ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/17/2018 12:12 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.518 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/26/2009 05:01 PM ID: 79358 Permalink   

Obama’s Goal is Economic Collapse Says Ron Paul

 

In his June 22nd weekly address, Ron Paul said, “From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration.” He also said Democrats were now voting in favor of war by approving the war funding request.

Paul stated that the addition of $108 billion in funding for the IMF was “buying global oppression” and adding that the war funding bill was an “International bailout.”

Paul said of the IMF, “Along with IMF loans come IMF required policy changes called ’structural adjustment programs,’ which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that brought our own country to its knees.

 
  Source: rawstory.com  
    WebReporter: slavefortheman Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  29 Comments
  
  I bet this post will stir the pot  
 
Flame On!
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/26/2009 05:14 PM     
  Well, he's right.  
 
Obama's intentions and heart is in the right place, but he just doesn't understand how the economy works.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   06/26/2009 05:15 PM     
  he's right  
 
but i doubt thats actually obama's plan, obama will probably be much like clinton... not great, but unfortunately the best the people seem to accept.

but in reality this is hardly obama's doing, obama like clinton will spend his entire presidency trying to keep the US from total collapse caused by bush (like clinton had to), and hopefully by the end of 8 years (assuming re-election) like clinton a balanced budget will be achieved... because even obama being the "liberal", "socialist" that the neo-con's constantly call him wont reduce military spending, much less do what's necessary and chop it in half, simple as that which would more than balance the budget after ther wars are over and most of its foreign empire gets recalled like the 100,000 troops in japan and germany let over from WW2... but no candidate that would consider that would ever be allowed on the ballot much less to actually become president.

outside of course of the healthcare reform which is again an obama/clinton thing... one of which i support, i just don't think they are pushing a strong enough plan, nor pushing it hard enough.
 
  by: HAVOC666     06/26/2009 05:41 PM     
  the problem is...  
 
you can only have this bubble and bust cycle so long, but the republicans and democrats are content in treating economics like a game.

if the democrats and true left wing party did this it might have a chance of working, even perhaps being benifical, but there is no major left wing political party in the US, of two right wing parties.

when you have one party thats is moderately economically fiscal (outside of adding healthcare which tax increase and decrease of people using the more expensive private system will level it out in few years if not much sooner pending how how widely its acceted, which will probably be most people eventually) and another party that preaches it, while being responsible for around 75% of the entire debt and thats not including that most of what the democrats have spent since in the last two presidency was cleaning up pending economic collapses caused by republicans; bush sr, bush jr, and reagan.
 
  by: HAVOC666     06/26/2009 05:56 PM     
  Infidel..  
 
how dare anyone say that about the messiah! BTW the left wing would NEVER work either...
 
  by: ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh   06/26/2009 06:13 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
The Keynesian economic model has been practiced by both republicans and democrats ever since the early 20th century. It really doesn't matter what you are blowing money on or why you print new money, the end result is deflation of currency and economic collapse.

Another thing, Obama is going to have a difficult time balancing the federal budget, especially since Bill Clinton has already raped Social Security for that ruse. Also the fact that his spending habits fly in the face of the word balance.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     06/26/2009 07:22 PM     
  I can understand China's  
 
Concern to have the USD replaced with an international reserve currency.
 
  by: thinking   06/26/2009 07:43 PM     
  It is possible...  
 
that Obama is trying to finish what Bush started, with the North American Union. After the collapse, the currency of these countries could be replaced with the Amero.
 
  by: groovedaddy   06/26/2009 08:22 PM     
  No viable solution  
 
The boom and bust cycle is inherent in any capitalist country. The truth is that no nation has yet to fully figure out the business cycle. The Keynesian model has not been put in effect in its true form for quite some time. Taxes would need to be raised in times of growth and no politician would/has done that for a looong time. No president implements economic policy without a large group of economists advising him. It is not "Bush" or "Obama" creating the policies, it's a team of economists with advanced degrees and experience. At some point, too much influence is placed on the president to bend to the will of people who do not know how economics works. Increasing taxes and cutting welfare programs is death for a politician and in the end it's not sound economics put to work, just groups that do a lot of lobbying.
 
  by: juanjl   06/26/2009 08:23 PM     
  @bb  
 
Heavy government spending results in inflation, not deflation.

And to uniformly dismiss everything about Keynseian economics is wrong. Classical economics has strong inherent flaws, such the assumption of fully elastic prices. It is imperfect, but it has had many definite contributions to economics.
 
  by: reverend j roach     06/26/2009 10:03 PM     
  @L.C.  
 
You contradict yourself -- you say that Paul's right; i.e., the president has set for himself the goal of collapsing the economy -- it is Obama's desire and intent.

Then you say, no, Obama's heart is in the right place -- i.e., it is not his *intent* to destroy the economy -- rather, his lack of knowledge will lead to economic collapse.

Paul is saying that in his view, the President of the United States and the United States Congress desire and intend to destroy the country's economy and are taking action to accomplish their goal.

My view is that Paul may be spending a bit too much time with Michelle Bachman ...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/26/2009 10:14 PM     
  @ Ben  
 
I think you might want to look up the definition of the word "seems."
 
  by: Paradoxical Reason   06/27/2009 12:04 AM     
  ...  
 
My favorite part was how when Ron Paul said...

"Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse. From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!"

... it got summarized as...

"Obama's goal is economic collapse."

It's funny because Ron Paul calls out all of Washington and takes direct issue with Congress as they control the spending, but that gets reduced to an Obama slam.
 
  by: nicohlis     06/27/2009 02:20 AM     
  @ Mr. Roach  
 
Inflation is caused by the deflation (or devaluation) of currency. Deflation comes first and is the cause of inflation, after new currency is created on credit.

In reality, the amount of money that government spends has no affect on currency so long as the money spent is earned legitimately rather than borrowed against credit or printed out of thin air.

I never said that Keynesian economic theory is 100% flawed, you put those words in my mouth. That being said, I would gladly debate you point by point on the flaws of Keynesian theory against capitalism any time.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     06/27/2009 03:33 AM     
  @Ben  
 
Paul is not saying Obama or his administration is hell bent on destruction. He is saying that their actions would indicate such.

Remember, criticism is not always an attack, although it usually seems so to those who are unsure of their actions or beliefs.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     06/27/2009 03:38 AM     
  @BB  
 
I think Paul is engaging in more crazy talk, saying the Congress and administration want the country to fail if you judge by their actions. That's nuts.

And I'm totally confident in my position, by the way, if you were talking about me. History backs me up, and I'm pretty sure it will continue to do so. Conservatives such as yourself seem to cling to a lot of ideas that we have tried, with disasterous results, on the other hand.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/27/2009 07:39 AM     
  @some  
 
The Amero. Our future. It will ring true.
/side-rant
The freakin' Ark of the Covenant has been found and was to be made totally public, yet they decided not to do it on the intended date and only a handful of news reports and blogs across the world report it.
I'm no reporter, admitted. However how many stories can pass over THE FREAKIN' ARK OF THE COVENANT?!
Even if it was flamed to bloody hell and back, I would think it would at LEAST be mentioned. NO. A kiddie-fiddler dies and gets world remark. The supossed Lost Ark is made public, and there's NO NEWS of it. WTF?
 
  by: nonera   06/27/2009 09:28 AM     
  from what I understand  
 
the boom bust cycle isn't tied to the capitalist model (and by the way, when WAS the last time the US ran with a pure capitalist method?).

It has more to do with the money masters, and their withdrawal of easy access to private loans.

notice how its hard for people to get loans during depressions? they can't pay their bills, they go unemployed, the people that the bills are owed to go unemployed, and so on and so forth.

This continues until the public is sufficiently sheered before easy loans are made available spurring the next boom.

The solution is to take our money back from the fed and other private interests. the government should issue interest free loans to the public. the government should NOT be the one getting loans, which is what happens when the fed increases the money supply I believe (not even counting the awful loans from overseas).

Here, I'll post this again so everyone can complain about how long it takes to see our current situation from a new point of view:

http://video.google.com/...

I'm not claiming to be a economic mastermind, I just found this very interesting.
 
  by: Trevelyan   06/27/2009 11:34 AM     
  @Libertario Cubano  
 
Neither does anyone in the government apparently.
 
  by: Jediman3     06/27/2009 02:22 PM     
  It's not nuts Ben.  
 
It is an accurate assessment of these people's actions.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     06/27/2009 02:48 PM     
  @Trev  
 
One doesn't have to be an economic mastermind to see what is actually taking place around them. ;)

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     06/27/2009 02:49 PM     
  @nonera  
 
[Jaw drops to floor]

Holy shmokes. If this thing is the real deal, man I can't imagine what would happen.
 
  by: Vhan     06/28/2009 07:44 AM     
  ..  
 
Obama's the worst thing to ever happen to the US. That piece of crap is going to bankrupt the country the same way Mugabe did to Rhodesia.
 
  by: Jakethemuss   06/28/2009 08:01 AM     
  @All  
 
Looks like Obama has gotten a way to stave of total collapse at least in the interim. That is unless it happens before 2012. That is when the new "cap and traitor" taxes go into affect and us poor saps will be paying an additional of about $450+ minimum per year in taxes.

If the economy goes down any further before that though... Well just say bye bye america. Of course even if it doesn't sink before that and after this tax goes into affect, I have a feeling the economy will still be so bad that instead of using "cap and traitor" taxes to pay for the environment, they will be forced into using it to stave off total economic ruin.

Did we fix the environment with the new taxes? Probably not but we sure as hell screwed about 300 million americans into paying more when they already have so little. YAY go criminal congress!

I guarantee that either all of this new tax revenue or close to all of it will go nowhere near any environmental causes. It is infinitely more likely that it will be going towards paying for the garbage that makes up the deficit. If it doesn't, then well we are just asking for economic collapse now aren't we!
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/29/2009 01:53 AM     
  @Vhan  
 
The Ark of the Covenant was not found. On that note, I don't hate snakes, but I don't particularly like them, either.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/29/2009 08:00 AM     
  @bb  
 
You cannot reason with Havoc. It is the nature of Havoc to destroy, and when reason, and actuality are the subject matter, well...

This thing just called the Democrats and Republicans "right wing". Havoc's base of operations appears to be from the comic books of the 1940s and he's commenting from Hitler and Tojo's desks. For it could only be a figment of pure illogical hatred and ignorance that could be so fantasically warped in idea about the American system and really, the definition of "right wing" itself. He also called one of the parties "moderately economically fiscal" I'm not really worried about which he was referring, only curious of his concept of "economically liberal" Perhaps if we compared spending between either of parties while in power, to a scenario where the gates of hell open, the dead walk the earth, and the only way to stop them would be bullets made out of 1,000 shredded $10,000 bank notes, and it took 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bullets to bring down each hell spawn, I suppose the spending we are experiencing could be called "moderate"
 
  by: promontorium   07/04/2009 09:56 AM     
  @promontorium & BB  
 
"You cannot reason with Havoc. It is the nature of Havoc to destroy, and when reason, and actuality are the subject matter, well..."

its a name... get over it... you might as well call me a devil worshipper for having 666 in my name.

"This thing just called the Democrats and Republicans "right wing"."

news flash THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT WING PARTIES.. if you disagree look up what a political spectrum is and look up where clinotn and obama fall in...

bill clinton and obama have BOTH been right leaning centrists, IE, slightly to the right... the "right wing" is really the extreme right. america DOESN'T have a left wing, or liberal politicans (outside a very rare few that outcasted for not being right wing; beit republican or democrat)

"He also called one of the parties "moderately economically fiscal" I'm not really worried about which he was referring,"

don't explode your head thinking about that one, it was the democrats. and for that matter the near entirity of their spending have been cleanign up the mess of the previous republican presidencies.

"only curious of his concept of "economically liberal""

war for instance is not a liberal ideal, nor is the US's military budget in general... and i'm sure EVERYONE can agreen the US's military budget is ANYTHING BUT moderate, but if you compare the economic (and especially national debt) effect of the two main parties, the democrats are far more moderate.


@BB
" It really doesn't matter what you are blowing money on or why you print new money, the end result is deflation of currency and economic collapse. "

on the contrary blowing money on infrastucture, agricultural developement, green technology, healthcare, education ect, is insurmountably better than war and military spending which yeilds nothing in return EXCEPT to the people supplying the war, not the people. at least in the more liberal or social option will yeild a actual return for the people; a higher quality of life, energy independence, the short term impact might be the same but he long term impact will be vastly different

"especially since Bill Clinton has already raped Social Security for that ruse."

the other option was economic collapse then (in which case unless it was magically shielded from all economic impacts it would have been completely gone anyways) from reagan and bush sr's rampant spending that more than quadrupled the debt in 12 years, hence why one of the first things clinton had to do was bailout out the US to keep it from collapsing, which while we agree would be better off, isn't an option for either party to allow, yet the republicans have been hellbent on causing it (whether deliberately or incidently), and the democrats have been hellbent on preventing it from happening yet unwilling to do any of the things that would actually have to happen first like cutting the military budget in half, removing the subsidies from things like corn, not fighting a multi-billion dollar war on drugs, removing at least most of america's foreign empire, seizing "aide" to israel.
 
  by: HAVOC666     07/04/2009 01:06 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
You have the terms long term and short term confused. In the short term, infrastructure spending, etc. will create the illusion of prosperity but in the long term it will destroy our monetary system.

It isn't an issue of right vs. left or one of war vs. nationalized health care. It is a function of mathematics and it is not sustainable in the long term.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     07/04/2009 04:34 PM     
  CHECK OUT  
 
Govtrack.us
breakthematrix.com
infowars.com
prisonplanet.com

 
  by: sour4d20     07/06/2009 04:01 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com