyone else unharmed by a financial collapse. Thats just about the silliest thing i have ever read.

[Cephius]

First of all his name is Madoff

Second his scam had nothing to do with the government, unless you want to include the failure of the SEC to investigate him enough to find out what he was doing.

[Rothbardian]

First of all his name is Madoff

Second his scam had nothing to do with the government, unless you want to include the failure of the SEC to investigate him enough to find out what he was doing.

Next time we'll catch'em! Ad infitum. Bureaurocrats couldn't catch a cold in an Alaskan winter.

Well certainly his scam per se, had nothing to do with the Government, but the setup of the Ponzi Scheme is being perpetuated by this thing called Social Security.

[Demosthenes11]

Fun Fact: Even though the Yankees have won 27 championships in the last 100 years, they haven't won under a Republican President since 1958 (Eisenhower). Every championship in the 60s 70s and 90s was under a Democrat. They came close in 2001 and 2004 under Bush but had weird, almost unthinkable collapses at the last moment to lose. Then in comes Obama in 2009 and bam, championship. C O N S P I R A C Y

brb registering repub

[Cephius]

Next time we'll catch'em! Ad infitum. Bureaurocrats couldn't catch a cold in an Alaskan winter.

Well certainly his scam per se, had nothing to do with the Government, but the setup of the Ponzi Scheme is being perpetuated by this thing called Social Security.

I, for one, cannot wait for you to blame the Social Security collapse on whoever is President when all the baby boomers are retired and the work force isn't large enough to provide for them. ITS ALL THAT GUYS FAULT, WHOEVER HE SHE OR IT IS

[Kyreth]

i stopped reading when you deemed Nadoff to be a scapegoat of some consperacy by the government to leave everyone else unharmed by a financial collapse. Thats just about the silliest thing i have ever read.

Nah. I just look at him as a handy distraction, a man who is a criminal and con artist on a grand scale.

"Hey! The financial system is being fucked over by big banks who we have to pump billions into to prevent total disaster!"

"Oh, but we're going to bust this Madoff fellow, he's a BAD MAN and show we're being responsible in taking care of the folks who screw with our economy."

I'd have rather seen the government end up buying into all those banking systems and proceed to break them down into smaller parts, so the next time this happens, we don't have to bail them out the same way. As it stands, we're just setting ourselves up for another bailout the next time we allow financial institutions to merge into such immense sizes as to be "save or die" situations once mor...oh, wait. We didn't break them up. It -will- happen again.

[Kyreth]

First of all his name is Madoff

Second his scam had nothing to do with the government, unless you want to include the failure of the SEC to investigate him enough to find out what he was doing.

Fixing that missed-it-by-one-key-dammit "Nadoff", just for you.

I'd actually say it points towards a symptom of the problem- the SEC isn't poking it's nose into enough big piles of money to find out where it's coming and going. We might find more fraud and/or head off another massive financial fuck-up if they did.

[Rothbardian]

Fixing that missed-it-by-one-key-dammit "Nadoff", just for you.

I'd actually say it points towards a symptom of the problem- the SEC isn't poking it's nose into enough big piles of money to find out where it's coming and going. We might find more fraud and/or head off another massive financial fuck-up if they did.

What's the incentive even if you say is so? Those who work at the SEC have their jobs regardless of their performance. I think it's ludicrous to believe people are looking out for our best interests. Imagine you had a job where you knew you were 100% safe and you had an extortion ring setup where money always flowed in no matter what kind of job you did. Would you really care about the service you provided?

Even if you did, do you think the majority of the people would? Besides, people shouldn't be snooping into my financial records unless I give express permission.

The whole system makes no sense. It's as if people expect their rulers to be both benevolent and omniscient.

[Solefald]

the SEC failed to uncover Madoff's ponzi scheme, better get rid of all financial regulations and let the free market policve itself./