DVR would have referred to Schiff and Paul as 'negative nay sayers'!! Well look who's laughing now!!

Yup they laughed at them and they were right, now you are starting to see them laugh at them again because things look some what better in the markets. Truth is though nothing is better on main street, we are all seeing the beginning of what inflation can do to us, look at food prices, gas prices, commodities, all are through the roof and that is caused by inflating our currency. What looks like a recovery on wall street is nothing more than another bubble and it won't last long, they dumped trillions of dollars to prop up and create the illusion of a recovery but this time people won't see any proof of things getting better because it is all an illusion.

The real fear should be is what happens to the millions of people who rely on entitlements, the people who think they are entitled to our money and labor. When that is cut from them because we simply can not support it anymore do you think they will all become productive members of society or do you think they will still feel entitled to our money. Like the post I made on panhandlers getting more aggressive because they feel entitled to our money it will only get worse. We created whole generations of people who know nothing but take not give because some felt like these promises could be sustained forever, I sure the hell wouldn't want to be in this city when those promises are broke.

You should look at Gerald Celente Cicero you might like him to, I don't like his predictions but sadly I think they are probably spot on.

Quoted from bumblethru

DVR would have referred to Schiff and Paul as 'negative nay sayers'!! Well look who's laughing now!!

Actually,I have followed economic news for years -- and remember those discussions in the middle part of the last decade ... warning about the "housing bubble" and some of the other factors that led to the economic crisislater in the decade.    I WOULD NOT have referred to Schiff and Paul as "negative naysayers" as I believed that we were heading towards - at least - a recession.   In 2007, I was advising my clients to take a more conservative approach to their investments.  
And - once more - I would suggest that you folks have ABSOLUTELY  NO CLUE as to my positions on most issue ..  you paint all Democrats with a "broad brush" as call them liberals and socialists.   Well - many Democrats are neither liberals nor socialists and  - in fact - are as conservative .. or more authentically conservative than many of you Republicans.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

And - once more - I would suggest that you folks have ABSOLUTELY  NO CLUE as to my positions on most issue ..  you paint all Democrats with a "broad brush" as call them liberals and socialists.   Well - many Democrats are neither liberals nor socialists and  - in fact - are as conservative .. or more authentically conservative than many of you Republicans.

Well,,,based on your views and comments about Metroplex, I HIGHLY doubt you are from the school of Austrian economics.  You are a conservative Keynesianite who believes in a centrally planned economy.  Yes, and I agree, you are the same if not MORE conservative than MOST Republicans in that sense. So the new label of Republican or Democrat shouldn't be either liberal or conservative, but rather Keynesian or Austrian.  That's a better measure.

Quoted from CICERO

Well,,,based on your views and comments about Metroplex, I HIGHLY doubt you are from the school of Austrian economics.  You are a conservative Keynesianite who believes in a centrally planned economy.  Yes, and I agree, you are the same if not MORE conservative than MOST Republicans in that sense. So the new label of Republican or Democrat shouldn't be either liberal or conservative, but rather Keynesian or Austrian.  That's a better measure.

I don't believe in a centrally planned economy .. but I think that Metroplex has done a good job.  Personally, i would prefer to abolish the metroplex board and have the County Legislature  VOTE DIRECTLY on an money spent from the Metroplex funds.     We elect our county legislators (even though it should IMHO be by single member districts .. but  that is another debate) -- we don't elect the metroplex board -- and I oppose allowing non-elected persons having the authority to spend our tax dollars   (BTW -- that is why I oppose Charter Schools, too).

Yeah, he is MORE conservative than all of you, didn't you know that?

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

Yeah, he is MORE conservative than all of you, didn't you know that?

I am - Joe ... I am a real conservative .. you are just a "poser".

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I don't believe in a centrally planned economy .. but I think that Metroplex has done a good job.  Personally, i would prefer to abolish the metroplex board and have the County Legislature  VOTE DIRECTLY on an money spent from the Metroplex funds.     We elect our county legislators (even though it should IMHO be by single member districts .. but  that is another debate) -- we don't elect the metroplex board -- and I oppose allowing non-elected persons having the authority to spend our tax dollars   (BTW -- that is why I oppose Charter Schools, too).

So the party in power should DIRECTLY select the winners and loser in business with sub prime loans and grants?  Wouldn't that be overt soft fascism instead of soft fascism by proxy(Metroplex) like we have now?  You oppose allowing non-elected persons spending tax dollars on private business, BUT you have no problem with ELECTED persons spending tax dollars on private businesses?  You are a true laissez-faire capitalist.

Quoted from CICERO

So the party in power should DIRECTLY select the winners and loser in business with sub prime loans and grants?  Wouldn't that be overt soft fascism instead of soft fascism by proxy(Metroplex) like we have now?  You oppose allowing non-elected persons spending tax dollars on private business, BUT you have no problem with ELECTED persons spending tax dollars on private businesses?  You are a true laissez-faire capitalist.

first ... what I suggest is called "representative democracy" and not fascism

second .... i have no problem with elected persons spending tax dollars - period  .. as long as they spend it wisely and I have the opportunity to "unelect" them if they don't

third ....  I don't believe America has  ever been a PURE laissez-faire capitalist system .. nor was it ever intended to be so.    I believe that the pendulum swings  between the extremes of absolutely no government involvement in business and complete government involvement  ...  and that it should swing somewhere in the middle and avoid either extreme.

Quoted from CICERO

So the party in power should DIRECTLY select the winners and loser in business with sub prime loans and grants?  Wouldn't that be overt soft fascism instead of soft fascism by proxy(Metroplex) like we have now?  You oppose allowing non-elected persons spending tax dollars on private business, BUT you have no problem with ELECTED persons spending tax dollars on private businesses?  You are a true laissez-faire capitalist.

first ... what I suggest is called "representative democracy" and not fascism

second .... i have no problem with elected persons spending tax dollars - period  .. as long as they spend it wisely and I have the opportunity to "unelect" them if they don't

third ....  I don't believe America has  ever been a PURE laissez-faire capitalist system .. nor was it ever intended to be so.    I believe that the pendulum swings  between the extremes of absolutely no government involvement in business and complete government involvement  ...  and that it should swing somewhere in the middle and avoid either extreme.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I am - Joe ... I am a real conservative .. you are just a "poser".

         He is a real Conservative with HIS money, but not with other's, hence his position on taxes.  Do as I say, not as I do, says DVOR . . . . .

         I see he still continues to struggle with his double posts!  Hey dude, invest in a $35.00 dollar external keyboard, all the McRibb sandwiches must have stuck some of the keys!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

first ... what I suggest is called "representative democracy" and not fascism

Quoted Text

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”county interest—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.

Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministriesMetroplex, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html