switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Tue Sep 11 2018 17:36:09 EDT from Decomposed <>

Subject: Give Trump the Nobel Prize for Economics

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sep 11, 2018

Give Trump the Nobel Prize for Economics


Sep 11, 2018


Give Trump the Nobel Prize for Economics


This past week I asked a friend at the White House about how the president was holding up against the onslaught of media attacks. "They didn't even deliver a glancing blow," was the response. It wasn't for a lack of trying.

Has any president in modern times been the target of such a Blitzkrieg of orchestrated assaults -- from John McCain's funeral turned anti-Trump scrum to Bob Woodward's discredited new book trashing the president to the media infatuation with the anonymous New York Times op-ed by a disgruntled federal employee who hates President Trump.

Here we go again. Trump is (for the umpteenth time) characterized as dangerous, deranged, delusional, infantile, racist and amoral. But Trump is like Muhammad Ali playing rope-a-dope while George Foreman (the media) is flailing away and punching himself out. The only people who pay attention to the anti-Trump screeds are already frothing at the mouth with Trump hatred. What is the point?

After all this time the "resistance" movement is still utterly clueless about Trump, his followers and the appeal of his "America First" agenda. Just why is he "deranged"? Because he is overturning trade deals, pulling the United States out of anti-America climate change treaties, building a wall to keep out undesirables, cutting taxes, slashing regulation and insisting that Europe pay it's fair share of NATO's costs.

Well, yes. Guilty as charged. When dismayed reporters ask me why he is doing all these things that are so offensive to the chattering class, my response is almost always the same: "Um, because this is what he promised voters he was going to do. Weren't you paying attention?"

Voters sure were. It turns out Americans outside the beltway weren't so enthralled with the New World Order or the anemic Obama economic program that is being dismantled.

And what is the result of all this "chaos" and "mayhem" in the White House that the media is in such a frenzy about? Well, as we learned last week, we now have the lowest number of American workers on unemployment insurance since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, the biggest manufacturing boom in 14 years, the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded, and an economy that is growing at 4.4 percent this quarter, on top of 4.2 percent growth last quarter.

The surging Trump economy is arguably the news story of the decade and yet it is covered, if at all, as a ho-hum yawner.

The first rule of journalism is: Never bury the lead. The media does this every day.

Perhaps that is because the press corps and their economist sources are having a devil of a time explaining how a "deranged" president has been able to turbocharge the economy so decisively.

The only story line that The New York Times could conjure up -- and I'm not making this up -- is that Trump is riding an Obama wave. Sure. And Tony Eason is responsible for Tom Brady's Hall of Fame performances. This "Obama effect" might be semi-plausible except for the fact that every policy Trump implements reverses President Obama's policy.

It is a virtual guarantee that when the economy does start to slow down (alas, booms don't last forever), The New York Times will gleefully shout: Aha, Donald Trump's economic policies are a failure!

Yes, there is a bit of chaos and disorder at the White House. Yes, some of the characters that Trump has hired had no business being anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. By contrast, Obama had an orderly and statesmanlike White House, and he hired a cadre of highly respected and well-intended people. Yet all of this still produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

The other day I was on a panel with media reporters and I suggested in all seriousness that Donald Trump deserves the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics. My fellow panelists almost visibly popped a vein in their heads. They ranted and raved about how stupid and dangerous Trump's policies are. Just who is deranged in this picture?



[#] Tue Sep 11 2018 17:45:24 EDT from Decomposed <>

Subject: Jim Cramer Suggests Elon Musk go on Medical Leave

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

11 Sep 2018


Jim Cramer Suggests Elon Musk go on Medical Leave: ‘I’m Worried about the Guy’


Elon Musk on Joe Rogan Experience Drinking Whiskey


by Joshua Caplan


CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer on Tuesday suggested Tesla CEO Elon Musk take a medical leave of absence from the embattled electric car company, citing the embattled billionaire’s recent “self-destructive” behavior.

“I’m worried about the guy,” Cramer told Squawk on the Street panelists. “Medical leave is fine. I think the board puts him on medical leave. That’s not a sin.”

“A healthy Elon Musk is something that can take the stock higher,” he added.

As Breitbart News’ Lucas Nolan reported Monday, the Mad Money isn’t the only prominent figure to raise concerns about Musk’s recent behavior and Tesla business model: “Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk have faced a rough few days, with Goldman Sachs predicting a 30 percent drop in Tesla’s stock price over the next six months, suppliers growing skeptical of Tesla’s production goals,Tesla’s bond prices hitting a record low following CEO Elon Musk’s renewed attack on the British cave rescuer who saved the lives of a Thai soccer team, and Musk drinking whiskey and smoking weed on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.”

In a recent interview with CNBC, Strategic Wealth Partners CEO Mark Tepper called Tesla stock the “absolute epitome of instability.”

“I wouldn’t touch this thing with a 10-foot pole,” Tepper said of the car company last Friday.”We like buying companies with a good growth story, strong management team, that are reasonably priced and Tesla doesn’t get a check in any of those boxes.”

Asked about the recent wave of high-profile resignations plaguing Tesla, Tepper described Musk as being “absolutely off his rocker.”

“Maybe the pressure is getting to him, but his behavior just seems odd,” the investor mused. “The management team is dropping like flies.” Doubling down on his criticism of Tesla’s stock, Tepper said, “We’re avoiding this thing like the plague.”

Last week, Citron Research editor and famed short seller Andrew Left sued Tesla for breaching U.S. securities law. The complaint accuses the erratic billionaire of falsely claiming he had secured funding to take Tesla private to manipulate the company’s share price.

“This appears to be a textbook case of fraud,” Left’s attorney Michael Canty said in a statement. “We believe Musk attempted to manipulate the price of Tesla securities with false and misleading tweets, in a directed effort to harm short-sellers.”

Musk’s world was turned upside down after sending out an August 7 tweet claiming he would be taking Tesla private at $420 per share. The announcement was not only false, but many of Tesla’s board members had no idea Musk was considering the bold move.

In an August 24 blog post, Musk would go on to write that Tesla had abandoned mulling proposals to take the company private. “I worked with Silver Lake, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who have world-class expertise in these matters, to consider the many factors that would come into play in taking Tesla private, and to process all the incoming interest that we received from investors to fund a go-private transaction,” Musk wrote. “After considering all of these factors, I met with Tesla’s Board of Directors yesterday and let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public. The Board indicated that they agree.”



[#] Thu Sep 13 2018 08:35:11 EDT from Decomposed <>

Subject: Ken Starr: I was *this* close to charging Hillary

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ken Starr: Oh, I Was *This* Close To Charging Mendacious Hillary Clinton With Perjury


Posted: Sep 13, 2018 8:00 AM

Ken Starr: Oh, I Was *This* Close To Charging Mendacious Hillary Clinton With Perjury

As the Russia collusion probe drags on with no evidence to point to the Trump 2016 campaign working with the Kremlin to tilt a presidential election, the capital is awash with overhype, overreactions, and lust for impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. The reason: he beat Hillary Clinton. It’s the biggest case of sour grapes in recent memory. It also shows that when American liberals lose, it can be incredibly entertaining. News flash: in American, where free and fair elections are held, often times your side loses. Get over it. But since there’s a special counsel, Robert Mueller, digging through the Trump world, let’s not forget that maybe this whole episode in American politics could be one of the best. 

Both sides hate each other, there’s a sense of anger, but also clarity, at least for me; we know who the enemy is and their party’s symbol is a jacka…—sorry, it’s a donkey. Some say that Hillary and Trump being the two contenders for the White House shows how low we’ve gone in politics. I suggest it’s what it’s always been, an overly sanctified and idealistic venture whose craft is selling voters that you’re not going to sell them down river, which is exactly what happens. It’s a snake pit.
Clinton and Trump also share the special counsel/independent counsel (though the latter is a bit different) chapter in their public lives, though with everyone writing books as of late, Ken Starr, the former special prosecutor who looked into the Clintons, said he was thisclose to charging Hillary Clinton with perjury during the Whitewater investigation. To make a long story short, it was a probe into some shady real estate dealings the power couple had executed in the late 1970s. Starr describes Hillary’s testimony as mendacious:

Former independent counsel Ken Starr was so frustrated with Hillary Clinton’s answers during the 1990s Whitewater probe that he considered charging her with perjury, the prosecutor reveals in a new tell-all.

The then-first lady repeatedly said she “did not recall” during questioning about the suicide of White House adviser Vince Foster, Starr wrote.

“I was upset over Mrs. Clinton’s performance, and was even considering bringing the matter before the Washington grand jury for possible indictment on perjury,” Starr writes in “Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation,” which hits bookshelves Tuesday.


“In the space of three hours, she claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall’ or ‘did not remember,’ ” Starr recounted of a Jan. 22, 1995, deposition of the future secretary of state.

“This suggested outright mendacity. To be sure, human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous.”

So, you could see how the “crooked Hillary” slogan stuck. In the end, Starr said that there was not enough evidence to charge her beyond a reasonable doubt.

[#] Thu Sep 13 2018 14:00:58 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It's okay. We still love you, Brad.  The important thing isn't quality, but that you made money selling eco-friendly houses . . . . and that you truly CARED.  Nobody minds if your eco-friendly houses are total crap..

Brad Pitt’s Eco-Friendly Katrina Homes Are Falling Apart


Actor Brad Pitt talks about his plan to build homes in the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans, Monday, Dec. 3, 2007. Pitt is launching his latest project to build affordable, environmentally friendly homes in the area devastated by Hurricane Katrina. (AP Photo/Bill Haber)

by John Nolte,
13 Sep 2018


Brad Pitt rode to the rescue of New Orleans 9th Ward after Hurricane Katrina, and now the dozens of eco-friendly homes he built are falling apart.

Like a scene out of a movie, in April of 2006, about eight months after local mismanagement resulted in the collapse of New Orleans’ levees and a biblical flooding of the 9th Ward, movie star Brad Pitt not only vowed to save the day by building dozens of new homes, he was going to usher in the future.

His homes would prove that you can build in a environmentally friendly fashion and do it cheaper than if you use standard building materials.

By 2016’s Pitt’s Make It Right foundation reported it had spent $26.8 million building 109 homes, but a number of buyers are now complaining and even suing Make It Right over massive design and building flaws.

What’s more, NBC News reports, the problems are so bad, “a majority of Make It Right’s homes are now vacant.”

Residents complain of “mold and collapsing structures, electrical fires and gas leaks. They say the houses were built too quickly, with low-quality materials, and that the designs didn’t take into account New Orleans’ humid, rainy climate.”

And now Pitt’s organization has “all but disappeared.”

“Make It Right hasn’t built a home, filed tax forms or updated its website since 2015,” reports NBC. “The downtown New Orleans office has been closed, the staff has been cut to a handful and residents say their calls go unreturned.”

In 2016, Pitt made a show of calling for inspections of the homes. That never happened.

Though a spokesman, Pitt responded to NBC News with the claim Make It Right has “been coordinating repairs of homes experiencing problems since early 2018 and I have total faith in our team on the ground to see this through.”

He added, “I made a promise to the folks of the Lower Ninth to help them rebuild — it is a promise I intend to keep.”

On top of the construction problems, some residents claim the mold problems have made them sick.

Kamaria Allen purchased one of Pitt’s homes for $130,000 in 2011. It “now sits abandoned — mushrooms growing from its split siding, wooden boards propping up its sagging roof.”

After Allen was forced to abandon her own home, she moved in with her parents, who also bought one of Pitt’s homes:

Allen said her parents’ home hasn’t fared any better. Wood on the porch and wheelchair-lift is rotting, the stairway railing gave way under her mother and an inspector hired by Allen reported mold and improper ventilation, which Allen believes is making her and her family sick.

Allen’s father, Keith, 63, quit his job as a yacht builder in 2013 after a mysterious illness brought on near-constant tremors, which made it a struggle for him to open water bottles and button shirts. Her mother, Sharon, 65, has trouble breathing and suffers from frequent respiratory infections, and her brother Khalid, 20, has been in and out of the hospital in the last few years for issues including muscle tremors, impaired speech, breathing problems and memory loss. The family believes the symptoms are connected to the mold, and they say doctors have told them to leave the house, but they cannot afford to unless Make It Right buys it back.

Allen claims Make It Right will no longer return her calls.

Another Make it Right customer said that after she moved into her home in 2011, the first rain revealed “water pouring in under the door.” The company fixed the leak, but “water kept seeping into the walls whenever it rained. By 2012, West said she was getting near-constant migraines, which she now attributes to mold.”

NBC reports that “homeowners are holding onto the hope that Pitt will return and save the project.”


[#] Thu Sep 13 2018 14:20:29 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hollywood Can’t (Won’t) Make Awesome Movies Anymore

Posted: Sep 13, 2018 12:01 AM
Hollywood Can’t (Won’t) Make Awesome Movies Anymore

When Burt Reynolds drove his celestial Trans-Am into the Great Beyond he took a significant chunk of America’s dwindling reserve of testosterone along with him. Unless you grew up in the ‘70s, its hard to understand his influence and impact, and how he reflected what Americans (particularly American men) wanted to be. Flicks like The Longest Yard, Smokey and the Bandit, and the criminally underrated Sharkey’s Machine, all offered us a tough but funny hero who took on the bullies in authority with a smirk, a joke, and when appropriate, a football to the “nether regions.”

Of course, you couldn’t make any of those movies in 2018. They are all too subversive, and Hollywood – a key component of the elite establishment – isn’t interested in subversion. It’s won. It’s taken power. Now it’s interested in submission.

Your submission.

Forget movies that challenge the status quo by violating our elite’s delicate sensibilities and myriad taboos. Count out Blazing Saddles. It’s perhaps the most powerful attack on the utter stupidity of racism ever put on film, but the snowflakes would melt and besides, as the New York Times demonstrated by hiring bigoted no-talent Sarah Jeong, today’s elite is actively pro-racism.

Forget Dirty Harry. He’s not understanding enough of the criminal’s point of view – which was the same liberal crook-coddling attitude the movie critiques. Also, guns are scary and we should solve our problems with words unless it’s politically useful to, say, conduct a weapons-drawn pre-dawn raid on a white-collar crime suspect associated with a conservative political opponent. Then guns are cool.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High? No way. The spectacular Phoebe Cates swimming pool scene reaffirms the cisnormative male gaze and we can’t have men enjoying beautiful women. Male happiness makes liberal feminists melt. In a 2018 reboot, Pheobe’d be wearing a burka to show solidarity with her oppressed sisters and Judge Reinhold would be fantasizing about watching her write an article for Vox on how men disappoint her by not being hairy versions of women.

If Animal House were to be rebooted, Hollywood would make the Omegas the heroes. After all, today’s establishment is essentially a fraternity of stuck-up snobs. Smarmy Greg Marmalard is Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren without the real or faked ethnic change-up, and Neidermeyer is one of those retired Obama-loving generals that CNN periodically hauls out to explain why Normal Americans can’t be trusted to own fully semi-automatic assault cannons with high capacity clips.

Once upon a time, Normal people were Hollywood’s heroes, rebelling against the pompous windbags who wanted to keep them down. But that’s changed. Today’s elitists are those pompous windbags, and they are terrified by the rebellion of the people they desperately want to keep quiet and submissive. Hollywood doesn’t want to stir us up with entertainment that breaks the narrative. That’s why it serves us wimpy mush, cinematic Xoloft to lull us into dead-eyed passivity.

My upcoming book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy explains this phenomenon in greater and more profane detail (think of my book as my meanest and funniest Townhall column ever, except it’s 288 pages long and full of swears). The left fought a culture war back when we were led by the same spineless Fredocon sissies who are now mad that Trump is showing them up by actually fighting against the left. The left won, because our cruise-shilling betters in conservatism were too weak to throw a punch. Now that the left is in the society’s driver’s seat (excepting, to its limitless fury, the White House and Congress), rebellion is out. Assimilation is in.

What could be less rebellious than a tongue bath ode to the Deep State? There’s a reboot of The FBI coming out, because of course there is. Really. After all, since its leadership has gone all-in on #TheResistance and demonstrated its incompetence and corruption to the world, it has to be rehabilitated. So, you’ll probably not see much sexting, though that appears to be about 75% of what agents do these days. Another 20% is leaking. And what do you think the chances are of a story arc involving evil FBI brass trying to subvert an elected outsider conservative president?


About 0%. But if there was such a plot line, the plotters would be the heroes.

But there’s about a 100% chance that the main villains will be conservative Christian NRA members that the brave agents – played by a gorgeous cast that is carefully curated for maximum diversity – must stop from shooting up a school or a baseball diamond full of congressmen. Because that’s what conservative Christian NRA members do, right? Except conservative Christian NRA members never actually do such things and the FBI never actually stops such crimes, but who cares?

Remember, this is the same Hollywood that is pushing The Handmaid’s Tale, which is Harry Potter oppression fan fic for lonely cat ladies, as a powerful critique of Trump’s America. Have you noticed that literally the only people actually covering their bodies under folds of clothes are the Muslim activists that libs drool over and the idiotic live action role players who show up dressed in red robes to protest dressing in red robes? Like Burt Reynolds and his Normal fans would be down with sexual repression and shapeless clothing. The libs are the ones with the anti-hottie agenda, not us.


Burt’s passing leaves a void that none of the simpering femboys trying to pass as modern movie stars can hope to fill. There’s just no equivalent of that Florida good old boy today, not in terms of masculinity nor in his sense of fun. Who is the star who tells the haters and the snobs to buzz off with a wink and a smile? Today, they are all over social media issuing mea culpas for real and imagined transgressions and seeking pardons for their sins against political correctness. Do you think ‘70s Burt Reynolds would have ever tweeted that he’s learned so, so very much from the swarm of social justice jackals hounding him because he failed to point out that women can have penises too?


He’d just put the pedal to the metal and do what he wanted, when he wanted, in the way he wanted. After all, that’s the Militant Normal way, and that’s why we’ll miss him.

[#] Thu Sep 13 2018 14:47:57 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

"Leaking Like Mad": FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known



[#] Thu Sep 13 2018 23:15:06 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I like your curation of stories here :)

[#] Fri Sep 14 2018 10:56:10 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's Enough: Trump Administration Looks To Rein In Lower Court Judges



Posted: Sep 14, 2018 8:11 AM
That's Enough: Trump Administration Looks To Rein In Lower Court Judges

We have three branches of government. The judiciary is suppose to be independent, but the slew of nationwide injunctions from lower court district judges is looking more like activism to Republicans, especially those die hard Trump supporters. It had to take the Supreme Court this past June to say plainly, explicitly, and definitively that the Trump White House’s executive order on immigration, which the liberal media called erroneously the “Muslim ban,” was constitutional. It shouldn’t have taken this long. This was not only constitutional from the get-go; it was a national security priority. The months-long fight with the courts over this order was borderline absurd. It also didn’t help that those leading the legal charge were from some of the most liberal, anti-Trump, and Democratic states in the country. Of course, this was all political—and a nice spotlight on some potentially politically ambitious attorneys general looking to shark their way up to the governor’s mansion. Well, the House GOP is making moved to curtail such lower court rulings that gum up the works of the executive (via WSJ):

The Trump administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill took aim Thursday at the growing practice of federal judges issuing nationwide rulings, hoping to tackle an issue that has repeatedly stymied President Trump’s agenda during his year-and-a-half in office.

The Department of Justice issued new guidance to government attorneys, saying they should argue vigorously in court against “nationwide injunctions,” when a federal judge on one of the U.S.’s 94 district courts issues a ruling that covers the entire country, often halting a presidential initiative, program or action.

The House Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, approved legislation to curb nationwide injunctions. The bill, proposed by panel Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), would instruct judges to write rulings that apply only to the individuals, organizations or entities that are part of the lawsuit in front of them.

While the federal judiciary operates as an independent branch of government, Congress retains significant authority under the Constitution to write rules governing federal courts, including questions of procedure, organization and jurisdiction. It is unclear how the courts would view legislation like that of Mr. Goodlatte, which limits the kinds of rulings they can issue and the scope of how they decide cases.

The Trump White House’s initiative to roll back the constitutionally questionable Obama era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order is another thorn in the side, within the Republican Party and the courts.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who approved of the bill sent through his committee, had this to say about the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act:

The Constitution gives courts the authority to decide cases for the parties before them, not to act as super-legislators for everyone across the country based on a single case. It simply cannot be the law that opponents of government action can seek a preliminary injunction and lose in 93 of the 94 judicial districts, win one injunction in the 94th, and through that injunction obtain a stay of government action nationwide despite it being upheld everywhere else. A bipartisan group of some of America’s leading professors of remedies, federal courts, and administrative law agree that Congress must enact a limit on national injunctions.

“I am pleased that the House Judiciary Committee today approved the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2018 to restore the proper balance of power between the branches of government and I look forward to a vote by the full House of Representatives soon.”

It’s about time.

[#] Fri Sep 14 2018 14:23:35 EDT from Decomposed <>

Subject: Who is the Fool? Trump or Woodward?

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


President Trump and Martin Armstrong ... and I ... are correct. The National Debt would be lower and the economy healthier if the government simply printed money instead of issuing debt.

What the government gains with debt is that the harsh effects of a large money print are spread into the future instead of hitting home immediately. It's a POLITICAL advantage. The problems are smoothed out. Instead of everyone hearing about a big money print and, logically, pulling money out of the bank to buy available goods before the prices soar, many of them will instead buy the government's new debt, opting to collect interest and spend in the future instead of doing so immediately. So prices don't rise as quickly... though they do indeed eventually rise just as far and even a bit more.

There is no sudden shock, and the blame for the prolonged, gradual shock is difficult to assign. Politicians, of course, love that because they are the culprits.



Who is the Fool? Trump or Woodward?

According to CNBC, Bob Woodward reported that Trump told Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs/director of the National Economic Council to just print more money to reduce the national debt. Woodward reports this discussion:


Trump: “Just run the presses—print money.”

Cohn: “You don’t get to do it that way. We have huge deficits and they matter. The government doesn’t keep a balance sheet like that.”

Here is a chart of the US CPI not seasonally adjusted. It has begun its sharp advance since the Floating Rate System was adopted in 1971 with the fall of Bretton Woods. In spite of borrowing, inflation over time has actually advanced more aggressively than if we had just printed instead of borrowed.  Cohn has said that Woodward’s book “does not accurately portray” his experience of the White House. This calls into question was Woodward also deliberately writing this book to overthrow Trump?

This claimed quote of a discussion between Trump and Cohn demonstrates that someone is seriously out of touch with economics.  Actually, Trump is correct. Now we have Quartz joining the media calling Trump an idiot confirming they too are clueless about debt and printing. In fact, if you did just print the money and retired the debt, it would be DEFLATIONARY and not INFLATIONARY from the budget perspective because these people are clueless themselves about how the national debt works.


Before 1971, the debt could not be used as collateral for loans such as Savings Bonds. If you needed the money, you were forced to cash them in.  Under this system, it was logically less inflationary to borrow than to print because you were not increasing the money supply under traditional economic theory. However, post-1971, you buy T-Bills and post them as collateral to trade futures. The distinction between borrowing and printing has been turned upside down. A national debt is now worse than printing economically because it is money that now pays interest forever. Once debt became collateral, then it lost its distinction as separate from the money supply. Since there is no intention of ever paying off the national debt, we have a money supply that is outstanding which pays interest and blows the government budget into deeper and deeper deficits every year.



The truth is had we printed since 1971 instead of borrowing, there would be far less of an economic crisis compared to what we face today. If we simply printed to pay off the national debt, Social Security would suddenly become a Wealth Fund that actually made money instead of a Slush Fund for politicians. Now, Social Security can only invest 100% in US government debt and then the Fed lowers the interest rate to “stimulate” the economy and Social Security goes broke forcing higher taxes. Up to 70% of the national debt at times has been purely accumulated interest which never benefited anyone.  It competes with the private sector in what we call the “flight to quality” and it forms the bank reserves. What is never discussed is the fact that US debt is also the reserve currency of nations – not paper dollars. That means that the interest we pay is exported and it stimulates foreign economies – not domestic.

So who is crazy here? Trump or Woodward? To keep borrowing year after year is insane. To monetize the debt will be DEFLATIONARY from the perspective of government expenditure. In 2019, interest expenditures even at this low level of interest rates will EXCEED military expenditure. The cost to keep rolling the national debt will crowd out all social programs, result in a continued aggressive approach of government to confiscate the assets of innocent people, and it will raise taxes exponentially to retain its position of power. Sorry, Woodward – you are DEAD wrong here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Woodward is by no means qualified to criticize Trump on such an issue he clearly does not even understand. He is contributing to the brainwashing of society which will prevent us from even noticing we have a major crisis on hand. Trump should really address the nation and explain this problem very simply. I will be glad to supply the charts.


[#] Fri Sep 14 2018 19:26:49 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

One more reason why I never want to live in the deep South...

[#] Mon Sep 17 2018 01:04:20 EDT from Decomposed <>

Subject: The Next Financial Crisis

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

No lessons learned: Next financial crisis to be much worse with US dollar collapse

– Peter Schiff

No lessons learned: Next financial crisis to be much worse with US dollar collapse – Peter Schiff
A decade after the global financial crisis, the world is facing another crash even bigger than the one in 2008, veteran stock broker Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, told RT.

“The too big to fail banks are now both bigger than ever, and more exposed than ever to rising rates and recession. So the systemic risks to the economy are greater now than they were in 2008,” said Schiff.

Such banks should have been allowed to fail a decade ago, he says. “The moral hazard associated with the government having made the mistake of bailing out banks that should have been allowed to fail. Unfortunately, no lessons were learned from the last crisis. We repeated, and expanded all the mistakes that caused the last crisis, ensuring the next one will be much worse,” he said.

According to the investor, all the problems that caused the 2008 financial crisis loom even larger now. “The even worse monetary and fiscal policy since the last crisis guarantees the next one will be much worse. The crisis will be similar in that government will be the cause, everyone will be caught by surprise, and capitalism will be the scapegoat, but it will be much different in that it will be much worse,” Schiff said.

However, the nature of the next crisis would be different, Schiff predicts. While the 2008 crisis was centered around mortgage debt, dollar rise and gold fall, the new one would be about the US Treasury debt crisis. “Treasury debt will be the focal point of the next crisis, and the dollar will collapse and gold prices will soar. The ensuing recession will be much worse as consumer prices will also rise sharply.”

[#] Mon Sep 17 2018 09:46:48 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

Subject: Re: The Next Financial Crisis

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Not to mention, there are some who *want* an economic collapse to happen as soon as possible, so they can pin it on the current President.

[#] Mon Sep 17 2018 11:43:33 EDT from zooer

Subject: Re: The Next Financial Crisis

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Which is totally different than the people who wanted it during the last president's term.

[#] Mon Sep 17 2018 15:00:42 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

Subject: Re: The Next Financial Crisis

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

"Wanted" it? It started the moment he won the election.

[#] Mon Sep 17 2018 15:54:21 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It didn't take an economic genius to make the economy roar.  All that President Trump had to do was to remove the shackles that President Obama had intentionally set in place.  For whatever reason, Obama thought it important to humble the United States before the world.  He did this by bowing to other leaders (remember when he bowed to the mayor of Tampa Florida?? 

), by making it nearly impossible for our military to stop ISIS, by exchanging important Muslim prisoners for traitors, by painting the White House with gay lights, by funding programs sure to fail (Solyndra, Obamacare, etc.)  He really didn't miss an opportunity to take the country down a peg.

Do you remember when he told the world that jobs we'd lost wouldn't be returning?  He'd given up without ever having tried.

“…some of those jobs of the past are just not going to come back.”

If that wasn't clear enough, he as much as said that Donald Trump's promise to bring jobs back was ridiculous:

“…Well, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

President Trump not only brought them back, he made it look easy.

The reality is that President Obama didn't want the United States to continue arrogantly (in his opinion) leading the world.  He wasn't proud of the country he was elected to lead and decided that giving it a good shot of failure and humiliation was a policy worth pursuing.  At that one thing, he was very successful.


[#] Mon Sep 24 2018 09:39:08 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well then ... mission accomplished for both of them.

[#] Sat Oct 06 2018 09:54:27 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nice! Where in NE do you live?

[#] Sun Oct 07 2018 10:25:07 EDT from Decomposed <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

New Hampshire.  I traveled the country for many years and this was the place I liked the best.

Speaking of traveling, the wife and I are driving to Pennysylvania tomorrow and Virginia on Tuesday.  We're going down 684 - which, I think, skirts your place.  We're considering the Peekskill bridge route (Route 6) instead of Tarrytown out of concerns about traffic.  Do you have any thoughts on that?


[#] Mon Oct 08 2018 11:39:48 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think I may have missed the window of opportunity to answer that question but ... yeah, if you can avoid the Tappan Zee Bridge during a holiday exodus, it would be a good idea. Bear Mountain Bridge is usually a better option.