The BillyB, Aster & JR8 roundtable!

[BillyB]

Now if I had written that, our friend in the UK would be all over me, even though it's the truth. I like it that all are screaming the Repuglicans are just being vindictive when you have just said what I've been saying for the past couple of weeks as well. We've given o'sama two blank cheques already that haven't done anything positive but a 'ell of lot of long term negative. And now, they just want him to show us what he's going to do before he can have it all. I think two tranches is the best policy as well. Course let Plavt get into the plonk later today and he'll be on it like gravy on a biscuit.

Blair and Brown built just such a perma-vote-bank, by pouring untold billions on the poor. Coupled with an open-door immigration policy (to the extent they had no[/] idea how many immigrants were entering the UK each year. Shower the immigrants with free housing, money, healthcare etc., plus citizenship, and after some time your core vote is so loyal you can never get voted out what ever your policies.

Well, Labour very nearly achieved that position. Meanwhile so much focus was expended on that, they really achieved almost nothing substantive despite 13 years in office. Their crowning achievement was something they managed not to do: join the euro.

A fellow member of the BNP - courtesy of Plavt, based on my similar perception of Labour. I just don't see what positives you can take from Labour's stint. Maybe good developments around encouraging entrepreneurship but the rest......??

I wonder what the real cost is of the uncontrolled influx of foreigners?

Labour made hay while the sun shone, and Gordon was a master manipulator who completely ruined our economy. A horrible, hated, bully in political circles and - from his legacy and footprint - actually quite clueless too.

[sundaymorningstaple]

To play devil's advocate - with 40 cents on the dollar borrowed how is anyone going to fundamentally change things in 3 years. You need at least two terms to get some traction. Maybe bring back the Clinton finance team - didn't they leave a relatively balanced book?!!

Are there any credible alternatives to take the leadership in the future? (That's a question, not a rhetoric)

That's the myth that just won't die. I'll give you a couple of links that will show you how they "did" it.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/32

The third link, just to dispel any suspicions that I am prejudiced against Democrats, will show you how all of them since Eisenhower have managed to do the slight of hand so as to make it look better than the reality is. Of them, Bush the Younger was the worst. But Clinton actually tried to claim a surplus but there wasn't. And Obama will make Bush look like a rank amateur before he's finished adding to the debt and accomplishing absolutely nothing except driving our country into completely uncharted water and a default only because he wants to ensure himself re-election by getting all the money upfront to get past the election before crying wolf again. Oh, and keeping the banker flush in cash.

Credible alternatives. No. Unfortunately. And that's what makes this whole thing soo damn sad. We know what O'sama is doing to the country and we cannot offer anybody else who has any more credibility that he has, which is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, ZIP.

But, at the same time, we obviously cannot afford to keep him in the whitehouse.

[BillyB]

To play devil's advocate - with 40 cents on the dollar borrowed how is anyone going to fundamentally change things in 3 years. You need at least two terms to get some traction. Maybe bring back the Clinton finance team - didn't they leave a relatively balanced book?!!

Are there any credible alternatives to take the leadership in the future? (That's a question, not a rhetoric)

That's the myth that just won't die. I'll give you a couple of links that will show you how they "did" it.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/32

The third link, just to dispel any suspicions that I am prejudiced against Democrats, will show you how all of them since Eisenhower have managed to do the slight of hand so as to make it look better than the reality is. Of them, Bush the Younger was the worst. But Clinton actually tried to claim a surplus but there wasn't. And Obama will make Bush look like a rank amateur before he's finished adding to the debt and accomplishing absolutely nothing except driving our country into completely uncharted water and a default only because he wants to ensure himself re-election by getting all the money upfront to get past the election before crying wolf again. Oh, and keeping the banker flush in cash.

Credible alternatives. No. Unfortunately. And that's what makes this whole thing soo damn sad. We know what O'sama is doing to the country and we cannot offer anybody else who has any more credibility that he has, which is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, ZIP.

But, at the same time, we obviously cannot afford to keep him in the whitehouse.

Interesting. I don't know too much about the U.S to be able to go much deeper but it is quite widely know, well maybe alleged is a better word, that Clinton did a good job. Maybe it was just Monica who was proficient at 'jobs'.

Hasn't the debt ceiling been raised at least once in every year since its passing in the early 1900's?

The numbers are getting incomprehensible either way. It's a chasm. And it sounds like a catch 22 in trying to resolve the issues.

[sundaymorningstaple]

If we could get rid of everybody in both houses and the sitting pres, AND do what Ron Paul suggests, it would probably work. But you would have to get rid of all the idiots that we've be putting back in every time because there is nothing credible to replace them with. It would work, but only ONE time. Our credit rating would take a hit anyway, but if we could start fresh without politicians who have agendas, vendettas, IOU, and girlfriends (at least not those already firmly entrenched in Washington), I think this would work at least for starters:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po ... l-reserve-

[Plavt]

A fellow member of the BNP - courtesy of Plavt, based on my similar perception of Labour. I just don't see what positives you can take from Labour's stint. Maybe good developments around encouraging entrepreneurship but the rest......??

I wonder what the real cost is of the uncontrolled influx of foreigners?

Labour made hay while the sun shone, and Gordon was a master manipulator who completely ruined our economy.

Uniformed and ignorant statements like that show just how out of touch and clueless others are. From your posts it would seem you have no idea what shape the economy was in after Thatcher's reign but then you were likely still in nappies. Gordon brown as chancellor actually improved the economy if you care to read back (unemployment was reduced considerably). Uncontrolled influx of foreigners? Well whose fault is that? The foreigners that pose problems for the UK invariably come from other EU member states where we cannot return them to and we all know who took us in into what was then the Common Market - although you probably don't. I suspect you are likely another banker who like others on here just looks for the first available scapegoat to cover for their own ignorance , greed and stupidity.

[BillyB]

If we could get rid of everybody in both houses and the sitting pres, AND do what Ron Paul suggests, it would probably work. But you would have to get rid of all the idiots that we've be putting back in every time because there is nothing credible to replace them with. It would work, but only ONE time. Our credit rating would take a hit anyway, but if we could start fresh without politicians who have agendas, vendettas, IOU, and girlfriends (at least not those already firmly entrenched in Washington), I think this would work at least for starters:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po ... l-reserve-

The Fed model is quite an interesting topic and one that I've read about on quite a few sources - and almost died of disbelief when you look at the mechanics.

The fact that any money printed is always borrowed by the Government from the Fed (is it really a Government extension or does it act like a private bank?)with the obligation that repayment will consist of both principal plus interest, theoretically means that the debt cost / cost of carry is costing the U.S citizens and tax payers more than it should. In effect, they are issuing notes/bonds with interest on the principal. They must be rubbing their hands together when the need for quantitative easing emerges.

In a nutshell, it equates to the Fed being run as a profit centre at the expense of the U.S government and also the U.S citizens. Acting in the best interests of the american taxpayer? I don't think so.

I'm really surprised that this hasn't formed the basis of or provoked more widespread pressure for reform. Given that transparency and accountability seem to be a key theme in the financial world, the very core of the banking centre seems to be setting the precedent and that precedent smacks of corruption to me.

Have you seen the Zeitgeist stuff on youtube? despite the propaganda and advertising in part 2 - the zeitgeist addendum - part one breaks the fed model down quite well and outlines the (devious, deliberate, and carefully planned) flaws in this system.

[BillyB]

A fellow member of the BNP - courtesy of Plavt, based on my similar perception of Labour. I just don't see what positives you can take from Labour's stint. Maybe good developments around encouraging entrepreneurship but the rest......??

I wonder what the real cost is of the uncontrolled influx of foreigners?

Labour made hay while the sun shone, and Gordon was a master manipulator who completely ruined our economy.

Uniformed and ignorant statements like that show just how out of touch and clueless others are. From your posts it would seem you have no idea what shape the economy was in after Thatcher's reign but then you were likely still in nappies. Gordon brown as chancellor actually improved the economy if you care to read back (unemployment was reduced considerably). Uncontrolled influx of foreigners? Well whose fault is that? The foreigners that pose problems for the UK invariably come from other EU member states where we cannot return them to and we all know who took us in into what was then the Common Market - although you probably don't. I suspect you are likely another banker who like others on here just looks for the first available scapegoat to cover for their own ignorance , greed and stupidity.

Evening Plavt.

So you were the guy who bought Gordon's autobiography and doubled the sales of it.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush. You sound like one of my old school teachers who used to keep the whole class behind in detention because one of the kids had been naughty.

[JR8]

You're clearly a brownshirt Bunter!

[JR8]

A fellow member of the BNP - courtesy of Plavt, based on my similar perception of Labour. I just don't see what positives you can take from Labour's stint. Maybe good developments around encouraging entrepreneurship but the rest......??

I wonder what the real cost is of the uncontrolled influx of foreigners?

Labour made hay while the sun shone, and Gordon was a master manipulator who completely ruined our economy.

Uniformed and ignorant statements like that show just how out of touch and clueless others are. From your posts it would seem you have no idea what shape the economy was in after Thatcher's reign but then you were likely still in nappies. Gordon brown as chancellor actually improved the economy if you care to read back (unemployment was reduced considerably). Uncontrolled influx of foreigners? Well whose fault is that? The foreigners that pose problems for the UK invariably come from other EU member states where we cannot return them to and we all know who took us in into what was then the Common Market - although you probably don't. I suspect you are likely another banker who like others on here just looks for the first available scapegoat to cover for their own ignorance , greed and stupidity.

Who is Margaret Thatcher, is she a politician?


p.s. congrats Plavt on one of the most unnecessarily poisonous posts I have seen in a while

[sundaymorningstaple]

p.s. congrats Plavt on one of the most unnecessarily poisonous posts I have seen in a while

Almost as toxic as the PM I got. Japan is a zone of safety in comparison

[BillyB]

Almost as toxic as the PM I got. Japan is a zone of safety in comparison

I think they'll be cursing the U.S just as much!! They'll be looking at weakening the Yen soon if the dollar falls much more.

[JayCee]

Gordon brown as chancellor actually improved the economy if you care to read back

How exactly did he do this? By borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, and encouraging (forcing) banks to lend to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, so they could buy big cars and buy-to-let properties to give the illusion of growth.

Anyone can make themselves look rich if they keep borrowing money and spending it on cosmetic things to make the plebs think everything is ok. But one day the money needs to be paid back, unluckily for Gormless Gord it came at the time he took over from Blair (who was a lying charlatan too, but he saw it coming and got out to let Gormo deal with the upcoming sh*tstorm) and he had to deal with a crisis of his own making.

During the period 97-2010 did any public services improve for all the money that labour spent (improving public services was a key pledge they made in both the 1997 and 2001 elections)? They started in 97 by saying they would improve things with more investment in public services, re-iterated this in 2001 when it was apparent they weren't improving things as they'd said they would, but by 2005 they were relying on their economic record to get re-elected. This economic record subsequently crashed and burned and left us on the verge of a second great depression, so what did they do in 13 years which will stand the test of time as something they can be proud of? Liberate Iraq and "fight terror"? Pretty flimsy "achievements".

Gordon Brown's most famous statement was when he said "no more boom and bust", and then he subsequently presided over the biggest bust in a century.

The thing that symbolises the last labour government for me is something that they did quite early on - build the millenium dome, a humungous waste of money that no-one wanted but they did anyway, the same as the wars they took us into.

Sums him and labour up, completely clueless and with no idea of what the people really wanted

[sundaymorningstaple]

Here's an interesting history bit on our Flip-Flop Pres now wanting a 14+trillion ceiling.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... rew-c-mcca

I really liked the punch line.....

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

[BillyB]

Here's an interesting history bit on our Flip-Flop Pres now wanting a 14+trillion ceiling.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... rew-c-mcca

I really liked the punch line.....

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

Do you think this whole debt ceiling debate is turning into a farce? In my opinion, It shows that the politicians couldn't give a rats ass about the Country and it's deteriorating financial position - it's all about political agenda and a power trip.

It's clear that something will be done. But it's hardly setting the standard from a financial superpower.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Sad but true.