Tea Party killing Cantor.....

[JustRalph]

Cantor is down 11 points with 15 percent of the vote to count

Tea Partier winning against the 2nd ranking Republican

:eek:

[_______]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20140610-house-majority-leader-eric-cantor-loses-gop-primary-to-tea-party-challenger.ece

[Clocker]

I'm sure the Koch brothers are behind this.

The Tea Party guy says he ran against Cantor because he lost his conservative principles. This guy has a lot to learn about politics and Washington if he is surprised that anyone can serve 7 terms in the House and become Majority Leader and still have principles.

[ArlJim78]

A poll conducted late last month for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) shows him with a wide lead over challenger David Brat heading toward next Tuesday's Republican primary election.

The poll, shared with Post Politics, shows Cantor with a 62 percent to 28 percent lead over Brat, an economics professor running to Cantor's right. Eleven percent say they are undecided.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/06/cantor-internal-poll-claims-34-point-lead-over-primary-opponent-brat/

good polling, goes from 34 point lead last week to losing by 11 or 12 this week.

[tucker6]

Didn't Cappy tell us a couple weeks ago that the Tee-Pers were dead?

[Robert Goren]

The tea party has starting eating its own.

[reckless]

The tea party has starting eating its own.

Robert, from your post above, if you are implying that Cantor is a Tea Party Republican or even a conservative, then you are very very mistaken.

Cantor isn't only a RINO, he's primarily a two-bit fake, phony, fraud who has made too many deals with Senate Democrats pertaining to serious issues such as Amnesty for Illegals and the assorted anti-American aspects of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

[horses4courses]

The tea party has started eating its own.

Exactly.
Like a pack of rabid hyenas.

[Robert Goren]

Robert, from your post above, if you are implying that Cantor is a Tea Party Republican or even a conservative, then you are very very mistaken.

Cantor isn't only a RINO, he's primarily a two-bit fake, phony, fraud who has made too many deals with Senate Democrats pertaining to serious issues such as Amnesty for Illegals and the assorted anti-American aspects of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.Neither me or any of my liberal friends ever thought of Canter as liberal or even moderate. If fact I never seen any public signs that he was not the equal of Michele Bachmann when it came to supporting far right issues. Of course, I am not privy to the inside dealing between Senate and House leadership like you are.

[JustRalph]

He came out for "immigration reform" and was tattooed with it last weekend at an event where he refused to discuss it. Laura Ingraham went after him on her radio show along with others.

Immigration reform=Amnesty

Paul Ryan is dead to the party real quick unless he shuts his mouth

[Clocker]

Dave Brat said that he ran as "Eric Cantor's Term Limit".

[Robert Goren]

He came out for "immigration reform" and was tattooed with it last weekend at an event where he refused to discuss it. Laura Ingraham went after him on her radio show along with others.

Immigration reform=Amnesty

Paul Ryan is dead to the party real quick unless he shuts his mouth The US Chamber of Commerce says unless the republican party gets on board for immigration reform, they can kiss the next 3 presidential elections good bye. As a democrat I glad to hear that having anything to do immigration reform is a death sentence in the GOP.

[horses4courses]

Exactly.
Like a pack of rabid hyenas.

http://www.etravelphotos.com/photos/2005ke/zThumb-2005ke-1006-102d.jpg

[Shemp Howard]

Robert, from your post above, if you are implying that Cantor is a Tea Party Republican or even a conservative, then you are very very mistaken.

Cantor isn't only a RINO, he's primarily a two-bit fake, phony, fraud who has made too many deals with Senate Democrats pertaining to serious issues such as Amnesty for Illegals and the assorted anti-American aspects of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Bob Grant couldn't have put it any better.

[newtothegame]

The US Chamber of Commerce says unless the republican party gets on board for immigration reform, they can kiss the next 3 presidential elections good bye. As a democrat I glad to hear that having anything to do immigration reform is a death sentence in the GOP.

Bobby, bobby, bobby......don't you understand you must first crawl before you walk, and walk before you run???
You're talking presidential....you need to worry about holding the senate!
What good is a democrat as pres if he has a repug house and senate??

One step at a time...one at a time.....
(And no, I am not assuming Cantor is in the Senate).....I am well aware his position (#2) in the house....(is in jeopardy) hahaha.

[Clocker]

I am well aware his position (#2) in the house....(is in jeopardy) hahaha.

His position as anything in the House is gone as of 1/1/15. The only question is whether he resigns his leadership position effective immediately. A lot of people think that he will.

[newtothegame]

All you need to know in one short paragraph......

"A seven-term congressman, Cantor had spent more than $5 million to head off the challenge from Brat, a political newcomer who teaches at Randolph-Macon College. Brat spent about $122,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics".

Bolded by myself......
And out spent nearly 20-1 lmao....by by Cantor.......!!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-eric-cantor-loses-20140610,0,1218678.story

[Clocker]

Preliminary evidence indicates that the vote may have been less about the candidates and more about voters fed up with the government in general, and the inability of the GOP to deliver on their supposed principles.

There is a lot of talk about immigration reform, especially in light of what is happening with illegal kids on the border. Indications from the voters in VA show dissatisfaction in general with the failure of the establishment GOP to do anything, and the perception that Cantor is wishy-washy on the issue. But immigration doesn't appear to be a defining issue in the election.

[Tom]

Exactly.
Like a pack of rabid hyenas.


REAL Tea Party people see the repus and dems as the same and are repudiating both. They are correct. You see, what you are not familiar with is candidates that actually represent their voters,not their party.

This can only be good. NO ONe can represent two masters.
Feel free to grab up any repubs we throw out - they are pretty much "you" anyway. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

What good is a democrat as pres


FTFY

[Clocker]

REAL Tea Party people see the repus and dems as the same and are repudiating both. They are correct. You see, what you are not familiar with is candidates that actually represent their voters,not their party.



Members of the Borg consider anyone not assimilated to belong to the Tea Party. They think that Michelle Bachmann, John McCain, John Boehner, and Rand Paul all march in lock step and all think alike. In the opinion of the Borg, you either drink Kool Aid or you drink tea.

[Clocker]

Speaking of the Borg, Debbie Wasserman Schultz weighs in on the Cantor loss.

Tonight’s result in Virginia settles the debate once and for all – the Tea Party has taken control of the Republican Party. Period. When Eric Cantor, who time and again has blocked common sense legislation to grow the middle class, can’t earn the Republican nomination, it’s clear the GOP has redefined ‘far right.’ Democrats on the other hand have nominated a mainstream candidate who will proudly represent this district and I look forward to his victory in November.

[JustRalph]

http://wapo.st/1n4GoVa

Immigration reformers are acting out at Cantor hq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/11/Local-Politics/Images/Virginia_Primary_Cantor-05b44-524.jpg

[NJ Stinks]

460,000 registered voters in the the historically Republican 7th district and only 65,000 show up to vote.

A perfect storm for a Tea Party victory.

[Clocker]

460,000 registered voters in the the historically Republican 7th district and only 65,000 show up to vote.


Not showing up is a vote also.

[fast4522]

The US Chamber of Commerce says unless the republican party gets on board for immigration reform, they can kiss the next 3 presidential elections good bye. As a democrat I glad to hear that having anything to do immigration reform is a death sentence in the GOP.

You brother from another mother loves ya. Another vermin collaborator gone! :lol: :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Fast, do you really want to get into a picture for picture match. There are plenty of pictures of the Tea Parties that are not flattering. Note: I said Tea Parties because the are several groups out their claiming to be The Tea Party. It would nice to which one of those Tea Party Brat belonged to, if any. The same goes for all of the so called Tea Party candidates.
I talk to several of my liberal friends last night and everyone was happy to see Cantor go. Brat, if elected, will have next to no power as a first term congressman. But he will have great government health insurance which he opposes giving to everybody else. So it goes.

[Tom]

The tea party has starting eating its own.

As opposed to the democrats who have killing thiers for decades.

Seriously, do fail to grasp the concept here?
Candidates fed up with the status quo and going against those who represent a party instead of the people? Or have you been told what to think for so long you forgot how it is supposed to work?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
460,000 registered voters in the the historically Republican 7th district and only 65,000 show up to vote.

Frame of reference - what about a few other key districts. That fact alone really tell us nothing.

[reckless]

460,000 registered voters in the the historically Republican 7th district and only 65,000 show up to vote.

A perfect storm for a Tea Party victory.

I don't like it either when only 5-10 per cent of any party's membership votes in a primary, but in an interview on Joe and Mica's show this morning, a reporter from the Richmond Pilot said that the 65,000 that did vote on Tuesday was a very high turnout for a primary compared to most years.

This local reporter also added that in the 2012 primary, Cantor won with 79 per cent of the vote.

The Tea Party definitely won a victory over Cantor, and, this alleged 'low' turn out wasn't the reason for this important statement made by the Patriots of Cantor's district.

[elysiantraveller]

The tea party has starting eating its own.
Yup.

The stupidity is unbearable at times.

[elysiantraveller]

Speaking of the Borg, Debbie Wasserman Schultz weighs in on the Cantor loss.

I don't really think she is that far off the reservation there. That seat juat got tossed to the Democrats.

[DJofSD]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/elites-beware-eric-cantor-s-defeat-may-signal-a-populist-revolution-20140611

[dartman51]

Fast, do you really want to get into a picture for picture match. There are plenty of pictures of the Tea Parties that are not flattering. Note: I said Tea Parties because the are several groups out their claiming to be The Tea Party. It would nice to which one of those Tea Party Brat belonged to, if any. The same goes for all of the so called Tea Party candidates.
I talk to several of my liberal friends last night and everyone was happy to see Cantor go. Brat, if elected, will have next to no power as a first term congressman. But he will have great government health insurance which he opposes giving to everybody else. So it goes.

Actually, the Tea Party didn't offer any help. Plus, a report out this morning, as Virginia has OPEN primaries, 20% of the votes for Cantor, were from Democrats. They must really be scared of Tea Party candidates. :D

[ArlJim78]

Actually none of the tea party groups offered support to Brat. You have to dig deeper to understand what happened there.

[ArlJim78]

Hilarious tweet combining politics and horse racing.


Eric Cantor claims his opponent should have been forced
to run in the Kentucky Derby in order to run in Virginia

[Clocker]

Actually none of the tea party groups offered support to Brat. You have to dig deeper to understand what happened there.

Correct. Once again showing that the left has no concept of what the Tea Party is, other than a straw man for them to take shots at and blame for the evils of the world.

There is no evidence that David Brat "belonged" to any formal Tea Party organization.

[DJofSD]

The teflon party: labels don't stick.

[ArlJim78]

For a political journalist this should be a huge story to cover. After all he is a sitting majority leader, they just do not lose. There has to be many lessons to be learned from this. But it's a local story.

Real journalists though would go to his district, ask questions, interview people on the ground, find out what were the factors driving the vote to oust Cantor.

Another story would be to find out why the GOP is so sloppy, why was their polling so bad? Why didn't they have a hint that this was coming? Why don't they have a better grasp on the mood in the majority leaders district?

[Clocker]

For a political journalist this should be a huge story to cover. After all he is a sitting majority leader, they just do not lose. There has to be many lessons to be learned from this. But it's a local story.


Ron Fournier writes for the National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/elites-beware-eric-cantor-s-defeat-may-signal-a-populist-revolution-20140611). It is a leftist publication, but he reports objectively. In his latest, he says that he missed the Cantor story, but he was covering the issue at the time.

WEST CHESTER, Pa—Expecting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to win his GOP primary in Virginia, I spent Election Day in Pennsylvania—interviewing angry Republicans, Democrats, and independents about the rise of political populism.

I was in the wrong state, but I had the right topic. Cantor's defeat has less to do with immigration reform than it does with an uneven movement that should frighten conservative and liberal political elites to their shallow cores.

Americans see a grim future for themselves, their children and their country. They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change. For many, the Republican Party is becoming too extreme, while the Democratic Party—specifically, President Obama—raised and dashed their hopes for true reform.

Worse of all, the typical American doesn't know how to channel his or her anger. Heaven help Washington if they do.

[Tom]

Tea Party is not a party. It is a philosophy.
A state of mind. A desrie to have a functioning government that is fair to all and has real limits as to what it can and cannot do.

Like those who threw the first Tea Party.
But is is fun to read the ignorance posted by the dems attacking what they do not understand just because it is not part of the collective.

[Rookies]

Hilarious tweet combining politics and horse racing.

Quote:
Eric Cantor claims his opponent should have been forced
to run in the Kentucky Derby in order to run in Virginia

Now THAT was excellent! :ThmbUp:

Too bad, it didn't add a plug for Diabetes from that look alIke, curmudgeon jack ass!

[Clocker]

Unofficial report (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/11/cantor-defeat-stunning-gop/10319165/): Cantor will resign his position as House Majority Leader effective July 31.

[ArlJim78]

Too bad, it didn't add a plug for Diabetes from that look alIke, curmudgeon jack ass!
Very classy.

[mostpost]

Frame of reference - what about a few other key districts. That fact alone really tell us nothing.
That's where the election was held. Seems to me that makes it relevant.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
The tea party has starting eating its own.

Yup.

The stupidity is unbearable at times.

Seeing how the Tea Party put exactly $0.00 into Brat's campaign it would seem that the only thing stupid is the comments made above.

[Clocker]

That's where the election was held. Seems to me that makes it relevant.


The point is that if the turnout in the other districts is the same as in VA 7th, than the turnout in VA 7th is unlikely to signal any special significance about the outcome.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
The tea party has starting eating its own.



Seeing how the Tea Party put exactly $0.00 into Brat's campaign it would seem that the only thing stupid is the comments made above.

That and the fact that none of the "official" Tea Party organizations endorsed Brat. And the fact that Brat does not belong to any of the "official" Tea Party organizations. And the fact that Brat's campaign web site strongly stresses his belief in Republican principles and does not mention the Tea Party.

Other than that, they nailed it. :p

[FantasticDan]

That and the fact that none of the "official" Tea Party organizations endorsed Brat.The only reason the Tea Party orgs passed on endorsing and funding Brat, was that they thought he wasn't worth the effort :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/politics/david-brat-waged-solo-fight-against-eric-cantor.html

[Robert Goren]

Bobby, bobby, bobby......don't you understand you must first crawl before you walk, and walk before you run???
You're talking presidential....you need to worry about holding the senate!
What good is a democrat as pres if he has a repug house and senate??

One step at a time...one at a time.....
(And no, I am not assuming Cantor is in the Senate).....I am well aware his position (#2) in the house....(is in jeopardy) hahaha.In order for the GOP to win the senate, they need to win 4 senate seats that is currently held by democrats and not lose a GOP one. I don't see that happening this year. A far right tea party republican is unlikely to win any of those seats, but a rino might. If you think you can pick up 4 seats, list which ones.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
The tea party has starting eating its own.



Seeing how the Tea Party put exactly $0.00 into Brat's campaign it would seem that the only thing stupid is the comments made above. They sure as hell all over the news last night and today claiming Brat as one of their own. Strange how he isn't one until he win, then he is.

[DJofSD]

They sure as hell all over the news last night and today claiming Brat as one of their own. Strange how he isn't one until he win, then he is.
Really important to me is that he's not a rank and file member of the GOP.

[Clocker]

The only reason the Tea Party orgs passed on endorsing and funding Brat, was that they thought he wasn't worth the effort

That's why the big official Tea Party organizations are irrelevant to most people who consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party movement. They have become big, structured special interest groups that are more interested in power and money than in principles and grass roots politics.

That's why there is truth in the statement that the Tea Party is dead. The top of the tree is dead wood. As Brat said, "...they do not know what’s going on on the ground."

The big guys blew it. It would have cost them nothing to endorse him and maybe sponsor a local meeting to have him speak to members. Now they will be falling all over each other trying to get on the bandwagon.

[Clocker]

More on the real, living Tea Party at the National Review (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1658382):

Tea Party activists helped Dave Brat defeat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), but they aren’t getting much credit because national groups didn’t spend money in support of their candidate.

“The fact that Brat took off without the help of those organizations now makes it harder for them to claim his victory as their own,” the Washington Post’s Matea Gold suggested, referring to national Tea Party organizations such as the Madison Project and FreedomWorks. Gold may be correct as far as the national groups go, but the local Tea Party groups have opposed Cantor for years, and backed Brat from the beginning.

“Brat represents a serious challenge to House Majority Leader Cantor, who has helped sink Congress to a mere 6 percent approval rating. Already, some are framing this campaign as a ‘true conservative’ taking on the ‘Establishment GOP,’” Lawrence Nordvig wrote at the Richmond Tea Party website when Brat announced his candidacy. “Richmond Tea Party does not officially endorse candidates, but we feel this is an historic opportunity to take part in the launch of what promises to be a ‘watershed’ moment in national politics!”

"...the local Tea Party groups have opposed Cantor for years..."

That hardly sounds like anyone eating their own.

[BettinBilly]

Esquire Magazine is calling this "One of the biggest upsets in modern political history".

Really?

[Robert Goren]

The big guys blew it. It would have cost them nothing to endorse him and maybe sponsor a local meeting to have him speak to members. Now they will be falling all over each other trying to get on the bandwagon.In the past Cantor was speaking at Tea Party meetings and raising money for Tea Party candidates. He was good enough for them in the past. Like I said they are eating their own. Being to the right of Jefferson Davis isn't good enough anymore. You need to embrace the views of Jared and Amanda Miller, Glenn Cross and Cliven Bundy to win a GOP primary anymore in the Old South.

[Tom]

That's where the election was held. Seems to me that makes it relevant.

No, it doesn't not.
It is an isolated fact with no reference.
What if typically, only 12% showed up to vote?
Or 4%?

[davew]

was it really the tea party?


or the democratic ballot stuffing machine?

[Clocker]

You need to embrace the views of Jared and Amanda Miller, Glenn Cross and Cliven Bundy to win a GOP primary anymore in the Old South.

Your Holocaust remark was in bad taste. This one is unspeakably disgusting.

[newtothegame]

Your Holocaust remark was in bad taste. This one is unspeakably disgusting.
Wouldn't expect anything less from a die hard liberal......
You have to remember, they toss the race card around like oxygen daily....It is nothing for them to take it to extremism and then call their opponents the loony ones ...lol:lol:

[BlueShoe]

Didn't Cappy tell us a couple weeks ago that the Tee-Pers were dead?
That, and back in 2010 the left was gloating over what they claimed was the death of conservatism and the Republican Party. How did that turn out for them? How soon they forget, 2014 and 2016 may be a repeat of 2010.

[fast4522]

Fast, do you really want to get into a picture for picture match. There are plenty of pictures of the Tea Parties that are not flattering. Note: I said Tea Parties because the are several groups out their claiming to be The Tea Party. It would nice to which one of those Tea Party Brat belonged to, if any. The same goes for all of the so called Tea Party candidates.
I talk to several of my liberal friends last night and everyone was happy to see Cantor go. Brat, if elected, will have next to no power as a first term congressman. But he will have great government health insurance which he opposes giving to everybody else. So it goes.

Goren thems not Tea in that pic, but Mex, any pics you like kid.

[TJDave]

Esquire Magazine is calling this "One of the biggest upsets in modern political history".

Really?

Unseating the majority leader in a primary is about as big as it gets.

[BlueShoe]

That seat juat got tossed to the Democrats.
Science fiction and Dopey Debbie is hallucinating. Brat wins in a strong GOP district that elected Cantor seven times, handily. Yes, as a freshman he will have no power, but how much does it really matter? Already much specualtion as to who the new majority leader will be, but quite likely he (or she) will be more conservative than EC.

[Robert Goren]

Goren thems not Tea in that pic, but Mex, any pics you like kid. I knew that. I assumed the picture was to posted to reflect badly on the policies of some liberals. Like I said I can post a lot of pictures from tea party rallies that reflect badly on the tea party, but what is the point of a picture war. It just a waste of both our times .

[newtothegame]

Science fiction and Dopey Debbie is hallucinating. Brat wins in a strong GOP district that elected Cantor seven times, handily. Yes, as a freshman he will have no power, but how much does it really matter? Already much specualtion as to who the new majority leader will be, but quite likely he (or she) will be more conservative than EC.

He (Brat) will have more power then Cantor!!!!! :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Your Holocaust remark was in bad taste. This one is unspeakably disgusting. It was not that long ago, conservatives here were voicing support for Bundy and his anti government supporters. A lot of the same ones that are now cheering Brat's win. Backing off from that support are they? now that a couple of Bundy's supporters killed two police officers in Las Vegas now. Don't try to tell me they did not know the kind of people they were standing with a few weeks ago. I don't believe for a second that they were that dumb. The truth can sometimes seem to be unspeakably disgusting for those who are embarrassed it when they are reminded of what they did or said a few weeks ago. Those of you who backed Bundy and his supporters now to live with those words.

[AndyC]

They sure as hell all over the news last night and today claiming Brat as one of their own. Strange how he isn't one until he win, then he is.


What part of $0.00 don't you understand. Brat was outspent by astronomical amounts and still won handily. He is such a hard-line right winger. Who in their right mind would want to vote for a candidate who believes in free markets, the rule of law, fiscal discipline, and is pro-choice for healthcare?

[AndyC]

I knew that. I assumed the picture was to posted to reflect badly on the policies of some liberals. Like I said I can post a lot of pictures from tea party rallies that reflect badly on the tea party, but what is the point of a picture war. It just a waste of both our times .

You obviously are anti-tea party. I am curious as to what you think tea party members actually believe in and stand for and where you personally disagree with their positions.

[Clocker]

I am curious as to what you think tea party members actually believe in and stand for and where you personally disagree with their positions.

He already stated a few posts back that he thinks that Tea Party members embrace the views of white supremacists and cop killers in order to win elections.

You need to embrace the views of Jared and Amanda Miller, Glenn Cross and Cliven Bundy to win a GOP primary anymore in the Old South.

[Bettowin]

Hilarious tweet combining politics and horse racing.

They also said a $10,000 colt couldn't win the Kentucky Derby and Preakness.

[JustRalph]

In the past Cantor was speaking at Tea Party meetings and raising money for Tea Party candidates. He was good enough for them in the past. Like I said they are eating their own. Being to the right of Jefferson Davis isn't good enough anymore. You need to embrace the views of Jared and Amanda Miller, Glenn Cross and Cliven Bundy to win a GOP primary anymore in the Old South.

Be careful Bobby, you might step on your Dick. Comparing Tea Party types to cowardly cop killers ? Really? Did you think nobody would notice?

First you scream bullshit racism charges and then this? Come on.....check your meds........where has the Tea Party ever threatened anybody?

[Clocker]

Be careful Bobby, you might step on your Dick.

With golf shoes.

[GaryG]

This district is solidly Republican and is in no danger of going blue. Brat spent next to nothing and took down part of the machine. Robert's rant reminds me of one of Suff's after I got up his sleeve.

[NJ Stinks]

Be careful Bobby, you might step on your Dick. Comparing Tea Party types to cowardly cop killers ? Really? Did you think nobody would notice?

First you scream bullshit racism charges and then this? Come on.....check your meds........where has the Tea Party ever threatened anybody?

Notice, Ralph? Here's what I noticed.

I noticed that there has not been one thread started by a liberal here about those whacked government haters in Vegas. Yet I believe you would have been all over the Las Vegas murders with new threads here if committed by liberals. Hell, you guys still can't get over the Occupy Wall Street gang and I don't remember any of them committing cold-blooded murders.

Tell me I'm wrong. (I won't ask you to check your meds. :rolleyes: )

[Robert Goren]

I have never made any secret that I believe that government can help people. I have never made any secret that I believe that racism is still rampart in this country, but the racists have better at not openly admitting at the same time practicing it. I have never made any secret that I believe that greed is a sin and plague on both the victims of the greedy and the greedy. Greed is not good ever.
I have never made any secret that I believe wealth trickles up not down. Sometimes it trickles up so fast that it destroys the rich and the poor and everyone in the middle at the same time. I have never made any secret that I believe that a woman's body is her own and that fetuses are not babies. I never made any secret that I believe if you break the law you have face the punishment even if you don't agree with the law. Churches don't get to break the law by twisting some Bible verse to justify what they have doing for years. I believe what my dad said is true. A dog that runs wolves runs the risk of being mistaken for a wolf. I also believe that it does matter if it is a dog or not if it acts like a wolf. Pick your business associates carefully. I could go on for quite bit longer, but you should get the idea of what I am about.

[AndyC]

I have never made any secret that I believe that government can help people. I have never made any secret that I believe that racism is still rampart in this country, but the racists have better at not openly admitting at the same time practicing it. I have never made any secret that I believe that greed is a sin and plague on both the victims of the greedy and the greedy. Greed is not good ever.
I have never made any secret that I believe wealth trickles up not down. Sometimes it trickles up so fast that it destroys the rich and the poor and everyone in the middle at the same time. I have never made any secret that I believe that a woman's body is her own and that fetuses are not babies. I never made any secret that I believe if you break the law you have face the punishment even if you don't agree with the law. Churches don't get to break the law by twisting some Bible verse to justify what they have doing for years. I believe what my dad said is true. A dog that runs wolves runs the risk of being mistaken for a wolf. I also believe that it does matter if it is a dog or not if it acts like a wolf. Pick your business associates carefully. I could go on for quite bit longer, but you should get the idea of what I am about.


So you would agree then that all the people who are in the US illegally should face the law and be deported? Would you also agree that the government should enforce the laws that are currently on the books? Would you also agree that the constitution has meaning and that the president cannot just makeup laws or choose to enforce laws as he pleases?

[Tom]

That hardly sounds like anyone eating their own.

Yeah, but you need a cutesy comeback when you have nothing else.

[Tom]

......where has the Tea Party ever threatened anybody?

1. In his dreams
2. In the emails he gets every morning from whattothinktoday.com.

[Clocker]

I noticed that there has not been one thread started by a liberal here about those whacked government haters in Vegas.

I'd suggest that you scroll back up to post #56 in this thread and start reading from there for an example of a liberal trying to link "those whacked government haters in Vegas" with the GOP and the Tea Party.

[NJ Stinks]

I'd suggest that you scroll back up to post #56 in this thread and start reading from there for an example of a liberal trying to link "those whacked government haters in Vegas" with the GOP and the Tea Party.

I suggest you look up the word "thread".

[Clocker]

I suggest you look up the word "thread".

Sorry, I was not aware that liberals make a fine moral distinction about hateful slurs and character assassination depending on whether they occur via hijacking a thread or originating a thread.

[fast4522]

This thread is not about Goren, its about a guy who forgot where he came from and the good people of Virginia figured it out.


Ingraham’s Insurrection

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380184/ingrahams-insurrection-eliana-johnson

[fast4522]

CANTOR LOSES BY 11 MILLION VOTERS

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-11.html

[Tom]

CANTOR LOSES BY 11 MILLION VOTERS

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-11.html

"Sa lotta" Tea!

[Robert Goren]

So you would agree then that all the people who are in the US illegally should face the law and be deported? Would you also agree that the government should enforce the laws that are currently on the books? Would you also agree that the constitution has meaning and that the president cannot just makeup laws or choose to enforce laws as he pleases?Where have ever said different? But unlike the conservatives, I think all refugees need to be sent back and I don't we should make legal exception for people from places like Cuba, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. I don't think immigrants should be used as source of temporary cheap labor for the rich. People allowed in to the country should come here with the idea of becoming citizens. I do not believe any American should be allowed to have dual citizenships. Your are either an American or you are not. I think you don't want live in this country because you don't want to pay taxes here, then you should move and give up your citizenship.

[Robert Goren]

This thread is not about Goren, its about a guy who forgot where he came from and the good people of Virginia figured it out.


Ingraham’s Insurrection

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380184/ingrahams-insurrection-eliana-johnson It is about Cantor and I am sorry that it has drifted away from that. But when questions are ask about me, I generally try to respond.

[classhandicapper]

What are you guys arguing about?

This country is on the fast track to hell and there's almost no chance of turning the ship before it hits the iceberg. The left has already ensured long term economic and social destruction and the right was too impotent to stop it.

The only remote possibility of salvaging something is secession by a few states.

Anyone with any sense that is a long term thinker (15-30 years) is already plotting which country they will move to next and how they will get their net worth out of the US relatively unscathed before the sh$t hits the fan and all hell breaks loose. Some of the brightest most successful investors in US history are already heading to the exists or buying homes in other countries where they can quickly go if need be.

[Robert Goren]

Here is an interesting piece on John McLaughlin, Cantor's pollster. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/eric-cantor-s-pollster-tries-to-explain-why-his-survey-showed-cantor-up-34-points-20140611

[classhandicapper]

Ann Coulter

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-11.html

[horses4courses]

Ann Coulter

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-11.html

Is there an echo in here?.....Is there an echo in here?

[AndyC]

Where have ever said different? But unlike the conservatives, I think all refugees need to be sent back and I don't we should make legal exception for people from places like Cuba, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. I don't think immigrants should be used as source of temporary cheap labor for the rich. People allowed in to the country should come here with the idea of becoming citizens. I do not believe any American should be allowed to have dual citizenships. Your are either an American or you are not. I think you don't want live in this country because you don't want to pay taxes here, then you should move and give up your citizenship.

I think we have found agreement on this issue. BTW, dual citizenship does not get you out of paying US taxes.

[newtothegame]

I think we have found agreement on this issue. BTW, dual citizenship does not get you out of paying US taxes.
But you do realize ole bobby decidedly skipped a few of your questions and only tackled immigration. And even at tackling immigration, he twisted it to be a repug problem and tied it to big business.

You see, while those on the right "can eat their own" (as shown in this thread) lol, those on the left dare not say anything bad about Obama or his running all over the constitution.

You see, as tom pointed out earlier, what you on the left will NEVER realize is that the tea party...is not a party. You can eliminate a belief system as easily as you can a "party". You may wish it away all you want.

And I have read the stories on the cliven bundy associates who killed a cop. If this is true, then if found guilty they should ride the electric highway!
But, to you response Bobby.....no one could know two weeks prior to that incident that it would happen. Lets not be silly here....
And furthermore, since you said we support them, how is it no one on here even knows the culprits names? You would think if we supported them, we would know the names at least.....geeze....

[TJDave]

I do not believe any American should be allowed to have dual citizenships.

I hold multiple citizenship. I pay my taxes, am proud to do it.

[JustRalph]

What are you guys arguing about?

This country is on the fast track to hell and there's almost no chance of turning the ship before it hits the iceberg. The left has already ensured long term economic and social destruction and the right was too impotent to stop it.

The only remote possibility of salvaging something is secession by a few states.

Anyone with any sense that is a long term thinker (15-30 years) is already plotting which country they will move to next and how they will get their net worth out of the US relatively unscathed before the sh$t hits the fan and all hell breaks loose. Some of the brightest most successful investors in US history are already heading to the exists or buying homes in other countries where they can quickly go if need be.

Sadly, this is correct. I wish I was going to be around in about 75 yrs to see what the history books have to say.

I'm hoping I make it another ten years, that should be enough to see an entire generation of idiot college kids who are waking up at 35 years old realizing they have a shit life. They can go back in time by watching the Obama videos on youtube. You know, the ones where they sang about their great hero? The Obama girl will be big hit, the "Rock the vote" Rappers, the Funny or Die spots with Andy Griffith and Opie.

How about The Fonze et al talking about how the younger generation voting for Obama is going to save the world? Those are going to be great videos to watch in their parents basement. :ThmbUp:

Hopefully I'll be sitting in my condo or lake house laughing my ass off......but if the economy collapses......we all might be screwed. Keep voting Democrat. I'll keep stocking ammo :lol: Btw, I'm only half kidding.......

[classhandicapper]

Sadly, this is correct. I wish I was going to be around in about 75 yrs to see what the history books have to say.

I'm hoping I make it another ten years, that should be enough to see an entire generation of idiot college kids who are waking up at 35 years old realizing they have a shit life. They can go back in time by watching the Obama videos on youtube. You know, the ones where they sang about their great hero? The Obama girl will be big hit, the "Rock the vote" Rappers, the Funny or Die spots with Andy Griffith and Opie.

How about The Fonze et al talking about how the younger generation voting for Obama is going to save the world? Those are going to be great videos to watch in their parents basement. :ThmbUp:

Hopefully I'll be sitting in my condo or lake house laughing my ass off......but if the economy collapses......we all might be screwed. Keep voting Democrat. I'll keep stocking ammo :lol: Btw, I'm only half kidding.......

Years ago I used to be borderline obsessed with watching all the political shows and staying on top of all the developments. At this stage I know it's a waste of time.

I already know almost all politicians are corrupt and wildly incompetent.

I know our media is biased and clueless.

I know our population in general is incapable of understanding what's going on and what's at stake. So people will continue living in their delusional little state voting for these delusional nitwits.

I only pay attention to economics and markets.

I listen to the thoughts of a handful of brilliant investors and economists that "get it" to supplement my own thoughts.

I look at private data that I know hasn't been rigged or manipulated by government, politicians, the Fed, or hired hack economists.

And I draw conclusions based on the above and act in my own best interests. That's my only shot to get to a life raft when the Titanic hits the iceberg.

[Robert Goren]

I think we have found agreement on this issue. BTW, dual citizenship does not get you out of paying US taxes.I did not mean to imply it did, but your place of residence may.

[Robert Goren]

But you do realize ole bobby decidedly skipped a few of your questions and only tackled immigration. And even at tackling immigration, he twisted it to be a repug problem and tied it to big business.

You see, while those on the right "can eat their own" (as shown in this thread) lol, those on the left dare not say anything bad about Obama or his running all over the constitution.

You see, as tom pointed out earlier, what you on the left will NEVER realize is that the tea party...is not a party. You can eliminate a belief system as easily as you can a "party". You may wish it away all you want.

And I have read the stories on the cliven bundy associates who killed a cop. If this is true, then if found guilty they should ride the electric highway!
But, to you response Bobby.....no one could know two weeks prior to that incident that it would happen. Lets not be silly here....
And furthermore, since you said we support them, how is it no one on here even knows the culprits names? You would think if we supported them, we would know the names at least.....geeze.... The Millers killed themselves rather than being taken.
You should have know the kind of people that were supporting Bundy. If you didn't, I can only assume you must have had a private school education.:rolleyes: What did you expect when the White Separatists rallied behind him? An ice cream social? Most prominent conservative quickly distance themselves from once he made his racist statement. There were plenty of media reports of what kind of people were showing up to support him.

[Robert Goren]

I hold multiple citizenship. I pay my taxes, am proud to do it. Whether you pay your taxes or not is beside the point. I just believe if you want to be an American, you should fully commit to it and renounce all others. That should be the law.

[Tom]

Most prominent conservative quickly distance themselves from once he made his racist statement.

Good for them!
It was the right thing to do.
Unlike the DEMOCRATS who worshiped the former KKK member of the senate.
Why do you suppose dems kept supporting a proud racist like that?

[TJDave]

I just believe if you want to be an American, you should fully commit to it and renounce all others. That should be the law.

That is the law:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[classhandicapper]

Whether you pay your taxes or not is beside the point. I just believe if you want to be an American, you should fully commit to it and renounce all others. That should be the law.

Why?

If I'm a citizen of American and I see the US on a path I think might eventually lead to economic and social chaos why I should commit fully to a bunch delusional nitwits from the US?

I would think most intelligent informed people would see what's going on, realize there's little any individual can do to change it, and start preparing for the downside. If that involves holding onto or even trying to get dual citizenship (if possible), that seems like an intelligent thing to do.

It's not like anyone is rooting for the US to collapse by holding onto a dual citizenship. For whatever reason (and not necessarily anything to do with the above) they see it as advantageous. Good for them. If I could get a dual citizenship with Canada, Ireland, or Australia with little downside, I'd probably take it.

[NJ Stinks]

Years ago I used to be borderline obsessed with watching all the political shows and staying on top of all the developments. At this stage I know it's a waste of time.

I already know almost all politicians are corrupt and wildly incompetent.

I know our media is biased and clueless.

I know our population in general is incapable of understanding what's going on and what's at stake. So people will continue living in their delusional little state voting for these delusional nitwits.



One thing you know for sure is how to depress yourself. :rolleyes:

[classhandicapper]

One thing you know for sure is how to depress yourself. :rolleyes:

I'm not depressed about it.

It's kind of like it was when I handicapped the BC Classic and concluded Zenyatta wasn't going to win. I wanted her to win. I was hoping I was wrong. But I bet against her.

That's how I feel about the country.

[AndyC]

I did not mean to imply it did, but your place of residence may.

It does not unless you qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion or foreign tax credit. A rich US citizen with a dual citizenship could not avoid US tax by living off of interest and dividends by living in a foreign residence.

[Robert Goren]

It does not unless you qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion or foreign tax credit. A rich US citizen with a dual citizenship could not avoid US tax by living off of interest and dividends by living in a foreign residence.I am sorry if I implied they are related, but I still am against dual citizenship. But we all know there Americans living in foreign countries for tax purposes. Exactly how they swing it, I do not know. John McaFee was one of those Americans. Some magazines even run ads trying to lure rich Americans to those countries. The tax issue and Dual citizenship are separate issues. I like Gov. Perry do not always chose the phrasing of my words wisely.

[Robert Goren]

That is the law:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." That is the oath that new citizens take.
There are people born with two citizenships. They have parent who have different citizenships or the parents are Americans and they are born abroad or they were born here, but their parents are not American citizens.
There are also people who born American citizens who somehow become citizen of a different country without losing their American citizenship. I know a person who is both an American citizen and an Israeli citizen or so she claims. She was born here in 1938, long before the state of Israel existed.

[reckless]

Sadly, this is correct. I wish I was going to be around in about 75 yrs to see what the history books have to say.

Let me take a shot at this, Ralph:

In 75 years, those history books will tell us that Bush and Cheney were war mongers who tortured Muslim freedom fighters in Gitmo on the beck and call of Haliburton and the Koch brothers.

Because Bush and Cheney were also beholden to rich Wall Street bankers and to Israel (who really bombed the Two Towers from within, as you know), Bush and Cheney got us into a war that they lied about, and children died.


It was Bush-Cheney-Haliburton-Israel that actually ruined the U.S. economy -- and our standing in the world, obviously -- so beyond repair that even a god-send, Barry Obama, couldn't fix it because he was stopped by those racist, homophobe rich Republicans, who didn't want a Black man to succeed.

(Nor do those same Republicans want a women to succeed, either, because white men especially can't handle a smart woman in the White House. Or even in their own house since all men give their wives a beating on Super Bowl Sunday, as you know, especially if the Washington Redskins are playing.)

God help us all, now and in 75 years.

[fast4522]

No one can run with your posts RG, I often catch your drift until it falls apart, often of late there are large numbers dueling citizenship to renounce and move moneys out. I am not rich so I do not understand that side of it completely, you might leave out Israeli to be fair. I don't think wanting to belong to Israel is because of renouncing the USA, but might suggest some make the pilgrimage and not only visit but desire go deeper than that. In the United States anyone can be a Jew because of freedom, but not all can be an Israeli. You have to love it don't you, be it American or Israeli. In no way do I suggest these comments are what you think or view, just think some separation could be afforded.

[JustRalph]

Reckless.........you are probably right........ :ThmbUp:

[TJDave]

There are also people who born American citizens who somehow become citizen of a different country without losing their American citizenship. I know a person who is both an American citizen and an Israeli citizen or so she claims. She was born here in 1938, long before the state of Israel existed.

My parents were naturalized citizens. Mother from Great Britain, father Polish. If I choose, I can get Polish citizenship and a Euro passport. When I was a minor I could have gotten a British passport. In the 70's I immigrated to Israel and became a citizen. In the 90's I moved to Mexico and did the same.

[newtothegame]

The Millers killed themselves rather than being taken.
You should have know the kind of people that were supporting Bundy. If you didn't, I can only assume you must have had a private school education.:rolleyes: What did you expect when the White Separatists rallied behind him? An ice cream social? Most prominent conservative quickly distance themselves from once he made his racist statement. There were plenty of media reports of what kind of people were showing up to support him.

How in the hell is anyone supposed to "know" the type of people who supported C Bundy?
Next, sorry to disturb you...but no private school education here. But, you say that if somehow a private school education makes one either weak or racist (by your next comment)...so which is it??

White supremacist? Please clue me in as I didn't follow the Bundy case....

And, either way, you assumption that everyone associated with Bundy is a racist because Bundy made a racist remark??? Should we go back and see what Harry Reid said about Obama? Maybe all democrats are racist because they are associated with H Reid!!! (By your standards).

You really are delusional....suggestion...GET YOUR MEDS!!!!

[classhandicapper]

How in the hell is anyone supposed to "know" the type of people who supported C Bundy?


It wouldn't matter to me who supported him.

I'm not some nit wit politician that can be attacked by some bigger nit wit politician and then have to worry about an even bigger nit wit public accepting the attack.

A lot of people simply support the position that the government has long been too aggressive and one sided in these disputes between loggers, ranchers, and other business owners vs. environmentalists and others.

[fast4522]

Let me take a shot at this, Ralph:

In 75 years, those history books will tell us that Bush and Cheney were war mongers who tortured Muslim freedom fighters in Gitmo on the beck and call of Haliburton and the Koch brothers.

Because Bush and Cheney were also beholden to rich Wall Street bankers and to Israel (who really bombed the Two Towers from within, as you know), Bush and Cheney got us into a war that they lied about, and children died.


It was Bush-Cheney-Haliburton-Israel that actually ruined the U.S. economy -- and our standing in the world, obviously -- so beyond repair that even a god-send, Barry Obama, couldn't fix it because he was stopped by those racist, homophobe rich Republicans, who didn't want a Black man to succeed.

(Nor do those same Republicans want a women to succeed, either, because white men especially can't handle a smart woman in the White House. Or even in their own house since all men give their wives a beating on Super Bowl Sunday, as you know, especially if the Washington Redskins are playing.)

God help us all, now and in 75 years.

I kind of take offence to that, and here is why.
That story is aged and so has been floating around for years now.
I will now disassemble it in a context that both the left and right can digest.
The vast majority of Republicans are not rich, or moral majority types. The large blocks of people are hard working Republicans who really could care less who you copulate with and are not single issue voters. The overwhelming majority of us are not haters of the government, but believe in smaller. Now for the twin towers portion, an honest cross section of government, first personnel to respond of all kinds , and all the LEO's state and federal had a common non partisan link, AMERICANS! You can find if you try hard someone who will not rise to the occasion, but on such days it is like 98% are one. Now you find it plausible that the perfect storm was to frame Osama bin Laden and set charges inside buildings to have geopolitical effects, I say you can NOT get that past the 98% who responded period. Israel has a history of exemplary measured response until they have to drop the hammer, in large part to not become what they hate. Black has nothing to do with it, or women to succeed. It is the change stupid, half of us want no part of it to be real simple. We all would have been better off if we put a bullet into Osama bin Laden's head way back when Oliver North was still in uniform, that is just the ugly truth we can not run away from.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because Bush and Cheney were also beholden to rich Wall Street bankers and to Israel (who really bombed the Two Towers from within, as you know), Bush and Cheney got us into a war that they lied about, and children died.Just to be clear, you were being sarcastic here, correct?

[fast4522]

Antisemitism is on the rise, there was a film or something I saw exactly like reckless post. Some of us take sides, I have been pro Israel going back to the peanut days. How this fits into the Eric Cantor thread is boondoggling, disheartening is all that comes to mind.

[Robert Goren]

Antisemitism is on the rise, there was a film or something I saw exactly like reckless post. Some of us take sides, I have been pro Israel going back to the peanut days. How this fits into the Eric Cantor thread is boondoggling, disheartening is all that comes to mind.Eric Cantor is Jewish and it has been suggest by some that his ouster was because of that. I am not convinced those commentators are correct. I hope he wasn't.

[Robert Goren]

My parents were naturalized citizens. Mother from Great Britain, father Polish. If I choose, I can get Polish citizenship and a Euro passport. When I was a minor I could have gotten a British passport. In the 70's I immigrated to Israel and became a citizen. In the 90's I moved to Mexico and did the same. I just think everybody including you should pick one and only one. If you want to change, that is fine, but give the other when you do. I think that should be the law.
There nothing wrong with being a Jew in the US. But if you want to an Israeli Citizen then give up your American Citizenship or vice versa.
"Pick one and leave other behind,
sometimes you have to make up your mind."
Although those John Sebastian lyrics were written about loving two women, I think they apply to loving two countries too.

[Robert Goren]

Paul Krugman's OP Ed piece in todays NY times pretty much agrees with a lot of what the "far right" posters here have been saying about this election and other things for some time. The Karl Rove style of running on social issues and turning to helping Wall Street and the rich while abandoning the issues they ran once in office is not working any more for republicans. I know most here hate Krugman, but here is a link to his piece . I would be interested to see if you think he got it at least partially correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/opinion/paul-krugman-eric-cantor-and-the-death-of-a-movement.html?_r=0

[classhandicapper]

Paul Krugman's OP Ed piece in todays NY times pretty much agrees with a lot of what the "far right" posters here have been saying about this election and other things for some time. The Karl Rove style of running on social issues and turning to helping Wall Street and the rich while abandoning the issues they ran once in office is not working any more for republicans. I know most here hate Krugman, but here is a link to his piece . I would be interested to see if you think he got it at least partially correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/opinion/paul-krugman-eric-cantor-and-the-death-of-a-movement.html?_r=0

I don't hate Krugman.

I think he's delusional on so many levels I find him to be an interesting character (albeit dangerous because he's respected by the left). It's hard for me to comprehend how someone with that many IQ points to work with, putting that much energy into a specific field, and observing how the real work works for decades, can continue to cling to ideas that are so obviously wrong.

First, he's almost obviously clueless on economics. He focuses almost 100% of his energy and policy recommendations on politically motivated short term considerations instead of the long term health of the country. That's an obvious recipe for long term disaster even if you don't understand economics or business at all.

He's also clueless about the republican base.

I have yet to meet a republican that "loathes Hispanics" even if there are nitwits here or there all over the political spectrum that do.

Many in the republican base think that allowing millions of under skilled and under educated illegal immigrants into the country is going to put a greater drain on already bankrupt social safety net programs in the short to medium term. So they are against it for economic reasons. They have less of a problem with skilled and educated workers or people with capital to invest in small businesses no matter where they are from.

They also might question why they have to get patted down and walk through machines in the airport but no one in Washington seems to give a rats ass who crosses the border illegally, what their intentions are, or what kinds of weapons they may be smuggling in as long they eventually vote democratic and/or provide cheap labor.

That's way different than loathing Hispanics.

The base has always been against corporate welfare, but it is generally in favor of low taxes, free markets, free trade, sensible and limited regulation, and reducing the role of the government where private alternatives could exist and do well if given the chance. Some of those things align with the 1%. You see, what's good for the 1% is generally good for anyone that wants to work hard, save a portion of their income, invest for the long term, and perhaps move up the ladder even if they never get to be part of the 1%.

Krugman has no understanding of what much of the republican party wants and he has no understanding that the country is on the fast track to economic hell in large part because of the delusional things his party believes and advances.

[Clocker]

First, he's almost obviously clueless on economics. He focuses almost 100% of his energy and policy recommendations on politically motivated short term considerations instead of the long term health of the country. That's an obvious recipe for long term disaster even if you don't understand economics or business at all.

There are two major areas of economic study: microeconomics, which is the study of economic decision making of individuals and firms, and macroeconomics, the study of large economic systems.

Krugman got a Nobel Prize for his work in microeconomics. His public pronouncements are about macroeconomics, an area where he simply parrots standard left-wing Keynesian doctrine. His writing has been sharply criticized by people who have won the Nobel for work in macroeconomics.

[TJDave]

Eric Cantor is Jewish and it has been suggest by some that his ouster was because of that. I am not convinced those commentators are correct. I hope he wasn't.

I'd guess being Jewish had more to do with getting him elected. Jewish conservatives are novelties plus there's the 'Jews are smart' angle. Bigots tend to employ Jewish lawyers, doctors and accountants.

Go figure.

[Tom]

If you disagree with Obama, you are a racist.
If you support enforcing our borders, your hate Hispanics.
If you are not lock-stepping towards Communism, you are far right

Consider the sources of this BS.
You have to ask yourself whose policies will make this country stronger, safer, more prosperous.

Check the gas prices, check Iraq, check the market........enough said.

[HUSKER55]

AMEN TO THAT!

[classhandicapper]

There are two major areas of economic study: microeconomics, which is the study of economic decision making of individuals and firms, and macroeconomics, the study of large economic systems.

Krugman got a Nobel Prize for his work in microeconomics. His public pronouncements are about macroeconomics, an area where he simply parrots standard left-wing Keynesian doctrine. His writing has been sharply criticized by people who have won the Nobel for work in macroeconomics.

I understand what you are saying, but even if his Nobel Prize was in microeconomics, someone with his IQ and background combined with the energy he put into the field should not be the equivalent of a political hack.

[highnote]

Here is an interesting side effect of the Cantor defeat:

Boeing stock is down 5 or 6 dollars this week due to the Cantor election outcome. This article explains it better than I could:

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/how-the-tea-party-caused-a-plane-crash

The aircraft manufacturer is down 4% since Cantor’s loss, and continues to sink lower.

Why Boeing? That’s where this tale of crony capitalism gets interesting.

Cantor was the #1 congressional supporter of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), a little-known federal agency whose ostensible purpose is to encourage US exports. Ex-Im makes or guarantees loans to foreign companies, which use those loans to purchase US products.

In 2013, Ex-Im guaranteed $12.2 billion in long-term loans—all funded by taxpayer money, of course. Of that amount, a whopping $7.9 billion, or 65%, financed orders for Boeing products.

In other words, Ex-Im is a giant taxpayer subsidy to a giant corporation—a fact Congress is well aware of, having nicknamed Ex-Im the “Boeing Bank.”

Other airline companies are understandably upset that their largest competitor has its own taxpayer-funded bank. Delta is leading an effort to sue Ex-Im, arguing that it allows foreign companies to buy Boeing planes at below-market prices.

Without Cantor’s support, Congress may pull the plug on Ex-Im. That would be good news for taxpayers and the airline industry, but terrible for Boeing. Management had expected Ex-Im to generate $10 billion in sales for 2014. Without the special treatment, Boeing is looking at a potential 11% decline in revenue—hence its plummeting stock price.

[Robert Goren]

If congress pulls the plug on the Export-Import bank, American companies that sell oversea will close up shop. Every other manufacturing country has a taxpayer supported Export bank. Without it Americans companies can compete with other countries. A unpleasant fact of life whether conservatives like it or not. As a Liberal, I would to see it go in theory because it is the very definition of welfare for the rich. But I see in practice, it is needed.

[Clocker]

I understand what you are saying, but even if his Nobel Prize was in microeconomics, someone with his IQ and background combined with the energy he put into the field should not be the equivalent of a political hack.

There is no correlation between IQ and the ability to think independently. Krugman went through a PhD program where men with equally high IQs taught Keynesian economics as gospel. He was taught that the elitists had the answers, and that they were smart enough to manage the economy better than the private sector could. There is no indication that he has put the energy into the study of macroeconomics that he put into winning his Nobel.

He is a true believer. He admits that Keynesian economics is not working, and has not worked. His answer is always the same. Government spending to stimulate the economy hasn't worked because we didn't spend enough.

[davew]

If congress pulls the plug on the Export-Import bank, American companies that sell oversea will close up shop. Every other manufacturing country has a taxpayer supported Export bank. Without it Americans companies can compete with other countries. A unpleasant fact of life whether conservatives like it or not. As a Liberal, I would to see it go in theory because it is the very definition of welfare for the rich. But I see in practice, it is needed.


what are you saying? all the companies that sell (billion dollar) products overseas will be out of business?

Boeing has many union employees...

[fast4522]

Devaluation of the dollar may be the end game.

[Robert Goren]

what are you saying? all the companies that sell (billion dollar) products overseas will be out of business?

Boeing has many union employees...Are you say that can compete with interest free loans made their competitors back those companies governments?

[Robert Goren]

There is no correlation between IQ and the ability to think independently. Krugman went through a PhD program where men with equally high IQs taught Keynesian economics as gospel. He was taught that the elitists had the answers, and that they were smart enough to manage the economy better than the private sector could. There is no indication that he has put the energy into the study of macroeconomics that he put into winning his Nobel.

He is a true believer. He admits that Keynesian economics is not working, and has not worked. His answer is always the same. Government spending to stimulate the economy hasn't worked because we didn't spend enough.But Keynesian economics does work when you spend enough. WWII proved that. It evens works when you don't spend enough, it just doesn't work as well as if you spend more. What doesn't very well is tax cuts to the very rich. You create supply by do that. In most recessions and depressions the problem is not supply, but demand. You can build all the parking garages you want but if nobody has a car, they sit empty. Now if people cars and want parking, the rich will build garages. That is what capitalism is all about, meeting demand. Money flows up, it does not trickle down. Companies lay off people because there is no demand for there products, not because they have buyers but don't have the money to keep going. If you have buyers for your products there is always somebody willing to lend you the money if you don't already have it.

[reckless]

Just to be clear, you were being sarcastic here, correct?

Of course... for the life of me, how could anyone not know that?

PS--Before someone suggests that I should have inundated my post with emotioncons(?) I did give it some thought, but declined because I assumed it wouldn't be needed.

[Clocker]

But Keynesian economics does work when you spend enough. WWII proved that.

WWII proved nothing about Keynesian economics. It was a highly artificial, one-time economic environment of labor shortages, price controls, wage controls, rationing, and shortages of consumer goods.

After WWII, as government spending for war goods ended and returning GIs swelled the ranks of the unemployed, the economy was still in recession.

No longer having to fund the war, Congress cut taxes soon after the war. That, combined with pent-up demand for consumer goods, stimulated economic growth. The destruction of European production infrastructure also greatly increased demand for American industrial output.

In short, government spending during the war did not end the Great Depression. The private sector realities of the post war era did.

[AndyC]

But Keynesian economics does work when you spend enough. WWII proved that. It evens works when you don't spend enough, it just doesn't work as well as if you spend more. What doesn't very well is tax cuts to the very rich. You create supply by do that. In most recessions and depressions the problem is not supply, but demand. You can build all the parking garages you want but if nobody has a car, they sit empty. Now if people cars and want parking, the rich will build garages. That is what capitalism is all about, meeting demand. Money flows up, it does not trickle down. Companies lay off people because there is no demand for there products, not because they have buyers but don't have the money to keep going. If you have buyers for your products there is always somebody willing to lend you the money if you don't already have it.

Successful businesses hiring more workers is evidence of trickle down. Capitalism is about the allocation of capital through market means. Money flows to where there is demand, on that we agree.

If a company does not have demand for their product what do you propose that they do? Hire more workers? Build more widgets for which there is no demand? Hopefully they reallocate capital to more productive ventures.

[Robert Goren]

Successful businesses hiring more workers is evidence of trickle down. Capitalism is about the allocation of capital through market means. Money flows to where there is demand, on that we agree.

If a company does not have demand for their product what do you propose that they do? Hire more workers? Build more widgets for which there is no demand? Hopefully they reallocate capital to more productive ventures.I purpose they do what they do, lay off workers. I say the government giving them money is not going to prevent the layoffs. Giving money to their customers will. Trickle down doesn't work, trickle up does.
I remember a CEO of paper company relaying story on CNBC once. He was about to close a plant. The state in which the plant was located came to him with a bunch incentives in an attempt to keep the plant open. He told them that he didn't need incentives, he needed orders and closed the plant. It later reopen when the economy improved without the incentives. His story is the reality of doing business. Incentives are nice, but they don't replace orders for your product.

[JustRalph]

Please explain trickle up.........

[Robert Goren]

Please explain trickle up......... That is when the government put money into the hands of customers with program like extended unemployment benefits. Then they have the money to buy products so companies can keep making their products and not lay off their workers.

[fast4522]

Exactly!

Please explain trickle up........

The blowing of nice warm air up butts when failure is the truth.

Case in point RG.

[JustRalph]

That is when the government put money into the hands of customers with program like extended unemployment benefits. Then they have the money to buy products so companies can keep making their products and not lay off their workers.

You get more out there every day. Pardon me while I back away from this line of discussion........you act as if government earns it's own money. Every damn dime the government hands out, comes from someone else's pocket. You will never understand that.......apparently.

[Robert Goren]

Exactly!

Please explain trickle up........

The blowing of nice warm air up butts when failure is the truth.

Case in point RG. I explain trickle up, now maybe you can explain where one case of where a trickle down program even appeared to look like it worked. Come give me that case.

[DJofSD]

You get more out there every day. Pardon me while I back away from this line of discussion........you act as if government earns it's own money. Every damn dime the government hands out, comes from someone else's pocket. You will never understand that.......apparently.
Exactamundo -- exactly my thoughts when I read RGs message.

[DJofSD]

I explain trickle up, now maybe you can explain where one case of where a trickle down program even appeared to look like it worked. Come give me that case.
Better yet, you tell us where it does not work.

This will be better because it will force you to reveal your assumptions and prejudices.

[fast4522]

I explain trickle up, now maybe you can explain where one case of where a trickle down program even appeared to look like it worked. Come give me that case.

If your looking for something that works for those who do not work your SOL in trickle down. Unemployment will always be higher the more socialist in direction you go. When you free up the harder you work the more net gains for all in the chain, the economy moves like a train at 4%+ growth but does very little for those who are not active inside the critical path. The model that you prefer amounts to .5% growth but is more generous to those not active outside the critical path. The model that provides the 4%+ growth is the one that is best for younger and middle aged men responsible for other than themselves like family. The harsh truth is also people of color fair better in the model that provides 4%+ growth.

[davew]

Please explain trickle up.........


http://www.trickleup.org/

a group that makes microloans and gives training to poor, so that the poor can do something and become self-sufficient.

[Robert Goren]

If your looking for something that works for those who do not work your SOL in trickle down. Unemployment will always be higher the more socialist in direction you go. When you free up the harder you work the more net gains for all in the chain, the economy moves like a train at 4%+ growth but does very little for those who are not active inside the critical path. The model that you prefer amounts to .5% growth but is more generous to those not active outside the critical path. The model that provides the 4%+ growth is the one that is best for younger and middle aged men responsible for other than themselves like family. The harsh truth is also people of color fair better in the model that provides 4%+ growth.Straight from the right wing handbook and as usual with no examples only theory because the theory doesn't work. If there is one thing the right wing has it is lots of propaganda on its theories. One thing in short supply is examples of how and when they actually worked.

[tucker6]

That is when the government put money into the hands of customers with program like extended unemployment benefits. Then they have the money to buy products so companies can keep making their products and not lay off their workers.
The govt doesn't have customers. To be a customer requires that one has choices regarding quality, price, and supplier. However with the govt, almost every service they offer cannot be offered by someone else. In other words, it's a monopoly. So please stop with the customer designation.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
That is when the government put money into the hands of customers with program like extended unemployment benefits. Then they have the money to buy products so companies can keep making their products and not lay off their workers.

BS. The government STEALS that money from those who do work.
End of story.

[fast4522]

Straight from the right wing handbook and as usual with no examples only theory because the theory doesn't work. If there is one thing the right wing has it is lots of propaganda on its theories. One thing in short supply is examples of how and when they actually worked.

It has always worked, just not so good for the communist inclined. What is good for the hard working man who supports his family is the best for all, everyone else just deserves table scraps sorry.

[classhandicapper]

But Keynesian economics does work when you spend enough. WWII proved that. It evens works when you don't spend enough, it just doesn't work as well as if you spend more. What doesn't very well is tax cuts to the very rich. You create supply by do that. In most recessions and depressions the problem is not supply, but demand. You can build all the parking garages you want but if nobody has a car, they sit empty. Now if people cars and want parking, the rich will build garages. That is what capitalism is all about, meeting demand. Money flows up, it does not trickle down. Companies lay off people because there is no demand for there products, not because they have buyers but don't have the money to keep going. If you have buyers for your products there is always somebody willing to lend you the money if you don't already have it.

Keynesian economics works the same way giving a fix to a heroin addict will relieve his withdrawal symptoms.

The typical recession is the result of an imbalanced economy. By that I mean there was mal-investment of some sort. It could be too much commercial real estate development, too much investment in some areas of manufacturing, speculative housing prices that were not supported by incomes and rents, wild leveraged speculation in stocks etc... The common core to all these problems is too much debt was used to finance something way beyond fair value or the needs of the economy. Eventually, when credit tightens, these excesses get exposed and the economy tries to CORRECT and create a balanced situation. That correction is always painful because jobs are lost, asset prices tend to fall back, there are bankruptcies etc.. When it's over though, you have a healthy base and can start over.

What Keynesian economics tries to do is short circuit the free market correction by making credit so cheap that the crazies and government will borrow even more money to spend and stimulate the economy. It generally works in the short term, but it can and often does leave you in an even worse position than you were in to start with.

Both the republicans and democrats are Keynesians. The democrats increase spending to create those stimulative larger deficits. The republicans cut taxes to create those stimulative deficits. The fed also lowers interest rates to levels that discourage savings, encourage borrowing and spending, and stimulate further.

Sound economics means not allowing credit excesses and asset prices to get out of hand to begin with. That requires sound money and a sound banking system - which we do not have.

The longer we stay on the current path, the larger and larger the excesses will become and the harder and harder they will be to prop up via Keynesian methods - just as the heroin addict will eventually OD if you keep relieving him of his symptoms of addiction with more heroin. That's partly why we are struggling so badly now. We had huge credit excesses but we keep piling debt on top of debt to feel better in the short term while the body is dying.

[Robert Goren]

Keynesian economics works the same way giving a fix to a heroin addict will relieve his withdrawal symptoms.

The typical recession is the result of an imbalanced economy. By that I mean there was mal-investment of some sort. It could be too much commercial real estate development, too much investment in some areas of manufacturing, speculative housing prices that were not supported by incomes and rents, wild leveraged speculation in stocks etc... The common core to all these problems is too much debt was used to finance something way beyond fair value or the needs of the economy. Eventually, when credit tightens, these excesses get exposed and the economy tries to CORRECT and create a balanced situation. That correction is always painful because jobs are lost, asset prices tend to fall back, there are bankruptcies etc.. When it's over though, you have a healthy base and can start over.

What Keynesian economics tries to do is short circuit the free market correction by making credit so cheap that the crazies and government will borrow even more money to spend and stimulate the economy. It generally works in the short term, but it can and often does leave you in an even worse position than you were in to start with.

Both the republicans and democrats are Keynesians. The democrats increase spending to create those stimulative larger deficits. The republicans cut taxes to create those stimulative deficits. The fed also lowers interest rates to levels that discourage savings, encourage borrowing and spending, and stimulate further.

Sound economics means not allowing credit excesses and asset prices to get out of hand to begin with. That requires sound money and a sound banking system - which we do not have.

The longer we stay on the current path, the larger and larger the excesses will become and the harder and harder they will be to prop up via Keynesian methods - just as the heroin addict will eventually OD if you keep relieving him of his symptoms of addiction with more heroin. That's partly why we are struggling so badly now. We had huge credit excesses but we keep piling debt on top of debt to feel better in the short term while the body is dying.Well we agree about the unsound banking system. I am not sure we agree on why it is unsound and what we can do to fix it.

[Robert Goren]

The amazing thing that I took form this thread is how many posters thought the national tea parties were out of touch these days with what has happening locally. It sure did not take long for them to sell out, did it? Is this what happens to all political movements when they try to organize on a national scale and the money starts rolling in?

[fast4522]

It is certainly not a good thing for the liberal agenda. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Cantor was on CNN crying this morning.
Hey Eric, you butthead, try representing the PEOPLE - you might still have a job.

Actually, he was stale garbage no matter what - NO ONE is qualified to serve more than 1 term. Ever use half an onion on a burger? Mmmmm mmmm mmmm.

Ever open the fridge door the next day? That is all you need know about politics.

[classhandicapper]

Well we agree about the unsound banking system. I am not sure we agree on why it is unsound and what we can do to fix it.

Eliminate the Fed.

Eliminate fractional reserve banking.

Eliminate the entire concept of "too big to fail" banks and financial institutions. It is the knowledge that the Fed and government will bail out banks that makes risky banking more likely. If the government does have to step in, shareholders have to be wiped out and directors and senior management tossed or jailed depending on if they were incompetent or irresponsible.

Monetize gold and possibly other metals so they can saved and you can draw checks against them and use them as currency.

Put tough rules in place on government debt and deficits that are enforced by automatically throwing everyone in congress out if they fail to meet them.

That would be a good start.

[Robert Goren]

Eliminate the Fed.

Eliminate fractional reserve banking.

Eliminate the entire concept of "too big to fail" banks and financial institutions. It is the knowledge that the Fed and government will bail out banks that makes risky banking more likely. If the government does have to step in, shareholders have to be wiped out and directors and senior management tossed or jailed depending on if they were incompetent or irresponsible.

Monetize gold and possibly other metals so they can saved and you can draw checks against them and use them as currency.

Put tough rules in place on government debt and deficits that are enforced by automatically throwing everyone in congress out if they fail to meet them.

That would be a good start.In other words, go back to 1880s when they had a "panic" every three years and a quarter of the banks went under leaving their depositors high and dry. Go bank a bit further when banks printed their own money or minted their coins which may or not be back by gold or silver. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea in this day and age. If that system really worked, they would have never created the Fed.

[Tom]

Do a little research on the Fed.

[classhandicapper]

In other words, go back to 1880s when they had a "panic" every three years and a quarter of the banks went under leaving their depositors high and dry. Go bank a bit further when banks printed their own money or minted their coins which may or not be back by gold or silver. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea in this day and age. If that system really worked, they would have never created the Fed.

The big problem they had before the Fed was fractional reserve banking and paper reserves.

What that means is that when you make a deposit into a checking account (a demand deposit account) the bank only has to keep 10% of it on reserve and can lend out the rest. What that means is that if the bank makes some bad loans and people perceive that there could be a problem, they might panic and demand their money back because they are afraid of losing it. That's the classic bank run that used to cause all those problems.

The way to fix that was to say that banks must keep all that demand money available and not lend it out. They can lend out savings, time deposits etc... but not demand deposits. That would essentially neutralize bank runs because you would know that the bank had your checking account money secure and safe.

But banks did not want to do that because they made money lending out that checking money also. They were greedy and didn't want to run sound banks. So they created the Fed to print money out of thin air and provide all the reserves they needed "just in case" they screwed up and there was a run. It also gave them the ability to expand credit even faster and more recklessly than before and then get bailed out at society's expense when it all blew up.

Printing all that money to create reserves and manipulate interest rates etc.. contributes to all the boom and busts, inflation, the great depression, the 2008 crisis etc... that we've been experiencing since the Fed was created.

The Fed is a giant reckless financial rape and pillage machine that government and banks use to steal your money in a back door way because it's harder to understand that process that raising taxes (which everyone understands).

[Robert Goren]

The big problem they had before the Fed was fractional reserve banking and paper reserves.

What that means is that when you make a deposit into a checking account (a demand deposit account) the bank only has to keep 10% of it on reserve and can lend out the rest. What that means is that if the bank makes some bad loans and people perceive that there could be a problem, they might panic and demand their money back because they are afraid of losing it. That's the classic bank run that used to cause all those problems.

The way to fix that was to say that banks must keep all that demand money available and not lend it out. They can lend out savings, time deposits etc... but not demand deposits. That would essentially neutralize bank runs because you would know that the bank had your checking account money secure and safe.

But banks did not want to do that because they made money lending out that checking money also. They were greedy and didn't want to run sound banks. So they created the Fed to print money out of thin air and provide all the reserves they needed "just in case" they screwed up and there was a run. It also gave them the ability to expand credit even faster and more recklessly than before and then get bailed out at society's expense when it all blew up.

Printing all that money to create reserves and manipulate interest rates etc.. contributes to all the boom and busts, inflation, the great depression, the 2008 crisis etc... that we've been experiencing since the Fed was created.

The Fed is a giant reckless financial rape and pillage machine that government and banks use to steal your money in a back door way because it's harder to understand that process that raising taxes (which everyone understands).Back in the pre-Fed days they did have to keep any reserve on their deposits.
The treasury dept. prints money not the Fed for the record. The Fed does attempt to increase and decrease the money supply although they seldom decrease it. (the money supply is not the same as currency in circulation and has very little to do with it). They merely attempt to slow the rate of increase. Most "economists" would consider a decrease in the money supply a brake on growth and combined with ever increasing population a recipe for disaster such as the great depression of the early 1930s. They try to do it mostly by increasing and decreasing interest rates and "buying" treasuries. There are other "market forces" at work that the Fed does not control. The Credit Card revolution of 1970s and 1980s was one such force that greatly expanded the money supply. The Fed is open about what is doing, but not so much about they plan to do in the near future although they are opening up more recently.
Currency in circulation is different area outside the control of the Fed. Whether it should be back bill for once of Gold (or whatever)or not is not a Fed issue. That is something some people seem to get mixed up on.

[classhandicapper]

Back in the pre-Fed days they did have to keep any reserve on their deposits.
The treasury dept. prints money not the Fed for the record. The Fed does attempt to increase and decrease the money supply although they seldom decrease it. (the money supply is not the same as currency in circulation and has very little to do with it). They merely attempt to slow the rate of increase. Most "economists" would consider a decrease in the money supply a brake on growth and combined with ever increasing population a recipe for disaster such as the great depression of the early 1930s. They try to do it mostly by increasing and decreasing interest rates and "buying" treasuries. There are other "market forces" at work that the Fed does not control. The Credit Card revolution of 1970s and 1980s was one such force that greatly expanded the money supply. The Fed is open about what is doing, but not so much about they plan to do in the near future although they are opening up more recently.
Currency in circulation is different area outside the control of the Fed. Whether it should be back bill for once of Gold (or whatever)or not is not a Fed issue. That is something some people seem to get mixed up on.

This is how it works.

First, fractional reserve banking has been the norm for almost forever. Banking has been flawed for almost forever and remains so.

If banks kept 100% reserves, there could never be a bank run of the type we have experienced historically because every dollar that depositors had in their checking accounts would be available to give customers back if they wanted it.

What used to happen is that people would come into the banks demanding their money, but the banks DID NOT have it because they loaned 90% of it out (or whatever the reserve requirement allowed at the time). When the banks started getting too much demand for that cash, they started calling in their loans to get the cash they needed to pay the depositors. That put businesses and the economy under extreme pressure because borrowers were suddenly being asked to pay back their loans in full immediately and they were in no position to do so (otherwise they wouldn't have borrowed to begin with). That all set in motion a contraction of business and the economy, bankruptcies, and higher interest rates which further raised fears about the banks, which encouraged more runs, which put more pressure on the economy, raised interest rates etc... and all hell broke loose.

There are two ways to solve that problem of bank runs.

1. Eliminate fractional reserves (easy enough to do, but it would reduce bank profits).

2. Create a Central Bank that can create the required reserves out of thin air by buying treasuries (these days they also mortgages and other toxic stuff), adding liquidity to the system, lowering interest rates etc... That takes all the pressure off the system so no loans have to be called in, interest rates don't have to rise because everyone is scrambling for money etc... This is the electronic printing of money (not currency).

Everyone can then be happy......or so they say.

To see this is so, just read about what is going on now. The Fed has printed several trillion dollars of new money since 2008 to bail out banks from bad loans, keep them liquid, keep rates low, stimulate activity etc.... I think its own balance sheet is about 3-4 times what it used to be before 2008. That money is currently sitting on the balance sheet at the Fed as Excess Reserves. The Fed has printed so much new money, the banks have no use for it now. It's that extreme. The biggest fear now is they may eventually want to use it and that would create hyper inflation and it all started flowing into the economy.

The problem with printing money, lowing interest rates artificially etc... like this is that it encourages reckless behavior and business mistakes and causes inflation.

For example, people see artificially low interest rates and start speculating in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.. because they aren't getting a good return on their savings account. Businesses start doing deals that don't really make sense unless interest rates remain low. Basically, it puts you on the path to the type of speculative bubbles we've seen over and over in our lifetimes and before. Then when the Fed ultimately stops the process because it sees inflation brewing, it stops printing, raises rates back to where they should be, money tightens up, and it all collapses.

Rinse and repeat.

Wall St gets richer and richer, your savings get inflated away, the government finances the welfare and warfare state with the printed money and we all get poorer.

Try to tell the government they have to control spending and taxes!

Try telling Wall ST they have to operate soundly!

Now way!!! They like the current system. Wall At gets rich and bailed out. Politicians don't have to make tough decisions that could get them thrown out of office. The public doesn't understand they are bent over taking where the sun doesn't shine. That's why we can't fix it.

[Robert Goren]

The problem isn't the fact that banks invest your checking account money they'd be foolish not to, but in what they invest it in. The same is true with their CDs. Any attempt to regulate banks is very hard because no regulations on anything fight it with every trick in the book.

[classhandicapper]

The problem isn't the fact that banks invest your checking account money they'd be foolish not to, but in what they invest it in. The same is true with their CDs. Any attempt to regulate banks is very hard because no regulations on anything fight it with every trick in the book.

You are missing the point. There is a distinction between savings accounts and checking accounts.

Assume you give me $10,000 to put in your checking account and I promise it will be available to you whenever you need it. Then I turn around and lend out $9,000 to a brilliant businessman that builds a successful store. You come to me and ask for the 10K back and I say I don't have it. You freak out and tell everyone. Now everyone wants the checking account money they gave to me back, but I lent out most it out and don't have it.

It doesn't matter if I made good loans or bad loans. I have a bank run on my hands and that's a disaster. Now I have to demand those loans back so I can give my customers the money back. To pay me back, the guys I lent the money to have to lay off employees, close stores, sell houses, tighten their own spending etc... and the economy goes to hell.

That's the difference between a demand account and a time account.

If I put money into a time account like a CD, I can't just come in and demand the money back immediately (though they will accommodate customers). Sa a result, the banks can easily organize their loans to match when these things all mature and never have a major issue.

But checking accounts are demand deposit accounts that people can demand immediately. And if they do, all hell breaks loose because the bank will not have the money.

So the idea would be to not allow banks to loan out of checking account money. They would make their loans out of savings, CDs etc... and there could never be a back run. No fractional reserves on checking = no bank runs.

As far as quality of loans. The quality eventually deteriorates in large part because of the Fed and the current system that makes credit available to any Tom Dick and Harry that wants it. The Fed does that by printing the reserves. The boom and bust cycle is in large part the FED's FAULT.

[Tom]

We went through all this in It's a Wonderful Life.