Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

U.s. Congress "nutters" Risk Global Finance - Cable

Recommended Posts

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/uk-britain-cable-congress-idUKTRE76N18320110724

Right-wing "nutters" in the United States Congress holding up a deal to prevent a catastrophic debt default are a greater risk to the global financial system than problems in the euro zone, Business Secretary Cable said on Sunday.

Cable said "irresponsible" people who had been gleefully anticipating the collapse of the euro currency had been confounded after European leaders agreed a second rescue package for debt-stricken Greece last week.

"The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American congress rather than the euro zone," he told BBC television.

Cable has been very busy it seems.

Thought this comment deserved a different thread to the printy printy one.

Clearly he means he wants the STHTF on someone else's watch so it's clear we should increase the limit and have an even bigger collapse at point X in the future. Just as long as it isn't now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8658500/Tim-Geithner-joins-warnings-of-market-meltdown-as-deal-goes-to-the-wire.html

America risks a major backlash from financial markets unless the outline of a deal to prevent a government default is agreed in the next 24 hours, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has warned.

More threats to allow the creation of even more debt that will never ever be paid back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

Enough time to get everyone on the titanic?

Or do they really think they can keep this thing afloat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=190590

We will not default in August, unless Treasury intentionally spends the money that they are legally required to pay in interest on the equivalent of "hookers and blow" instead.

However, a refusal to pass the debt increase will force an immediate balanced budget.

A snippet of Dennigers view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, a refusal to pass the debt increase will force an immediate balanced budget.

Hells bells, we can't have that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US had a balanced budget, they then started 2 wars and cut taxes for the richest people in the country.

Now the Republicans are refusing ANY tax increases, despite the lowest tax burden since WW2, and refusing to cut military spending despite these being the cause of the defecit. It is intentional sabotage of the economy so they can blame Obama for the collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the Republicans are refusing ANY tax increases, despite the lowest tax burden since WW2

You mean they're doing what they were elected to do, not acting like Democrats? Why, the horror!

and refusing to cut military spending despite these being the cause of the defecit..

While it's certainly a contributor, a $700,000,000,000 defence budget doesn't cause a $1,500,000,000,000 deficit. And no-one forced the Democrats to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow Obama to blow billions more bombing Libya (AFAIR more Republicans than Democrats voted against the bombing of Libya).

America has to dramatically cut government spending and regulation if it's going to recover. It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hells bells, we can't have that.

You prefer 30% unemployment?

The US needs to balance the budget (as it was before Bush ran the government into the ground) but immediately ending all deficit spending (rather than waiting 5 years) will send unemployment through the roof, and whatever you think, it's not going to be the bankers out of a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean they're doing what they were elected to do, not acting like Democrats? Why, the horror!

The Democrats aren't perfect fiscally but compared to the Republicans they are pretty good. The debt ceiling was raised 7 times under Bush. The budget was balanced under Clinton and went spectacularly bad after 8 years Repub rule.

While it's certainly a contributor, a $700,000,000,000 defence budget doesn't cause a $1,500,000,000,000 deficit. And no-one forced the Democrats to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow Obama to blow billions more bombing Libya (AFAIR more Republicans than Democrats voted against the bombing of Libya).

America has to dramatically cut government spending and regulation if it's going to recover. It's that simple.

Or it could increase taxes to first world levels. Trying to plug the deficit by extending tax cuts for the rich is just stupid. If deficits matter increase taxs - carried interest and capital gains should not be less than income tax for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's certainly a contributor, a $700,000,000,000 defence budget doesn't cause a $1,500,000,000,000 deficit. And no-one forced the Democrats to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow Obama to blow billions more bombing Libya (AFAIR more Republicans than Democrats voted against the bombing of Libya).

America has to dramatically cut government spending and regulation if it's going to recover. It's that simple.

Yeah, cutting tax rates in the US sure has worked wonders. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are now the lowest in more than 50 years. And, clearly, it was all that over-regulation that allowed the mortgage bubble to get out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The budget was balanced under Clinton and went spectacularly bad after 8 years Repub rule.

Who was running Congress when the budget was supposedly balanced?

Hint: It wasn't Democrats.

And back in the real world there was never a year when the US national debt did not increase while Clinton was President, though a couple of years were close.

Or it could increase taxes to first world levels.

Why would Americans want a high-tax socialist economy when the EU is collapsing in front of their face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, cutting tax rates in the US sure has worked wonders. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are now the lowest in more than 50 years. And, clearly, it was all that over-regulation that allowed the mortgage bubble to get out of control.

Well I think everyone gets fed up that we have to have Austrian on the way up then Keynes on the way down.

We should either have one or the other. Either you are allowed to take personal risk, and personal responsibility.. or we say that the population are too stupid to manage their own finances and should be controlled on the way up and protected on the way down.

Given that we had practically zero regulation on the way up.. yes, damn right the speculators should suffer some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, cutting tax rates in the US sure has worked wonders. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are now the lowest in more than 50 years. And, clearly, it was all that over-regulation that allowed the mortgage bubble to get out of control.

The worst point about it is that when you have an aging demographic profile such as the US, taxes need to be increased to fund the greater strain on government provided services and counter the lower percentage of workers vs population. The idea that you can have taxes comparable to 50 years ago when the demographic profile was vastly better, is simply bonkers.

Thats not to say that the seniors should be handed everything they want on a plate..... but the current republican standpoint..... vince cable is right to call them right wing nutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we perceive the strategy of the wealthy supported by the Republicans here?

Basically, they are happy to see the debt ceiling rise but they don't want the balancing mechanism of higher taxes to affect them

So, more debt = more wealth concentrated in their hands and no taxes to balance the whole situation out.

The thing is the wealthy already don't pay taxes so you have to wonder what they are after. The incapacitation of government (ex all forms of security spending and business subsidies) seems to be their aim.

Edited by _w_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst point about it is that when you have an aging demographic profile such as the US, taxes need to be increased to fund the greater strain on government provided services and counter the lower percentage of workers vs population. The idea that you can have taxes comparable to 50 years ago when the demographic profile was vastly better, is simply bonkers.

Thats not to say that the seniors should be handed everything they want on a plate..... but the current republican standpoint..... vince cable is right to call them right wing nutters.

They could always do some "imaginative QE".. just print money and give it to people! Keep the debt down to keep the "nutters" happy and would boost GDP and thus tax take (nominally at least).

Would also fully vindicate the gold bugs and Mr Schiff

Edited by libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cable has been very busy it seems.

Yes.... and this somewhat outlandishly partisan outburst prompted me to start thinking.

I'm far from sure that I share Vince's political outlook - but, to date... when he's said something that sounds outrageous compared to his peers, he's been proved right.

I'm wondering, now, how prescient is Vince's focus on (allegedly) extreme right-wing ideologies? I think it interesting that this all comes out the same weekend as Norway suffers a mass killing of family-members of a socialist cabinet at the hands of someone the media also labels a 'right wing nutter' - while emphasising his stance on immigration - which, frankly, given the nature of his all-too-obvious-crimes... doesn't fit as a motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst point about it is that when you have an aging demographic profile such as the US, taxes need to be increased to fund the greater strain on government provided services and counter the lower percentage of workers vs population. The idea that you can have taxes comparable to 50 years ago when the demographic profile was vastly better, is simply bonkers.

Thats not to say that the seniors should be handed everything they want on a plate..... but the current republican standpoint..... vince cable is right to call them right wing nutters.

Up till the mid 60's the super rich were on 90% Tax rates for decades before - so you're bonkers for thinking it's bonkers!

The richest crunts have tried to write it out of history and out of gen population's 'train of thought' and get their puppets in Govt to quash any mention of it.

We are brainwashed into having a "tolerance" for a super rich, non taxed class - Satan's Synagogue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up till the mid 60's the super rich were on 90% Tax rates for decades before - so you're bonkers for thinking it's bonkers!

The richest crunts have tried to write it out of history and out of gen population's 'train of thought' and get their puppets in Govt to quash any mention of it.

We are brainwashed into having a "tolerance" for a super rich, non taxed class - Satan's Synagogue!

Des O`Connor mentioned 80% rate on a recent Piers Morgan life Stories, and I have heard talk of the 90% rate on docs about Stones/ Elton John etc. Can you tell me how this was applied? What income rates were affected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Des O`Connor mentioned 80% rate on a recent Piers Morgan life Stories, and I have heard talk of the 90% rate on docs about Stones/ Elton John etc. Can you tell me how this was applied? What income rates were affected?

95% Super Tax during the dreadful Wilson years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.... and this somewhat outlandishly partisan outburst prompted me to start thinking.

I'm far from sure that I share Vince's political outlook - but, to date... when he's said something that sounds outrageous compared to his peers, he's been proved right.

I'm wondering, now, how prescient is Vince's focus on (allegedly) extreme right-wing ideologies? I think it interesting that this all comes out the same weekend as Norway suffers a mass killing of family-members of a socialist cabinet at the hands of someone the media also labels a 'right wing nutter' - while emphasising his stance on immigration - which, frankly, given the nature of his all-too-obvious-crimes... doesn't fit as a motivation.

The Copper? was a previously brainwashed-hypnotised 'sleeper'

- set off on his murderous attack by a coded message or 'sequence of words'

Anders means Andrew - so can also be connected to Scottish Mason symbology - 'Anders'

Anderson was surname of a highly revered Mason in the early formation of the 'symbology & allegorical Modern Faux Masonry!

Latest BBC (BB=22) Headline " which is UBER Masonic cos AA is Associated and Accepted (Freemason)

second letter [byt] in the Hebrew alphabet.

General meanings attributed to B include: duality, two, in, among, between, and from.

When prefixed to a word, b generally means 'in'."

"He did not rest on one attack but planned two actions to maximize the damage."

He was "among" the Youths with a "dual" personality too!

Norway gun suspect 'acted alone' (aa=11)

32 years old Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, (BB=22) who killed 92 (++=11) on 22nd July 2011 (22+July=29 9+2=11) in Oslo has used similar techniques in bomb blast (BB=22) and shooting of the children from his most hatred enemy, the Muslim fundamentalist. He did not rest on one attack but planned two actions to maximize the damage. While the Norwegian police was busy in handling the aftermath of the bomb blast (BB=22) scenario in the afternoon, he was able to shoot the youth at a summer camp for over 90 minutes without any resistance.

It was a purely Occult black Magick killing by the illuminati "skull & bones" Elites in rebellion against God!

significance of 11 & multiples of 11

Satanists believe that a carefully planned event must be carried out according to the correct numbers, or it may not be successful.

They go to great lengths to make an event occur according to the correct numbers.

As Wescott explains, "... so 11 is the essence of all that is sinful, harmful, and imperfect." [ibid., p. 100] Thus, while 11 is very important, multiplication's are also important, such as 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, and 99.

Now, let us review the tremendous instances where the 9/11 attacks occurred by the Power of "11".

You can see loads of instances of 11 or multiples of by the 'legion' of occult posters on HPC - hidden in the posted-flagged articles

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/uk-britain-cable-congress-idUKTRE76N18320110724

Cable has been very busy it seems.

Thought this comment deserved a different thread to the printy printy one.

Clearly he means he wants the STHTF on someone else's watch so it's clear we should increase the limit and have an even bigger collapse at point X in the future. Just as long as it isn't now.

Indeed. Also, hardly the sort of language that gains Cable any respect. He's supposed to be a high-level Government minister with tact. He just sounds like a loon and is an embarrassment to the country imo. Plus, he probably doesn't really understand just how despised his opinions are in the US, well amongst those that know of him anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was running Congress when the budget was supposedly balanced?

Hint: It wasn't Democrats.

And back in the real world there was never a year when the US national debt did not increase while Clinton was President, though a couple of years were close.

Why would Americans want a high-tax socialist economy when the EU is collapsing in front of their face?

The balanced budget was more down to luck and the fact America was in a bit of a boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.