Politics, Society etc.

[Nailec]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[Jerry_Curls]

Hey Jerry, could you please enlighten me on the link between the NWO "bullshit" (my opinion) and climate change ?

im guessing the climate change skeptics fear, that the conclusions from the global warming will massively take away freedoms of the (a)nation and its industry and (b) the subject.

ad (a) for example there are laws that limit the amount of fuel a car may burn up.

nationalism is the basic ideology behind this all. they dont want anyone to boss the usa around, they want the usa to be the single most powerful nation amongst all nations. the identity of a nationalist is bound to its nation, so when the nation becomes weak, the nationalist developes an inferiority complex.

not saying that all clima sceptics are nationalists, but when they come from the conservative or nwo conspiracists fraction, then the chances are high, they are.


ad (b) i did never hear a climate scientists say that humankind should go live in the woods and never again use anything that produces CO2. so to my eyes, the fear, that this all costs us personal liberties, is totally made up. ok i am forced to seperate my garbage into paper, plastic, glass, bio etc. but i dont see this is cutting my freedom at all.


so in conclusion im really thinking this is a debate between the servants of the free market and science.

You really think that all that cap-and-trade is going to do is going to make us sort our recycling to a greater extent?  You really need to research a lot more.  The intent is to tax every last thing that could possibly produce CO2, which in today's government version of science bears a completely false correlation between its levels and global temperatures.  Like seriously crippling taxes that are going to make not only the energy to power and heat our houses exponentially more expensive, but also raise the cost of every single thing one can buy.  And for what?  So giant corporations can pay their carbon credits to still be able to pollute, while smaller businesses not only suffer, but can't be started because of the new cost barrier?   So that all of the progress coming from all of the countries that go along with this bunch of bullshit can completely stagnate in the name of saving the Earth, while India and China, the world's greatest polluters anyways, are exempt?

IT'S NOT FREE MARKET (I USE THIS IN ITS CORRECT MEANING, WHICH YOU HAVE PROVEN TO BE IGNORANT TOWARDS) VS. SCIENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCIENCE ON YOUR SIDE.  LITERALLY.  IT'S ALL POLITICALLY CHARGED AND PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND IF POLLUTION DOES GO DOWN, IT WILL BE BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO AFFORD TO MAKE ANYTHING, NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE FOUND A WAY TO PROFITABLY, EFFICIENTLY AND CLEANLY PRODUCE PRODUCTS AND ENERGY.

Thank you. You write so eloquent [along with Trey] and say what I try to say, but much better. Even though I may say some outlandish things [well, according to most people] it feels good t know there are people who agree with you. :-)

[alvarezbassist17]

Oh, you're welcome, man.  Thanks for thinking I'm eloquent, haha.  But yeah, I'm with you on most things, I have some trouble believing a lot of the conspiracy theories, I mean while they become more and more believable every day, I feel as though most of the damage comes from politicians just being straight retarded.  I can't honestly remember the last time a mainstream legislator talked about the current or possible bad latent effects of the mountain of laws, legislation and regulations congress has come out with since the great depression. 

And I think it's a shame that I go through all of the effort to write that and it appears I'm being ignored by Nailec.

[Nailec]

And I think it's a shame that I go through all of the effort to write that and it appears I'm being ignored by Nailec.

are u really interested in a reponse or are you just writing that in order to underline how much of a toy i am?

i mean. most points are probablly some basic assumptions we both have and that we can not change. like i am convinced that most science is independent allthough it is being payd by tax money. youre convinced that scientists work for the government.

the "welfare state"-post was just trolling. but also. i love the welfare state. i agree that beaureaucracy is a huge problem, so is efficiency. though this doesnt bring me up from thinking that governmental intervention in some social systems is necessary in order to achieve equality. i just dont see how a private investor would ever spend the money to pay my studies. imho taxation is the best thing that happened to our societies. why? because it ensures that a lot more people can have they part in a democracy, can get education at all. youre right about the postal service though. really no need to give it to the hands of governments. but chances are higher that the private delivery service refuses to drive to a farm 10 km outside to  deliver one packet. so these private companies at least need regulations and rules that can be be sued by the customer. like it is a shame that soem  households here still have no internet available. i think this is a point where the government should intervene. else, those people without internet have worse preconditions to take part in the society. its not about forcing them to take part in society. it just about equality of chances.

[alvarezbassist17]

No, you're the one making basic assumptions.  I too believe that we should always, always strive for less pollution and less overconsumption, that's pretty obvious.  And I admit that I really did believe in global warming myself, I mean how couldn't you with the liberal media running as rampant as it does with all of the climate propaganda?  But I didn't let that blind me from researching about it, mostly influenced by my boss who was big into Austrian economics and told me what cap and trade was really about.  There's also many, many scientists out there who disagree with the theory of global warming, and while I personally totally agree with them and think the points they make are so much more coherent and believable, it's so absolutely terrible to me for someone to be completely ignorant to them because it's not the politically correct view at the moment.

take a look at this site:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Not to mention that the greatest polluters are (in the US anyways) entities of the federal and state governments, who are no doubt going to end up exempt from the majority of these regulations.

It honestly blows my mind that someone could ever bring themselves to say something like "taxation is the best thing that happened to our societies."  Like, I'm well aware this is a highly controversial comment, but from a sociological point of view, having this kind of blind faith in the state (when it only gets less transparent in the way it has) based on some sort of promises to do things for the "good of the whole people" is an extremely slippery slope to a pure dictatorship.  But that's an entirely different discussion.

What you really don't understand, and this isn't opinion, this is fact, is that when the government provides payment for something, there is no incentive for whomever is providing that thing to do things more efficiently or effectively because they have an eternal "dummy" customer base in the form of the government.  For your internet on the farm example, a private company providing internet WANTS that farm to be their customer; if that customer is willing to pay whatever to get an internet connection out there, they will unequivocally set up the connection then and there.  But resources are not infinite, say that farmer cannot afford to pay for the connection.  The internet company still wants him as a customer, but obviously doesn't want to take a loss in the process.  So the farmer has to wait until technology becomes affordable enough to either get a satellite connection, or to get cable laid out to his place.  The point is, the company wants to expand their customer base, that's the entire point of their existence, so they will strive to get that extra customer by decreasing costs, and eventually reach one which is affordable for both them and their customer.  It's a win-win situation, with time being the only requirement.  The problem that arises when the government provides the internet to the farmer, is that now the taxpayers are on the hook for internet that's way more expensive than it should be, because the government is now the guaranteed paycheck.  So in this situation there is no incentive for the internet company to do things more efficiently, cheaply and effectively.  Which is really a horrible thing.  There's also the point that if internet or anything else someone deems necessary to living isn't available in one area, they can move.  I don't see how that's more evil or less compassionate than forcing someone to give up a higher portion of the income they earned to subsidize a part of society that would be served better by natural forces.  And that too is a slippery slope, pretty soon the government will be providing everything, at inflated values... i dunno, Jefferson said it better:

"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval

How old are you again?  Have you ever paid a mortgage and 30% of your income in taxes?

[Fireal1222]

No, you're the one making basic assumptions.  I too believe that we should always, always strive for less pollution and less overconsumption, that's pretty obvious.  And I admit that I really did believe in global warming myself, I mean how couldn't you with the liberal media running as rampant as it does with all of the climate propaganda?  But I didn't let that blind me from researching about it, mostly influenced by my boss who was big into Austrian economics and told me what cap and trade was really about.  There's also many, many scientists out there who disagree with the theory of global warming, and while I personally totally agree with them and think the points they make are so much more coherent and believable, it's so absolutely terrible to me for someone to be completely ignorant to them because it's not the politically correct view at the moment.

take a look at this site:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Not to mention that the greatest polluters are (in the US anyways) entities of the federal and state governments, who are no doubt going to end up exempt from the majority of these regulations.

It honestly blows my mind that someone could ever bring themselves to say something like "taxation is the best thing that happened to our societies."  Like, I'm well aware this is a highly controversial comment, but from a sociological point of view, having this kind of blind faith in the state (when it only gets less transparent in the way it has) based on some sort of promises to do things for the "good of the whole people" is an extremely slippery slope to a pure dictatorship.  But that's an entirely different discussion.

What you really don't understand, and this isn't opinion, this is fact, is that when the government provides payment for something, there is no incentive for whomever is providing that thing to do things more efficiently or effectively because they have an eternal "dummy" customer base in the form of the government.  For your internet on the farm example, a private company providing internet WANTS that farm to be their customer; if that customer is willing to pay whatever to get an internet connection out there, they will unequivocally set up the connection then and there.  But resources are not infinite, say that farmer cannot afford to pay for the connection.  The internet company still wants him as a customer, but obviously don't want to take a loss in the process.  So the farmer has to wait until technology becomes affordable enough to either get a satellite connection, or to get cable laid out to his place.  The point is, the company wants to expand their customer base, that's the entire point of their existence, so they will strive to get that extra customer by decreasing costs, and eventually reach one which is affordable for both them and their customer.  It's a win-win situation, with time being the only requirement.  The problem that arises when the government provides the internet to the farmer, is that now the taxpayers are on the hook for internet that's way more expensive than it should be, because the government is now the guaranteed paycheck.  So in this situation there is no incentive for the internet company to do things more efficiently, cheaply and effectively.  Which is really a horrible thing.  There's also the point that if internet or anything else someone deems necessary to living isn't available in one area, they can move.  I don't see how that's more evil or less compassionate than forcing someone to give up a higher portion of the income they earned to subsidize a part of society that would be served better by natural forces.  And that too is a slippery slope, pretty soon the government will be providing everything, at inflated values... i dunno, Jefferson said it better:

"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval

How old are you again?  Have you ever paid a mortgage and 30% of your income in taxes?

dont listen to this guy ^

he has a lake and a party boat in his backyard.
anybody with a lake and a partyboat in their backyard is not aloud to talk about getting fucked by the government.


lol man im awesome

[alvarezbassist17]

too bad i'm arguing for people keeping more of the money they work for, whether it's stolen directly by income, property and sales taxes, or indirectly through the inflation tax, which is absolutely huge, and growing at an ever increasing rate since ben bernanke became the head of the Federal Reserve.  i don't see how making that argument benefits me when i'm "immune from getting fucked by the government," because it affects the people living paycheck to paycheck the most when they have to pay $4.00/gal of gas, $6.00 for a pack of cigs, twice as much for food, $475 for an ounce of danks, you see what i'm saying.  From the beginning of the dollar in 1792 until the beginning of the federal reserve in 1913, the dollar APPRECIATED about 14% or so, and since 1913, its value has depreciated 96%.  so it would've taken you 4 cents to buy a dollar's worth of shit in 1913.  that is the inflation tax, the government prints money to pay for all of their welfare/warfare state programs, corporate bailouts, etc and the value of our money goes down and down because there's more of it all of the time, which is the main reason why everything's so expensive and more so every day.  it's why people used to be able to provide for an entire family on one manufacturer's salary and now families NEED two incomes to survive, because their money buys less and less at a rate far more quickly than paychecks are increasing.  it affects the poor worse than any public welfare program could ever, ever help.

i know you're probably jk, but you're just eggin this nailec guy on.

[Fireal1222]

of course i was kidding

here is my honest standpoint.

i think the people of the country have the ability to change our government, and its by getting off our asses and actually doing it. lets say the people on this board felt very strongly about where our countries/world is heading, and we truely wanted to make a change. we each would need to start by gathering our communities to start holding rallies and assemblies to let the government know that we aren't going to just turn a blind eye anymore.

if people began leaving their homes and actually speaking out on how they believe, i dont think the government can possibly still try and act as though they are in control. the only reason our government is in control, and becoming more and more greedy ( us gov ) is because they know they can get away with it. we have almost become desensitized to just how much power we all have, especially if we come together. but nobody puts it to use.


even on simple issues. like if all of us potheads really truely wanted it to become legal, all we would really have to do is assemble more often. try and come together in major cities monthly and hold rallies and such. but again, most people are unmotivated.


its really just become one big laughing stock. our government are all "men of god" yet we have never taken a peaceful resolution to basically anything. i just dont understand how the world has become so greedy and self driven, and nobody is doing anything to stop it.
and yes, i understand that i am a hypocrite for not doing anything about it myself.

[alvarezbassist17]

haha

but yeah, i'm totally with you man, and i mean i feel like it's happening, people are seeing that obama is just bush 2.0 and starting to be more skeptical of the government in general.  It's all just education.  If everybody knew and understood what was really happening to the country, not just the politically correct pseudo reality that's on every goddamn channel, fox, msnbc, cnn, whoever it is.  that and public education teaching that government never fucks anything up, that it's the eternal caretaker, that franklin delano roosevelt wasn't actually the worst president in US history, all that kind of shit.  but the internet is helping, and ron paul has helped so very much, there's gonna be statues erected in his likeness in the future.  I didn't know shit about the federal reserve a year ago, and now it's so clear that they are the main cause of all of our economic distress and more people are learning that every day.

[Fireal1222]

rich bastard. im shocked you didnt vote republican

[alvarezbassist17]

hell naw, the only rich people the current form of republicans help are the billionaires, and my family sure as hell ain't worth anywhere close to a bil.

p.s. both my parents are now unemployed, a big reason i'm so steamed about all this politics shit.  Both of whom have masters degrees and can't find jack shit for a job.

[wither-I]

"The Corporation"

http://tvshack.net/documentaries/The_Corporation/

brilliant documentary. long and worth every minute. it covers all the basis. everything we talk about rolled into one.

"if we can make revolution a marketable trend, it can begin"

[alvarezbassist17]

that's something i'm definitely going to watch and respond to more in depth, but based on the summary it really sounds like it's going to be a lot of missing the point, i.e. based on the assumption that corporations/profits are always bad, which i wholeheartedly disagree with.  It's not the fault of the idea of a corporation that there's the vast amount of exploitation that there is, it's the fault of politicians giving out favors to said corporations and regulating the industry (another form of favors) to prevent, viable, non exploitative competition from springing up.  In a free market, if a company or corporation is exploiting people for too much of a profit, people realize this, and investors see the opportunity to provide that product or service in a means that doesn't take excessive profits or exploit people.  And profits that don't involve screwing someone over are NOT a bad thing in the least, if you don't have profits, you don't have research and development, investment in new capital, and expansion of the business to CREATE MORE JOBS.  And isn't it strange that right now, with more regulation of the financial industry than ever before, that executives at big banks are taking home record bonuses and paychecks?  It's so abundantly clear that it's not corporations that are the problem, it's their collusion with governments, giving them privileges that they wouldn't otherwise have in a free market system (WHICH THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION) that's fucking the people over.

And i could be wrong, but i'm guessing a big topic of the movie will be how corporations exploit third world countries with poor wages, conditions, etc.  Now I am all for disallowing health-threatening conditions in the workplace anywhere across the globe, but a big point that people seem to miss is: there's people still taking these jobs despite the low wages because they live in an impoverished nation with no alternatives.  So, taking away these jobs means taking away the means for productive sustenance that the poor people might've had.  I mean obviously it's not perfect, but still, isn't making 1, 2, 3 (in extreme cases, there's a lot of outsourcing companies that actually pay people well) dollars a day better than zero dollars a day?  Another thing not usually taken into account is that over there, essentials cost fractions of what they do in the US, so a dollar goes a lot further.  So I don't see it as a disservice to bring jobs and capital to a third world country that would've gone without.  that's how you raise a population's standard of living, through production.

i realize i made a lot of assumptions not having seen the movie, but i'll retract any potential false statements i've made once i get a chance to watch it.

[wither-I]

peace this

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[alvarezbassist17]

Philosophy vs. Conspiracy by Jerry Salcido

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=459

Amazing article, a point i've been trying to make to lots and lots of people with anger directed in the right direction, but without a means of conveying a genuine solution.

[Nailec]

glad to see such an article dude. its always a good feeling for me if people emphazise their distance to irrational and dangerous ideologies.

anyways. i dont see how something like a moral philosophy of freedom could be applied on economic issues. the campaign for liberty clearly has a complete view on how economy and the market should be arranged. so i fear that any philosophy those people do, would be deduced from teireconomic views.

not only the conspiracy industry but also the liberty movement seems a nationalistic movement to me. i have the impression that the liberty that they mean is actually the liberty that helps america to be a strong nation. while i want america to be a strong nation, i want all other nations to be free and rich as well. so my question would be: is the liberty movement able to achieve that goal.

[alvarezbassist17]

glad to see such an article dude. its always a good feeling for me if people emphazise their distance to irrational and dangerous ideologies.

anyways. i dont see how something like a moral philosophy of freedom could be applied on economic issues. the campaign for liberty clearly has a complete view on how economy and the market should be arranged. so i fear that any philosophy those people do, would be deduced from teireconomic views.

that's because you and other socialists don't have an understanding of economics in the least bit.  you don't understand that freedom is the only thing that creates genuine equality, the equal chance to succeed based on one's own merit, not based on some predetermined rules set up by some "expert," who far, far more often than not, really has neither any experience in the private sector, nor any fathom of how the rules and regulations will affect the economy directly and in more latent ways.  History has proven time and time again that an economy cannot be managed in a top-down fashion and no amount of computers or regulators is ever going to be able to figure out how to do it.  It's readily apparent, especially in the last hundred years of US history but in other places as well, that the more bureaucrats and regulators that are added to the system, the more things get completely fucked up and the more people suffer.  An economy can regulate itself, and has the ability to do so without government intervention now more than ever before.

That's what you don't see, all of this poverty, all of this pain, it's all caused by people not being able to work to feed themselves, which is entirely attributable to government intervention.  Price controls, minimum wage, taxes, inflation, excessive regulations, etc.  These are all things that are making it impossible for people to get hired, to be able to work and feed their kids.  The government cannot give people jobs indefinitely, they have no wealth of their own.  They don't produce anything, they don't sell anything, the only thing they can do is take from one person and give it to another, and that's not how you sustain growth.

I don't know what teireconomics is, but i assume you mean that having people that are richer than others is evil in some way.  Well, there's one simple way to refute this: since the beginning of the progressive era in the US (roughly around the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt), the amount of government involvement in society has gone nowhere but up, and all that we've got is a greater distance between the standards of living of the rich and the poor.  How do you not understand that this is clearly, CLEARLY not caused by having a freer market?  You just really have absolutely no clue what capitalism truly is, it's not a system where big companies doing highly illegal activities get let off by a pussy-ass judicial system (a folly of government principles), or where the possible competitors are completely regulated out of their possible existence.  It's a system where genuine wealth is created, where contracts are upheld, where people have to be educated enough to make their own decisions based on their own principles and strong enough to deal with the consequences of their actions, and most importantly, where there's an abundance of jobs, because that's how one truly gets a better wage: making people compete to hire you rather than competing to be hired.  Not some government decree that says "an employer has to pay someone X amount and give them X amount of benefits and pay X amount of tax per employee," that's what makes them replace people with machines.  It's really not an unachievable state to be in, we're just headed in the complete wrong direction.  It's sure as hell not freedom that's putting up barriers for people to survive, succeed, and prosper.

And also, tiers exist in a society because some people have more natural skills than others, and some people have a better work ethic than others.  If you wanna say that someone who works tirelessly to better his standard of living has the same societal value as someone who doesn't work at all, that's just pure bullshit.  We want equality of opportunities to succeed, not equality of limitations.

not only the conspiracy industry but also the liberty movement seems a nationalistic movement to me. i have the impression that the liberty that they mean is actually the liberty that helps america to be a strong nation. while i want america to be a strong nation, i want all other nations to be free and rich as well. so my question would be: is the liberty movement able to achieve that goal.

Well, as you can clearly see through the last few decades, less freedom here hasn't meant more freedom around the globe, and not too many of the US's foreign efforts have resulted in more freedom around the globe, so the liberty movement is essentially trying to say we have to get our own house in order so that we don't go around preaching hypocrisy while also losing more and more of our freedoms at home, in other words, you can't spread the message of freedom abroad when you don't even believe in it at home.

[alvarezbassist17]

A Hell of a Decade
By Peter Schiff
Published 12/31/09

In its recent look back on the first ten years of the century, Time Magazine proclaimed the period to be "the decade from hell." The editors made their case based on what they saw as the signature events of the last ten years, notably the ravages of terrorism, failed wars, and a global financial crisis. Taken together, these factors produced an era that Time is convinced will be remembered as one of the low points in our history.

As the media hates to dwell on the negative, the commentary was rife with notes of optimism about pending recovery. It could hardly be accidental that in the very next issue, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was named "Man of the Year" for his supposedly Herculean efforts to keep the economy afloat as we departed the Naughty Aughties. Although Time takes pains that to point out that the "Person of the Year" honor reflects impact rather than adulation, its profile of the Chairman was triumphant.

Even if you believe the "survived the worst/turned the corner" narrative offered by Time, it still should strike anyone as ironic that Chairman Bernanke, a chief architect of the economic problems that surfaced in 2007, should be held in such high esteem.

Apart from its misplaced reverence for the Fed Chairman, I would take issue with Time's entire characterization of what has now become history.

Under no circumstances could the past ten years be described as "the decade from hell." In fact, in terms of economic good fortune, the period shares parallels with the Roaring Twenties. I would describe this as a decade of sin that paved the way to hell.

Yes, we had spectacular problems like September 11th and the invasion of Iraq -- which were horrific for those who were directly affected -- but for most Americans, it was a time of unexpected wealth and unearned prosperity. Up to the days of the stock market crash, the economics of the decade will be remembered for cash-out refinancing for millions of homeowners, no-doc liar loans, no-money-down car purchases, eight-figure Wall Street bonuses, cheap Chinese imports, and trample-to-death holiday sales. In other words, the decade now closing gave us the biggest and most irresponsible spending orgy in U.S. history. The past decade was the party; the one ahead will be the hangover.

The fact that Time completely ignored these issues shows how poorly the mainstream media understands the forces bearing down on our economy. Yes, they were able to identify some of the adverse consequences we experienced this decade. That's the easy part. But as far as seeing the causes behind the effects, they haven't a clue. As a result, Time has no ability to see the underlying pattern and will happily encourage our leaders to repeat the mistakes of the past on a grander scale.

For now, Congress and the President remain as clueless as Time. To show its resolve to 'get to the bottom of things,' the Obama Administration has impaneled a commission to investigate the causes of the financial crisis. Do not expect the proceedings, which are just getting underway, to come up with anything but the most politically useful explanations.

Blame will be laid at the feet of 'ineffective regulators' who failed to 'get tough' with industry, banks, and corporate leaders who held the 'public good' hostage to their 'personal greed.' There is no hope that anyone who actually saw the crisis coming will actually be asked to testify. If they called me, I would be happy to give them an earful. Unfortunately, the only way my views will ever be heard by the powers-that-be is if I am elected to the Senate -- which is exactly what I plan to do next fall in my home state of Connecticut.

My sincere hope for the coming decade is that I can help our leaders see what Time cannot: we need to stop committing the economic sins that are leading us to hell, so that our stay down there will be as brief as possible. We need everyone to stop spending more than they earn. That is true not just for individuals, but for our government as well. Just this week, the Treasury Department removed its internal caps on bailout funds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile, another bailout was proffered to ailing GMAC. If we continue the same bad behavior, it might not just be one decade from hell, but several.

However, if we can confess our sins, and vow to reform our ways, perhaps this will merely be a decade in purgatory. Perhaps we can turn it into the decade of hope, hard work, individual liberty, savings, production, investment, sound money, de-regulation, exports, budget surpluses, capitalism, limited government, and respect for the Constitution. These traits will harden us to withstand the fallout from our reckless past.

As of yet, our troubles continue to snowball -- and I don't like a snowball's chances if we have a real decade from hell.

www.schiffforsenate.com
www.youtube.com/schiffreport

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[Nailec]

hey alvarez.

with "teireconomic", i mean "their economics"

and plz stop your biting reflex. im neither a socialist nor do i find it evil if some poeple are richer than others.

happy new year.

rich parents for everyone!

[Nailec]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.