I’ll start the State of the Union 2007 thread.
A pre-release statement includes this quote, in association with Bush’s plan to propose to cut US gasoline consumption by 20% over 20 years:
Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity.
Yes. Let’s make Americans’ lives better by making it harder for them to buy gasoline. That makes sense. I can hardly wait for this riveting piece of televisual entertainment.
-Q
I’m debating whether or not to even watch. It’s the same thing every year…even between presidents, it barely changes.
I think I’ll read it. Watching him is too annoying.
It’s like the Oscars. Full of meaningless show and pageantry. Way longer than it needs to be. An opportunity for ignorant people who really shouldn’t be propounding political opinions to nonetheless propound them, to riotous applause and acclaim.
I’m making popcorn!
-Q
The idea of tax deductions based on the cost of health insurance sounds good. Other than that, his health care stuff is just more socialist bs.
I’m debating whether or not to even watch. It’s the same thing every year…even between presidents, it barely changes.
If we are to believe Bill Still’s “Money Masters” documentary, then control of these matters is not with any of the presidents, but with the world bankers.
If we are to believe Bill Still’s “Money Masters” documentary, then control of these matters is not with any of the presidents, but with the world bankers.
Why would you believe that documentary?
The idea of tax deductions based on the cost of health insurance sounds good.
If his proposal could be enacted “as-is”, without any additional give-aways, it could make a huge difference to US healthcare. Making individual-bought insurance tax-equivalent to company-bought insurance is a great idea. MSAs were a good idea, but did not take off. The replacement (HSAs) have done better, but are still a very small segment. This type of tax-neutrality would be a great push in the right direction.
Why would you believe that documentary?
Why wouldn’t you believe in that documentary?
Because world bankers don’t control America.
Because world bankers don’t control America.
As the risk of asking you to prove a negative, why do you believe that world bankers don’t control America, (or its economy), and for extra credit, what caused the Great Depression of '29, if not the bankers calling in all their loans?
There were several major causes of the Great Depression. The money supply contraction was certainly one, but tarriffs, too much leverage, and the stock market bubble also contributed. If the bankers ran the country prior to the Depression, they must not have been terribly smart because plenty of banks failed, causing many of them to go broke.
I think people are missing the essential point in regards to the cause of the Depression:
The government tampering with the money supply.
How could a wholly private banking system have a depression?
How could a wholly private banking system have a depression?
Well, if a really big meteor fell on top of the wholly private banking system there would be a pretty damn big depression where the banking system used to be.
I think people are missing the essential point in regards to the cause of the Depression:
The government tampering with the money supply.
Isn’t the larger point that government interference in the economy was the cause, not Capitalism or unregulated markets or whatever else people want to blame it on?
Well, if a really big meteor fell on top of the wholly private banking system there would be a pretty damn big depression where the banking system used to be.
I’m going to say the world’s professional comedians don’t have to fear that another competitor is going to enter their market. 
what caused the Great Depression of '29, if not the bankers calling in all their loans?
According to Milton Friedman, the Great Depression was not caused by private bankers calling in their loans but from the central banking system failing to exhibit good monetary policy. Basically, the demand for money greatly exceed the supply that the Federal Reserve was willing to provide. Here is an excerpt that is taken from Wikipedia:
Before the 1915 establishment of the Federal Reserve, the banking system had dealt with periodic crises in the US (such as in 1907) by suspending the convertibility of deposits into currency. The system nearly collapsed in 1907 and there was an extraordinary intervention by an ad-hoc coalition assembled by J. P. Morgan. The bankers demanded in 1910-1913 a Federal Reserve to reduce this structural weakness. Friedman suggests the untested hypothesis that if a policy similar to 1907 had been followed during the banking panics at the end of 1930, perhaps this would have stopped the vicious circle of the forced liquefaction of assets at depressed prices. Consequently, in his view, the banking panics of 1931, 1932, and 1933 might not have happened, just as suspension of convertibility in 1893 and 1907 had quickly ended the liquidity crises at the time.
The present Chairman of the Federal Reserve has endorsed this explanation.
_ As the risk _ of asking you to prove a negative, why do you believe that world bankers don’t control America, (or its economy)…
No risk taken there. You simply did ask him to prove a negative.
Small cabals of bankers don’t control anything. If you have evidence that would indicate directly that they do, we’d be happy to hear it.
Central banks around the world are extremely transparent in their activities as shown on the websites below.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/c…ks/ccbshb10.htm
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/ragan_paper/economy.html
Private banks are not as transparent, but as you said, it is difficult to prove that either central banks or private banks are not trying to control America. If they are, then as KendallJ has said, there should be proof before we believe it.
Small cabals of bankers don’t control anything. If you have evidence that would indicate directly that they do, we’d be happy to hear it.
Well, what about that and that and that? But I was really impressed by this evidence for a banker cabal.
Ah, but David, don’t you realize that all those caricatures are a ruse. In fact, all evidence that contradicts the cabal’s existence is just a clever trick by the cabal to hide its existence. In other words, evidence of its non-existence is actually evidence of its existence. You really can’t win
It’s similar to the idea that God does not show itself too obviously because that goes against its intent of testing humans. When the arbitrary thing one is imagining is an imaginary consciousness, one might imagine it to have all sorts of curious intentions and the ability to apply all sorts of subterfuge.