interestrateripoff Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The funny bit is where he seems to think a world without the Global Finance Ponzi is a bad thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoWolves Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Elite speak : People who disagree with me = right wing nutters. Nutters = people not worthy of a political voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spp Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Enough time to get everyone on the titanic? Or do they really think they can keep this thing afloat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 Elite speak : People who disagree with me = right wing nutters. Nutters = people not worthy of a political voice. A bit like Stalinist Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 However, a refusal to pass the debt increase will force an immediate balanced budget. Hells bells, we can't have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_w_ Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) 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 July 24, 2011 by _w_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) 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 July 24, 2011 by libspero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.steve Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) 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 July 25, 2011 by erranta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.