Greenspan backs bank nationalisation

[Andrew2382]

you think I would believe anything you spew as fact....show me a source that says its executives included, and please don'tlink something from your fuck buddy Tom

 

[Bern80]

Really? Because it seems like that's exactly what Reagan did to become a God in your eyes. He spent his way out of his recession.

He also bailed out the Big 3. Don't forget that.

Obama is doing EXACTLY what Reagan did. So you should love it.

And no, he is not doing exactly what Bush did. Did he give Paulson & the banks $350 billion and then close his eyes while they stole it?

And excuse me, but Obama just uncovered a UBS scandal where the rich were avoiding paying taxes. So since we both agree that Dems and GOP love to spend, at least Obama is going to tax the rich so the entire tax burden doesn't fall on us and the debt. That alone makes Democrats much smarter than the GOP.

Plus, we don't spend as much as you guys do. Sure Obama has to spend, but he has to in order to get out of the hole Bush put him in.

Clinton gave Bush a surplus and Bush doubled the debt.

I bet Obama's end numbers will be better than Bush's. Every aspect of the economy will be better. Wages, unemployment, dow jones, housing, etc.

If your last statement is true he's starting himself behind the 8 ball quite a bit. Until you can show you have some sense of objectivity there again is no point in debating with you. I could tell you and show the sky was blue and you would say it's red. that's kinda what debating with you is like.

Except you haven't been right once. If you were, I would listen.

And I'm sorry, but dealing with Republicans and conservatives is a very difficult thing to do. You never give an inch but always want us to give up a mile. I'll start conceeding that the dems aren't perfect when I get the sense you understand the GOP sucks.

YET AGAIN you're assuming. Maybe you should actually listen to some conservative talk radio. Who do you think coined the term RINO? Conservatives or liberals. yes the GOP has 'sucked' of late. they have sucked because they are moving too far left.

 

[editec]

thats a good question and I'll see if I can look into it... I don't know if the 70 dollar number counts just for labor only or for the whole company including exec salaries and retirees etc...

I don't know

source

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $28 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure.​

Voila.​

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program.

The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted recently, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?​

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.​

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

Oops, So sorry, Andrew AND Kevin.

 

[sealybobo]

If your last statement is true he's starting himself behind the 8 ball quite a bit. Until you can show you have some sense of objectivity there again is no point in debating with you. I could tell you and show the sky was blue and you would say it's red. that's kinda what debating with you is like.

Except you haven't been right once. If you were, I would listen.

And I'm sorry, but dealing with Republicans and conservatives is a very difficult thing to do. You never give an inch but always want us to give up a mile. I'll start conceeding that the dems aren't perfect when I get the sense you understand the GOP sucks.

YET AGAIN you're assuming. Maybe you should actually listen to some conservative talk radio. Who do you think coined the term RINO? Conservatives or liberals. yes the GOP has 'sucked' of late. they have sucked because they are moving too far left.

See? They GOP went wrong by working too much with the Democrats.

I swear though, you guys are genious! If only you governed as well as you play politics.

Actually, for the rich, the last 8 years have been great. So you must be rich?

 

[editec]

thats a good question and I'll see if I can look into it... I don't know if the 70 dollar number counts just for labor only or for the whole company including exec salaries and retirees etc...

I don't know

source

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $28 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure.​

Voila.​

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program.

The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted recently, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?​

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.​

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

I believe it includes only UAW workers and since MANGEMENT are not union members, I think it safe to assume that it does NOT include the cost of management in the hourly rates, ANDREW.

I believe if the cost of MANAGEMENT were included in that hourly rate, the UAW would have told us, don't you?

 

[Bern80]

Except you haven't been right once. If you were, I would listen.

And I'm sorry, but dealing with Republicans and conservatives is a very difficult thing to do. You never give an inch but always want us to give up a mile. I'll start conceeding that the dems aren't perfect when I get the sense you understand the GOP sucks.

YET AGAIN you're assuming. Maybe you should actually listen to some conservative talk radio. Who do you think coined the term RINO? Conservatives or liberals. yes the GOP has 'sucked' of late. they have sucked because they are moving too far left.

See? They GOP went wrong by working too much with the Democrats.

I swear though, you guys are genious! If only you governed as well as you play politics.

Actually, for the rich, the last 8 years have been great. So you must be rich?

Please look up for us what income group got the largest cut in income tax under Bush's tax cuts.

You are a self professed liberal puppet bobo, and you claim the GOP screwed up because they did things your way. Let me connect the dots for you. I beleive that makes you wrong. When you bash Bush do you not get that you are bashing yourself? part of Bush's problem and what you have been blaiming him for is because he was TOO LIBERAL.

 

[Andrew2382]

source

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?​

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.​

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

I believe it includes only UAW workers and since MANGEMENT are not union members, I think it safe to assume that it does NOT include the cost of management in the hourly rates, ANDREW.

I believe if the cost of MANAGEMENT were included in that hourly rate, the UAW would have told us, don't you?

so then the arguement stands

The company pays out a lot of money for past and present employees through pensions, benefits, and wages through bad union deals.

even tho the workers don't get 70 bucks an hour...th ebottom line is what the company pays out and they are paying 70 bucks an hour

thats a lot of dough

 

[johnrocks]

It would go back to the way it was in 1912,prior to fiat money, no need to nationalize banks if the Federal Reserve is abolished.

 

[wimpy77]

READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT....

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ABOLISH THE NATIONAL RESERVE.

any talk about the subject is stupid, because they aren't gonna do it.

 

[johnrocks]

I know they aren't but if we limited ourselves to only subjects that are feasible, 70% of forum chat would vaporize,lol.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson-

How come Kevin Kennedy continues to argue with me over symantics? He says Dr. Paul isn't for socializing the banks. Well that's true, but he certainly isn't for turning over the Federal Reserve to the free market. And so if the government takes back the treasury, isn't that nationalizing the Federal Reserve?

Right now it is a part private and part government agency. Dr. Paul is not for making the Federal Reserve 100% private, correct? No, he is for making it 100% government run.

Am I wrong, or is Kevin?

No, Ron Paul is for making the Federal Reserve 100% non-existent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

source

Do you get it NOW, Kevin?​

Another perfect example of SPIN using HALF TRUTHS which give us outrageous headlines, but that really only serve to ADVANCE A LIE.​

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

Oops, So sorry, Andrew AND Kevin.

I'm not sure why I'm being included in that, since all I did was argue with bobo that Ron Paul does not want to nationalize the Federal Reserve or any other banks.

 

[sealybobo]

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson-

How come Kevin Kennedy continues to argue with me over symantics? He says Dr. Paul isn't for socializing the banks. Well that's true, but he certainly isn't for turning over the Federal Reserve to the free market. And so if the government takes back the treasury, isn't that nationalizing the Federal Reserve?

Right now it is a part private and part government agency. Dr. Paul is not for making the Federal Reserve 100% private, correct? No, he is for making it 100% government run.

Am I wrong, or is Kevin?

No, Ron Paul is for making the Federal Reserve 100% non-existent.

Who would coin our $ then? Come on Kevin, stop side stepping the fact that you are wrong about this. The government will take back over the duties that the Federal Reserve now perform.

 

[sealybobo]

my name isn't kevin?

Cause you quoted me then put all of that


and like I said...no one says these guys get paid 70 bucks an hour...the bottom line is what the company ahs to pay ou tbecause of bad union deals they made out for past and present employees

what i want to knowis does that $70 an hou rnumber also includes exeuctives or just labor?

Oops, So sorry, Andrew AND Kevin.

I'm not sure why I'm being included in that, since all I did was argue with bobo that Ron Paul does not want to nationalize the Federal Reserve or any other banks.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How come Kevin Kennedy continues to argue with me over symantics? He says Dr. Paul isn't for socializing the banks. Well that's true, but he certainly isn't for turning over the Federal Reserve to the free market. And so if the government takes back the treasury, isn't that nationalizing the Federal Reserve?

Right now it is a part private and part government agency. Dr. Paul is not for making the Federal Reserve 100% private, correct? No, he is for making it 100% government run.

Am I wrong, or is Kevin?

No, Ron Paul is for making the Federal Reserve 100% non-existent.

Who would coin our $ then? Come on Kevin, stop side stepping the fact that you are wrong about this. The government will take back over the duties that the Federal Reserve now perform.

The Fed doesn't "coin our $."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oops, So sorry, Andrew AND Kevin.

I'm not sure why I'm being included in that, since all I did was argue with bobo that Ron Paul does not want to nationalize the Federal Reserve or any other banks.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

Posting this twice only makes you doubly wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. (WHY CAN'T YOU READ BETWEEN THE LINES? HE'S SAYING THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DUMMY. AND HE'S SAYING THAT CONGRESS SHOULD COIN MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE OF THE CURRENCY. OR DO YOU THINK HE'S SAYING THAT CONGRESS SHOULD OUTSOURCE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE AFTER THEY GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE)

YOU ARE EITHER GOING TO ADMIT I'M RIGHT OR PROVE YOU ARE A RETARD.

Who am I talking to here? Bern or Kevin? LOL. I forgot. I get you two confused. Both equally retarded. JK.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not sure why I'm being included in that, since all I did was argue with bobo that Ron Paul does not want to nationalize the Federal Reserve or any other banks.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

Posting this twice only makes you doubly wrong.

Who will coin the money? Who will do what the Federal Reserve does if we get rid of the Fed?

I've been waiting for your answer for 2 days now ass face. Answer the fucking question.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

Posting this twice only makes you doubly wrong.

Who will coin the money? Who will do what the Federal Reserve does if we get rid of the Fed?

I've been waiting for your answer for 2 days now ass face. Answer the fucking question.

Again, the Fed doesn't coin our money.

 

[sealybobo]

Posting this twice only makes you doubly wrong.

Who will coin the money? Who will do what the Federal Reserve does if we get rid of the Fed?

I've been waiting for your answer for 2 days now ass face. Answer the fucking question.

Again, the Fed doesn't coin our money.

Who will take over the role of the Federal Reserve if Ron Paul is successful in doing away with the Federal Reserve?