Peter Schiff Warns of Martial Law

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    American investment broker, businessman, author and financial commentator Peter Schiff warns us that we are in worse shape now economically than we were just before the 2008 financial crisis, which we still have yet to recover from.

    “I think the U.S. has been in a depression or a recession for the entirety of the Obama presidency,” Schiff said. “I think there’s going to be a depression, but I don’t think it’s going to be global.”

    “When the dollar collapses and when the rest of the world stops wasting their resources, propping up our economy, buying our debt, selling us products that we can’t pay for, I think you’re going to have a global economic boom outside of the United States.”

    “I just hope that one day we’re smart enough to jump in on it by adopting free market principles.”

    “I hope we can reclaim our former glory,” he continued. “But to do that’s we’re going to have to reclaim the values that we have abandoned and those are the ones that our Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution, not the ones that we’re following now.”

    See the interview HERE.


    Peter Schiff Was Right Part Deux: The “Taper” Edition

    For those of you who remember the months following the 2008 financial crisis, one of the most viral videos out there (it has over 2 million views) was the “Peter Schiff Was Right” compilation. It consists of various clips of Mr. Schiff being prescient about the financial condition of the U.S., as talking heads on various financial shows mock him and laugh in his face.

    Well, the “Peter Schiff Was Right Video Part Deux” is now out and I expect this one to go viral as well. In this case, pundits laugh at Peter’s insistence that there will be no taper and that it was all a bluff (they pull off the same bluff every year). It ends in classic fashion with Bob Pisani explaining to the dwindling audience at CNBC that “no one saw it coming.”

    I guess we’re back to that again. The next crisis can’t be far off.

    CONTINUE . . .
     
    #1 poncho, Oct 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2013
  2. FollowTheWay

    FollowTheWay
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    4
    I believe that this is true. Those who think that Bush's depression is no longer a problem are just whistling past the graveyard. The whole world is in serious shape not just America. I think there will be a revolution. All those of you who put their faith in guns will be out there with your semi-automatic weapons. I'll be on the streets too but with a Bible in my hand. I'll put my faith in the almighty God.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Bush's depression?

    If you remember it was Henry Paulson and the Goldman Sachs crew that threatened Bush and the American people with total economic collapse and martial law if the government didn't give in to the the banksters demands.

    That's economic terrorism. The big banks held us hostage and threatened dire straights if their demands weren't met.

    The Big Bailout. What amounts to a direct tax on the American people because the banksters got greedy and the regulators looked the other way while systemic fraud flourished all around them.

    What did the great O do to help us out? He handed the corrupt banksters a shovel to make it easier for them rob us blind as a reward for their greed and incompetence.

    Don't even try to blame all this on Bush or the republicans. They played their role in the destruction of the economy without doubt but, Obama and the democrats (who promised "hope and Change") could have tried to fix the problem by striking at it's root but instead they circled their wagons around the corrupt banksters that caused the problem and shielded them from the prosecutions and prison time they so richly deserve.

    You know what the preachers did during the American revolution? They picked up their muskets along with their bibles and went out to defend liberty and that's why you are now able to choose between defending liberty or keeping your head down and hiding out while others defend your liberties for you.
     
    #3 poncho, Oct 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2013
  4. FollowTheWay

    FollowTheWay
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bush destroyed America by fighting two meaningless wars "off budget" and by caving in to the top 1% by lowering tax rates on the rich. What did we get out Afghanistan and Iraq? Absolutely NOTHING except more debt and more senseless murdering of hundreds of thousands of human beings.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I've been saying almost the same thing since 2004. Here's the problem I have with democrats blaming everything on Bush. OBAMA HAS NOT ONLY CONTINUED BUT EXPANDED THE SAME NEOCON POLICIES OF STARTING NEEDLESS WARS AND HANDING THE BANKSTERS THE KEYS TO THE TREASURY!

    I'm about tired of the pots calling the kettles black. All this leftie vs rightie dodge ball the two headed hydra we call the democrats and republicans keep playing is nothing more than distraction to keep us fighting against one another while the banksters drain the last drops of blood out of us. Bush is a liar and warmonger, Obama is a liar and warmonger.

    Where's the difference? As my gray headed old grandmother used to say if you think either of these "gentlemen" actually run the country you got rocks in your head.

    The global banks and corporations run this country and have puppets like Bush and Obama dangling from strings. They make them prance and dance to their tune while we dumbed down drugged up citizens sit there like three old children transfixed by all the drama believing in a fairytale that the government is somehow greater than those it's forced to beg money from.
     
    #5 poncho, Oct 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2013
  6. FollowTheWay

    FollowTheWay
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    4
    Do you believe the lie that's been perpetrated about the recovery? I don't. Therefore, what we've been trying to do ever since Obama was first elected is trying to dig ourselves out the catastrophe Bush left us in. That's why I call it the Bush depression.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    You cannot reasonably say that the debt acquired under Bush got us into trouble but the debt acquired under Obama has helped. Debt is debt. And Obama has spent far more than Bush.

    However the financial crisis occurred as a result of the crash of the housing market after the banks were regulated to force them to give loans they would not have given otherwise. When those people defaulted on their loans in a mass way it drove the housing market and the banks in the ground.

    The Republicans tried to warn us and held hearing about the potential problems but Frank and company because very angry at any mention of a potential problem at the hearings.

    So now here we are.
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,666
    Likes Received:
    225
    Wow. Lying and attributing the lie to the Holy Spirit. Is that the same thing as attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the Devil?
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Okay. Now do you want to know why you really call it the Bush depression?

    Because you chose a side in a phoney fight between democrats and republicans and you are determined to see your team come out on top no matter what.

    Here's why it's a phoney fight. Neither the democrats or republicans give a flyin flip about you or me or any other low born American serf that isn't putting gobs of money into their campaign coffers.

    They all represent those who can afford to be represented. And that ain't you and me brother. We're just the cash cows that get milked when the banks and corporations make bad bets and lose trillions gambling with our money. All the democrats and republicanss do is make sure the milk bucket stays full all the time.

    Do you understand that?
     
    #9 poncho, Oct 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2013
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I'd like to see some citations on this story of your's Rev you've told it a few times now so how about it can you show us how the banks were forced to hand out risky loans?

    What about the repeal of Glass - Steagall? Are you saying it had nothing to do with it?
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yup. Frank gave birth to the term "sub-prime mortgage" by forcing Freddie and Fannie to lower their standards on mortage purchases. That was in 1992. Prior to then, the two federal underwriters could purchase only the same solid mortgages that the institutional investor would buy. But Frank, ever the "great equalizer' for the poor and downtrodden, wanted Freddie and Fannie to make it easier for that market segment to buy a house. In other words, he wanted to make it easier for them to buy a house they couldn't afford, and upon which they would eventually default -- and of course they did.

    Then he had the audacity to blame the housing crisis on government failure to regulate the mortgage industry, when it was he himself who fostered the regulations that lowered the standard and guaranteed failure.

    This is the mentality of the party in power. Ignorant of business and free enterprise methodologies, and without the fortitude to admit when they were wrong, choosing instead to rewrite history and blame somebody else.

    This is how the ultimate collapse of the ACA, and with it the economy, will be addressed by the program's authors. We have to keep them from telling their story, and insist that the truth be told at that time.
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    How about some evidence to back up your opinions?
     
  13. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128

    Lol. You mean like the WSJ?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104500524998280.html

    Something for future reference part of the story isn't the same as the whole story. ; ) Picking out one part of the story and claiming it's the whole story might make the narrative you are trying to spread look credible on the surface for a minute or two but it ain't exactly honest.

    In case you didn't notice the 2008 economic crisis wasn't just an American crisis. It was and is a global crisis.
     
    #14 poncho, Oct 7, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2013
  15. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    From the WSJ article . . .

    In a November 2009 article, Brookings Institution economists Martin Baily and Douglas Elliott describe the three common narratives about the financial crisis. The first argues that the primary cause was government intervention in the housing market. This intervention, principally through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, inflated a housing bubble that triggered the crisis. This is the view expressed by one of our co-commissioners in a separate dissent. (aka the dude in your article and his opinion)

    The second narrative blames Wall Street and its influence in Washington. According to this narrative, greedy bankers knowingly manipulated the financial system and politicians in Washington to take advantage of homeowners and mortgage investors alike, intentionally jeopardizing the financial system while enjoying huge personal gains. That's the view of the six majority commissioners.

    We subscribe to a third narrative—a messier story that emphasizes both global economic forces and failures in U.S. policy and supervision. Though our explanation of the crisis doesn't fit conveniently into the political order of Washington, we believe that it is far superior to the other two.


    We recognize that the other two narratives have popular appeal: They each blame a clear entity, and thus outline a clear set of reform proposals. Had the government not supported housing subsidies (the first narrative) or had policy makers implemented more restrictive financial regulations (the second) there would have been no calamity.

    Both of these views are incomplete and misleading. The existence of housing bubbles in a number of large countries, each with vastly different systems of housing finance, severely undercuts the thesis that the housing bubble was a phenomenon driven solely by the U.S. government. Likewise, the multitude of financial-firm failures, spanning varied organizational forms and differing regulatory regimes across the U.S. and Europe, makes it implausible that the crisis was the product of a small coterie of Wall Street bankers and their Washington bedfellows.

    We believe the crisis was the product of 10 factors. Only when taken together can they offer a sufficient explanation of what happened:

    Welcome to NWO global economy.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is from Business Insider, another one of my favorite "conspiracy sites".

    Forget About Housing, The The Real Cause Of The Crisis Was OTC Derivatives


    Economic bubbles are not recognized by those inside of them, and the entire Western world has become quietly trapped inside the largest economic bubble in history. The global financial crisis that began in 2008 has been attributed to sub-prime mortgage lending and mortgage backed securities (MBSs), such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which were revealed as toxic assets. While the root cause of the financial crisis is assumed to have been the residential real estate asset price bubble, the underlying systemic risk, and the primary reason for the “too big to fail” doctrine whereby governments were compelled to save financial institutions at any cost, lies in over the counter (OTC) derivatives.

    < snip >

    Officially, roughly $604.6 trillion in OTC derivative contracts, more than ten times world GDP ($57.53 trillion), hang over the financial world like the sword of Damocles, but to the average investor the derivatives bubble is invisible. From the perspective of those outside the bubble, the explosion of OTC derivatives is a mania.

    < snip >

    An attempt by the CFTC to regulate OTC derivatives in 1998 was rejected by Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Robert E. Rubin, then Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence (“Larry”) H. Summers, then Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. At the time, regulation ran counter to the dominant ideology in Washington D.C., which reflected the views and interests of the banking and financial services industry.

    Despite early warnings such as the bankruptcy of Orange County, California, the Proctor & Gamble lawsuit against Bankers Trust and the failure of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets described OTC derivatives in November 1999 as an important innovation that had “transformed the world of finance, increasing the range of financial products available to corporations and investors and fostering more precise ways of understanding, quantifying, and managing risk.” In 2000 Greenspan, Rubin and Summers backed deregulation of OTC derivatives.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bubble-derivatives-otc-2010-5#ixzz2h59BDQWk


    This if from the NYTs (the toilet paper of record)

    The commission that investigated the crisis casts a wide net of blame, faulting two administrations, the Federal Reserve and other regulators for permitting a calamitous concoction: shoddy mortgage lending, the excessive packaging and sale of loans to investors and risky bets on securities backed by the loans.

    < snip >

    The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.

    On the other hand, the report is harsh on regulators. It finds that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion potential losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission.”

    It says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates some banks, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans, blocked states from curbing abuses because they were “caught up in turf wars.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0

    There won't be any blaming deadbeat borrowers and ole Barney when this "mother of all bubbles" pops. And it will. I'm sure that won't stop you and the good Rev from trying though. :smilewinkgrin:


     
    #16 poncho, Oct 7, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2013
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    But Wait There's More!

    This is from another "conspiracy site" called the Washington Post. Not one of my favorites but . . .

    ●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

    ●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

    ●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/..._1_credit-crisis-financial-crisis-wall-street


    This is from another "conspiracy site" called Forbes. You probably never heard of it. But anyways . . .


    It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

    How then could the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg say the following at a business breakfast in mid-town Manhattan on November 1, 2011?

    It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not saying I’m sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t have gotten them without that. But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.”

    Barry Ritholtz in the Washington Post calls the notion that the US Congress was behind the financial crisis of 2008 “the Big Lie”. As we have seen in other contexts, if a lie is big enough, people begin to believe it.

    < snip >

    Looking at these events it is absurd to suggest, as Bloomberg (the Rev and TND) did, that “Congress forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

    So basically your uninformed promotion of the "big lie" turned out be the real "epic fail" here. :smilewinkgrin:

    Just out of curiosity how long did you have to look for the one article that agreed with your erroneous politically driven conclusion?
     
    #17 poncho, Oct 7, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2013
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128

Share This Page

Loading...