Debate Primer

The 2012 Presidential Election Campaign and Decision

Robert J. Mack

How can voters decide between the two candidates, one of whom will be not only president, but also leader of the free world?

The 2012 presidential election campaign is almost over except for the debates, which are really beauty contests.  Unfortunately, obtaining accurate information on the major issues during the campaign has turned into a nightmare of too many lies.

Hopefully, the pre-election list below, organized around domestic policy issues and foreign policy issues, will help by providing a series of choices that the American people need to make regarding significant issues.  When voters decide between the list options and tally them, they will arrive at the presidential candidate who best represents their values and issue positions and whom they should vote for on Tuesday, November 6.

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Domestic Policy Issues

    Free enterprise, self-reliance vs. Governmental “free lunch,” living “on the dole,” and welfare

    Reducing deficit/debt by unleashing the private sector vs. Costly stimulus packages

    Eastern European countries’ economic successes vs. Greek failed economic model

    Oil/gas exploration for energy independence vs. Solyndra-like failures, oil production decreases, and crushing EPA regulations

    Tax cuts reducing unemployment rates; spending cuts to drive GDP growth vs. Rising unemployment rates, shrinking labor force with worst job record, and waning economic growth

    Free-market health care reducing premiums, maintaining quality vs. ObamaCare’s rising costs and abysmal quality (Britain’s National Health Service)

    Sensible/practical banking regulations vs. Dodd-Frank overbearing regulations and race-based policies

    Extending Bush tax cuts vs. Eliminating them

    Sensible/practical immigration reform vs. Total amnesty; sanctuary cities

    Racial “blindness”; equality under the law vs. Racial politics; class warfare

    Equality of opportunity vs. Equality of outcome

    Limited government; free-market capitalism vs. Total government control

    Sensible/practical Medicare/Medicaid reform vs. Costly ObamaCare Medicare/Medicaid expansion

    Sensible/practical Social Security reform vs. Delaying Social Security fix for future generations

    Appointing special prosecutor for Fast and Furious vs. Justice Department delay tactics

    Upholding Constitution’s Second Amendment vs. Unreasonable gun control laws

    Simplifying tax code vs. Increasing tax regulations

    Reducing personal income taxes vs. Increasing these taxes for “the rich”

    Reducing corporate taxes without corporate burdens vs. Imposing onerous business policies

    Reducing dividend/capital gain taxes vs. Increasing these taxes

    Letting free market work vs. Costly industry bailouts

    Eliminating Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac vs. Bailing out Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

    Eliminating “czars” vs. Expanding “czars”

    Upholding Constitution’s First Amendment vs. Forcing organizations, including religious ones, to compromise their values

    Condemning partial-birth abortions vs. Defending all abortions

    Respecting our Judeo-Christian heritage vs. Multiculturalism, moral equivalency, and political correctness

    Fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets vs. Occupy Wall Street hatred of capitalism

    Sensible/practical EPA regulations vs. Global warming hysteria

    Reducing unsustainable entitlement spending vs. Governmental dependence

    School choice and teacher accountability vs. Bloated government education system

    Establishing educational standards with accurate testing vs. No standards and terrible U.S. performance

    Condemning anti-Semitism vs. Ignoring it; issuing platitudes

    Honoring and rewarding individual achievement vs. “all must have prizes” philosophy

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/the_2012_presidential_election_campaign_and_decision.html#ixzz26r9e10Sj

    ( I thought this might be helpful to post before the debate. After reading this article I was reminded how the moderators “frame” question making us expect a black or white answer. Not helpful if the answer is not defined by a color. Anyway, tonight is on domestic policy. I think the economy should be the primary focus…A strong economy=jobs=higher standard of living. )

  2. Rasmussen Column: Presidential Debates Are Seldom Game-changers

    By Scott Rasmussen | October 01, 2012

    The presidential debate season is upon us with President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, scheduled to square off Wednesday night in the Political Class version of a cage match.

    Heading into the debates, the conventional wisdom suggests that Romney has fallen way behind and has to dramatically change the course of the race in these head-to-head events. Some even suggest that the debates are Romney’s only chance to bring about a change in the race.
    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    If that’s true, Romney’s in trouble. The last time a presidential debate changed the race was in 1980, when Ronald Reagan outperformed Jimmy Carter. More recent history shows the debates having only a modest impact.

    In 2008, heading into the first debate, Rasmussen Reports polling showed Barack Obama up 50 percent to 45 percent over John McCain. After that debate, the numbers were 51 percent to 45 percent. On Election Day, it was Obama 53 percent, McCain 46 percent. The debate did little for either man.

    Four years earlier, there was a similar reaction to the debates between President George W. Bush and John Kerry. When Bush had a bad night, the only thing that changed was Bush supporters decided (after the fact) that debates didn’t matter all that much.

    So barring a major misstep like President Ford’s 1976 assertion that Poland was not under Soviet domination, the upside for either candidate in the 2012 debates is a minor shift in the race. But that may be enough. While national polling has shifted a bit in the president’s direction over the past couple of weeks, the candidates remain very close.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-rasmussen/2012/10/01/rasmussen-column-presidential-debates-are-seldom-game-changers#ixzz28GwNdhQJ

  3. Same old lies, and same old gullible naive people listening, everyone believing in the tooth fairy.

    Between the devil’s choice of watching the Shopping Channel or this…. \
    …honey, where’s our credit card?

    • Common Man says:

      BF;

      It wasn’t even a tough choice. I decided to watch history in the making and enjoy the baseball event that took place in Kansas last night. A couple of cold beers, best buddies and family and a humble young man obtaining the triple crown. A great evening and I slept very well.

      Hope you are well

      CM

  4. Something interesting and mostly non political to contemplate while waiting for the debates. 🙂

    A Biochemist’s Argument Against “Hooking-Up”

    Posted by Leslie Eastman Monday, September 24, 2012 at 3:36pm

    Human Biochemistry vs Feminist Dogma — THE CHOICE IS YOURS

    We recently posted a piece, “An Argument Against Hook-Up Culture at Princeton,” which presented writer James Clark’s assertions that “objectification” of men and women is corrosive to the development of meaningful personal relationships.

    Today, instead of listing sociological or psychological reasons why “hooking-up” is full of fail, I offer a biochemical perspective.

    As a truly independent-minded woman with a science background, the tenet of feminist propaganda’s “you can have it all” approach that galls me most is:

    Women can “hook-up” exactly like men and suffer no emotional consequences.

    I am going to delve into the chemistry-based realities showing that this canon is a complete lie. Before I begin, I would like to note that I am not addressing the morality and theology related to a “just say no” approach. I am sticking strictly to biochemistry.

    Birth control and abortion options, which have expanded considerably in the past 40 years and are hailed by feminists as emancipating women, seem to give both sexes the mistaken notion that they can have brief sexual encounters with serial partners and face no consequences that can’t be handled by clinic visits.

    For men, that remains somewhat true — or as true as it has been throughout history. However, for women, that is as untrue today as it has been since the first humans walked on Earth. The reason is oxytocin.

    “Love is the drug” and oxytocin is that compound! When pumped into the bloodstream, oxytocin acts as a “neuromodulator,” giving people the warm-and-fuzzies and increasing the emotional bond between that person and the second individual (whose presence is stimulating the production of this hormone).

    Oxytocin’s power is not to be underestimated.

    During millions of years of human evolution, the female system has been designed to begin a cascade of oxytocin production during two specific events: 1) When being intimate with a man; 2) When breast-feeding an infant. On the other hand, human males have very limited oxytocin levels (and actually release some of the little oxytocin they produce during “extracurricular activities”).

    Now, oxytocin is a wonderful thing. It energizes people, and makes them feel good about life. It enhances the immune system, as well as boosts other biochemical processes in the human body.

    However, as with everything else pleasurable in life, there is a downside. Once a woman generates oxytocin, she will usually want to do everything in her power to keep up the production levels. For example, there are tales of women who nurse their babies past toddler-hood (until 3, 4 or 5 years in age). These women want to continue releasing oxytocin (even though they will have other rationalizations).

    The same thing is true following intimate relations. Oxytocin production can be stimulated in a woman through her lover’s voice, scent, sight and touch. This fact explains a wide range of female behaviors that follow intimacy. For example, women will call up their new partner frequently. They will steal their lover’s shirts to enjoy the scent. They will invent excuses to see the man-of-the-moment. And the more oxytocin these women generate when with their lovers (or by talking to them), the more emotionally attached they get.

    A few points to bear in mind, so that the role of oxytocin in human dynamics can be fully appreciated:

    Though men do generate oxytocin, they don’t match the production levels in women.
    Men can release small amounts of oxytocin into a woman (increasing her “rush”), thereby creating more of a bond between them.
    Women will generate fairly substantial amounts the first time they are intimate with anyone (a biochemical basis for the focus on virginity), and increasing all the affects previously described.

    These aspects are not necessarily bad, especially if a woman is involved with a nice man and is in a committed relationship. However, it can really complicate life if those conditions are not met. And, the bad thing about it is, the presence/voice of a lover or former beau can trigger oxytocin production in an affected female for up to two years!

    Ever wonder why woman goes back to a man who beats and abuses her? Or question why supposedly smart women can’t make up their mind whether to dump boyfriends that impregnate someone else? How about ex-girlfriends who call endlessly? Then, there is the scary extreme of stalkers.

    Whatever relationship path women travel, unlike “gender feminists”, I want my female compatriots to make fully informed decisions. I hope that they will weigh the information I have given and avoid mistakes that result in needless pain, heartache, and life-altering consequences. Thirty years of birth control and abortion cannot get around this basic biochemistry, designed to create strong bonds between a female and her mate and her children. To think otherwise is very foolish, indeed.

    No, women cannot “hook-up” like men.

    An intense biochemical bond is formed when women are intimate with men. To break that bond is exceedingly difficult, and places women in the position of having to quench biochemistry and in doing so, causing both physical and emotional stress that is unnecessary and unhealthy. Casual sex is devastating to women in so many different ways, and to pretend that women can have serial sex with many partners and not be physically and emotionally diminished by this is senseless.

    I would like to commend noted lecturer, Dr. Patricia Allen, whose talk inspired my investigation into this topic many years ago. Please visit my Temple of Mut website for more information on oxytocin’s effects, including a video.

    http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/09/a-biochemists-argument-against-hooking-up/

    • Aw, that is cool!

    • Wow – if that it’s the coolest thing ever!!

      Kudos to the parents for a turning a handicap into an advantage! I’ll bet every kid who sees that (including ME) will want one!

  5. All the great ideas Obama has, why aren’t they happening? Oh, cuz he’s full of shit and Black Flag is right. I love the LIE coming out of Obamaloni’s mouth, “tax cuts that weren’t paid for” Really, is he that damn stupid? Oh, nevermind, he really is. 🙄

    • Damn, Obama just broke the machine 🙂

      • He broke the machine during his opening comments. I think Romney is doing a fine job so far.

        • You would think a monkey talking gibberish would be doing fine, as long as he was Republican.

          Hmmm……too close to truth about the monkey.

          • You be quiet. My blood pressure is leveling out whether you like it or not. 🙂

            Monkey talk is raaaacist according to Charlie!

            • charlieopera says:

              Now, now, Anita … once again me and the flag agree (that this is all horseshit) and you bring racism into it … settle down now 🙂

              • Charlie, old foe and pal,

                That is what is terrifying. You and I agreeing.

                I’m being completely serious.

                You see, Anita and the others do not understand.

                You know this is all nonsense – a distraction of the masses to the “Big Game for the The Big Chair”.

                You are even brazen enough to tell others that you don’t give a rat butt about it, and that you agree with me.

                They don’t know they are being distracted, but you do.
                They don’t know they are wasting their precious time and energy, but you do.

                They don’t know your ilk has a plan – a good plan – a plan that has a better then fair chance of taking over the nation, but you know that.

                That is what is terrifying. You can wave it front of their face, tell them what you are going to do to them when this “Show” finally ends for all of them … and its too late.

                And they – literally – see right through you, and don’t even know you are there – because they are enthralled about the Big Show.

              • How about this then! I’d rather go down with Romney than with Obama. Does that cover me or am I still distracted?

              • Very, very distracted.

              • But you still love me, right? 🙂 And you just told me the other day that I’d be OK in the end anyway, so at this point its just whatever! 🙂

              • Yes, you will be ok.

                But to semi-quote from Back to the Future II

                “No, no, no, no, no, Anita, you will turn out fine. It’s your kids – something has got to be done about your kids!”

                You will leave them with quite a mess, and Charlie v.2.0 to deal with…. and you thought V1.0 was hard….

  6. charlieopera says:

    Debate first impression: No matter who was spinning more bullshit than the other tonight, Romney kicked Obama’s ass big time. The President looked asleep at the wheel. Why HE didn’t bring up the 47% Romney wrote off as deadbeats after Romney claimed he was out to help the middle class is beyond me.

    Shame Ralph Nader, the leader of the socialist and libertarian parties don’t get to participate. I can’t even listen to the closing statements. Romney won this one hands down.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      WOW!

    • Good man Charlie.

      • charlieopera says:

        MSNBC (or as whack job Levin call them, MSLSD) is completely beside themselves … completely thrown. They’re on in the background. I watched it on CNN. They seem pretty desperate at this point.

        So, explain to me … you liberty lovers: Why aren’t the socialist, libertarian, Green Party, etc., invited to this sideshows?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlieopera

          Because the TWO Parties OWN THE SHOW.

          We have all been telling you that for almost 4 years now. So why do you keep pretending we don’t understand it?

          Honestly though, it wouldn’t matter. The large majority of Americans simply can not handle the truth or REAL solutions that might come from the OTHER PARTIES.

          Johnson is the only guy who has said the Fed Govt MUST be cut in HALF if we are to have any chance of dealing with the debt. That is the TRUTH.

          But we will instead be happy with reducing the deficit. In other words, we will slow the rate of the ship sinking, but it will still sink.

    • Totally agree with Charlie, Romney crushed Obama tonight….still not voting for him, but he pretty much dismantled the big O on every question.

      I also concur that it would be more fun and interesting had they gotten the Libertarian and socialist party candidates on stage. 🙂

  7. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Romney 1
    Obama 0
    Hands down, Obama got his ass kicked! Never have I seen such a slaughter in a Presidential debate!

    • Maybe not a slaughter, but easily Romney.

      My favorite moment was when Obama said Romney was hiding his details because they couldn’t be “too good for people.” Romney points out that it is not “my way or the highway” and pushes the need for bipartisanship. In my opinion, that should score him big points with independents.

  8. charlieopera says:

    Like Howard Cossell (drunk), I call’em as I see’m. And I agree, a slaughter (even if 90% of what he said was bullshit) … Obama looked dazed.

  9. charlieopera says:

    @ Flag … if they can’t see me, brother, they need glasses. I’m exploding … 345 since arthritis ended my workouts … no end in sight.

    But I’m more concerned about my doggie … we may have to put him down … and that sucks more than watching this nonsense called American politics.

    • Sorry to hear about your dog –

      A Poem for a Dog

      They get whatever attention we may have left after everything else.
      They get whatever meal we haven’t eaten that is left over and not wanted.
      They get whatever affection we give them after everybody else.

      And in return they give us everything they have.

      The best deal man has ever made.

      • Nice poem Black Flag…reminds me of a long time ago with my first puppy. I realized I was his “everything” – his joy was to be around me and with me. It made me realize my obligation to return that to him – and to everyone in general…to make sure my priorities are in the right order…

      • charlieopera says:

        So true, Flag. Very true.

    • Charlie,
      So sorry to hear about your dog. It’s so hard to watch them as they grow old and that time approaches…

    • I’m really sorry, Charlie! The prospect of losing a member of your family is hard.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    “How about this then! I’d rather go down with Romney than with Obama. Does that cover me or am I still distracted?”

    MORE IMPORTANTLY……………..DETROIT has a TRIPLE CROWN WINNER.

    FREAKIN AWSOME!!!!!!!!! 🙂

    • Ain’t that somethin! Go Cabrera and Go Tigers.!

      • Common Man says:

        Anita;

        As I mentioned to BF above, didn’t pay any attention to the debate and the two morons. Sat with friends and family and watched a humble young man win the Triple Crown. It is really a great time to be a Tiger fan. Here’s hoping they get to the big dance, and if they give the MVP to the rookie Trout then they ain’t any better than those two clowns debating last night.

        Go Tigers!

        • Shame on me. The last few games got past me in a hurry. I was aware of the triple crown possibility but a couple of the Royals games were day games weren’t they? Doesn’t matter though because they pulled it off without me anyway. Way to go Cabrera! Hasn’t been done since Yaz. Nice guy for sure. They need a rest now after the long stretch of games with no time off. Bring it A’s and Go Tigers!

    • Common Man says:

      JAC;

      Nothing for me yet on the Buck Pole, but my brother-in-law had a banner week last week. Spent the first 2 days fishing the Muskegon and brought home 11 King’s, then bagged to Long Beards the next day and managed to stick a nice fat mature doe on Opening morning.

      I guess you could call that a Triple Crown. And he is kind of like a kid in a candy store since he also has a brand new smoker. He has been grinning ear-to-ear for a week now.

      BTW: If you have any proven methods for smoking salmon so that it is still moist let me know. He and I are not sure if we should be “dry or wet” smoking????

      Hope you are well my friend

      CM

      • Just A Citizen says:

        CM

        I do not have a personal recipe. I get mine from a friend. He has dry and wet.

        I can say this. The wet is best for snack food, like with cheese and crackers, etc. But keep the wet frozen to make sure it keeps.

        The dry is better for salads and such. Can be OK for snacks when out all day.

        I have inadvertently smoked some fish and game meat when I forgot and left some on the BBQ. The moistest was when I seared the meat before BBQ. Even if on high heat on the grill. But get that outer layer seared somehow then turn down the heat ………… low and slow.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    D13

    And along the same lines, Colonel————–What the hell happened to the Rangers????

    • Common Man says:

      JAC/Colonel;

      Yeah, what JAC said, but its OK, we (Tigers) didn’t want to play you guys in the first round anyway.

      CM

    • Hmmmmm…what happened to the Rangers……you are talking about the extra dose of choke pills. I am afraid that the Rangers looked like Obama last night…..deer in the headlights and expecting others to just lay down and not fight. Oops. They went to a baseball game without their bats, I have no other excuses.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        AND GLOVES……………..Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.

        Hope all is well in Texas.

        I hear on the news that some Texicans have been caught up in the “Second largest Medicare Fraud Case in History”.

        • Yep………we have our detractors…..as well….but did you hear about one of the cartel chiefs…they have decided to move their operations West…..much easier to cross Arizona and California borders. They really hate our new gunboats om the river.

  12. The best line in the debate? It was Romney’s opening statement when he joked about Obama’s anniversary:

    “I’m sure this is the most romantic place you could imagine, here with me.”

    It was like one of those “cheat shots” you say to a friend – truly FUNNY. It showed Romney as a “real person,” something that’s missing in most of his speeches when he’s trying to say what he thinks everyone wants to hear.

    The worse line was also Romney’s when he said “You have the right to a free plane and a free house, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.” It seemed like he was trying to fit in a “zinger,” but it didn’t really fit in, he kind of rushed thru it, and I think it fell flat. Just the opposite of his opening statement – it seemed planned and it didn’t sound natural.

    Overall I think the debate was kind of boring. Nothing new, no one really stumbled, no one got the “upper hand” and cornered the other. Romney seemed more practiced – or maybe smoother – and definitely held his own with the president, which means he really won the debate. It was the first time I’ve seen him look “presidential,” and that is a big win for him. I think his next test now is can he continue that – avoid the cheap shots (the bad kind) and continue to present himself as “presidential.”

    • The worse line was also Romney’s when he said “You have the right to a free plane and a free house, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.”

      Todd … I wish I agreed with my fellow lefties but … the above was the most ironic line, not worst. Unfortunately, I saw this is a total and absolute blowout. If people are looking for a reason to dump Obama, his performance last night went a long way to that end.

      Romney did what Romney does, speaks to what people want to hear. Now that he no longer needs the lunatics on the far right, he can make believe he’s the “old” Mitt and cater to the middle … botton line on last night: Obama was godawful. He could’ve put a nail in Romney’s coffin last night bringing up the 47″, the offshore Cayman accounts (talk about jobs going overseas), any host of issues Romney has flip-flopped over. But he didn’t … and he looked as if he was being schooled.

  13. Intrade

    62% Obama
    38% Romney

    The debate made no difference – perhaps improved – the numbers for Obama.

    Short of Israel attacking Iran – Obama appears to have it in the bag.

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, Sorry about your dog 😦

    @SUFA, After last nights clown show, does anyone think Obama will pull some shananigans (false flag, etc) to deflect attention?

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    This pretty much sums up the “response” from the DNC/Obama campaign this morning, as well as many in the “objective” media. Yes that was sarcasm.

    Headline at HUFF PO:

    Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

  16. The best part today are the AAR’s by the talking heads. Chris Matthews almost pulled off a perfect imitation of Donald Duck having a fit.

    Regardless of your party affiliation or lack thereof, the one true thing that happened last night was that the Emperor was finally shown to have no clothes! This morning, the entire left wing media want to know, ” what happened to Obama”?

    Well, what happened was that he finally was asked some questions he could not answer. Hell, he was finally asked some questions period. Something that with the exception of that Univision interview had never happened before.

    I commend the Romney people for the disinformation they have been spreading for the last months since the end of the primary season. Their guy was going to “pull back”. He was going to be ‘soft,’ do a John McCain, show how loveable he was and then……WAP!
    I really never give the Repubs credit for any type of survival let alone winning strategy but whoever pulled that Obama speech to the black pastors (in dialect no less) out of their hat a few days ago managed to totally defuse the Romney 47% issue. Had the Bama dared mention it, Romney would have landed on his head asking about the shucking and jiving performance. In the scheme of things, Obama’s speech was absolutely disgraceful. If it were possible for a black man to do a minstrel show, he did. It was performance that was right up there with Stephan Fetchit. I had wondered in the past whether Obama was “real” or just a construct of his handlers. I think that piece of tape, contrasted with his regular speeches as was done on Fox the other night (side by side) made it clear that the Bill Ayers types are really running the show. So there is something to that “Manchurian Candidate” speculation after all.

    It is so nice to finally see this guy put down as the empty suit performer he actually is. Being a Rush listener, (don’t shoot). I have to say he was the only guy who saw what was going to happen last night. I thought it could be done but doubted that Romney had the stomach for it.

    • Read that some commentators have been saying the “empty chair” showed up last night. 🙂

      Never thought about the possibility that the 2007 tape would curtail some of the negative BS-but that makes sense.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        Personally, I think it was more about internal polling showing that Americans are sick of the petty games and wanted substance. Note that POTUS was prepped with facts and figures. Along with “talking point” responses and attacks.

        But if Mr. O slips big in the polls we will see this and other petty stuff come back BIG. Because that is the hard lefts INSTINCT.

        If nothing else this has become VERY INTERESTING.

        • I certainly don’t think the “petty stuff” is gone but I do think it is logical that it stopped a lot of the crap being mentioned last night. The next debate-who knows-Obama is being clobbered by everybody. As far as the media-yea, they are gonna get nastier, I suspect-Obama campaign-not sure how it will affect their plan of attack.

          I watched the debate and left it with the feeling that Romney won-notably because he established his self as someone who will work with everyone to get something done. I suspect the independents who haven’t made up their minds will like that. He finally showed the advantage of having a successful businessman in office. Not that government should literally be run like a business but because a good businessman is basically a good manager/leader. Who knows how to get people to come together and fix problems. And that Obama provided a clear picture of that man who for some reason doesn’t think he needs to talk to or work with Congress.

          But I still didn’t think Obama had done that bad-figured it would boil down to a matter of who one believed.

          But then I watched all the coverage-both left and right-declaring Obama was horrible-may have just lost the election, etc, etc. I sat here and thought what did I miss-realized that I had listened to the debate more than watched it-so I went back and watched it again-started to see that Obama did worse than I at first thought but I still don’t think he did as bad as is being reported-as much as I would like too. But wow, it does make one aware of the power of the media. The more I listen, the worse I think he did. Kinda scary-when you think about it.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Very astute observation. Yes it is scary. Especially when we consider how many people don’t think about how or if they are being played.

    • The wife said that his smirk did him in. He obviously did not want to be there and probably felt he should not have had to. This is an imperial presidency on a truly grand scale. The man was taken up on the mountain and offered all that was before him, if he just did what was asked. No fuss, no bother, just do what you are told. Now it is all falling apart. I suspect his good buddies won’t be taking his phone calls anymore. They are too busy working on his replacement for 2016 or 2020. Not to worry though, as an ex-president he will do well for himself. Can play all the B-ball and golf he wants at his shore-front chateau in Hawaii collecting $ 1,000,000 per speech.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    My summary of the debate.

    I tried something last night just for fun and to see if and how it might allow me a different perspective.

    I watched the thing in REVERSE. I spent the debate switching back and forth between the Mariners, Oriels and Red Sox Games. That’s right, I DID NOT watch the debate in real time.

    I waited until it was over for some time before then scanning the various networks for the “talking head assessments”. First up was Fox, who was of course claiming an overwhelming victory for Romney. I figured that was probably an exaggeration so I popped over to MSNBC. It was hilarious watching that bunch foam at the mouth. At that point I figured Romney obviously did better than expected otherwise the MSNBC hosts wouldn’t have been trying so hard to claim it was a “draw” and Romney “lied”, etc, etc. And of course they were mad as hell that Obama did not bring up the 47%. It never occurred to them that most people might find that petty.

    So back to Fox I went just in time to see the Luntz Focus Group. That was amazing given they were all independents and most voted for Obama last time. And, many had decided to “switch” their vote based on the debate.

    Next up was CNN and then Fox Business. CNN was only a milder version of the MSNBC view but Fox Business was downright good, Because by then Stossel was on with one of his Govt is the problem shows. I admit I got stuck there until it was over.

    THEN I watched some of the Debate on CNN, replay. It was the exchanges over tax plans and Obama Care primarily.

    I did not see the “clear” victory by Romney. A victory yes, but not the beat down so many were/are claiming. But I did not see him “lying” through his teeth or any of the other accusations used by you know who. I did see a true debate of sorts with both guys ignoring the “moderator”. Something I am glad to see, by the way. ELIMINATE THE MEDIA MODERATORS.

    I bring this up for two reasons. One is it gave me what I think was a different perspective. Rather than getting into the heat of the moment I found myself looking at the debate in light of the “commentary”. In other words, did I find evidence to support the commentary itself. I found some but most was lacking.

    Second, I think the outcome, especially as evidenced by the Luntz Focus Group, consistent with other things that seem to be showing through in polling data and the rhetoric. Namely that many of the President’s supporters have gone sour on him. The only thing holding them back has been a lack of comfort with Romney. This has many facets but likeability and “compassion” were two raised by the Focus Group and pundits over the past two weeks.

    So you have a bunch of people frustrated but afraid to switch. You have Romney addressing the “gut feeling” questions in a solid manner. You get a tidal wave conclusion that Romney kicked ass. Because those on the fence got enough to jump off…………….on the Romney side.

    The ONLY people who thought the Pres. did well last night, and those still making excuses, are the hard core left. Note that the number claiming Obama won (CNN poll) was around 25%, if memory serves, and this is close to the same percentage that always aligns with the hard left agenda.

    The implication of this is huge, if I am correct. And Todd’s assessment is in sync with mine. If Romney can maintain what he established last night Mr Obama is toast. BUT, that is one big IF with 5 weeks to go, and two more debates. Did Romney address his weakness enough that the fence sitters stop worrying? Or will they watch closely for confirmation before leaping all together? Time will in fact tell.

    Meanwhile Mr. Romney could ice the deal with a few select comments to reassure Single Women that HIS ADMINISTRATION is not going to take their contraception nor deal with abortion and will defend women’s rights as diligently as men’s rights.

    Now here is the ironic twist. This could all happen and Mr. Obama can still win. He can pull it out on the electoral side. In other words, he wins with a minority of the popular vote. This could happen given the demographics of the swing states. And the Obama campaign knows this and has been working hard on it for a year.

    The BIGGEST LOSER last night???? The TEA PARTY wing of the Republican Party.

  18. @ JAC….remember you read it here first before it happened……I predicted slightly over a year ago….tension between Turkey and Syria…….I also predicted Republican Guards from Iran forming and running the security in Syria……dit dit dit……………Now watch UAE and Qatar closely…

  19. Watch closely Eritrea………Obama has sent an “adviser” contingent there…under the radar just recently. 75 ground troops….errr….special advisers….are now boots on the ground.

    • Does not look like a friendly place for us to be, so why would we be there?

    • Common Man says:

      Colonel and anyone else who has the knowledge

      Been looking to buy an AR-15. Have looked at the Rock River Arms, the Ruger and the Colt. Colt is the most expensive and the inventor, but is it the best? Panther Arms may also be in the running, but was wondering what you would buy if money was not an issue.

      Hope you are well sir.

      CM

      • Displaced Okie says:

        I have a Colt AR-15 and it is fantastic. I know with some of the cheaper ones you can run into problems where they will shoot .223 but not .556. The colts are generally way more expensive, but if price isn’t an issue, that’s what I’d go with.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Okie

          Hope all is well these days.

          Your comment on voting caught me off guard last night. Are you saying your voting for Mr. O or are you taking the cowards way out with me and voting Johnson?

          • Hey JAC,
            No way I’d vote for the big O, lol…I plan on either voting for Johnson (I voted for Barr last election) or going completely of the reservation and writing in my own name (how’s that for self government?). Anyway, I hope all is well.

        • Common Man says:

          Okie;

          The ones I am looking at are set up for either .223 or .556 as that is the only way to go. Do you reload and if so any issues? Why did you go with it verses another? Have you shot the Ruger or any of the others?

          CM

      • What is it’s intended use? Colt match target would be my first preference, but for varmint hunting, a 24″ barrel is available. They have introduced a piston that is supposed to allow cooler operation than the traditional gas tube, but I don’t know if it’s worth the extra cost. A lot depends on the # of rounds you run thru….Have fired Olympic, DPMS & a Rock River at 400 yrds (RR has a 20″ varmint barrel) and can’t tell the difference in accuracy. You may also want a “Slide-Fire” bumpfire stock……

        • http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=309856989

          I re-load. You want to buy a .556 rifle but will shoot .223 ammo. I have had issues with 75 gr bullets “keyholeing”. 50, 53, 55 ballistic tip are all very accurate. 68 I think was OK, but it’s been a while. Lake City/Federal brass may have a primer pocket crimp you have to drill out to re-load. It’s cheaper but you will want to avoid.

          • Barrel twist rate determines what grain bullet is the most accurate for your rifle, A 1 : 9 twist rate is ideal for a 55 grain ballistic tip. A AR platform will shoot 5,56 and 223 rounds but be very careful shooting a 5.56 round in a 223 caliber rifle as the 5.56 chamber pressure is much higher than a 223 round.

            http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html

            • Right you are Bama. I aquired a 1:8 just for that reason but never went back and tried the 75gr in it, timing just never worked out. Thinking about hitting the woods tomorrow with my bow for the first time. Muzzleloading is a couple weeks off and I haven’t sighted in yet. I am ready for rifle!!

      • I just got a Rock River, well worth the extra I paid for it. chambered in .556 but shoot .223 for the cheaper ammo. So far 500 rounds through it and it gets better and better. I don’t reload, yet. Still though, my favorite is my kimber 1911 for carry!

        • Interesting, I forgot aboult Danials Defense. Have heard a lot about them that the military really likes their firearms. A mag. worth reading, GunTests. They take no advertising, so there is no bias in their test and reviews. And just in case I haven’t offended anyone lately, I don’t much like the 1911. Too much complexity built into it’s three safeties…

  20. October 4, 2012
    Iran in economic meltdown
    Rick Moran

    A currency disappearing in value and hyperinflation as a result. Not surprisingly, people don’t like it very much when they go to sleep with their money being worth one amount and then wake up the next morning to find their money worth a lot less.

    New York Times:

    The first outbreak of public anger over Iran’s collapsing currency and other economic maladies jolted the heart of the capital on Wednesday, with the riot police violently clamping down on black-market money changers, hundreds of citizens marching to demand relief and merchants in the sprawling bazaar closing their shops in protest.

    Iran’s official news media said an unspecified number of people, including two Europeans, had been arrested in the turmoil, which was documented in news photographs, at least two verifiable videos uploaded on YouTube and witness accounts.

    Economists and political analysts in Iran and abroad said the anger reflected the accumulated impact of harsh Western economic sanctions over Iran’s disputed nuclear program, as well as the government’s inability to manage an increasingly acute economic crisis.

    It came a day after Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said at a televised news conference that the plunge in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial – which has fallen by 40 percent against the dollar this past week – was orchestrated by ruthless currency speculators, the United States and other unspecified internal enemies of Iran. He urged people to stop selling their rials for dollars, a currency he once characterized as “a worthless piece of paper,” and warned that speculators faced arrest and punishment.

    How bad is inflation? Cato:

    Since the U.S. and E.U. first enacted sanctions against Iran, in 2010, the value of the Iranian rial (IRR) has plummeted, imposing untold misery on the Iranian people. When a currency collapses, you can be certain that other economic metrics are moving in a negative direction, too. Indeed, using new data from Iran’s foreign-exchange black market, I estimate that Iran’s monthly inflation rate has reached 69.6%. With a monthly inflation rate this high (over 50%), Iran is undoubtedly experiencing hyperinflation.

    When President Obama signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, in July 2010, the official Iranian rial-U.S. dollar exchange rate was very close to the black-market rate. But, as the accompanying chart shows, the official and black-market rates have increasingly diverged since July 2010. This decline began to accelerate last month, when Iranians witnessed a dramatic 9.65% drop in the value of the rial, over the course of a single weekend (8-10 September 2012). The free-fall has continued since then. On 2 October 2012, the black-market exchange rate reached 35,000 IRR/USD – a rate which reflects a 65% decline in the rial, relative to the U.S. dollar.

    Ahmadinejad is getting the blame for all this. Not because of the nuclear program but because he obviously has a worse grasp of economic matters than even Barack Obama. In fact, my guess is there isn’t anyone in Iran who understands what’s happening which means it will almost certainly get worse.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/iran_in_economic_meltdown.html#ixzz28MGASith

    • Yeah yeah blah blah.

      A currency collapse is always the failure due to the manufacturers of the money. Period.

      Laugh at anyone who proclaims “it is the speculators!!” … no, it is government printing press.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A slightly different take on hyper-inflation. Interesting idea and comments.

      http://azizonomics.com/2012/10/04/explaining-hyperinflation/

      • Sorry, nope – another crackpot economic theory around inflation.

        He is mistaken with the Austrian position: it is more then a simple concept of growth of the money supply.

        It is that money absolutely obeys the laws ofsupply and demand.

        So where he says
        “Austrians tend to define inflation as any growth in the money supply. This is a useful measure too, but money supply growth tells us about money supply growth; it does not relate that growth in money supply to underlying productivity (or indeed to price level, which is what price indices purport and often fail to do). Each transaction is two-way, meaning that two goods are exchanged.”

        Of course supply AND DEMAND relates to the two way exchange.
        Productivity of other goods has no position in this calculation – except in terms of its own supply and demand.

        Typical crackpot – misuses a theory of economics, dismisses the theory based on his misuse and replaces it with his own crackpottery.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          While I believe BF is correct yet again, I think the author of the article is assuming that any changes in productivity will also change demand for money.

          • Why?

            Do you believe that if -say- more cars are produced, then that means more apples will be demanded?

            Remember, money is just another economic good – so simple substitution of another economic good – and applying the same economic law – would have the same economic effect.

            But when you use cars and apples – how does that link happen? I don’t see it between them, so I can’t see it between “things” and money.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              I do believe that production creates demand. Example: I begin producing firewood, then I am no longer sitting on my ass, but instead demanding money. HOWEVER, I could be wrong if it is simply money in my pocket instead of Big Oil. I love these brain twisters. Back later, I am doing two things at once.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                How can there be a demand for money without production first? A man without producing can only beg for money.

              • That is true – without an economic good, how could an economic good exist?

                Money is an economic good – so it must be produced.

                But we are saying that an increase in a different economic good creates a demand for a wholly different economic good – like cars and apples.

                What is the link for the claim that more production of cars increases the demand for apples?

              • You trade your firewood FOR money so that you then can trade money FOR another good, that you consume.

                If you don’t trade money, you bank it – and the bank the lends that money to someone else who then trades that money for a good.

                So really, no matter how many more goods and trades – I do not see a need for more money.

              • The only condition I see for a demand for more money is:
                – when money is hoarded – kept in your pocket and not in the bank. Not in the bank means it is not loaned. In your pocket means it is not spent. The amount of money in the market goes down, -low supply- the value of the money goes up -rise in price of money-, more production of money – more profit is manufacturing money as it buys more other goods.

                Where else do you see that the demand for money comes from?

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                You give me a lot to ponder. I will be back in the morning. I do think this question says a lot > “How can there be a demand for money without production first? In the morning my friend.

              • Cheers!

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              BF states >

              “It is that money absolutely obeys the laws ofsupply and demand.”

              I agree.

              To clarify my statement/question ( “How can there be a demand for money without production first? ), I am refering to production of goods other than money.

              My perception of “demand for money” comes from productivity of goods. No-one can have a legitimate “demand” for money without first producing a good.

              Also to be clear, I do not mean a demand for printing more money, I simply mean a demand for existing money. Thus increased production leads to increased demand for money, increasing the value of money.

              Now without printing more money, this increased production leads to lower pricing of goods.

              So getting back to where we were, I can only prove this link of “production increases demand for existing money” by asking the question, “How can there be demand for ‘existing’ money without production ‘of goods’ first?”.

              Simply wanting or begging for money is not demand for existing money. One must produce a good first to have effect on demand for existing money.

              As far as the author of the article making actual formulas to show such a relation, leaves me skeptical. Kinda like making formulas to predict which path a butterfly will take.

              Straying off course now, I have always thought this way, and is why I always try to look past a lot of economic theory and get to the point. The point being, WE MUST PRODUCE! If we don’t produce, we don’t eat.

              • No-one can have a legitimate “demand” for money without first producing a good.

                Yes you can!

                You can borrow it
                You can receive charity.
                You can steal it

                And, in a free market, manufacture it directly.

                I simply mean a demand for existing money.

                The easiest way I have found to figure out things about the laws of economics regarding money is to not talk about money! – and replace it with apples.

                Both are economic goods, so the laws of economics must apply equally. Using apples removes a lot of perceptions and assumptions we all hold about the function of money.

                What creates an increase in demand for apples?
                Does an increase in demand for cars cause an increase in demand for apples?

                In general, an increase in productivity increases a demand across the whole economy – products by products, and more products buys more products – but an increase in demand of one good? – I can’t see how one can say that. In even a growing economy some goods drop in their demand.

                And increase in the demand for money has to come from “somewhere”.

                Why is there an increase in demand for apples?
                Why is there an increase in demand for money?

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Ah, more to ponder (grin). I am producing/harvesting corn to feed my livestock which will actually lower! demand for money, so, so much for my theories! LOL Later.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, I am sure someone probably posted this before. But………. it cracks me up so here it is….again……maybe.

    http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84&load=7529

  22. charlieopera says:

    Here’s a class act … he watches a kid get raped, keeps it within the circle that will keep him employed, FINALLY gets the boot and HE feels wronged …
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/10/02/mike-mcqueary-files-defamation-suit-against-penn-state/1609415/

  23. charlieopera says:

    Rigoletto Stella … The Debate … Rock & Roll Graduate School … NFL Report Card … and TK’s Locks of the Week …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/10/rigoletto-stella-debate-rock-roll.html

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    You young people out there might not understand some of the Abbot and Costello routines.

    >
    >
    > COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
    >
    >
    >ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 8.1%.
    >
    >
    >COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
    >
    >ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.
    >
    >COSTELLO: You just said 8.1%.
    >
    >ABBOTT: 8.1% Unemployed.
    >
    >COSTELLO: Right 8.1% out of work.
    >
    >ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.
    >
    >COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.
    >
    >ABBOTT: No, that’s 8.1%.
    >
    >COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8.1% or 16%?
    >
    >ABBOTT: 8.1% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
    >
    >
    >COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
    >
    >ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out
    >of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
    >
    >COSTELLO: But they ARE out of work!!
    >
    >ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
    >
    >COSTELLO: What point?
    >
    >ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t
    >be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
    >
    >
    >COSTELLO: To whom?
    >
    >ABBOTT: The unemployed.
    >
    >COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
    >
    >ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking
    >for work. Those who are out of work gave up
    >looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
    >
    >COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment
    >rolls, that would count as less unemployment?
    >
    >ABBOTT: Absolutely! Unemployment would go down.
    >
    >COSTELLO: The unemployment goes down just because you don’t look for work?
    >
    >ABBOTT: Right! That’s how Obama gets it to
    >8.1%. Otherwise it would be 16%. He doesn’t
    >want you to read about 16% unemployment.
    >
    >COSTELLO: That would be tough on his reelection.
    >
    >ABBOTT: You got it.
    >
    >COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That
    >means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
    >
    >ABBOTT: Two ways – that’s right.
    >
    >COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
    >
    >ABBOTT: Correct.
    >
    >COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
    >
    >ABBOTT: Bingo.
    >
    >COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring
    >unemployment down, and the easier of the two is
    >to have Obama’s supporters stop looking for work.
    >
    >ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.
    >
    >COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
    >
    >ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Obama….
    >

    • Nice.

    • The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, a number certain to impact the presidential race.

      Pundits have been saying for months this number had to drop below 8 percent for it not to be a hindrance to President Obama’s reelection chances.

      The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

      Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to 12.1 million.

      Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

      As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it’s been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.

      But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

      The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September – resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate – while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.

      Hmmm.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008#ixzz28QzGCZWl

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yea! Real unemployment dropped to 21.6%. the govt is so full of crap it’s sickening. 🙄

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman et al

      OK, the routine is funny. BUT, it is not an accurate conclusion.

      The methodology for reporting unemployment and employment has remained the same for R and D administrations.

      Why didn’t the R’s talk about the total employed numbers when Bush was having trouble?

      I have not reviewed the latest report yet, but something is out of whack when looking at other parts of the economy.

      Many experts were actually predicting a LARGE increase in employed for Sept. Near the upper range of the estimates made. This number is far, far, far higher than that number.

      First wonder……….. how many are Campaign Workers?

      • Yes but how many coal miners have been laid off? How many defense contractors are about to announce lay-offs (or not announce and ignore the law?)? Farm workers are about to end their seasonal work. Ya gotta wonder….

        http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-obama-jobs-report-numbers-romney-2012-10

        • Just A Citizen says:

          LOI

          That is what I meant by this report having some serious inconsistency with other reports.

          I have seen others commenting on the “lower shipping”, the “reduced imports”, etc, etc, all of which point to a SLOW DOWN that has already begun.

          The increase in jobs created in Sept was estimated on the high side to be about what is needed for full employment. The number released here EXCEEDS that number by quite a bit.

          Experts were expecting a one tenth point reduction at best or a one tenth point increase in unemployment at worst.

          We also need to reconcile that each of the previous reports this year has been ADJUSTED downward, that is more UNEMPLOYED, that first reported. But the media only focuses on the current release.

          • This report is bullshit….but the average public will not understand it…….not added back in is the estimated three million that have not applied for unemployment benefits….meaning……that they have run out of benefits and have dropped from sight. It also includes PART TIME workers from LAST YEARS roles…..estimated. Utter bullshit.

            • I think I get the basics-the worse it gets, the more desperate the people become, the better the fake unemployment rates look.

    • That’s very good – sad, and true.

  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    Unemployment is still around 12.2 to 12.6% here in Nevada . Even new college graduates can’t find jobs here. A lot of places won’t hire because of the new obamacare, & there’s quite a few places that have let people go because of it. They won’t hire anyone without any experience, don’t want to have to pay to train, they want people that know what they’re doing. Minimum wage is around $7.50 an hour, most can’t live on that because of higher prices everywhere. Tuition has gone up in colleges here, a lot of students have dropped out, or if they’re lucky, work 2 or 3 jobs in order to pay for it. It hasn’t gotten that much better here in the line of employment.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    BF, Puritan, etc

    Re the criticism of the Inflation Article.

    My Pirate friend. At times I think your desire to refute others gets in the way of good analysis and discussion.

    The author does misrepresent the “Austrian” definition of “inflation”………..if you deal with some but not all authors. He used a statement made by Friedman. This seems to be his mistake. But he does not in actuality try to negate the Austrian definitions if we look to others, like Mises.

    I would say he actually is using the same definition but is simply trying to explain the relationship to supply and demand. Hence his statement that “inflation” depends on changes in the relative supply and demand of money and goods. Much like what Mises argues, that an increase in the supply of money is not inflationary if there is a corresponding increase in the demand for money. Which in turn is driven by increased TOTAL production of goods.

    Following is clip from Mises that looks very similar to me to what this author is proposing:

    “Inflation and Deflation: Austrian Definitions

    November 18, 2011 by Per Bylund
    SHARE IT:
    submit to reddit
    submit to Stumble Upon
    Email This

    While (re-)reading one of the chapters of Mises’s Theory of Money and Credit, I noted my underlining of the very clearly formulated definitions on page 240. Mises defines inflation as:

    an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.

    Austrians commonly refer to only the first part of this definition – the increase in the quantity of money – without the specifying statement that inflation is only that part which is not offset by an increased demand for money (which, indirectly, seems to suggest a “soft dismissal” of monetarism rather than the hard line that would otherwise follow).

    The same seems to be true for Mises’s definition of deflation:

    a diminution of the quantity of money (in the broader sense) which is not offset by a corresponding diminution of the demand for money (in the broader sense), so that an increase in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.

    Now, it would not be fair to say that these definitions as formulated by Mises back in 1912 in any sense were final. And it is far from impossible that Austrian thinkers before and since then have used idiosyncratic and different variations of these definitions, but presumably with a common core of their meaning.”

    So the real question is the relationship between increased/decreased production and the demand for money.

    Which brings me to your apples for money tactic. It is NOT the same. I understand your effort but Apples are NOT money. They spoil and they are consumable. But lets answer your question.

    Does an increase in the production of cars increase the demand for Apples? I say YES.

    As more cars are produced more people purchase more apples. Up until they have had all the apples they can stand. Then they will purchase more oranges, then more TOYS. etc, etc.

    The author’s primary point is completely valid and consistent with Austrian economics in my view. INFLATION does NOT mean simply an increase in money supply. There are many, many people who have been making this claim and using it as the basis for predicting the coming “Hyper-inflation”. And they have been using the “Austrian School” as their defense.

    So I would say the one legitimate criticism is that the Author used the WRONG quote or source to classify Austrian School. Or, LAZY ACADEMICS.

    Otherwise his discussion seems valid to me. Even accounting for his misuse of “productivity” instead of “production”. I ignored this because he admitted the flaw himself.

    • I would say he actually is using the same definition but is simply trying to explain the relationship to supply and demand.

      If that is what he is “simply trying to do” then he would have simply done it.

      Supply and demand is a fundamental law of economics – its “rediscovery” at every turn is not necessary.

      What he is really trying to do is fit inflation into a crackpot theory that is commonly repeated – that is, inflation is a pricing problem.

      Hence his statement that “inflation” depends on changes in the relative supply and demand of money and goods. Much like what Mises argues, that an increase in the supply of money is not inflationary if there is a corresponding increase in the demand for money. Which in turn is driven by increased TOTAL production of goods.

      …which in turn… no!

      The increase or decrease in demand for money is NOT fundamentally linked to the increase or decrease in demand for apples or cars or TV sets, nor any of those economic goods demand or supply is linked to each other.

      Following is clip from Mises that looks very similar to me to what this author is proposing:

      “Inflation and Deflation: Austrian Definitions

      November 18, 2011 by Per Bylund
      SHARE IT:
      submit to reddit
      submit to Stumble Upon
      Email This

      While (re-)reading one of the chapters of Mises’s Theory of Money and Credit, I noted my underlining of the very clearly formulated definitions on page 240. Mises defines inflation as:

      an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.

      No where did Mises say “corresponding to the increase IN PRODUCTION of other goods” – there are “needs” for money that have no relevance to production of other goods – as I exampled previously, where you hold in your hand money – not spent, nor banked. That act has not one thing to do with “production” of anything – yet, causes the demand for money to increase.

      Likewise, you releasing money from your hand causes an increase in its supply – inflation – and again, nothing to do with production at all.

      So the real question is the relationship between increased/decreased production and the demand for money.

      Which is exactly my point above.

      Demonstrate a link that an increase in production of one economic good necessarily increases the demand for another economic good.

      Which brings me to your apples for money tactic. It is NOT the same. I understand your effort but Apples are NOT money. They spoil and they are consumable. But lets answer your question.

      They are EXACTLY THE SAME.

      This is the failure of crackpot theories – they hold that the laws of economics are different depending on the economic good.

      A feature of one good vs another is merely that – I do not eat a hammer either, but apples and hammers both obey the laws of supply and demand.

      You argue that the hammer -because it is not eaten or rots- must obey some sort of “different” economic law.

      I await to hear what one that is.

      Does an increase in the production of cars increase the demand for Apples? I say YES.

      As more cars are produced more people purchase more apples.

      More cars were produced and sold in 2011 then the year before, yet less houses were built and sold. According to your economic theory, this could not be. But reality is the test, and thus, your theory is flawed.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        The issue of INFLATION is an Aggregate Economic issue, not one of just money, or just apple, or just cars, or just houses.

        Trying to deconstruct this discussion by focusing on single items within the economy does not work and does not serve to address the questions at hand.

        For example, more cars made + less houses made = ??? Zero growth in production, loss of production or a growth in production.

        You are one of those who three years ago was crying about future inflation. So using Mises this means that future money supply will exceed money demand. Now explain how that can occur in an ECONOMY.

        I notice that your explanation infers that money in the hand is part of the demand side but not the supply side. When did that distinction occur? I thought ALL money in existence was supply and that money desired was demand.

        • BF The issue of INFLATION is an Aggregate Economic issue, not one of just money, or just apple, or just cars, or just houses.

          No.
          Inflation is a problem of supply and demand of money. Period.

          It’s effects are manifest throughout the economy since money is used to facilitate exchange.

          Trying to deconstruct this discussion by focusing on single items within the economy does not work and does not serve to address the questions at hand.

          Natural laws – all of them, including laws of economics – operate on all scales, large and small. You can apply gravity to galaxies – you can apply gravity to an apple.

          Economic law is the same – what works individually works over society – this is the root of the thesis of Mises in Human Action.

          For example, more cars made + less houses made = ??? Zero growth in production, loss of production or a growth in production.

          Not true.
          The GNP grow 1.3%

          You are one of those who three years ago was crying about future inflation.

          Of course, because I am watching the massive manufacturing of money.

          So using Mises this means that future money supply will exceed money demand.

          There will be a massive release of the supply of money – using Supply/Demand theory – the price of money will fall – meaning it takes more of it to trade for other goods – meaning in terms of “price”, the price of other goods rises in terms of money.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            EXACTLY. The ONLY reason we are concerned about INFLATION is because it results in increased PRICES. Whether that is for money or apples or cars. The ISSUE of concern to society is the TOTAL INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING that is CAUSED by the ROT in our money.

            That is why your focusing on apples or cars does not work. The issue is not the laws of supply and demand. The issue is the relationship of supply and demand for the various products withing the economy and how they relate. This includes money AND all other goods.

            • BF EXACTLY. The ONLY reason we are concerned about INFLATION is because it results in increased PRICES. Whether that is for money or apples or cars. The ISSUE of concern to society is the TOTAL INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING that is CAUSED by the ROT in our money.

              Whoa – hold those horses, cowboy!

              True – inflation impacts prices.
              True – inflation destroys money.
              True – inflation destroys investors and benefits debtors

              Not true – cost of living increases.

              It costs the same. Bread costs the same today as it did yesterday – the price changes, but the cost does not. You see that, right?

              That is why your focusing on apples or cars does not work.

              Of course it works!

              Look, you first were trying to create a link between the production of one good causing the production of another good to increase – this is not at all what you are arguing now.

              Here, you are arguing that the PRICE of ALL goods changes – which absolutely has nothing to do with production whatsoever of any good EXCEPT MONEY.

              It is absolutely the law of supply and demand – and your attempt to dismiss this makes that economic theory crackpottery.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                Good lord man, you are the one that tried to use a single commodity as a replacement for money in a discussion of large scale economics. The article, and the discussion about whether the growth of economic output relates to the supply/demand for money is a large scale issue and discussion.

                You are the one who tried to turn this into a car vs. apples thing. I told you it doesn’t work because the topic involves the interaction of ALL goods/services with each other and with money.

                It seems to me that is this fellows point. Simply increasing money supply does not necessarily cause inflation. He is pointing out that if the value of economic activity expands at the same rate you are getting a wash. This would mean that demand for money is related to economic output.

                Which seems absolutely true to me. The sum of savings, borrowing and expenditures (demand) is affected by the status of the economy.

                What is missing from his discussion, in my view, is the affect of increasing money in an increasing economy. As we have discussed before, if money supply were held constant the value of money would increase and prices would decline for some goods while increase for others.

                You will have to do a better job of explaining why increased production does not increase the demand for money. It seems pretty logical to me than when things are growing there is greater demand for money. And that is the point I thought this guy was making in his article.

                Cost vs. Price. When most of us normal people talk about cost of living we are talking about the prices we pay for goods and services. So I am not sure what you are trying to argue when you say costs do not change.

                And bread at my house certainly “costs” more today than it did last year.

              • JAC

                BF Good lord man, you are the one that tried to use a single commodity as a replacement for money in a discussion of large scale economics.

                Not true at all!
                My position on that matter is “it doesn’t matter what, or much of any commodity or commodities, money exists”

                You were arguing that gold -by itself- could not “do it” – and from such dialogue, your position was baseless – gold easily could do it, or anything else that the market so chose to be money… including small pieces of green paper with dead people depicted on them…

                The article, and the discussion about whether the growth of economic output relates to the supply/demand for money is a large scale issue and discussion.

                I agree that is the subject and I stated – by using economic law – that there is no required relationship between a more productive economy and a demand for more money is such an economy.

                You are the one who tried to turn this into a car vs. apples thing. I told you it doesn’t work because the topic involves the interaction of ALL goods/services with each other and with money.

                Of course it works! It completely describes the situation at its root – supply and demand.

                If you apply the situation of apples and cars, making cars priced in apples and then increase the supply of apples, you will find that the relationship in trade between apples and cars changes – not because of “productivity” but because of supply and demand of apples.

                You believe that if we added oranges, suddenly that changes things – a new product. But it doesn’t. Apples supply and demand vs. cars is unmoved by the introduction of oranges.

                It seems to me that is this fellows point. Simply increasing money supply does not necessarily cause inflation.

                “All things being equal” it absolutely does – as the increase in supply of money changes the demand FOR MONEY.

                He is pointing out that if the value of economic activity expands at the same rate you are getting a wash.

                And that is his crackpot theory – because no such thing occurs. Introducing oranges into a car/apple economy does not reduce the supply of apples vs. cars.

                Your theory is known as the “Monetarists” theory, represented by Friedman and the Chicago School. It is NOT an Austrian argument at all

                This would mean that demand for money is related to economic output.

                But your theory is crackpot – so it such an assertion here is baseless – there is NOT a relationship between money and economic output!

                If there was, then QE1/2/3/ infinite would improve the economy – yet! it does not.

                The sum of savings, borrowing and expenditures (demand) is affected by the status of the economy.

                Bingo! This has nothing to do with “money supply” – it has to do with exchange and trade and investments!

                The money supply is irrelevant in measuring savings, or borrowings or expenditures or investments.

                What is missing from his discussion, in my view, is the affect of increasing money in an increasing economy.

                Nothing, one way or the other.

                The question is: what changes the demand for money?

                As we have discussed before, if money supply were held constant the value of money would increase and prices would decline for some goods while increase for others.

                Correct. Prices decrease for older products as newer ones are introduced.

                What does this have to do with supply/demand for money?

                You will have to do a better job of explaining why increased production does not increase the demand for money.

                I have already.

                I see no link between increasing the supply of cars causing an increase in demand for TV’s.

                Thus, I see no link to why an increase in supply of cars should increase a demand for green pieces of paper, either.

                It seems pretty logical to me than when things are growing there is greater demand for money.

                You make the assertion, you show why…

                Why does more cars today then yesterday require more money today then yesterday?

                When most of us normal people talk about cost of living we are talking about the prices we pay for goods and services. So I am not sure what you are trying to argue when you say costs do not change. And bread at my house certainly “costs” more today than it did last year.

                No it didn’t (all things being equal) – bread traded for shoes trades the same today as last year.

                So what did change? The price of both bread and shoes (and everything else).

                The price of your labor went up, as did bread, shoes, beer, etc. but the cost did not – the same amount of labor bought the same amount of shoes, beer and bread.

                The only time your costs went up is if you used savings to make such purchases – then, you would be correct – costs did go up in relation to your savings.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Jac,
              Tnx for the fine article. I am sure you will admit, we all learn from BF. Sometimes when I am beginning to wonder if he is a little “off his rocker” (grin), I dig a little deeper into my cranium and discover he is an utter genius. I find it best to not dismiss his arguments without thinking very deep, which I am doing right now on this topic…………….

  27. Talk about short lived victories! Dogs Against Romney … and a 7.8% unemployment rate … just in the nick of time http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578038150747630398.html

  28. Late Show Runs Cymbalta Depression Ad Parody of Obama

    By Brent Baker | October 05, 2012 | 02:03

    David Letterman is a Barack Obama sycophant (he once fawned over Obama’s “great courage and great intelligence”), but even he couldn’t deny Obama’s poor debate performance.

    Thursday’s Late Show featured a clever parody of Lilly’s ad for their anti-depression drug, Cymbalta, a spoof with scenes of Obama during Wednesday’s presidential debate dropped into the real TV ad.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/10/05/late-show-runs-cymbalta-depression-ad-parody-obama#ixzz28RKlNpnY

    Dirty words!! I can’t get the video to play… Gov. suppression? Lack of “puter skills?

  29. VIDEO

    “Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.”

    –Benjamin Franklin, 1771

    Let’s see one of you try this……

    • Crap…didnt copy….

      • VIDEO

        “Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.”

        –Benjamin Franklin, 1771

        If this still dous not work…google Flyboard Family Official U tube and watch the video ….incredible.

        • Wow!!!!!

        • COOOOOL! That’s officially on my bucket list!

          • It is definitely cool but you are Braver than me-I would break my neck if I tried to do that. 🙂 I kept thinking one of them was going to crash into their wave runners. Or they were gonna out run their tether and get slung like on a bungee cord. But it did look like fun.

            • V! You’re the one who wanted to just sail around over land with just a pair of wings! At least I’ll crash into water and laugh..you’ll crash onto land and DIE! 😯

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      I have some serious questions about this but need to run for awhile.

      First of all however, What does she define as “fraud”. Sure does throw that around a lot be fails to recognize the original “mortgages” are REAL. Regardless of how or why they were issued, the fact is they were issued.

      So buying up the “paper” will not eliminate the “mortgage”. It will only eliminate the “securities” created against the “mortgage”.

    • Hitting head on desk!! Got nothing out of that except —We Are
      All Screwed!

  30. DAVID GREGORY: Switching gears back to the debate. The late night hosts are having a little bit of fun with Wednesday night’s presidential debate. Jon Stewart aiming most of his fire at, oh, yeah, President Obama.

    JON STEWART: There is no red America. There is no blue America. There is only the America that can’t believe how bad this guy did in the debate. Romney won with the sound up.

    MITT ROMNEY: You’re entitled, as a president, to your own airplane and to your own house, but not your own facts.

    STEWART: Romney won with the sound off. Dude. He’s yelling at you. Look up! Look up! What are you looking at? What are you writing that’s so important? You know, Mr. President, everyone has parts of their jobs that they don’t like as much, but they still have to do those things if they want to keep those jobs. And if you don’t want to do it for yourself, think of your supporters. Look what your performance did last night to one of them.

    CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don’t know what he was doing out there. I don’t know how he let Romney get away with the crap he threw out. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed? Where was Obama tonight?!

    STEWART: You happy? Mr. President, you broke Chris Matthews!

    [LAUGHTER]

    AL ROKER: And he’s still broken.

    GREGORY: You know, it was funny, when he’s – when he’s writing, I thought, was he writing in his diary? I mean, writing-

    ROKER: He was playing Words with Friends.

    [LAUGHTER]

    ROKER : He got a triple – triple letter score.

    GREGORY: He couldn’t let that go, he couldn’t let that go.

    SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Oh, my goodness.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/10/05/thrill-gone-nbc-touts-jon-stewart-mocking-obama-and-chris-matthews#ixzz28S2ZaJAo

    • That’s funny 🙂 But it makes no difference in how these people are going to vote-they are just mad because he didn’t look Presidential, he didn’t fight enough to suit them, but they are still just calling Romney a liar.

      But alas 🙂 it might change the mind of people who aren’t firmly in Obama’s camp.

  31. I don’t know why you all are making a big deal out of the election. It doesn’t matter whether Obama wins or Romney does. The economy is kaput and that will not change.

    7.8 percent Unemployment is reason for you Obama butt-kissers to celebrate?!?!?!?! Please!!! Let’s all have a party because even more folks have given up looking for work. THERE ARE NO JOBS OUT THERE TO GET YOU BONEHEADS!!!!!!

    And we Romney butt-kissers. Do we really think Romney is going to change much? Some, maybe, but not near enough to save us. And that’s not to even imagine the Government will truly get any smaller or any debt will be paid off.

    I am beginning to wonder what good it is going to do me to vote, I am still going to but mostly because of the local elections here. I’ll just vote for Romney because I’m already there. AND because I’d rather see a monkey there as President than Obama.

    But I sure don’t see the reason for all the arguments. Even though Romney flat put a butt-whippin’ on Obama in the debate. 🙂

    • There is a reason to vote- countries have come and gone through out history-I would like this one to stay. We aren’t supposed to just give up-What the hell if Romney only improves it a little bit-maybe the next guy will improve it a little more. It’s a lot better than Obama making it worse. And we all know that no one, no one, can make the kinds of change that people on here want -without it taking years to accomplice.

      But some won’t vote, some will vote on their principals and vote for a third party-but all that is going to do is ensure that their principals NEVER have a chance to win.

      • I also would like this one to stay V.H.. Well, maybe not this one, but the one with the smaller, more efficient government and more freedom and liberty we need.

        If we’re going to keep the big, massive government that’s completely Facist, heading towards Socialist, well then maybe it would be better if it just passed away.

        And THAT ONE is the one we will keep, regardless of which party wins.

        • Well, I’m glad your voting, even it you do think America is doomed.

          I just think people throw the words “let her fall” out there rather lightly-Let her Fall into what? If those who disagree with the liberal mindframe just stay home-it isn’t just a possibility- it is a foregone conclusion. And as bad as the republicans have done-they are a powerful party to use to try and make changes. Yeah, it might not work-but at least it is something. Working locally is great but I still say by the time you can make a difference, if you don’t at least attempt to slow down the power of the Fed, it will be to late for the difference to make any difference. At least that’s my opinion and I will do my best to encourage people to vote for Romney whether people on here agree with me or not 🙂

          • Yeah, it might not work-but at least it is something. Working locally is great but I still say by the time you can make a difference, if you don’t at least attempt to slow down the power of the Fed, it will be to late for the difference to make any difference.

            And there you have it.

            Because doing it right is too slow, you will do it wrong.

            You can’t “slow down the Fed” — pray tell when has that happened since 1932? Right – never – its gotten worse, faster, and continues to do that because of people like you who believe if the right God-on-Earth was President, life would be good.

            • I don’t think our argument are a matter of doing it right or wrong-Mine is lets do something on the Federal level while we’re doing something at the local level. And yours is let’s do stuff on the local level so we will be prepared when it Falls. So your basic opinion is let’s do Nothing.

              • I don’t think our argument are a matter of-that’s so wrong-it hurts my own ears.

              • …do nothing at the Fed level because doing anything is totally counter productive – you make it worse.

                That’s the problem – it isn’t even staying zero, you are adding to the negative – by participation, you give credibility to the system, so the system goes faster.

              • I really think BF-that your theory of non-participation effecting credibility in any credible way should come with a percentage. Because my not voting will not affect the power of the government in any way-my not voting will make it a lot easier for people like Obama to be elected, which helps to get more democrats elected across the board which is where the real power is supposed to be. And I , unlike you, do not believe both parties are the same.

              • I really think BF-that your theory of non-participation effecting credibility in any credible way should come with a percentage.

                Yeah, fair enough.

                There is no real way to offer a particular percentage at a particular time – however, what is known -from history- is it is geometric; each and every participant that withdraws multiplies the effect.

                So for the most part, each withdrawal makes little apparent impact ,,, then suddenly, it does.

                Like doubling drops of water in the largest stadium in the US – if you sat in the upper most seat, you’d drown in 45 minutes – but at the 42 minute mark, you wouldn’t see any water on the field below at all….

                And I , unlike you, do not believe both parties are the same.

                Well, their names are different…. one leans more warfare, one leans more welfare …. but the essential and fundamental policies, there is no difference.

                You do understand they both come from the same source – Council for Foreign Relations – right? Both are members. Both have been vetted by the CFR.

                CFR doesn’t tell one or the other “what to do” – but they don’t have to. By the vetting process, the CFR removes any who would challenge the fundamentals – the radicals and changers cannot pass thru the gate.

                By enforcing the middle ground and the status quo – it does not matter whether one believes making Medicare a vital government service or instead, one should increase SS to old folks and veterans … the fundamental policies of government, that is, increasing command and control of the economy and the citizens, is achieved.

              • Personally, I think trying to get people to not participate is a whole lot less likely, than getting more people to participate. And one should remember that government is made up of individual people-if too many of our people have gone Liberal we are lost-if not getting more involved is the only possibility of changing anything-IF it isn’t already too late. I’m not trying to say it will be easy or even likely-but in the past people have made a difference, not enough but a difference.

                Your way in my mind just insures the worst.

                As far as the Council for Foreign Relations-know next to nothing about them. But I watch a lot of TV-so convincing me that their is a group of powerful people who really control everything won’t be too hard. But individual men and woman have stood up against evil in the past and won. Maybe we can too.

              • Personally, I think trying to get people to not participate is a whole lot less likely, than getting more people to participate.

                Actually, in fact, it is easier the other way around – most people do not participate; the reason – there is a cost.

                That is why voting is such a sucker’s game – there is no personal cost in voting for evil; and most people, like you, see there is a chance for a “win or gain” in doing so – your own personal evil may win for your advantage.

                With no cost, and small chance of winning – yep, most people will play; and some win and get the evil they wanted.

                -IF it isn’t already too late.

                The beginning of the end started in 1865, and was lost by 1932.

                You didn’t have a chance – because you and those before you believed your voting would make it work – and it did, except this is what you were getting – and you got it.

                I

                Council for Foreign Relations-know next to nothing about them.

                Well, by God, you better start learning and fast. And its easy – they do not hide – out in plain sight.

                But individual men and woman have stood up against evil in the past and won. Maybe we can too.

                Exactly.

                But I will guarantee you will not win against evil by joining it, and conferring your consent for it.

  32. “Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama still wants you and I to still carry his freight”

    Big Bird Richer Than Mitt Romney

    by John Nolte 4 Oct 2012 103 post a comment
    Big Bird makes more money than Mitt Romney, but is still on the government dole.

    In the aftermath of getting massacred in last night’s debate, both President Obama and the corrupt media are trying to salvage a little something by taking issue with Governor Mitt Romney’s promise to end taxpayer funding of PBS. At a campaign rally today, Obama The Bald-Faced Liar said of Romney, “He’s going to get rid of regulations on Wall Street, but he’ll crack down on Sesame Street.” (Romney is not going “to get rid of” Wall Street regulations.)

    As if that wasn’t bad enough, CNN’s execrable Carol Costello attempted to pretend the debate would eventually become all about the fallout over taking Big Bird off the taxpayer teat.

    Naturally, though, the very same corrupt media and failed president currently demanding “specifics” from Romney have absolutely no desire to talk specifics about how much of our grand children’s money we’re borrowing from China to subsidize television shows, many of them left-wing.

    Well, here’s the price tag per the “Daily Mail”:

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives about $450million from Congress each year. About $280million goes to PBS and the local stations.

    Federal funding makes up about 12 per cent of the PBS budget.

    So in the face of trillion dollar annual deficits and an overall debt that will likely hit $20 trillion should Obama the Bald-Faced Liar win reelection, we the taxpayers are tossing away a cool half-billion a year at this junk.

    Now comes the real numbers — the numbers the media will never reveal because they’re absolutely infuriating.

    According to Senator Jim DeMint:

    Shows like Sesame Street are multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 — nearly a million dollars — in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, “Sesame Street” made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.

    If you break that down, it works out to over $50 million a year “Sesame Street” is taking in from all that merchandising.

    Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama still wants you and I to still carry his freight

    I guess that’s Obama’s idea of “economic patriotism.”

  33. Well, I guess if New York’s intent is to get rid of gun manufacturers-they are being smart. sarc.

    Gun Microstamping: Democrat Ignorance Threatens Manufacturing Jobs
    The expensive, useless technology may drive gun plants out of New York and Connecticut.

    by
    Bob Owens

    Bio
    October 5, 2012 – 12:00 am
    Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
    Email
    Print
    Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size

    Remington Arms has already moved much of their skilled operations and management to North Carolina because of the tax policies of New York state, and now it appears to be on the verge of moving the rest of its facilities, all due to microstamping legislation:

    Microstamping, or ballistic imprinting, is a patented process that uses laser technology to engrave a tiny marking of the make, model, and serial number on the tip of a gun’s firing pin to allow an imprint of that information on spent cartridge cases. Supporters of the technology say it will be a “game changer,” allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes. Opponents claim the process is costly, unreliable, and may ultimately impact the local economies that heavily depend on the gun industry, including Ilion, N.Y., where Remington Arms maintains a factory, and Hartford, Conn., where Colt’s manufacturing is headquartered.

    “Mandatory microstamping would have an immediate impact of a loss of 50 jobs,” New York State Sen. James Seward, a Republican whose district includes Ilion, said, adding that Remington employs 1,100 workers in the town. “You’re talking about a company that has options in other states. Why should they be in a state that’s hostile to legal gun manufacturing? There could be serious negative economic impact with the passage of microstamping and other gun-control laws.”

    Microstamping tooling is extremely expensive, prone to breakage, easily disabled, and ineffective on entire families of weapons. Let’s take a deeper look at what microstamping does, and how easily it is beaten.

    Microstamping is a series of letters and numbers reverse printed on the firing pin of weapons. In theory, when a gun is fired, the firing pin will leave a mark on the cartridge’s primer (the rim of a rimfire cartridge), and the shell casing recovered at the scene will provide law enforcement information about which gun fired the cartridge. Cops will enter the microstamping code into a computer, which will check it against a database, and the police will know who the shooter is within minutes.

    At least, that is the theory. Reality is another matter. For starters: microstamping fails to work on any firearm that already exists, something in the neighborhood of more than 300 million firearms. As firearms last indefinitely, it would be decades before they became a significant number of total firearms — even if the technology was foolproof.

    But microstamping is not foolproof. Let’s look at the ways microstamping fails, beyond the numbers:

    Microstamping does not work if shell casings aren’t automatically ejected from the crime gun. Revolvers, derringers, double-barrel shotguns, pump shotguns and rifles, and semi-automatic firearms that can be equipped with inexpensive brass catchers (common among some shooters) would leave no cartridges at the scene of a shooting.
    Microstamping does not work because firing pins are inexpensive and easy to replace. The firing pin for most weapons are easily replaced by someone with a minimum of ability to read and follow the basic cleaning directions for his firearm. The expense of millions of dollars in retooling is thwarted by the purchase of a $12 part.
    Microstamping does not work because the stamping is easily defaced. It would take a matter of a half-dozen passes of a standard diamond file, and less than a minute, to eradicate the microstamping.
    Microstamping is incredibly fragile. The stamping would wear out over time through simple use of the firearm, or be thwarted by the normal powder residue that builds up on small parts.
    Microstamping could easily be spoofed and waste police time — or worse, send the wrong people to jail. Most shooters do not reload their own ammunition, and leave their shell casings at the range. All it would take to turn microstamping to a criminal’s advantage would be for a criminal or one of his associates to pick up brass from a firing range in the same caliber as the weapon he carries. After he uses a microstamping-free weapon in a crime, he would merely drop the brass he recovered from Joe Citizen at the range at the crime scene. Joe will wake up with a SWAT team crashing through his door at 5:00 a.m., and if he’s lucky, innocent Joe won’t be gunned down along with his family pets.

    Easily thwarted and capable of being used to a criminal’s advantage, microstamping is a horrible idea as well as an expensive one.

    Remington and Colt are right to threaten to leave New York and Connecticut if ignorant Democratic politicians push forward with their demands for microstamping legislation. As for Colt and Remington, I’d merely offer that North Carolina is a much more gun-friendly and intelligent state, and they would be more than welcome to relocate here.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-microstamping/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Error, error, error………….. “Cops will enter the microstamping code into a computer, which will check it against a database, and the police will know who the shooter is within minutes.”

      Typical FLAWED logic.

      What will be known is what gun was used to shoot the bullet. Nothing more.

      Knowing Who, would depend on the shooter being the owner who purchased the gun legally and had it “registered”.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Error, Yes, that is what the Democrats are, an Error. They think that law abiding citizens are committing crimes with guns. Not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, are they?

    • For an interesting tidbit in history, Mr. Remington bought a farm that fronted the Erie canal in Ilion, NY in 1828 from a many great uncle of mine. There he built his forge and founded the company. The farm originally belonged to my 5th great grandfather, Andreas Klebsattel, then his son, Andreas Clepsattle, one of 2 brothers out of 5 to survive the Revolution (3 KIA). It was the grandson, Andrew Clapsaddle, that sold the farm. An adjacent family farm still exists and remains in the family.

      http://www.jimparkerartist.com/26996.html

      Scroll down to the Clapsaddle Farm and Clapsaddle Falls paintings by Jim Parker, current owner of the farm. The original farm house was burned by the Indians during the Revolution. The replacement house, as shown in the painting, is still there and was remodeled in the late 1980’s by Mr. Parker.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “William Clapsaddle a farmer residing at South Ilion, Herkimer County, N.Y. fell from an apple tree, breaking his neck and dying instantly. He was 75 years old.”

        From the Pulaski Democrat Wednesday Nov. 1, 1905 http://news2.nnyln.net/oswego-county/search.html

        Try searching all papers for Clapsaddle in Oswego County (no Herkimer listed) and try ALL counties available. Got 10 hits from Clapsaddle in Oswego.

        Falling from an apple tree at 75 may be my fate too.

        My grandfather was born in Clintonville, N.Y. I never been there but looks like a great place to live!!!

        As for an earlier comment by (BF?) stating people may run out of desire for apples, all would know this to be false if they tried my hard cider! Not enough apples could be produced on the whole planet to support the potential demand for quality hard cider!

        T-Ray, your ancestors sound like my kind of people!

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          http://news.nnyln.net/ 63 Clapsaddle hits in Jefferson County…… Time to harvest corn, later…….

        • Puritan, thanks for the links. I had not found these sources. I have to do a little data mining. The William who fell from the tree is a descendent of Wilhelm Clepsattle, the other surviving brother from the Revolution. Maj. Augustinus and Pvt Jacob were KIA at the Battle of Oriskany and brother Johannes was killed and scalped outside of Herkimer in 1780. I have many other relatives and ancestors who fought at Oriskany in the Bellinger and Harter clans. Sister Catherine Clepsattle Moyer had two sons killed and her daughter Eva age 4 captured and taken to Canada. Those were bloody times.
          Thanks again for the links, I will mine them add them to the family history.
          Good luck with the corn harvest. I was just in Iowa. Their yields are way below normal. My cousin in IL though reported 200 bu/acre. They got rain at just the right times. My apple harvest here in CA was terrible because we had rain during pollination.

  34. gmanfortruth says:
  35. BF..please provide proof of your claim that the CFR vets presidential candidates.
    (heehee..I feel tough cross examining you 😉 )

    • The Council on Foreign Relations, established in the 1920’s and headquartered in New
      York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business
      elite, including heads of academia and media.

      The organization seeks to centralize both political power and market power to craft
      legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy.

      The CFR is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to
      fully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it is
      likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant.

      Notable members of the
      CFR include:

      Dick Cheney

      John Kerry

      Bill Clinton

      Al Gore

      Ronald Reagan

      George H. W. Bush

      Gerald Ford

      Richard Nixon

      John, David &
      Nelson Rockefeller

      Condolezza Rice

      Paul Wolfowitz

      Alan Greenspan

      Colon Powell

      Henry Kissinger

      Angelina Jolie
      (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an
      ambassador)

      It should not be surprising that the presidential candidates in the election are CFR members. Candidates do not advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as “liberals” and “conservatives” to control all aspects of the debate.

      Democrat CFR

      Barack Obama

      Hillary Clinton

      John Edwards

      Chris Dodd

      Bill Richardson

      Republican CFR

      Mitt Romney

      Rudy Giuliani

      John McCain

      Fred Thompson

      Newt Gingrich

      The mainstream media’s self-proclaimed “top tier” candidates are united in their
      CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view.

      Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is
      the only “top tier” candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

      Although many politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on
      Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR’s membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships.

      Corporate members include:

      Halliburton of
      Dubai

      British Petroleum

      Dutch Royal Shell

      Exxon Mobile

      General Electric
      (NBC)

      Chevron

      Lockheed Martin

      Merck
      Pharmaceuticals

      News Corp (FOX)

      Bloomberg

      IBM

      Time Warner

      JP Morgan/ Chase
      Manhattan

      & several other
      major financial institutions

      Many prominent publications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:

      Time

      Newsweek

      US News & World
      Report

      Atlantic Monthly

      Forbes

      & several major
      publishing houses

      Members are united in their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidated
      global governance. The CFR’s mission is to influence policy through the reach of its members and publications. Those who study the CFR ideology are recruited and cultured for membership. The best and brightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model.

      Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring an element of capital (political status, business influence, money) to the group will be given membership. Members meet at the CFR headquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table style discussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairs and make recommendations on policy. The CFR often creates “task
      forces” to report “findings and policy prescriptions” (cfr.org) for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodical Foreign Affairs magazine. CFR authors are often found in mainstream media publications. In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFR member writes: “The US should make (Pakistani President & US
      intelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be”.

      Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues to the readers that the world really isn’t all that bad in an article titled “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. Currently, the front page of CFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radical Iranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members in government control the nuclear football).

      Members of the CFR in the media intend to inject it’s pro-globalist arguments into the
      mainstream consciousness. Although the CFR is self-described as a
      non-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes a one-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or the desires of the American people.

      The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members.

      Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: “The
      Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England… (and) …believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigley differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his
      book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers
      in that he believes the new world order plan of global government’s
      “role in history is significant enough to be known”. Quigley
      also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be
      controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As
      Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the
      rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of
      extreme shifts in policy.”. Controlling Washington elite allowed
      private central banks to “dominate the political system… …and
      economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of
      “feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he
      believes the CFR’s intentions should be more public, Quigley
      understands the average person doesn’t understand feudalism or
      serfdom and will never read his book.

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations

        Hillary Rodham Clinton (former first lady of the United States, 67th United States Secretary of State under Barack Obama)
        William M. Daley (24th White House chief of staff under Obama, 32nd secretary of commerce under Bill Clinton)
        Robert M. Gates (22nd United States Secretary of Defense under Bush & Obama, 15th Director of Central Intelligence under George H.W. Bush)
        Jim Leach (former Republican United States congressman from Iowa, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under Obama)
        Janet Napolitano (3rd United States Secretary of Homeland Security under Obama, 21st Governor of Arizona)
        Eric Shinseki (7th United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Obama, 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army under Clinton & Bush)
        Tom Vilsack (30th United States Secretary of Agriculture under Obama, 40th Governor of Iowa)

      • Thanks. But why is CFR, a think tank, any different than say Heritage, or all the foundations that Soros funds..who btw is notably missing from the list.

        • Ron Paul

        • Anita,

          Because the CFR is not just a think tank – it is active.

          Irving Kristol (journalist, writer, dubbed “The godfather of neoconservatism, father of Bill Kristol)

          If that does not mean anything to you – here is another helper.

          The Project for the New American Century – William Kristol, Chairman.

          If that still does not mean anything to you – the “New World Order” comes from the “Project for the New American Century” and is the neocon movement’s treatise.

          You live within that Project today.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You had to ask, didn’t you, 😆 There is a rumor that a overseas donor scandal may be hitting the obama campaign, sucks to be him I guess. 🙂

      • One of my secret life goals is to trip him up some day 😉

        • Oh that is easy.
          Simply tie my shoelaces together – I doubt I’ll notice until about 1/2 second before I fall.

          • I’ll remember that. Thanks for the ebook. Looks interesting and scary. Why can’t anything be simple? I’ll start tackling it though. And I’m still going to vote. 🙂

            • It is simple!

              Balancing your check book is complex compared to this stuff.

              That is why it is so terrifying – because it is so simple, regular people simply ignore it.

              Understand that these people don’t push a button and something happens – they do not control the words coming out of the Prez mouth or even his opinions. Its not like that.

              These guys frame the conversation.

              You can’t start talking in the big public political forum unless you’ve been filtered through the edges of the frame. So by doing that, they have removed any discourse regarding the system itself and its control – so Obama would have never reached the national political stage UNLESS he was talking within the predetermined frames of “proper” political conversation.

              Within that frame, everything is fine and individual – and this is where you see the differences between CFR A team vs CFR B team – a discourse over specific but minor policies, like a husband and wife arguing over the color of paint for the kitchen – but there is no discourse over the makeup of the house itself.

              This is why Ron Paul had no chance – he was outside the frame – he wanted to change the house, not merely the color of the kitchen – and he could not get to the big public political forum no matter what.

              That is how this system works and why you can not change it – at all, never. You can’t get past the frame.

              • So once you understand that, and the total pointless of trying to change the system that has been specifically designed to prevent such change – you have to change your strategy;

                – that is, go to where they do not control the conversation and avoid the frame all together.

                It is the BIG public politics that attracts these guys – they are ultimately self-centered egotists. They love being on the news, on TV and having you post and talk about them all the time – that is what they love the most … the public limelight.

                They do not play local gigs.
                Arguably, none have ever been to city hall.
                For sure, none have sat on a local school board.

                Sun Tzu:
                Defend what your enemy cannot attack
                Attack what your enemy cannot defend

              • Pisses me off because who do they think they are? It’s 300 million, check, 150 million against what a thousand? What is the end game. Control and power? Big deal! We started our nation to make our own rules, away from tyranny, and they can just waltz in and make their own rules. For what? You have all the money you could possibly want. Keeping people docile makes you that tough? You want a cookie/? It makes no sense to me. 👿 Off to start reading..rainy night in Mich or I’d be at my firepit instead of being a geek reading on Fri night!

              • Yes, it is control and it is power – but consider this carefully, for it traps the mundane as it traps the elite.

                They do this all with the very best intentions – they define evil differently, and work to dismiss their own definitions of evil by their actions. They believe that controlling people makes the world safe – that an elite best manages the wild desires of the people.

                Haven’t you made that same, simple claim too?

                They hold that the end justifies the means – that is their principle root – “all is well that ends well” philosophy – and it is powerful, because the past is dead, and present is where we live.

                So to live now, we easily dismiss the evil we did yesterday – clear our own mind with self-forgiveness as proclaim “well, its a new day for a clean start”.

                And is that so bad? You do have to live and carry on, right?

                Well, you do.

                The problem starts when you use that “bygones be bygones” in the future to justify the evil you do RIGHT NOW. “Well, tomorrow I will make a clean start, right after I kill this last one….Arab/Russian/Filipino/Mexican/Indian/British/French/Indian/Spanish/…..”

    • The Invisible Government (1962) by Smoot

      I encourage you to read that book.

      Here it is online for you:

      http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20224/20224-h/20224-h.htm

  36. @JAC….watch this closely.

    “The FBI announced Friday night there were “strong preliminary indications” that a Border Patrol agent who died this week in a shooting just north of the Mexico-Arizona border was killed by one of his fellow agents.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/05/fbi-suspects-border-patrol-agent-was-killed-accidentally-by-fellow-agent/?test=latestnews#ixzz28XJWCKYs

    Those of us in the know……..know this is BS. Cannot have an agent killed by drug runners in an election year…there will be another scape goat.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      D13

      I saw this yesterday and actually thought of that for a minute. I am not going to discount the possibility, however, without better evidence.

      While it would prevent another embarrassment for the Admin, the downside of a cover up being discovered would be much greater.

      On the other hand, I thought these guys were on horseback. So how in the hell could “friendly fire” be directed towards them? Who else was there? Why would other agents be lurking around where these guys were on a regular patrol?

      Lots of questions and little answers as of yet.

      I assure you I will be watching it closely. I am expecting some serious foot dragging if there is any chance the Admin might look bad. Even if it was just some incompetence at the field level.

      One for you and others to watch: The Dept of Ag has notified employees of pending “buy outs” IF the employees get out BEFORE DEC 31st. Could it be that the Administration is preparing to let Sequestration happen???

      Also rumors of both Buy Outs and Early Retirement Authority coming next year.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    you: “I see no link between increasing the supply of cars causing an increase in demand for TV’s.”

    This is why I said your examples fall apart. The question is whether increasing car production increases the demand for money. Of course it does. Why? Because we use money and not TV’s to fund the expansion of car production.

    Pointed question: HOW does an Austrian measure DEMAND for MONEY???

    • JAC

      BF you: “I see no link between increasing the supply of cars causing an increase in demand for TV’s.” This is why I said your examples fall apart. The question is whether increasing car production increases the demand for money. Of course it does. Why? Because we use money and not TV’s to fund the expansion of car production. Pointed question: HOW does an Austrian measure DEMAND for MONEY???

      You failed in your example.

      As I pointed out already, expenditures of money is NOT a supply of money issue.

      I spend a dollar does not increase or decrease the money supply. Nor does my spending my money cause you to spend (or not) your money. How do you link this?

      So how you claim that funding (which is spending) money to build a car plant changes the demand for money is bizarre.

      Austrians measure the demand for money by the interest charged on money.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        If I expand a plant, if I expand production it REQUIRES MORE money. In my book that is DEMAND.

        • Accepted.
          What does that do to the money supply? (nothing)
          What does that do to the interest rate? (go up)

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            I don’t think I ever claimed it impacted SUPPLY. The argument from the beginning was that increased PRODUCTION is a surrogate for increased DEMAND.

            How Prices are affected depends on the Supply side. Correct?

            • No, can’t quite agree with that.

              Increases in production occur without increases in infrastructure or building new factories or requiring new loans or needing more money.

              I can work longer hours, work harder during normal hours – increase production – but my salary remains constant, for example.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                That is true for a short time period or for parts of the total economy. But back to the big picture.

                I believe there is an obvious connection between Total Production and Demand, for both products and money.

                But the question raised by this guy, in my mind, is whether “production” alone can explain the “Demand” side of the equation such that it explains lack of “hyper-inflation” when money supply has been increased.

                Obviously, all the factors that go into the MOTHER EQUATION are not considered by the author. But that would be impossible for anyone. First of which is the FED RESERVE using policy or regulation to control the USABLE SUPPLY of money as opposed to what they stuck in a vault to shore up their books.

                There were a couple of points raised in that article that are worthy of exploring, or explaining in other terms (Austrian or otherwise).

                The fact that “hyper-inflation” has not occurred during all periods of increased money supply. Indicating there had to be an increase in demand to offset this.

                The notion that “black swan” events, probably not the best use of the term, have more to do with massive changes in production and thus demand that can trigger “hyper-inflation”.

                Perhaps the “black swan” is not so much an event as much as a collective (group) conclusion that “we have had enough”. In other words, a sudden “dumping of dollars” by the market makers.

                Obviously what is missing from the discussion of these two points is the “manipulations” that occur in other areas to offset or muddy the effects of supply and demand on prices and production.

            • Prices are affected by both sides – supply and demand.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                I know. I was assuming we had addressed the DEMAND side with the prior question.

                In essence, assuming it is fixed then supply becomes the driving factor on price.

              • All things being equal, and a fixed demand then supply becomes the driving factor on price.

                Agreed.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    New TV show everyone should watch.

    REVOLUTION

    Can’t remember what channel but search it out and record it. I think it is on Monday night so you will have to record if you like FOOTBALL.

    It presents one possible scenario of TOTAL COLLAPSE. The “Militia” is NOT YOUR FRIEND in this one.

    I think Mathius would find it consistent with his views of mankind.

    • Ah-but I think the Militia started out being on our side. 🙂

      So far, I have enjoyed watching-so I too recommend the show.

      • It’s on Hulu-if you want to see the episodes you’ve missed.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        It looks like that is where they are taking us. Although it will be interesting to see who the “our side” is once it is all fleshed out.

        • That is what makes it interesting-so many different reasons-evil and good-for just why :it: is being hidden. 🙂

  39. @JAC….one thing that is not mentioned is the shell casings. The spin right now is that NO drug runners were around and it “appears” that they shot at each other. I know what the training program is and that is very doubtful but the statement that no drug runners appeared to be around and there are 7.62mm shell casings that have been collected and we do not shoot 7.62. That is an AK47 round.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      D13

      Well then this will get interesting.

      My hat is held over my heart for Texas Rangers. So sad but happy to see Orioles in a playoff once again. Don’t know why just seems nice.

      • LOL….went to the game…..it was sad…..no bats. 0-7 with runners in scoring position….sigh.

      • “Well then this will get interesting.”

        Late to the party here regarding baseball….makes me sick how the Rangers folded in the last week especially….but I saw something Friday night I’ve never seen before (or did I just not notice?)- Josh Hamilton clearly didn’t give a rat’s a$$ what happened. In fact, it almost looked like he hoped to be put out every at-bat. On a sports radio show the next day a sports writer was quoted as saying “not even if Hamilton offers to play for the Rangers for free” will he be with them. Wow. Wonder if that’s really true……

        Watched parts of several games last night, tho….and saw the Orioles have the same issues against the Yanks….couldn’t get men home when in scoring position. They had a leadoff double in the 8th and blew the opportunity to score him. And then the Yanks scored 5 in the top of the 9th. Dammit!

  40. Panetta Warns of Syria, Turkey Clash

    It is inevitable.

    • From the little I’ve read they are already having a clash-so how exactly do you think this will affect us?

      • It will only affect us if Iran gets involved. It will widen a war in the ME….this is what Iran wants. They want to be the great unifier and masher at the same time. A widened war in the ME along with Obama domestic policies will hit your pocket book ten fold.

  41. Belgian Doctors Brag About Harvesting Organs From the Euthanized
    By Wesley J. Smith
    October 6, 2012 7:41 P.M.
    Comments
    0

    My first anti-euthanasia article, published in Newsweek in 1993, warned that one day euthanasia would be coupled with organ harvesting “as a plum to society.” Over the years, was chided as an alarmist. But it didn’t take the Belgians long after legalizing euthanasia for doctors to do just that, and now they brag about it at medical symposia. Most of the euthanized and harvested were not terminally ill, but disabled. One had a mental illness.

    I can think of few things more frightening than giving a disabled person, who may be struggling to find meaning in life, seemingly greater ”meaning” in their deaths. And what such crassly utilitarianism will do to society’s attitudes toward people with serious disabilities and mental illnesses is also on my “worry front burner.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, This is the kind of story that would be considered “conspiracy theory” to many people. The problem is it is totally true. Once society accepts this type of action, nobody will be safe (a former marine was recently held against his will because they (govt) claimed he was mentally ill). Let me be clear, as long as the people acknowledge governemt with the ultimate power over them, the people will suffer the most. There have been many who are saying we have a food shortage coming. Is this just a govt run crisis to euthanise those that can’t protect themselves? Or just as bad, those that argue against govt control under the claim of mental illness? Power and control at the highest levels of govt are a mental illness, and thats why I won’t vote for any of them 😦

    • I keep pointing out that the Nazi’s won in the end. The progressivism of the national socialist movement was and remains attractive. It runs just below the surface, erupting only after an election mandate. While attention is diverted, it becomes the “norm”. If it were not so incredibly evil it would be fun to sit back and watch some of it play out. The Margaret Sanger abortionists are purifying the race as they intended to do all along. Abortion numbers in minority communities far surpass those in non minority areas. But, let’s all remember, it is for the “greater good.”

      • I think “greater good” has been replaced with “moving Forward”. Moving Forward into the New World where morality is immoral and “Science is King”. God help us!

  42. JAC
    The last posts regarding money and production by you are a bit incomprehensible – so I won’t address them directly.

    But let’s start here with the question of the relationship between production and demand for money.

    First off, I see none, so lets’ flow some stuff.

    Money is the medium of exchange here – merely increasing productions, creating more products, which means trading more products changes nothing regarding the medium to exchange those products.

    It is merely the bell you ring if you want to trade – and no more or less bells are necessary regardless of production.

    So it is not a need for more exchange medium.

    You posited investment – so let’s look at that.

    Well, that isn’t money either – that is “capital” – so let’s discuss the forms

    If the capital was gold, gold is sold for money, then given in investment – but the money supply is unchanged – this is no different then a trade of products as described above, just one being gold.

    Gold, house, property etc – all capital, can be exchanged this way.

    So, money held in a bank – in a free market bank or a fractional reserve?

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      So what did I learn from this discussion? Just because I believe something to be true, or just because I know something to be true, does NOT make it true or at least not a whole truth.

      Tnx again Flag for helping us to think a little deeper!

  43. Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:

    “Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”
    Now add this, “Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    Strange times we live in for sure. One of the “conspiracy theories” that I had a problem believing, was the one about Chemtrails. However, it seems to be changing: http://www.prisonplanet.com/swedish-official-admits-toxic-chemtrails-are-real-not-a-wild-conspiracy-theory.html

    • Reminds me of an old Sci-fi book I read in High School called the “Green Rain.” An “accidental” spraying improved agriculture throughout the world and had the side -effect of turning everyone’s skin green (no more racism!). Some people missed out and “science” determined that they could replicate the accident and make things even more better! Well, the fools did it, upset the apple cart and made the planet uninhabitable.

      Something Bobby Burns said about “the best laid plans of mice and men ganging aglay”.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    I am going to post this now but don’t have time to comment until tomorrow morning. But please note Stewart’s comment about “we have agreed we are a social democracy”. Then think back about what our resident lefties have claimed as their “preferred” system.

    Then notice how O’Reilly just follows the lead. As I said the other day, he is NO CONSERVATIVE.

    O’Reilly, Stewart ‘Rumble’ no average debate
    Posted by
    CNN’s Gregory Wallace

    Washington (CNN) – Saturday’s debate between conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly and liberal funnyman Jon Stewart was nothing like the televised presidential debates: After all, the prize for winning was a wrestling belt.

    But nonetheless, the two television personalities stood behind lecterns and took their chances at questions from the moderator and audience.

    – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

    – Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.

    “What do you think is the most fundamental problem with the public political discourse?” the moderator asked.

    “Stewart,” O’Reilly snapped back.

    Between their laughs and shenanigans, references to Big Bird and Clint Eastwood, O’Reilly and Stewart fit in something besides talking points.

    “Honestly, I think we’ve lost our ability to problem-solve. We’re having the wrong conversation in this country,” Stewart said in response to the discourse question. “The conversation we’re having in this country is about a fundamental clash of civilizations when I think we have basically agreed that we’re a social democracy. Whether you want to get around it or not, this isn’t a conversation between freedom and tyranny and capitalism and socialism.”

    O’Reilly followed, “The problem with the discourse deal is capitalism.”

    “You can make a lot of money by being an assassin,” he said. “It doesn’t matter: right wing or left wing. You go in and you’re a hater – radio, cable, in print, whatever – you can get paid. And there’s a people who do that. And they go in, they don’t even believe half the stuff they say. … Capitalism drives that. There are people – Americans – who want to hear hate.”

    He noted that “we have to live with it, freedom of speech.”

    O’Reilly, who hosts “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News, and Stewart, who hosts “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central, are natural sparring partners based on their ideology and have faced off before on each other’s shows.

    But on Saturday, they took their differences onstage in what they billed as “The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium” at Washington’s George Washington University. Former Fox News host E.D. Hill moderated the discussion, though at times O’Reilly and Stewart largely cast her aside, dominating the show with their back and forth.

    Stewart accused his rival of living on “b— mountain,” which he described as a conservative alternate reality where “our problems [are] amplified and our solutions simplified, and that’s why they won’t work.

    “We face a debt crisis that we’ve never faced before. We are merely weeks from being a failed state or even worse, Greece,” Stewart continued. “And the way to solve it is to kill Big Bird.”

    O’Reilly criticized Stewart for skirting the issues, and criticized President Barack Obama for feeding an “entitlement society.”

    “This is not how the Founding Fathers envisioned us,” he said.

    “We have a president here who believe in social justice, he wants to take your money, my money, the money of the 1%, and he wants to give it to Bill Moyers,” O’Reilly continued, questioning why federal funds were going to causes such as PBS.

    The two speckled the show with references to moments from recent political discourse, such as Big Bird – another PBS reference which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney raised at Wednesday’s presidential debate – and movie star Clint Eastwood, who took the stage at the Republican National Convention earlier this summer.

    Their jousting topics ranged from health care to entitlement spending; from Christmas to government counting of calories.

    The solutions ranged from conventional to unconventional, such as O’Reilly’s suggestion that Obama should send a stronger signal to Iran, one of Israel’s foes, by aligning himself closer with the Israeli prime minister.

    “All Barack Obama has to do is go on a double date with Bibi, with Netanyahu,” O’Reilly said. “Just double date with him, go anywhere with him, that sends a little message to Tehran: They might be making up some stuff.”

    And the two used their newly developed debating experience to offer Obama and Romney something for their next debates: Do away with the town hall meeting style, and go at it over the issues.

    “I would rather have them like Stewart and me, right up here,” O’Reilly suggested, to applause. “That’s how to do it.”

    And in a moment of agreement, Stewart went along with the idea. “Yeah, fine.”

    • I have a love/hate relationship with O’Reilly. After letting this social democracy comment slide, I’m back to hate. Then he hates on capitalism. Is everyone on crack? I thought we settled on a constitutional republic years ago. It’s what made us the shining beacon on the hill. The idea that worked and why millions wanted in. They’ve tweaked around so much to the point where we have to argue about where we started from? Sad! I’ve also been waiting around to hear the words Freedom or Liberty from Romney. Maybe everyone is on crack.

    • charlieopera says:

      Then think back about what our resident lefties have claimed as their “preferred” system.

      It’s going there like it or not, JAC … capitalism has no choice now that we’ve entered the near feudal state. All the money is headed in one direction … we may be a very sleep and preoccupied mass, but sooner or later the frustration will erupt and so long stealing and then hording the profits workers “earn” for their masters. It’ll start with a hybrid of capitalism that is more fair than the current joke (a government owned by the 1%), but slowly but surely, it’ll become more and more fair … big ups for the greater good, my man. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        charlie

        Your about 100 years late on your predictions. It ran the cycle already and is back to the Mercantilists/Fascist running the show.

        How did that happen? Because your ridiculous Populist Marxists set the table for them.

        • charlieopera says:

          Nope, JAC, 100 years closer to home. Or why are you all whining about socialism so much? You’re a funny guy … 🙂

  46. JAC

    I smiled wide this morning thinking about you! On the Xway to my daughter’s house I passed a semi that was labeled with huge letters…JAC Products! 🙂

  47. Can’t run laps anymore if you drop a football…
    Can’t play “pepper” anymore when infielders drop batted balls
    No more dodge ball
    no more jungle gyms
    can’t do pushups anymore in pregame warmups
    no more yelling at players because of hurt feelings
    Everyone gets to play because it hurts feelings for sitting on a bench
    everyone gets a participation trophy because those that distinguish themselves make others feel bad…….
    can’t fail anyone anymore because it hurts feelings and makes one feel not part of the team
    Have to tell students not to score anymore touchdowns or hit anymore home runs because a blow out is considered unsportsmanlike and makes other students feel inferior…..

    Now there is a school in New Jersey that wants to do away with the Magna Cum Laude and the Summa Cum Laude because it makes other students feel inferior.

    And we wonder why we are raising a country full of wimpy children…….

  48. Pretty soon…JAC can’t go fishing anymore…..can’t go hunting anymore….can’t go skiing anymore…can’t enjoy sunsets anymore……………………………sigh

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The day this occurs the headlines the next day will read: “JAC Goes Postal…..Congress Critters Hides Found Hanging on Mall Fence.”

  49. JAC,my friend………Have a question for you….

    The Obama Administration decried this movie trailer and blamed it for the uprisings in the various countries saying that we must show tolerance and respect…etc..etc…

    And now,there is a movie coming out where the White House has leaked top secret information on the elimination of Bin Laden……

    Now, if the showing of this movie, which shows the killing of a Muslim terrorist, which he is going to take undeserved credit for, sparks uprisings and riots and things…….

    I wonder what the State Department is going to come up with now…..and if the showing of this movie results in the death of American Citizens because of its inflammatory content…..doesn’t this make this administration pretty damned hypocritical?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Colonel. Hoping all is well in the Republic this AM.

      Great question……………. er………ummmmmm……………. not sure I have a good answer.

      Maybe they could blame it on a Tsunami?

      There for awhile this weekend I thought TEXAS was going to get shut out in baseball AND football. Friday and Saturday were very tough days indeed. I will give ya one hurra though……… ARMY.

      On another note: BOTH Montana Teams WON and Idaho FINALLY got a win against a conference team. Boise State AND Nevada both WON.

      I am now done with my strutting around bragging. Back to the regular programming.

      The REASON for the riots AND attack on our Embassy in Libya WAS the killing of bin Laden and then the brazen BRAGGING about it by the White House. I am not sure there has been a single President except Any Jackson who so openly discussed personally ordering the killing of people. Wait. Maybe Teddy Roosevelt. Wouldn’t that be fitting.

      The FATHER of the Progressive Movement and the LAST SON of the Progressive Movement.

      One can only hope for the latter. 🙂 🙂

      P.S.: Damn Yankees

  50. Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August

    U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.

    The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.”

    But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel. The Regional Security Officer “asked for a number of U.S. shooters because of the pending SST redeployment and he was at that number,” said the senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified because of the ongoing internal investigation.

    The State Department issued a statement Monday, saying, “The SST was enlisted to support the re-opening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. They were based in Tripoli and operated almost exclusively there. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically.”

    The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had already asked for — and received — an extension of the SST earlier in the year. A February draft request for a 120-day extension, obtained by ABC News, stated that the team is “an integral part of our mobile and fixed site security functions,” augmenting the security escort work done by the Mobile Security Detachment, protecting the embassy, training local guards, serving as a Quick Reaction Force, providing “vital medical, communications, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), as well as, command and control enablers that are critical to post’s security effort.”

    The embassy request stated: “Quite simply, we cannot maintain our existing levels of Embassy operations, much less implement necessary staffing increases, without a continued SST presence.”

  51. Just A Citizen says:

    Loud Thumping Sounds????

    I wonder WHO is trying to get out!

    “Fresh lava and ash spewed Sunday from a volcano in northeast Indonesia, casting haze over the crater and prompting authorities to warn nearby residents, state news reported.

    Loud, thumping noises were heard at a monitoring post 6 kilometers (3.8 miles) from where Mount Lokon erupted around 2:05 p.m. (2:05 a.m. ET) Sunday, said Sutupo Purwo Nugroho of Indonesia’s National Disaster Mitigation Board, as reported by the official Antara news agency.”

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    How fun! Something I was ranting about on a couple lefty sites a few weeks back.

    You can not wage war, or “squeeze”, a group that is not defined nor identifiable. Aside from the rhetorical argument, there is in fact NO “IDENTIFIABLE” MIDDLE CLASS in America.

    There is no definition and pundits/politicians/scholars leave it up to the people to decide if they “feel like they are middle class” or not.

    Yet our National Economic policies are driven by this mythical groups needs, desires, anger, etc.

    Or are they????

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    When will the media talking heads and self proclaimed “journalists” start asking questions about the “accuracy” or TRUTH of the White House or CBO’s predictions?

    Never mind, we all know the answer!

  54. I know I encourage you guys to vote-but this is the biggest bunch of crap I’ve read in awhile.

    Opinion
    Is America Man Enough to Vote?
    Ward Sutton
    By VICTORIA BASSETTI
    Published: October 6, 2012

    HUNDREDS of variables affect voting patterns: income, race, gender, unemployment, the weather, polling locations, altruism, to name a few. And on Election Day these all come together to produce a voter. Too often they produce a nonvoter.

    American voter participation is consistently below that of other industrialized democracies. (The historically significant 2008 presidential election drew less than 62 percent of eligible voters to the polls.) It’s a truism among election reformers that poor turnout produces poor representation, which produces laws people are disinclined to obey and so undermines the process. But here’s a new idea: testosterone may provide a key to boosting voter turnout.

    In 2008, scientists from Duke University and the University of Michigan analyzed the biological effects of voting on more than 150 voters. On Election Day, more than 150 test subjects chewed sugar-free gum after they’d voted and again at regular intervals after learning the election results.

    When the scientists analyzed the testosterone in the saliva generated by all that gum chewing, they noted a dramatic pattern: men who had voted for the losing presidential candidate, John McCain, suffered a big drop in their testosterone after hearing of his defeat.

    The scientists reported that the male McCain voters “felt significantly more controlled, submissive, unhappy and unpleasant.” The testosterone effect was “as if they directly engaged head-to-head in a contest for dominance” and lost, one researcher told a reporter when the study was published in 2009. The men who voted for Obama fared better. The researchers speculated that there might be an Obama baby boom.

    Politicians mining the gender gap should pay close attention to the study. Women had no change in testosterone levels, regardless of whom they voted for. Estrogen was not measured in the study. And women return to the polls more frequently than men. (Indeed, female turnout has exceeded men’s in every presidential election since 1980.)

    Is it possible voting makes male voters too vulnerable? Could the unpleasant feelings male voters experience when their candidates lose discourage them from revisiting the polls? No wonder they stop voting. It hurts too much.

    Low turnout should be a concern, and not just because of the inadvertent commentary it supplies on American manhood. The democratic process is our way of resolving conflict. It produces the laws that underpin our society, often in the face of substantial disagreement. Researchers have demonstrated that participants in the democratic process are more likely to comply with its outcomes, even when they disagree. They pay their taxes and obey the speed limit. When fewer people vote, the connection between the people and the laws that govern them grows tenuous.

    Low turnout also affects the quality of government. Voting behavior is not uniform across socioeconomic groups. Young people, Latinos and poorer people vote at lower rates than, say, rich, white, older people. When turnout falls, politicians can and do collect bands of polarized followers and cater to their wishes rather than to the general public good.

    The pharmaceutical industry has tackled depression, sleeplessness and erectile dysfunction. Could we drug people into being better citizens? Studies by the geneticist and social scientist James Fowler suggest that serotonin, the neurotransmitter connected to mood disorders and depression, is strongly implicated in voting behavior.

    Often called the utility hormone, serotonin plays a role in our ability, among other things, to absorb disappointment (or worse), while maintaining social and emotional balance. In one of Mr. Fowler’s studies, people with the genetic code for efficient serotonin systems were more likely to vote — and more likely to return to the polls in subsequent elections, even if their candidate lost. Mr. Fowler hypothesizes that people with more durable serotonin systems can better handle the intensity of voting.

    As absurd — or useful — as it may be to think about hormones and voting, studies like Mr. Fowler’s don’t really help us grapple with the complex issues facing our democracy. This year, more than ever, our quest to understand voter turnout strains against the unruly, partisan way we actually run elections.

    Americans are struggling with a severe case of electoral dysfunction. They have to navigate bureaucratic hurdles needed to cast a ballot — the hassles of getting and staying registered, finding the polling station, standing in long lines, deciphering ballots and complying with much contested and confusing ID requirements. New restrictions on early voting, limitations on voter registration initiatives and voter roll purges contribute to the dysfunction.

    Voters need every bit of emotional resilience they can find. Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry will come up with a little blue pill to make people voters. But until then, we may need to man up and face facts. For all our idealism about voting and democracy, we have created a needlessly complex and burdensome voting system. We can’t fix the hormonal fallout from voting, but biology provides another reason we should think about making voting simpler and easier.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/is-america-man-enough-to-vote.html?pagewanted=all

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree, a bunch of crap. If they really want some testosterone to explode, let’s have a nice bloody revolution 🙂

    • and here is a response from the left on those that dare question government or the Fed:

      NBC News Senior White House Correspondent Chuck Todd on Sunday’s Meet the Press: “The Federal Reserve gets questioned now for politics these days. The Supreme Court and John Roberts get – we have got, we have corroded – what we’re doing, we are corroding trust in our federal government in a way. And, one-time responsible people are doing to control it. And the idea that Donald Trump and Jack Welch, rich people with crazy conspiracy theories, can get traction on this is a bad trend.”

      Top Obama campaign official and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed with Todd’s analysis saying that the mentality of not trusting the government is “dangerous.”

      • 4 weeks and one day…………. !

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        This is absolutely TRUE: “not trusting the government is “dangerous.””

        What they DO NOT tell every one is WHO is in danger if this happens. Bwahahahahaahaa

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        P.S. Here is the response I gave to HuffPo this morning on the Chuck Todd whining session.

        “Note to Chuck Todd.

        Maybe a little REAL JOURNALISM would help dispel the disease you think exists due to others.

        For example Chuck, did you know that the Household Survey everyone is arguing about is NOT designed to give us a Statistically Sound Answer to the question “How many people are working right now”?

        You didn’t know that? Then why not?

        Of course this does not dismiss the ignorance of those crying conspiracy, but how much of that ranting is due to you and the other “journalists” reporting these figures for years as if they were real and irrefutable?”

  55. Under Obamacare, it will never get this bad, will it?
    Rick Moran

    The headline and teaser say a lot.

    From The Telegraph:

    “Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards”

    “Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.”

    It gets grimmer:

    The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.

    They will also fuel concerns about care homes, as it was disclosed that eight people starved to death and 21 people died of thirst while in care.

    Last night there were warnings that they must prompt action by the NHS and care home regulators to prevent further deaths among patients.

    The Office for National Statistics figures also showed that:

    * as well as 43 people who starved to death, 287 people were recorded by doctors as being malnourished when they died in hospitals;

    * there were 558 cases where doctors recorded that a patient had died in a state of severe dehydration in hospitals;

    * 78 hospital and 39 care home patients were killed by bedsores, while a further 650 people who died had their presence noted on their death certificates;

    * 21,696 were recorded as suffering from septicemia when they died, a condition which experts say is most often associated with infected wounds.

    Yes, well at least they all had free insurance.

    Any additional commentary would be superfluous.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/under_obamacare_it_will_never_get_this_bad_will_it.html#ixzz28k4ZPTTY

  56. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.conservativevideos.com/2012/10/a-word-to-rioting-muslims/

    Worth a listen. Maybe this just needs to be said!

    • Never heard of him. Interesting he thinks “white guilt” has been used up. GMan’s post above claims “Muslim Guilt” has been used up. Just seems we are all fed up with everyone trying to exploit our tolerance to force us to roll over for them.

  57. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    Another crisp morning here in NW Pa as I prep to hit the woods again. The peacefulness is a great way to spend a morning. For those counting, there are 28 days left before you can go vote for the crime lord of your chosing. Which ever crime sydicate wins, I expect just more of the same. Of course, it is Tuesday, a perfect day for a False Flag attack (you know, a CRISIS) that Obamaloni can take advantage of to implement all those EO’s he signed. 👿

    Have a great morning folks 🙂

  58. charlieopera says:

    Uncle Joe vs. the Ayn Rand wannabe (except for the atheism) … Go Joe!

  59. President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign commented for the first time Monday afternoon about a scandal concerning campaign donations that first broke at The Daily Beast, but the campaign offered no specifics about its social media fundraising system.

    “We take great care to make sure that every one of our more than three million donors are eligible to donate and that our fundraising efforts fully comply with all U.S. laws and regulations,” Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher told Peter Schweizer of the Government Accountability Institute and Peter Boyer of Newsweek. (RELATED: Obama campaign may have illegally solicited foreign donors via social media website)

    “Campaign officials say they use multiple security tools to screen all online credit card contributions, and then review, by hand, those donations that are flagged by their automated system,” Schweizer and Boyer reported.

    “Potentially improper donations, such as those originating from foreign internet addresses, are returned to any donors who cannot provide a copy of their current U.S. passport photo pages,” according to the Obama campaign.

    But the Obama campaign ignored specific questions about its donations system, according to Slate.com’s Dave Weigel.

    “Why do Obama donation appeals go out to non-Americans, anyway?” Weigel asked Monday afternoon. ”And why isn’t the credit card protection stronger?”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/08/amid-foreign-contributions-scandal-obama-campaign-claims-it-tries-to-stop-illegal-donations/#ixzz28oAvPF7R

  60. charlieopera says:

    Down goes Ryan! Down goes Ryan! Down goes Ryan!

    • Is that some sort of homosexual attack? You calling him gay? You should consider these words;

      “For those counting, there are 28 days left before you can go vote for the crime lord of your chosing. Which ever crime sydicate wins, I expect just more of the same.”

      You were a big Obama supporter. How did that turn out? But then, you don’t consider a “crime syndicate” to be a bad thing….

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    WILL THE REAL OBSTRUCTIONIST STEP FORWARD.

    I know I am dreaming but it would be nice to see the PRESS take Schumer to task on this move, given his constant battering of the R’s as a “problem”. God this guy is a slime ball. From NYT.

    “Schumer Opposes a Tax Overhaul, in Blow to Deficit Deal
    By JONATHAN WEISMAN
    Published: October 9, 2012

    WASHINGTON — Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, threw cold water Tuesday on what had been an emerging consensus for a bipartisan deficit- reduction plan — an overhaul of the tax code that lowers top income tax rates but raises more revenue. Mr. Schumer’s position greatly complicates efforts to win bipartisan support for a deal before January, when the “fiscal cliff” of tax increases and automatic spending cuts goes into effect.
    In a speech to the National Press Club, Mr. Schumer said he rejected the idea of a tax code overhaul as “little more than happy talk.” Taxes, he said, could not be changed to bring in more revenue, lower the top tax rates and still protect the middle class from tax increases.

    Instead, he said that the top two income tax rates should be frozen, and any additional revenues generated by closing loopholes and curtailing or eliminating tax deductions and credits should be devoted to deficit reduction.

    “It is an alluring prospect to cut taxes on the wealthiest people and somehow still reduce the deficit, but you can’t have your cake and eat it, too,” Mr. Schumer said. “The reality is, any path forward on tax reform that promised to cut rates will end up either failing to reduce the deficit or failing to protect the middle class from a net tax increase.”

    In January, all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire and $1 trillion of automatic, across-the-board cuts to defense and domestic programs over the next 10 years begin to go into force. Republicans and some senior Democrats had been gravitating to a deficit-reduction framework that relied heavily on tax changes to bring both parties on board.

    Those changes would allow tax rates to actually fall, but would count on enough changes to tax deductions and credits to raise as much as $2 trillion over the next decade. Republicans could claim they prevented an increase in tax rates. Democrats could say they forced Republicans to add additional revenues to spending cuts to get a handle on deficits that again topped $1 trillion for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

    That framework was embraced by senators of both parties — including the second-ranking Democrat, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois — when it was proposed by the chairmen of President Obama’s deficit- reduction commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio has also accepted in theory that revenues from a tax overhaul could be used for deficit reduction, as long as the current tax rates do not rise.

    The so-called Gang of Eight — four Democratic senators and four Republican senators — have been negotiating a deficit-reduction deal that embraces tax changes that lower rates and increase revenues as a central pillar.

    The Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, and his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, have also proposed overhauling the tax code to lower tax rates across the board — but they have wanted to keep overall revenues about where they are now. Mr. Ryan’s budget would reduce current income tax rates to just two, 10 percent and 25 percent. The current top rate is 35 percent, and is set to rise to 39.6 percent in January.

    With his speech Tuesday, Mr. Schumer is planting a new Democratic flag.

    “If upfront rate cuts are the starting point for negotiations on tax reform, it will box us in on what else we can achieve. Certain conservatives will pocket the rate reductions and never follow through on finding enough revenue elsewhere in the code to reduce the deficit. Or, if they do, it will almost certainly come out of the pockets of middle-income earners,” he said.

    Republicans, Mr. Schumer said, will have to be lured to the negotiating table not by the prospect of lowering top income tax rates but overhauling entitlements, like Medicare and Social Security.

    That too is no easy prescription. The left is already gearing up to protect Medicare and Social Security from sharp changes.

    “If Obama wins and retreats on those issues, there would be an enormous amount of disappointment and frankly disgust on the part of millions of people,” said Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent and one of the most liberal members of the Senate. “If the president stands tall, if he goes to the American people on this, he can put Republicans on the defensive.”

  62. They are so immature. They truly are looking for the intellectually disadvantaged to be with them.

    http://thehill.com/video/260893-new-obama-ad-uses-big-bird-to-hit-romney-on-deficit-wall-street

  63. Just A Citizen says:
  64. Remember Lara Logan, CBS reporter who was raped in Tahrir Square?. Have to feel for her here..

    • I think this is an older segment. She recently was back on and had some startling, but not surprising things to say about the status of the Taliban, AQ, etc. Can’t seem to find the link right now.

      Not sure if she’s a warrior or foolish.

      • Laura Washington of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that at a Chicago speech, CBS correspondent Lara Logan called for retribution for the recent terrorist killings of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other officials. Logan hoped America will “exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

        Eleven years later, she said, the terrorists still hate us more than ever. “The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she proclaimed. They’re coming back. “I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated,” Logan added. The lie? That America’s military has tamed the Taliban.

        “There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”

        Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.

        She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/10/08/lara-logan-cbs-wants-us-exact-revenge-chris-stevens-slaying-libya#ixzz28pINAHuO

  65. gmanfortruth says:
  66. Just A Citizen says:

    D13

    Good afternoon Colonel.

    I have a question for you.

    WHY oh WHY would Syria fire on Turkey???

    WHY would they drag a foe into the fight???

    Me thinks perhaps someone else is firing those shells into Turkey.

    What say you?

    Best to you and yours this fine Tuesday. Sunny and warm, for another day or two. Then the cold clammy starts.

    • Good day JAC…..stupid is a stupid does. Iran has much to gain from a wider ME war. They are the major backers of the Syrian Government as is Russia. IF Turkey comes into the war, the Syrian Government survives.

  67. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting things going on in the world. I have some questions that a few of you may be able to answer.

    1. If the Fed is buying Mortgage Securities at 40 billion a month, how long before they own all of them? Are they just printing the money out of thin air to buy them? Yes, I’m concerned with the Feds owning all the US mortgages and paying for them with worthless paper.

    2. Poll – Will the US attack Syria or Iran before the election? Will the US be attacked causing mass casualties before the election?

    Happy Days Ahead 🙂

  68. Big brother is here and in the state of Texas.

    http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-school-id-hernandez-033/

    What say you Colonel?

    • Not much to say except that it is San Antonio.School funding is predicated on attendance and performance. Truancy among Latinos is exceptionally high.I guess this is their way to track truancy…….I do not agree with it at all but school districts in Texas are independent and not state run. If that is their way….it is their choice.

  69. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    I like it when people grovel over things that they are brainwashed into believing, so here is an opinion article, clearly left wing, and very clearly groveling 😆 http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yes, more groveling ! In retrospect, I think this author finally see’s the truth. Now if only Captain Canolli would see this 🙂
      I Too Have Become Disillusioned
      >
      > By Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San
      > Francisco Examiner)
      >
      > Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
      > Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
      > baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
      > Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
      > professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
      > manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful
      > military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
      >
      > Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life:
      > ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
      > and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community
      > organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
      > achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
      > he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
      > United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
      > presidential ambitions.
      >
      > He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
      > legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
      > troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
      > who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life,
      > actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political
      > sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
      > and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
      >
      > Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
      > addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
      > sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
      > hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
      > like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
      > was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
      > hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
      > they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
      > was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of
      > his skin.
      >
      > Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
      > matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
      > had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance
      > to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
      > racism to rest?
      >
      > Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
      > Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
      > course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
      > affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
      > to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
      > themselves.
      >
      > Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
      > themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
      > for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
      > inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
      > Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t
      > around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
      > resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
      > racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
      > color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
      > that isn’t racism, then nothing is.
      >
      > And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
      > troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
      > have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
      > undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
      > for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
      > he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
      > Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
      > good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
      > contrary.
      >
      > What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
      > every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
      > executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory
      > skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives
      > included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
      >
      > The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when
      > he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
      > he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
      > issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
      > has failed over and over again for 100 years.
      >
      > And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
      > everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
      > inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
      > task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
      > his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
      > really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
      > anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
      >
      > In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
      > temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
      > that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
      > liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
      > with such a man in the Oval Office.

      • Again I am reminded of “The Emperor has no Clothes”. Do you all remember that when the little boy finally blurted it out in public, suddenly, the crowd saw too. It was like they all had the blinders dropped from their eyes simultaneously. That debate gave some 60 plus million people the opportunity to see the truth the whole damn, nasty, truth.

        There is not much going on (or ever was) in the skull of the “smartest” man ever. Hope he enjoys that beachfront Hawaiian house the “friends of the big O” are buying him. Perhaps he can give more lectures on “Constitutional Law” at his presidential library. I suggest though that he finally get around to reading the constitution.

        Gotta worry about that lame duck session though. That and more executive orders. Wonder who he will issue pardons for, all of Gitmo maybe?

    • Andrew Sullivan is the nutcase that thought up the Trigg isn’t Sarah’s thing. Looks like he’s still crazy after all this time.

  70. Here’s the Lara Logan speech. Can you imagine if we had more real journalists like her?

    http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-lara-logans-explosive-speech-on-the-resurgence-of-the-taliban-and-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan/

  71. Videographer James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught an official for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign helping who she thought was an Obama supporter set herself up to vote more than once in November.

    Stephanie Caballero is the regional field director for Obama’s Organizing For America in Houston, Texas. Federal Election Commission documents show, according to Project Veritas, that Caballero is a “salaried employee of the DNC [Democratic National Committee].”

    Caballero is caught on camera helping the young woman try to vote in Florida and Texas in the upcoming election.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz28urF1joz

  72. It is starting……..no one is waiting until the election. Olive Garden Restaurant chain has just announced that there are no longer going to have full time employees. All employees are going to part time status……Reason…..to avoid Obamacare provisions. Olive Garden is going to reduce the number of employees under the thresh hold. They are doing what we have already done and other restaurants and manufacturers are going to do the same. In this manner, they avoid payroll taxes, avoid Obama care,and avoid employee liability.

    Prediction: If Obama gets re-elected, You will see a law passed that will not allow part time employees.

    • The Olive Garden Parent Company includes several other large chains such as Red Lobster. What we are starting to see in this case is “the Law of unintended consequences” starting to play out.

      I wish all my liberal friends out there would just start asking the question, “How can this go wrong”? They bitch and moan about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. but don’t see the parallels.

  73. charlieopera says:

    Okay, kids … I know you’re all still feeling tingly from that debate (remember, I called it a disaster for Obama), but tomorrow night it’s the Ayn Rander wannabe vs. Uncle Joe … and Joe won’t have to take it easy on the little punk the way he did on the canary brained-Sarah Palin last go … this will be all out head banging and I don’t see how the little shit comes out on top.

    Of course even I could be wrong … but I am interested in how many of yous feel about Sir, Roof-Rack now that’s he done an about face on your core values and his policy. Or is it you’re just relieved at the tiny chance you have of dethroning The One?

    In the meantime, now that Sandusky has been sentenced, is it okay to call him a pedophile yet? Anyone (besides me) notice how McQueary sued Penn State for being wronged? Like I originally said, he should hang himself …

    That should bring USW back to the fold … 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      charlie

      Why is it you can’t simply ask a question without pushing insults onto people you don’t even know?

      My prediction: Biden is Declared the Winner.

      Why? Three Reasons.

      1. Contrary theory. Everyone is expecting and bragging about Ryan cleaning Biden’s clock. The opposite will therefore happen.

      2. Biden is “JOE”, he is the lovable clutz, and nobody really cares. Because he is “lovable” and “emotional” and “funny”, etc, etc. Ryan on the other hand is the accountant invited to the wedding party.

      3. The MEDIA has to find something positive in the Obama campaign. Biden is their only hope at the moment. And the moderator will be out to prove she is tougher than Jim Leher. Look for a more “interview” style instead of open debate.

      In short, Ryan is NOT as lovable as that weird Uncle Joe guy that shows up at Thanksgiving.

      I doubt that WHAT either person says will have any impact. Unless Biden suddenly starts sounding smart. That would make headlines for the rest of the campaign.

      • charlieopera says:

        JAC, point out for me where I ofended someone. Unless you’re pointing to Sarah Canary Brain Palin, I’m not seeing it. If so, I think I insulted the canary …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          “the little punk”; “canary brained-Sarah Palin”; “Sir, Roof-Rack”.

          Also note that your response avoids my question by changing the criterion. You try to change it from “insulting others” to “where I offended someone”. Since the insults are thrown at those not on SUFA it would be impossible to “offend them”.

        • Not offended, but I find these constant personal insults to be petty. I think most of us are trying to have a fairly serious discussion and this takes away from that with:

          the Ayn Rander wannabe
          the little punk
          the canary brained
          the little shit

          Sir, Roof-Rack (OK, that one is kinda funny)

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Ryan: You guys added 6 trillion to the debt and that’s too much (wink, wink).
      Biden: It’s Bush’s fault
      Ryan: We can save Medicare
      Biden: It’s Bush’s fault
      Ryan: Unemployment is too high under your leadership
      Biden: It’s Bush’s fault

      What else can Joe say? They have failed on all phases and have no plan. The people will get a new crime boss soon. BFD 🙂

    • USWeapon would love to come back in to the fold.

      But USWeapon is currently in South Africa diving with the sharks and chasing lions 🙂

      I will be flying back to the states next week so I can comment more then. In the meantime, why would I have a problem with Sandusky being called a pedophile or you saying something bad about McQueary? My issue is with how the university was punished on the vague assumptions of the Freeh report…

      • Why sharks circle you before attacking…
        Two great white sharks swimming in the ocean spied survivors of a sunken ship.
        “Follow me son” the father shark said to the son shark and they swam to the mass of people.

        “First we swim around them a few times with just the tip of our fins showing.” And they did.

        “Well done, son! Now we swim around them a few times with all of our fins showing.” And they did.

        “Now we eat everybody.” And they did.

        When they were both gorged, the son asked,
        “Dad, why didn’t we just eat them all at first? Why did we swim around and around them?”

        His wise father replied, “Because they taste better without the poop inside!”

      • Livin large! Go big or stay home.

      • charlieopera says:

        Stay away from the sharks, USW … those things are dangerous … same with lions … that’s why they make National Geographic DVDs for Christ’s sake. If God wanted people to swim with sharks he would’ve given us fins … if he/she wanted us to play with lions he/she would’ve made us gazelles … oy vey. Just looking to get you back into the fold, brother. Glad you’re okay. Thought you might’ve gone into shock when Romney turned the tables (and his policy) on The One.

        Safe home … and how ’bout those Buffalo Bills! 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can they go for 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

      • charlieopera says:

        Just making sure you’re okay, which obviously you aren’t. If God wanted us to swim with sharks, he/she would’ve given us fins. If he/she wanted us to play with Lions, he/she would’ve made us gazelles. Take it easy over there. I was concerned you might’ve had a stroke when Romney turned the tables (and his policies) on The One. Just keeping your pulse going, brother.

        And how ‘bout those Buffalo Bills? 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can we get to 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

      • charlieopera says:

        Just making sure you’re okay, which obviously you aren’t. If God wanted us to swim with sharks, he/she would’ve given us fins. If he/she wanted us to play with Lions, he/she would’ve made us gazelles. Take it easy over there. I was concerned you might’ve had a stroke when Romney turned the tables (and his policies) on The One. Just keeping your pulse going, brother.

        And how ‘bout those Buffalo Bills? 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can we get to 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

      • Just making sure you’re okay, which obviously you aren’t. If God wanted us to swim with sharks, he/she would’ve given us fins. If he/she wanted us to play with Lions, he/she would’ve made us gazelles. Take it easy over there. I was concerned you might’ve had a stroke when Romney turned the tables (and his policies) on The One. Just keeping your pulse going, brother.

        And how ‘bout those Buffalo Bills? 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can we get to 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

      • I’m back! Couldn’t get in last night.

        Just making sure you’re (USW) okay, which obviously you aren’t. If God wanted us to swim with sharks, he/she would’ve given us fins. If he/she wanted us to play with Lions, he/she would’ve made us gazelles. Take it easy over there. I was concerned you might’ve had a stroke when Romney turned the tables (and his policies) on The One. Just keeping your pulse going, brother.

        And how ‘bout those Buffalo Bills? 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can we get to 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

  74. It’s getting pretty crowded under the bus. Here’s a timeline on Libya dating back to April:
    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/08/an-incriminating-timeline-the-obama-administration-and-libya/

  75. Black Flag

    Here’s one for you. My brother sent this out to the family..he’s trying to convince us not to vote. Of course I had to debate him..but he’s no better at listening than you. 🙂
    http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/finnigan9.1.1.html

  76. gmanfortruth says:
  77. FLAG, if you are out there, couple of questions;

    1. Is there anyway, in your opinion to pull back from the precipice that we are on economically or is it “game over” ?

    2. Chicken or egg question. Had a discussion with one of my boys yesterday about this . As you know, I think that the current crisis was brought on by bad underwriting of mortgages. Son # 2 thinks that it was caused by deregulation. I think that would never have been an issue at all had the mortgages that were packaged in CMO’s been good paper. Therefore, the problem lies with those who insisted that bad paper be written to give everybody an opportunity to become a homeowner. Who’s right?

    3. (sorry just thought of it) How could the constant refinancing of mortgages (using them as a piggy bank) have been thwarted? Seems that some started out good until everyone got greedy. If appraisals are related to “comparables” and comparables get out of hand because of, for want of a better phrase, the tulip craze, could anything have been done differently?

    I think you have a pretty good take on things financial so I will eagerly await anything you might have to say. Anyone else have any opinions?

    • SKT

      FLAG, if you are out there, couple of questions; 1. Is there anyway, in your opinion to pull back from the precipice that we are on economically or is it “game over” ?

      A thousands ways, and I am sure I haven’t counted them all.

      But the real question:
      Is there any that will be exercised by those in power who need to do it?

      Ah, that answer is
      No. Not one.

      “Those who can will not. Those who would can not.”

      More on #2 in a bit

    • gmanfortruth says:

      SKT, Have to agree with Flag here. Bernanke, on Sept 13 (correct me if I’m wrong on any of this), Announced QE infinity, and will be buying mortgage backed securities, 40 billion dollars worth a month, with money printed out of thin air. Gas prices went up 15 cents at that moment. The banks, who get all this money, have agreed to purchase T-Bills with the money they get from the sale. No help at all for the economy, as I see it. The people were quiet, despite hearing that our dollar is not only getting devalued on a monthly basis, but the Fed is buying mortgages, with no effort or hard work involved at all.

      I’m no economic genious, but all this sounds like pure theft to me. If the Fed decides to really cause problems, forcing millions into foreclosure, they get the property, for basically nothing, and that just suck!

    • SKT

      . Chicken or egg question. Had a discussion with one of my boys yesterday about this . As you know, I think that the current crisis was brought on by bad underwriting of mortgages. Son # 2 thinks that it was caused by deregulation. I think that would never have been an issue at all had the mortgages that were packaged in CMO’s been good paper. Therefore, the problem lies with those who insisted that bad paper be written to give everybody an opportunity to become a homeowner. Who’s right?

      Neither!

      You cannot argue “deregulation” in a legal regime surrounding banking that has over 70,000 laws.
      It was “re-regulation” and thus carried the same defects that all regulation around free non-violent action contains – holds massive contradictions which will lead to even large distortions.

      Measure of “good” paper vs not is precarious.

      A good example is the number of upside down mortgage being held by “normal” people – who pay their bills, bought homes within their budgets, met all the conditions…. but the market was high, and now they are crushed. Their paper was “good” – but now is “bad”.

      The root of the crisis all leads to a single source – artificially cheap credit.

      Interest rate informs investors and borrowers of the scarcity of capital – high interest, scarce capital – low interest, abundant capital.

      But real wealth capital comes from excess production and savings – a thriving economy.

      The Fed artificially lowered the price of capital pretending the economy was thriving. Decisions were made believing the economy was thriving.

      But it was a lie.

      And the truth always – eventually – wins.

      A bank lending based on a lie – a borrower borrowing based on lie … is it the fault of a bank, whose job it is to lend, or the borrower who believed in economy?

      Nope.

      It was the Fed and government lying to everyone.

      End the Fed.

    • SKT

      3. (sorry just thought of it) How could the constant refinancing of mortgages (using them as a piggy bank) have been thwarted? Seems that some started out good until everyone got greedy. If appraisals are related to “comparables” and comparables get out of hand because of, for want of a better phrase, the tulip craze, could anything have been done differently?

      Good question – the same effect in the tulip craze happened here.

      …access to artificially cheapened credit.

      In a free market, as each borrowing becomes larger, the amount of available capital decreases.

      The laws of supply and demand – as capital becomes more scarce, its price rises – causing new borrowers to reconsider the economics of such financing…. a natural feedback loop that slows down such constant up-onemanship of mortgages.

      But if the FED holds the rate low, no matter what, the feedback loop does not exist.
      The price does not rise, leading to more aggressive borrowing until its own momentum becomes the energy. Banks re-lend dead mortgages because to call the “default” threatens the bank – like the IOU your brother-in-law can’t repay … you don’t tell your wife you just lost $20,000 – you merely ‘re-lend’ him $20,000 ..plus a bit more so he doesn’t default to the other guy….

      One day it ends.

  78. charlieopera says:

    Trying this for a third time … Just making sure you’re okay, which obviously you aren’t. If God wanted us to swim with sharks, he/she would’ve given us fins. If he/she wanted us to play with Lions, he/she would’ve made us gazelles. Take it easy over there. I was concerned you might’ve had a stroke when Romney turned the tables (and his policies) on The One. Just keeping your pulse going, brother.

    And how ‘bout those Buffalo Bills? 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can we get to 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

%d bloggers like this: