December 2007
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Edward Ketz: President Bush’s plan may make good politics, but it is terrible economics

Penn State’s own Edward Ketz brought up a very valid argument yeserday about this plan of President Bush’s which I call deadbeat amnesty.  As you know it freezes the ARM rate for 5 years, and rewards deadbeat buyers and stupid people who bought houses they knew they could not afford (i.e. Sperm Walentis from The Reading Eagle).

It seems from Illegal Aliens to the free market the government continues to reward the people that continue to damage our economy.  You would think after the savings and loan bail out that we would have learned a thing or two.  Also that magic number of 5 years brings up another issue.  Does anybody want to guess?  I promise you that you won’t read about it anywhere else, but 5 years down the road leads to 2012 which happens to be a presidential election year.  Is Bush trying to destroy the conservative branch of the Republican Party, or is he think that nobody can stop Hillary Clinton and this is a way of ensuring her being only a 1 term president?

Bottom line is that we have to face the facts and point blame where it really belongs and that’s The Federal Reserve.  Each time they blow up a bubble from Tech to Housing it just continues to get worse each time that bubble pops, and in the process destroying the value of the dollar.  It just makes you think that JFK was so dead on when he began the process of printing treasury notes for the purpose of avoiding what we are facing now.  Ron Paul has the same idea as well.  Congress is simply just outsourcing its responsibility to a private company that continues to over produce money.  This is a good time to bring up the debate of why we would be better off without The Federal Reserve.

Let the debate and the kook name calling begin :)

8 Responses to “Edward Ketz: President Bush’s plan may make good politics, but it is terrible economics”

  1. history buff says:

    The Founders were mixed on their opinions about central banks and a national currency.

    Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans (Anti-Federalists) were dead set against Central Banks, a banking system controlled by the government as it is too powerful to be allowed under any persons’ control, even persons elected by the People. The Federal Reserve is even worse (in Jefferson’s opinion) as this puts the power into private hands. The power is control over the Economony, literally. Jefferson and his followers also limited corporations to public service ventures, NEVER for the purpose of being a profit engine.

    “Central banks are more oppressive than standing armies.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, favored the British model economy, complete with a national currency and corporations without restrictions.

    As Jefferson so wisely opined, our Republic will eventually fall… the only argument is whether it already has or not.

  2. Matt Heckman says:

    I think the most interesting point about The Federal Reserve was how it was sold to The American People during World War I. Reading about that point in history it was sold to them under the notion that without the federal reserve we would never have won World War I. Then World War II comes along and FDR takes the country off of the gold standard which at that point gave the federal reserve the ability to print more money since it would no longer be attached to a valuable substance be it gold or silver. Gold ownership was illegal until FDR’s executive order was repealed by Gerald Ford 40 years later.

    It seem from World War I to our current conflicts in Iraq continue to be scapegoats for the federal reserve to overprint our currency and in the process weakening it’s value to the point where our enemies could buy us out. Stefan Kosikowsi had an interesting theory about JFK being killed over the federal reserve, and the printing of treasury notes, however Vietnam was also another element to this. JFK not only planned on getting out of a conflict that it’s intent was to bail out a French territory that had endless potential for the federal reserve to print vast amounts of currency to fuel the war effort, but then JFK tried to weaken the federal reserve on the other side with treasury notes.

    It was not just Vietnam but our troops in Germany that have been there for decades, as well as everywhere else in the world. The elements that keep the federal reserve alive and well to continue to overproduce our currency.

    JFK tried to put a steak in the heart of the federal reserve but it looks like they got to him first. Kennedy had the right idea, but just did not implement it fast enough.

  3. history buff says:

    1913 is arguably the point where our Republic was lost.

    Remember, the Corporate Elite not only “sold the People” on a Central Bank under private control with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, they also sold us on the Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) which was ratified in 1913 too.

    You are quite perceptive to link the “war effort” and run away inflation, every war has had similar results throughout history. Governments inflate the currency to reduce the long term debt in “real” dollars. So if you are in $1 trillion worth of debt and the currency is inflated 100%, you only owe $500 billion in real dollars. This KILLS retirement savings though, which contributes to senior citizens having problems paying property taxes.

    Since Sept. 11th, 2001 one dollar on that day is only worth 65 cents today… these are the government’s numbers, which I believe are overly conservative. I see real prices everyday at the grocery store!

    Also, don’t buy the bullshit that Social Security is part of the problem, since the only reason there are any insolvency issues with Social Security is because real wages (adjusted for inflation) have been declining since 1973, which causes a decline in the tax revenue and now we have the out-sourcing of our manufacturing base and the mass invasion of illegal workers from Mexico and other shit holes south of the border.

  4. Andy says:

    Speaking about the President and “looking good” …NOT !!!

    Libby not among convicts granted pardons by Bush
    ~ Associated Press

    Washington - President Bush granted pardons Tuesday to carjackers, drug dealers, a moonshiner and a violator of election laws, but not to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, his vice-president’s former top aide who was convicted in the case of the leaked identity of a CIA operative.

    So what ever happened to those “VALUES” Republicans talk about?

    Pardoning car jackers (more than one!) and drug dealers (also more than one!) but not some guy who you commuted his sentence because the crime was so insignificant, it should not even be a crime according to the Right?

    SHAME

  5. Anonymous says:

    “Pardoning car jackers (more than one!) and drug dealers (also more than one!)”

    Do you have any idea “why” he pardoned these people? I would love to hear his reasons…

  6. ~ identity supressed ~ says:

    President Bush pardoned 13 drug dealers yesterday… shame indeed.

    Now I truly am starting to miss that fucking Clinton guy, but not enough to vote for Hillary.

  7. Joe Six Pack says:

    Ron Paul sounds so good listening to him, did you catch the Republican Party debate for President yesterday?

    Why was Alan Keys allowed to participate?

    Is he even a legal candidate on the ballot of any state?

  8. Andy says:

    “Do you have any idea ‘why’ he pardoned these people? I would love to hear his reasons…”

    Hey, so would I, but the Constitution doesn’t compell him to, so I expect he will follow in the foot steps of all preceeding presidents and not explain himself.

    The question is, was pardoning Mark Rich (Clinton) or 13 drug dealers (Bush) worse?

Leave a Reply