Liberals are starting to wake up to the fact that the Obama administration is betraying the principals of justice and economic fairness.

Here’s the front page of the Huffington Post tonight (each phrase at the website is linked to a separate article exposing Holder’s corruption and incompetence):

Jon Stewart lambasted the Obama administration for failing to walk its talk … and having awful priorities:

 

 

And Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor – Robert Reich – writes:

According to the New York Times, a bill that’s already moved through the House Financial Services Committee, allowing more of the very kind of derivatives trading (bets on bets) that got the Street into trouble, was drafted by Citigroup – whose recommended language was copied nearly word for word in 70 lines of the 85-line bill.

Where were House Democrats? Right behind it. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a major recipient of the Street’s political largesse, co-sponsored it. Most of the Democrats on the Committee, also receiving generous donations from the big banks, voted for it. Rep. Jim Himes, another proponent of the bill and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, now leads the Democrat’s fund-raising effort in the House.

***

It’s not entirely coincidental that the Obama Administration never put tough conditions on banks receiving bailout money, never prosecuted a single top Wall Street executive for the excesses that led to the near meltdown, and still refuses to support a tiny tax on financial transactions that would bring in tens of billions of dollars as well as discourage program trading.

Democrats can’t be trusted to control Wall Street. If there were ever an issue ripe for a third party, the Street would be it.

Category: Politics, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

44 Responses to “Liberals Skewer Obama Administration”

  1. Herman Frank says:

    It is “bloody frustrating!” to be confronted by “the incompetence of your own”. Where to turn to next?! Once again the lesson goes “choosing the lesser of two evils doesn’t make your chosen one better”. WOW! TRIPLE WOW!

    And of course we can call for the head of Holder, and of course we can ask for an apology of the President, and of course we can ask the law REALLY to be upheld by those in the executive branch, and of course we should get our national priorities straight ….. but reality overtakes the dream.
    “S…w them, let’s go for a coffee!”

  2. GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

    I don’t see that a third party would be immune over a long period of time to the influence of money which has corrupted the other two parties.

    There are always going to be some people who are dishonest, and others who weren’t dishonest to begin with but get caught up in what’s going on around them. IMO, the solution is to minimize the influence of money on the political process so that the people who aren’t dishonest to begin with aren’t corrupted by the system.

    To do this, unfortunately, involves getting politicians who are already corrupt to pass laws. Maybe, and it’s only maybe, a third party could stay relatively clean long enough to get laws passed. But before they could get into power, they’d need a lot of money to win elections, and of course most of the money comes now comes from people who don’t want reform.

    What we need are civic-minded wealthy people willing to devote lots of time and money to do this. In our history, we had such people in the past, to varying degrees: the Rockefellers, Teddy Roosevelt, our “Founding Fathers” who were moslty wealthy, and others. Today about the only people who fit this description of “wealthy people willing to devote lots of time and money” are the Koch brothers, but their aims seem to be to increase the influence of money in politics.

  3. AtlasRocked says:

    Both parties have failed us Barry, some liberal pundits are waking up:

    “Why Democrats Can’t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street” – R. Reich

    “Who needs Republicans when Wall Street has the Democrats? With the help of congressional Democrats, the Street is rolling back financial reforms enacted after its near meltdown.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_democrats_cant_be_trusted_to_control_wall_street_20130526/

    Barry, truth be told NEITHER PARTY has stepped up. The last decent fiscal enforcement actions was the S&L crisis with William Black putting 1000 crooks in jail under Bush I, but I’m not so sure they’d do it now. The dereliction to prosecute the FCIC crime, by the numbers, is 10,000 times larger than any prior act of corruption in american history. Don’t believe it? Find the next smaller case of domestic crime accepted by the president, our chief of police in the executive branch. The FCIC dereliction of duty by the president (his #1 job is law enforcement as leader of the executive branch) was “Trillions”, or 10-20% of the GDP, of crime left in place – now the gov’t can selectively enforce the evidence to coerce business. That’s the much larger danger – he has the goods and can nefariously threaten opponents – tons of them – with prosecution.

    Holder’s recent testimony exposed what is going on with prosecution: The benefits system is now the core priority of the federal gov’t, nothing will be done by the leadership that imperils the benefits flow, because if the benefits slow down, they don’t get re-elected.

    “Eric Holder’s stunning admission that it was difficult to prosecute large banks because of the potential economic impact ”

    http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/178_45/how-holder-s-surprising-too-big-to-jail-admission-changes-debate-1057303-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

    We are following normal historical trends going back to Plato: Populations that can vote for benefits ALWAYS go corrupt. We were taught this in US high schools up through the 1970s, in Principles of Democracy classes. The time proven history of socialist and communist gov’t's to go corrupt was mainstream american education.

  4. Greg0658 says:

    I’d say I’m frustrated but not a blame’r of the white house and the current helm Pres. Obama .. I’m frustrated the OS Operating System is so full of bad code that it allows the program to run badly / almost and probably to a distructive crash .. GIGO garbage in garbage out

    wish the great Google could find that quote for me of TreSec Hank Paulson (paraphrased) “once they’re built its to late” – reference’g the housing bubble
    (means in this thread) – we got into this OpSys mess – and throwing more cash attempting to prosecute it – won’t solve alot – it’ll increase court recorder labor while big timers spend every penny of their Visible cash stores (OUR CASH)

    like to see a Reboot myself – sorry paper chase’rs .. thats not right either tho – there is no IT outside of THIS OS – so chase on .. money is NO Object in this case – IT means the survival of the OpSys

  5. AtlasRocked says:

    Barry, are you noticing you more liberal readers just aren’t clicking on these stories about the democrat leadership failure and fiscal corruption, or the IRS bullying conservatives?

    I bet you see a huge difference in click #s and read time. There has to be a reason these stories are not getting airtime on liberal media.

    I notice these threads holding democrats accountable are way lower on comments than your other generic “gov’t is corrupt” or “Bush era was corrupt” posts.

    I looked up the Huff-po coverage on the DHS versus 99% protests and compared it to the DHS versus the recent IRS Tea Party protests.

    For the 99%, Huff-Po was all over it – reporting the DHS was “spying” on protests and demanding meeting minutes from DHS staff meetings. But for the IRS protests about the gov’t ADMITTING they focused on one political party? No mention the DHS openly showed up in force at IRS protests – none. No mention of civil liberty issues. Made excuses for the IRS’ behavior.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/homeland-security-occupy-wall-street_n_3002445.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/irs-tea-party_n_3318561.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    Now watch the video of showing DHS cars at IRS protests:
    http://www.infowars.com/armed-dhs-guards-protect-irs-from-tea-party-protesters/

    • I dont pay attention to that. I write what I feel like writing, and post what is interesting and/or important. The site never uses SEO, link bait stories or click whoring slideshows.

      You do not give me the impression that after 26,000 posts you understand why I publish or who my audience is.

      Who gave you the assignment to monitor this blog ?

  6. gman says:

    Interesting epistemology angle. How can it be that half the country think he is an ” a soft on terror islamosocialist” the other half think he is a ” totalitarian war mongering corporate shill”. Interesting times indeed.

  7. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Anyone who has taken a gimlet eye look at history will understand that a corrupt government will seldom, if ever, be returned to it’s former legitimacy once power is regained by the “opposition.”

    Did anyone think that the “Unitary Executive Theory” would be abandoned by the next Democratic administration following Bushco’s assertion of the theory?

    At this point, does anyone think Glass-Steagall (or torture, or habeas corpus, or any of the other extra-constitutional excesses we have witnessed over the past few decades), ever really had a chance of being reinstated or reversed?

    The Rule of Law has ended, and with it our legitimate Republic. I know that sounds radical, but I do believe it to be true, absolute, and irreversible.

    “Liberals,” such as they are, can turn on Obama in droves, but why would he care, at this point? The citizenry is already wearing cement shoes.

    • Irwin Fletcher says:

      Good points. The rampant over reach of the Executive Branch is scary. They do whatever they want to do. A weak congress allows this, with the exception of a few brave statesmen.

  8. AtlasRocked says:

    No one has instructed me at all, Barry. You know my posts hold BOTH parties accountable.

    Who instructed me? My conscience. My High school gov’t teacher, Plato, the founding fathers, and my history books, who clearly teach us about benefits-based gov’t's ALWAYS going corrupt. Ayn Rand,

    Our enemy is not any leader or actor in gov’t, the SYSTEM changed 70 years ago, not the people.

    The great lesson of 20th century governance?

    You can have an largely honest federal gov’t of rights, defense and regulation, or a federal gov’t of benefits – and corruption of rights, defense and regulation.

    But you can’t have benefits without mass corruption. Few citizens will fight corruption when the corrupt actors are appearing to employ them, and buy them food, shelter, and medical care.

    Most of the population cares little about federal fiscal corruption and law enforcement, probably less than 20%. Not enough votes or influence to stop the trend of increasing fraud and corruption.

    The gov’t giving away $4 trillion of “coercion”, benefits, to the people is far more influential than industry donating hundreds of millions of dollars of “coercion” to politicians. the ratio is 1000:1, so the influence will be correspondingly more perverted. .

    • I felt obligated to ask because most of your posts seem to be remarkably consistent: Often partisan, usually off topic, beating the same drum over & over regardless of whatever award-winning content I was writing about. It seems that you ignore the subject and post the same old stuff over and over.

      In the case of this post, it was (almost accidentally) on topic. But that’s only because the topic weas similar to what you usually try to comment on.

      In my best guess I figured either you were a) Wildly OCD; b) being paid. Still not sure which!

      • AtlasRocked says:

        When a tiger is approaching the tent, you don’t debate about whether the tent stakes are hammered in well.

  9. AtlasRocked says:

    FYI – I very much respect your points about not paying attention to clicks.

    we need visible citizens speaking out now about VERY unpopular decisons that HAVE to be made now.

  10. Greg0658 says:

    Atlas I gave myself the task of figure’g out* this OpSys after a printque dump in Feb’07 .. TBP captured my eye since

    imo the reason blogs and tv are in decline is because “it just doesn’t matter”* (cue Bill Murray as Tripper in camp Meatballs)

    do I think this is tradeable advice – don’t know – I have this painting of a cheshire cat grin’g salesman of blank white office paper .. I need to find a suitable graphic to accompany it – thinking ie the last scene in 2001 Space Odyssey – the monkeys huddled around the jet black, 90 degree wacked, monolith, waiting for it to do something, show something

    ps – I like that wiremold Atlas sculpture at Rockefeller Center – its cool

    coda* – did – its too big

  11. AtlasRocked says:

    Two parties: Expand benefits Party and Less Benefits Party

    Once the gov’t provides benefits for the people there will only be two parties: One, the party of “expand the benefits” and another, the party of “we offer just a little less benefits”. There will be no party of “no benefits”, they will be of little or no popularity at all.

    And: The party of “less benefits” will be proclaimed the party of Beelzebub by the party of “expand the benefits.” The benefits expanders will claim to be sole defenders of “good” and all others are evil.

    Since neither party will address the corruption, the answer is not a third party, they never get elected and usually result in the most opposite candidate. The only answer is nullification.

    Praise for nullification from the Washington Times editorial board:

    “If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is nullification — the idea that states can limit the enforcement of federal laws within their borders.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/nullifying-obama/

    California started it with Pot law nullification.

    “Over a dozen states, with South Carolina being the most recent, have passed legislation aimed at preventing the Obamacare health care mandate from being enforced in their jurisdictions. South Carolina’s goes the furthest by proposing to grant taxpayers a state tax deduction equal to the federal penalty for failing to purchase health care. Montana, Kansas and Alabama have joined the gun-control fight by enacting laws preventing federal gun-control enforcement within their borders. South Carolina enacted a law allowing its residents to produce the incandescent light bulbs banned by Congress.”

    We HAVE to do this for fiscal fraud too. The federal gov’t is simply not going to act in our best interests of fiscal law enforcement. They are focused on maintaining benefits revenue and debt-based “revenue”.

    • Petey Wheatstraw says:

      The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

      That’s a quotation, not an original comment, BTW.

    • “Two parties: Expand benefits Party and Less Benefits Party”

      If you believe that, you’re not paying attention.

      Watch what they do, not what they say.

      They are both “more benefits” parties, it’s just that they prefer to hand the benefits out differently. Neither one has the national interest nor economic growth in mind in what they hand out.

      Poking specifically at the party you claim is “less benefits”, consider: Medicare Part D is a benefit.
      Discretionary warfare spending is a benefit to those who receive and profit from the spending (for those getting killed, not so much). High Federal Debt is a benefit for those who “own” the “bonds” and receive the interest. The housing market bubble (ending with the bipartisan-despite-massive-public-oppositionTARP taxpayer bailouts) was a benefit, as was the almost total lack of prosecution of dot-com era financial fraud after that bubble popped. I could go on but why bother? Open your own eyes and you will see.

  12. Slash says:

    As a freedom-hating Socialist who voted for Obama twice, his administration’s pathetic record on financial reform is my biggest disappointment. I never thought of him as some great progressive savior. He is a politician, after all, and a lawyer, FFS.

    But I had hoped that the anger of the public and the obvious miscarriages of justice and massive fiduciary incompetence perpetrated by the financial sector would have motivated him and Holder and the SEC somewhat, to at least make a token effort at keeping these idiots from perpetrating more of them (injustices and massive incompetence resulting in gigantic taxpayer bailouts).

    As far as I can tell, the SEC’s highest profile prosecution (“high profile” meaning someone a significant majority of ordinary Americans could name) is Martha Stewart. And apparently the finance guys have just about finished strangling any serious financial reform effort in its crib.

    Wall Street doesn’t care what we think. It doesn’t have to. Our government has made that pretty clear. And the corporations themselves. Dimon still has his job. So somebody is happy with how he’s doing it.

  13. AtlasRocked says:

    Only for constitutional law. We are MANDATED nullify laws that conflict with the constitution.

    Didn’t seem to bother the left when California Pot laws were nullified did it, Petey? No problem.

    So let’s just move right on past that double standard thing and realize it’s already been used w/o complaint by the left to justly nullify marijuana law, so they can’t complain if other states want to use nullification to stop fiscal system fraud and lawlessness.

    We are MANDATED to nullify, according to Madison, when power is usurped, abused:

    Every act outside of enumerated authority is contrary to the Constitution and thus is void. Hamilton continues, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, IS VOID. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” (The Federalist, No. 78, p. 467).”

    He objected to ONE state nullifying (South Carolina), but not MANY states nullifying.

    The actions of many states nullifiying’ is left open as a viable option, it would be a case of “voiding” IMHO

    “Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union… EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION” (The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, The New American Library, 1961, No 33, pages 204-205).

    If we can nullify federal law on Pot, we can nullify a much more criminal and nefarious act of our leaders not enforcing fiscal sanity. We have lost control of them.

    Our choices are be fiscally destroyed by the mob of voters who no longer care about fiscal fraud, or to nullify federal finance laws and adopt new law at the state level to put an end to this madness.

  14. Joe Friday says:

    AtlasRocked,

    The gov’t giving away $4 trillion of ‘coercion’, benefits, to the people is far more influential than industry donating hundreds of millions of dollars of “coercion” to politicians.

    Your so-called “‘coercion’, benefits”, in addition to being a silly misrepresentation, are completely DWARFED by the Corporate Welfare and largesse we spend on the Rich & Corporate.

    You continue to lack basic comprehension of the federal budget, taxation, and economics in general.

  15. emailcraigs says:

    I’d say the system is broke…..but it isn’t. The system is doing exactly what those who put it in place want it to do. And it is doing it on so many levels that it is hard to comprehend; kind of like a built in feature.

    So, the revolution is on hold until America runs out of resources to fill all the outstretched hands whose votes the system counts on; then revolution indeed. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…..”

  16. AtlasRocked says:

    I’m not fond of arguing with you Joe, I learned last year it is useless to argue with a liberal, they are defending beliefs, not trying to find best practices or clearly find and prioritize good and bad issue. They don’t do “best practices” style arguing where facts are first defined, weighted with levels of gravity and importance, and as a last resort, opinion is used. Liberals use opinion right up front, with a sprinkling of cherry picked facts. You already tried insulting me to start off. So you have no intent of objectively weighting which dollar flow is the most influential. And surely you’ll deny that the voters are in the voting booth by themselves – no corporation can walk in the booth with them and make them vote for their candidate – while the democrat party busses tons of it’s constituents to the polling places – my mom observes it every time she works the voting precinct: the blacks get bussed in and told who to vote for with a card from the bus driver.

    Let’s see if you follow the predictable pattern.

    Put some numbers down, Joe. Per presidential election, I count $2.9 trillion per year in federal gov’t benefits: pension, welfare, health care, times 4 years/election is around $12 trillion per cycle.

    Last election, teh Post reports around $2.4B in campaign donations.

    12,000 B / 2.4 B = 5000 X larger.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/campaign-finance/

    How big is corporate welfare, and what is ratio to to $12 trillion?

    and what corporations have bussed voters in?

    • Arguing with partisans of any stripe is a waste of time!

    • MikeG says:

      Funny, you claim to criticize “both parties”, yet you spend an inordinate amount of time on NewsMax-style polemics about “Liberals do/say this” and the “democrat party” and have a strange obsession with the relative popularity of different articles on this site and what that insinuates about the readership.

      When your posts comprise about a third of the entire thread it’s time to take a break and step back from being obnoxious.

      The idea that the Republican Party (note correct spelling and capitalization of that institution versus your deliberate misspelling of the other major party) is a more virtuous “less benefits” party is ridiculous; it’s who benefits from their spending and nonfeasance on regulation. The bankrollers of the Bush Administration reaped massive benefits from their “investment” at the expense of the country.

  17. AtlasRocked says:

    Don’t print that last post, Barry, Joe is trying to change the subject. I shouldn’t have answered him.

    The topic is we’re not going to fix either party leadership, there’s no use arguing about it. The voters dont’ care about regulations. They care about benefits.

    We, as a nation, need to realize that voters won’t vote to fix this, they are going to vote for more, or a little less, benefits, and we need to realize hoping the voters will correct the system is fruitless. We have to start talking plan B.

    Thanks for hosting this sane, healthy thread.

    if you know of anything other than nullification I’m game, but that’s all I can find.

    • 873450 says:

      I vote shrug is OCD.

      “my mom observes it every time she works the voting precinct: the blacks get bussed in and told who to vote for with a card from the bus driver. ”
      OCD Racist

      2012 GOP vote suppression legislation targeting blacks in swing states backfired. Millions of Americans watched network news reporting a 90 year old black woman sitting in a wheelchair patiently waiting five hours on line before she could exercise her right to vote. Although they tried, nobody could stop her and she didn’t need someone handing her a card telling her who wanted her vote suppressed. We got to hear Paul Ryan blame “urban turnout” for his loss.

      Abe Lincoln on nullification:
      “I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”
      March 4, 1861
      Washington, D.C.

      Obamacare is law held constitutional by SCOTUS. Absent repeal by 2/3 vote in Senate and House, it will sink or swim on its own. The world didn’t end and we don’t need a civil war because 30 million Americans who could not obtain healthcare coverage gained access to it.

  18. Robert M says:

    I have been losing it on Holder and the President since mar of 2009 when protesters started showing up outside of banksters homes protesting thier policies. Shortly after President Obama approved the bonuses. The jig was up right then and there as there was no obligation whatsoever to approve the bonuses. The President is a white face mulatto and AG Holder is a nigger.

  19. Joe Friday says:

    AtlasRocked,

    I’m afraid your problem is that the independent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the General Accounting Office, as well as the National Bureau of Economic Research, ALL DISAGREE with you and your ridiculous unsubstantiated beliefs.

    As to this GEM:

    the blacks get bussed in and told who to vote for with a card from the bus driver

    I’ll just let that stand as a perfect example of your twisted agenda.

  20. 873450 says:

    Notwithstanding some major accomplishments achieved in the face of entrenched, hateful GOP obstructionism, and there are some real accomplishments, President Obama’s historic legacy will be his 100% failure to prevent a rabid, out-of-control Wall Street compulsion to kill the goose from inevitably bringing down the global economy again.

  21. Greg0658 says:

    that gray matter I presented yesterday ..
    I see the world as Labor and Capital(‘ists)
    I see Capital more afraid of other Capital
    I see Labor just wishing “a get along day” (with perks)
    Labor are the pawns in this story

    Populations breed naturally and the World must take care of them OR

    Words matter but work very very slowly .. what works much faster is war, revolution, disaster
    those 3 things can be made to happen with words
    .. Banks, States, Media can make those last 3 happen for the better or NOT

    i blame the OpSys of this grown up world .. i’m sure the OS will work itself out too .. that’s nature

    ~~

    remiss to not state the major thing – cash stashed in the wrong pockets* .. i blame the beaver dam theory

    coda* – no real demand – & we can fix that – can’t we

  22. victor says:

    Lawrence Lindey’s book “What A President Should Know: An Insider’s View on How to Succeed in the Oval Office” lists education, energy, health care and immigration among issues of national importance a new Prez may take on. He advises to only tackle one and preserve enough political capital for a second term (immigration reform, here we come!). Obama was faced with a financial crisis in 2009 and he understood that a the economy needs capital ergo you must save the banks and pump liquidity into the system. And he did. He was educated (quickly) that the war in terror is real, so he continued it; couldn’t even close down Gitmo! Then Reid and Pelosi assured him that the Health care system could be reformed and he delegated that to them and we all know how that one turned out. But markets are up, housing is recovering and unemployment is trending down and, still under-reported and not understood, our dependence on foreign oil is way down; and thanks to the NatGas “revolution”, US’ CO2 emissions are at 1991 levels and dropping. So, while it’s not a bowl of cherries, nor kumbaya, it’s OK.

  23. AtlasRocked says:

    “Germany’s bonds declined amid signs the global economic recovery is gathering pace, spurring investors to seek higher-yielding alternatives to the safest government debt.”

    I’ve been seeing these kinds “global economic recovery is gathering pace” for 5 years now.

    Tell me when they start borrowing less and stop printing money. Healthier economies’ governments borrow LESS money and DON’T HAVE TO PRINT MONEY to sustain the appearance of a recovery.

    Got it? If a person is putting their rent payment on their credit card, and printing $20s in the back room, no matter how many nice cars they have or how many parties they are throwing or how much steak is in their refrigerator, it’s not a healthy fiscal trend.

    • Joe Friday says:

      Where do you keep getting all this crazy propaganda you repeatedly regurgitate ?

      Nobody in this country is “printing money, other than the normal currency at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

      CHICKEN LITTLE WAS WRONG

      • AtlasRocked says:

        It is normal for communists to lie, Joe. You’re a repeating, bald faced liar. QE is a money print, even Pritchard owns up to it:

        QE quantitative easing will never end. There is no truth in your world, Joe, only propaganda.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9970294/Helicopter-QE-will-never-be-reversed.html

      • No, its not money print

      • Joe Friday says:

        AtlasRocked,

        It is normal for communists to lie

        You do realize this makes you look like a jackass ?

        You’re a repeating, bald faced liar.

        I’m not “repeating” anything. That’s your schtick. I merely stated a fact.

        QE is a money print

        Not possible.

        The funds the Fed is utilizing for QE:

        A) Do not add to the federal deficit or debt, as the monies are created out of thin air with an electronic key stroke to purchase securities with, and when the positions are eventually unwound, the monies collected will be destroyed.

        B) The funds are not out in the open economy.

        Therefore, it cannot be “printing money”, nor can it have a similar impact.

        even Pritchard owns up to it

        Even Pritchard ???

        He’s a RightWing fruitcake.

      • Greg0658 says:

        banter’g backNforth – “QE is a money print .. Not possible .. Therefore, it cannot be printing money”

        I disagree .. the 1/4 of 1% interest rate for the 18 Primary Banks at the Fed Window is available to them to do as they wish with > like buy Stocks of Corporations and other hard assets (that – in their best interest – should be highly liquid) to flip for near immediate profit (and a monthly draw paycheck for produce’g worthy flows)

        Someone is buying/borrowing 85B a month right? To retire higher interest’s debts? To buy higher the stocks and present a feel good flow to retiree funds? Inflation.

        If I understand this process – the banks are facilitate’g the purchase of corporations for their friends and allies. I worry that the Primary Banks will then need to fight each other over who is king of the hill.

        again – I see the Stocks and Bonds world as:
        Stocks: legally may extract wages and perks and the shareholder believes his interest’s are in heart & mind
        Bonds: principle is usually returned – usually with interest – but usually inferior to stocks because manufacture’g is everything

      • AtlasRocked says:

        yep it’s worse than money printing, it’s also taking bad securities off the market when they should be defaulted and the losses taken on the bad ideas they were based on, so we don’t repeat it again.

  24. Joe Friday says:

    Greg,

    I disagree .. the 1/4 of 1% interest rate for the 18 Primary Banks at the Fed Window is available to them to do as they wish with

    Um, which has what to do with QE ? The low level of interest rates existed well before any QE.

    Someone is buying/borrowing 85B a month right?

    Yes, the Fed is buying (no borrowing).

    To retire higher interest’s debts?

    No.

    To buy higher the stocks and present a feel good flow to retiree funds?

    No.

    Inflation.

    How ?

    If I back a truck up to the treasury and load $85 billion, bring it home, unload it into my garage, and lock the door, is that inflationary ?

    Bonds: principle is usually returned – usually with interest – but usually inferior to stocks because manufacture’g is everything

    Actually, treasuries have outperformed stocks over the last five years, ten years, twenty years, and thirty years.

  25. Greg0658 says:

    3rd paragraph:
    change “Inflation.” to Accommodation
    inflation / deflation its all in your pov (point of view)(privately owned vehicle)
    but the policy is attempting feel good accommodation for all

    saw this on IowaPtv last nite – orig. aired on 3/13/13
    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/800-america-doesnt-need-a-strong-dollar
    Mishkin & Taylor v. Forbes & Grant

  26. AtlasRocked says:

    It is unlawful to intentionally target a rate of inflation other than zero, no matter how small, it’s right in the FED’s objectives:
    “The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm

    Stable is FIXED, not constantly growing. Inflation deflates the value of everyone’s savings, nothing good can come out of deliberately trying to inflate away savers’ money. It only serves to cover up the failure of the current policies: Stimulus has a record of NEVER paying back the money borrowed. Never. It is not an investment, it is a cover up for bad gov’t., for socialist spending that always delivers mass poverty, corruption, and often, oppression.