10/14/08 - FSME/Denninger Report

Originally posted by mecheng
I don't think they said "sign this bill or there will be martial law". I think it was more like "sign this bill or there will be an economic collapse leading to possible martial law". Subtle difference... but typical fear mongering none the less.

That's not what I hear when I listen to the video.

No offense, but after that little "prediction" that Denninger made last Thursday night, I can't take much that he says seriously.

Having intelligence in the market is valuable and useful. Saying that the world is about to fall apart and leveraging said intelligence on that statement ruined his credibility for me.

reply to post by EvilAxis



The video is an obvious commercial. But the content is not a bunch of bull. Bill Clinton left the country with no debt at all; it was the Bush Administration that has managed to virtually wreck this country by reckless spending and by letting the greed govern over the private financial sector. If Americans could see through all the election promises bullsh-t thrown at them by Bush, things would have gone a different direction.

The world has learned a hard lesson about the USA and will take steps to protect itself. You'll hear about it within a couple of years.



[edit on 10/15/2008 by stander]

Originally posted by stander
Bill Clinton left the country with no debt at all; it was the Bush Administration that has managed to virtually wreck this country by reckless spending and by letting the greed govern over the private financial sector.

No, he left it with about 5 trillion in debt. He left it with no DEFICIT. Big difference, huge.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by stander
Bill Clinton left the country with no debt at all; it was the Bush Administration that has managed to virtually wreck this country by reckless spending and by letting the greed govern over the private financial sector.

No, he left it with about 5 trillion in debt. He left it with no DEFICIT. Big difference, huge.

ap.google.com...

Debt clock draws confused looks, anger or nothing
By MARCUS FRANKLIN

NEW YORK (AP) — A watched clock never moves — unless it's the National Debt Clock.

In fact, the digital counter has been moving so much that it recently ran out of digits to display the ballooning figure: $10,150,603,734,720, or roughly $10.2 trillion, as of Saturday afternoon.

The clock was put up by the late real estate mogul Seymour Durst in 1989 when the U.S. government's debt was a mere $2.7 trillion, and was even turned off during the 1990s when the debt decreased.

If I say debt, I mean what everyone else means: the US government's debt. Bill Clinton served from 1993 to 2001.

Your $5 trillion figure claim needs some citation. Just post the link.

I'd like to show what I believe to be the core problem.
Please correct me if you feel my thinking is off target.
Ok lets simplify this.
I have just created a country and there are only 10 families/entities.
I, as ruler, print 10,000 units of trade paper. Prior to this they conducted business by the barter system.
I lend 1,000 units to each family/entity at 10% interest.
They now do business as before but instead of barter they use this paper money that I printed to pay for their goods and services.
At the end of the year the loans are due to be paid back to me in full.
Well some of these families did well and made good profit, Others did not do so well and can't pay the loan off.
Since the loans were at 10% interest, I SHOULD now have 11,000 units.
But I only printed 10,000. WHERE ARE THE OTHER 1,000 UNITS GOING TO COME FROM? Out of thin air? I don't think so.
This is extremely simplistic but this is exactly what has happened on a world wide level.
You can't keep borrowing units that do not exist. It is now biting everyone in the behind.
Things have to collapse sooner or later with a system like this.
AM I RIGHT or WRONG?

reply to post by Relentless


Relentless, do you have a link to the video where yous say congressman Sherman makes his statements regarding the threat? I really want to know if he did say that so I can show it to some people

reply to post by Muundoggie


Nope, you're pretty much on target. That's exactly what the Federal Reserve does with the dollar. They loan out money, but they do so at interest. Makes no sense, I know, which is why one of the the presidents of the Fed said before he left that if the people knew exactly how the economical system worked, there would be a revolution in the morning.

reply to post by stander


www.cedarcomm.com...

It was indeed 2.7 trillion in 1989ish. Followed by 3 years of bush sr. and a gulf war which brought it up to over 4 trillion by the time that Clinton actually got into office. 2 more years of the Gulf war spending, as you can see.

From there he faced a very hostile republican controlled congress. Over the next 5-6 years he slowly managed to get the deficit down to a mere third of a percent. Practically a balanced budget.

Had he continued his policies for another 4 years, surplus would have been made and debt would have started to go down. He left office with almost 6 trillion in debt.

Your link is, to put it simply, wrong. The debt did no go down.

Another link, from a government source if that last one wasnt enough.
www.treasurydirect.gov...

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

www.treasurydirect.gov...

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

As you can see, the debt never decrease, though it came VERY close.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by stander
Bill Clinton left the country with no debt at all; it was the Bush Administration that has managed to virtually wreck this country by reckless spending and by letting the greed govern over the private financial sector.

No, he left it with about 5 trillion in debt. He left it with no DEFICIT. Big difference, huge.

Actually I can insert the citation by myself:
www.treasurydirect.gov...

When Bill Clinton took the office in 1993, he inherited debt to the tune of $4,411,488,883,139 and when he left in 2001, the debt was $5,807,463,412,200. That means under eight years of Clinton Administration the debt increased by 32%. By the same time, the debt rose by 76% during the Bush Administration. Of course, George Bush had to wage wars to keep the military industry happy. He didn't learn much from Harry Truman, the "frugal warrior."

reply to post by stander


Is that normal for you? To make a claim, and then when proven wrong, just blatently ignore the post? Deny ignorance man.

reply to post by mecheng


No, it was congressional martial law- BIG DIFFERENCE!

Google it, it simply allowed them to bypass some rules. Its designed for wartime emergencies, and it has noting to do with the "tanks in your streets" kind of martial law.

C'mon?
Do you really expect a different theme to the story?
From Our leader's who would kill their citizen's to make a buck.
I saw a beautiful Blue Jay today and I fed him some peanuts.
It's moments like that, that sh*t is what life is really about.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by stander

 

Is that normal for you? To make a claim, and then when proven wrong, just blatently ignore the post? Deny ignorance man.

Did you ignore the article about the debt clock? It says that it was turned of during the 1990's. Why? Because there was no debt, right? Wrong -- there was a debt. But any reader would be under the impression that Clinton managed something special and left the country with no debt at all. But you claimed that Clinton left the office with some $5 trillion debt money. Since claims of the Congress being threatened by martial law have been flying around here, you can't take anything for granted, and that goes for your $5 trillion as well. As it turned out, you were right. But the underlying issue was that Bush has increased the debt to the level that is way out of ordinary.

So, as a reader of the misleading article, I just made a statement. But it turned out that I was wrong. But that doesn't change the situation, as much as one spelling error doesn't alter the meaning of a sentence. But you believe that it does, otherwise you wouldn't get involved. So what's the deal? Why don't you let me know when you settle the martial law claims.

reply to post by stander


I said nothing about bush, or how high he made the debt. The previous page I said that its probably close to true that they said "pass it or martial law".

I wouldn't have said anything if you didn't claim that clinton erased the national DEBT rather than deficit, then continued on to defend your claim. I merely corrected your huge error. I have said nothing about bush, his actions, or the actions of the fed in our little subdebate. That was all you, probably in an attempt to change the topic.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by stander

 

I said nothing about bush, or how high he made the debt. The previous page I said that its probably close to true that they said "pass it or martial law".

I wouldn't have said anything if you didn't claim that clinton erased the national DEBT rather than deficit, then continued on to defend your claim. I merely corrected your huge error. I have said nothing about bush, his actions, or the actions of the fed in our little subdebate. That was all you, probably in an attempt to change the topic.

I missed the post where you pasted the Treasury figures! Otherwise I wouldn't bother to do the same.

Now it transpires that a balanced budget may not decrease the US government debt, as the Clinton years show, and so there is a big difference between these two monetary instruments. They should be interconnected, because the government needs to borrow to run a deficit. But for some reason it works differently. But that's off topic.

So some Dem members of the House didn't care about the consequences of declaring the martial law and voted against the bailout bill in the first session never mentioning the words "we shall not be threatened" in the debate. They surely missed the opportunity to put away Rep prez nominee for next one hundred years to come.

reply to post by Question



It's in the link on the first post (properly imbedded for a quick click), but here's the direct link.

www.youtube.com...://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/608-America-Has-Died-To-Thunderous-Applause.html

Regarding the Stander & Grim debate:

The bottom line is that the amount of the deficit or debt is not the proof of anything. Everyone had a hand in this mess, but it started with this, signed by Clinton.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

This Act esentially repealled protections put into place by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It allowed for banks/financial institutions to do things that were prohibited in 1933 to help prevent another Great Depression.

Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have criticized the Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly". [11]

Has the debt/deficit risen dramatically under Bush? Yes. But what is totally driving it now was allowed by a prior administration, and it was inevitably going to do this once that Bill was passed.

I really thought we had gotten beyond the Dems vs. Reps thingy. Everyone has to realize they all played their part in this mess. Especially because the President is not King folks, Congress has to concur for them to do anything and Congress on both sides of the political arena has ALLOWED everything both of these Presidents have done to us.

Think about this when you listen to the Presidential Candidates plans for us. Then go find the Candidates plans for the people we elected. How many of their great plans for America actually even came to pass? None of the biggies from what I can see.

So take it with a HUGE grain of salt, that any one man or political party caused our current problems. You need to blame them all, from the House to the Senate to the President, and if you really look at it, BOTH Parties had their hands in this. ALL of it.

Short selling is not the same as a "naked short." You don't have to have the money put up front on a naked short -- and if you do enough of them, you can create a self-fulfilling reality.

Listening to Thom Hartmann tonight;
Bear Stearns had as much as 1.1 Million naked shorts in one day -- for a series of days.
If a short sell does not deliver the stock in 6 days it becomes a "Failure to Deliver" and gets flagged. Under 3 it is in limbo. So if you can bury a stock in 5 days, this can be profitable because for almost no money you can destroy a company -- the risk is if you don't bury it and have to cover the shorts. Only the SEC knows all the details of what has gone on.

Large hedge funds seem to be involved in this on a regular basis now.

A small group of managers, some brokers, and some complicit regulators at the SEC. The SEC says they are looking into it but there doesn't seem to be any movement. When SEC investigators leave their jobs, they end up going to work at Hedge funds and their lawyers. Lot's like regulators in other Gub'ment jobs (not to get political).

The Depository Trust and Clearing Organization.
Mark Mitchell at the Mitchell Report -- check him out

>> So this is what I thought when I wondered; "How does a company valued at about $200 a share become worth $2 a share?" Even executives at Bear Sterns might benefit from a collapsing company. It's really share-holders and people in their accounts who get hurt. But when you get bought out -- you get salary and bonus based upon the largess of the new owner.

While the fundamentals of our economy are going South -- what we are possibly seeing here is the biggest bank robbery in history. Sensing that the party is over when a Democrat like Obama takes over, the Gordon Gecko's are taking as much out of the market as they can -- profiting from an inevitable melt-down. Or perhaps, trying to repeat history while making sure they profit from it this time.

Another bit of evidence that the Bail Outs and regulators are all involved in massive fraud

A couple of days before Lehman fell and all hell broke loose on Wall Street, Floyd Norris, the chief business correspondent of The New York Times, published a blog (headline: “Short Sale Conspiracies”) wherein he implied that I was mentally insane for suggesting that Deutsche Bank Securities had been caught selling “massive amounts of phantom stock.”
I promise to take this up with my psychiatrist, but first let me tell you a bit more about the peculiar case that led the New York Stock Exchange to hand Deutsche Bank Securities the largest fine in history for violations of SEC rules designed to prevent the creation of what the chairman of the SEC has called “phantom stock.”

The lions share of our bailout is going to 9 US banks with NO GUARANTEES or leverage to help the economy. The banks are NOT being nationalized in anyway that matters.

The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

>> This is all to buy 3 weeks to keep as many Republicans in office as possible. I'm trying not to be political here -- merely reporting a bank robbery. Some of the culprits happen to want friends to be doing any future investigations.

The banks lending to each other is reducing. With those in the know worried about the regulators being in on the scam. Any investment in a company can be destroyed, because a hedge fund can destroy it. 401k and private investors will go bankrupt as a rampage of consolidation eats up companies. This sort of greed and corruption could well sink this ship.

>> Beyond the mere greed, the country has been eaten up on fiscal policy;
Nothing to protect trade -- that helped China and Japan and even India.
Nothing to put more money in the hands of the people.
More proposals to Lower capital gains -- which means more big companies buying up more small ones, and help with big investors getting out of a particular stock, meaning things will get LESS stable and more consolidated.

This is treading water and give-aways to the rich in order to make it past November. Then after that -- NOTHING to make a market to attract cash flow. The consolidation and huge sums of money will allow the results of an election to matter less.

They don't want things to get better for the public and they want to reward the crooks. How soon until we learn that this didn't work? Remember to act surprised when the media shows shock and dismay. Democrats of course will be blamed.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Just wanted to clear this one up and a few were asking for the vid.. he was very clear what kind of martial law would be happening:

"...and a few members were even told, that there would be martial law IN AMERICA if we voted no." - Rep Brad Sherman D-CA

Pretty clear if you ask me...America, not Congress, not Congressional Martial Law or any other form of it. The threats were very clear.