RunRyder RC
 6  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )    >    >> ] 845 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Facts and Figures
08-30-2012 01:09 PM  5 years agoPost 21
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

wow dude, don't let the facts get in your way. Bush ran deficits, that I will concede. However, look at the rate of change in the later half of his presidency leading up to 2007! The rate of change is negative, i.e. it's getting smaller year over year. Then look at the HUGE JUMP when Obama took office!

It's interesting to look at the projections (i.e. extrapolations )of the out-year deficits. If you truly think they'll continue to decline then I have a nice piece of beach front proptery in Nebraska to sell you.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-30-2012 02:43 PM  5 years agoPost 22
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

More here than meets the eye....economic wind blow contextually, nbut not in syncronicity with world events....I recently saw a very interesting article iN the WSJ regarding the velocity of money...The rate at which money changes hands...It is at one of the lowest points in the modern era.....
Indeed, but this is ''only'' in the real economy, while money is moving faster and in ever increasing amounts, in the financial markets.
As money exists to make labor fungible,
That's why money should exist, but the money that does exist, exists to make banks hugely profitable.
it follows that the economic engine is still slowing....
Back in the mid 90s, the World Bank recognised the fact that China directed it's banks to invest mostly in ''productive means,'' i.e. the real economy, rather than ''speculative means,'' i.e. the financial markets, as being the main reason for China's phenomenal economic growth.

Perhaps if our banks were to ''choose'' to do the same, we might have more productive economies, and less wealthy bankers.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-30-2012 02:47 PM  5 years agoPost 23
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The Democrats repealed the glass-steagall act in 1999 to allow banks to bet on homes and other loans. We could argue that this didn't cause the mortgage crisis, but we all know we took out loans that couldn't be paid back along with fraud applications.
Indeed, and it was on the Republicans' watch in 2003, that the investment banks' leverage ratios were relaxed from around 3:1 to 15:1, meaning they could borrow 15 times the amount of money they had, instead of 3 times the amount. AFAIK, GWB was personally against it, but it looks like the bankers got their way. I would similarly expect much lobbying by bankers, and or/collusion between bankers and US bank regulatory authorities, to have been responsible for the Democrats repealing the Glass-Steagall act. It doesn't seem to have benefited the Democrats much, but it most certainly benefited the bankers.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-30-2012 04:18 PM  5 years agoPost 24
InvertedDude

rrApprentice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

..

..

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-31-2012 06:50 AM  5 years agoPost 25
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Okay, how do we overthrow bankers in their game? What will be a real effort the "people worldwide" can do to stop banking madness?
That's easy. All you have to do is vote for someone who wants to change the system. Ron Paul supports closing the Fed, and sound money. While Romney's main supporters are the bankers who benefit from the debt money system that's in place.

A vote for a mainstream politician is a vote for the special interest groups they represent, no matter what they say. Think of all the special interest groups that both Obama and Romney represent, then consider that Ron Paul's policies go against every one of them. It's easy to tell who the special interest groups are, because government policies are already working in their favour.

But it's not like people don't know this. If people wanted to, they could easily vote for someone who does want to change the system, to one which works in their interests. But they don't, they vote for someone who wants the system that works for special interest groups to remain in place.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )    >    >> ] 845 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Facts and Figures
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 6  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, October 17 - 9:42 pm - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online