Saturday, March 5, 2011

joke



 

image001

 

 

In Washington, D.C. an old priest lay dying in the hospital. For
years he had faithfully served the people of the nation's capitol.
He motioned for his nurse to come near. "Yes, Father?" said the
nurse.
"I would really like to see President Obama and Speaker
Pelosi before I die," whispered the priest.
"I'll see what I can do, Father," replied the nurse.
The nurse sent the request to The President and Congress and
waited for a response. Soon the word arrived! President Obama and
Nancy Pelosi would be DELIGHTED to visit the priest.
As they went to the hospital, Obama commented to Pelosi, "I
don't know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly
help our images and might even get me re-elected. After all, I'm IN
IT TO WIN IT."
Pelosi agreed that it was a good thing.
When they arrived at the priest's room, the priest took
Obama's hand in his right hand and Pelosi's hand in his left. There
was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest's face.
Finally President Obama spoke. "Father, of all the people you
could have chosen, WHY did you choose us to be with you as you near
the end?"
The old priest slowly replied, "I have always tried to
pattern my life after our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
"Amen," said Obama.
"Amen," said Pelosi..
The old priest continued, "Jesus died between two lying
thieves; I would be HONORED to do the same!"

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
"To promote the Conservative base within the GOP and RNC"
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Diane Carey

Diane Carey, libertarian "Star Trek" novelist

I just learned from a friend at the "Atlas Shrugged" premiere that her
Randian friend from high school, Diane Carey, had been hired by Gene
Roddenberry to write some of the first Star Trek novels. But she was
too pro-capitalist for him, so he didn't renew her contract when it
expired, even though her books were very popular. After he died and
other people took over Star Trek they hired her back to write more.

http://teapartiers.blogspot.com/2011/03/diane-carey-libertarian-star-trek.html

Follow the discussion
Comments

http://teapartiers.blogspot.com/2011/03/diane-carey-libertarian-star-trek.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Contra the Pinhead ‘Fed’ Bankster Puppet

Friday, March 4, 2011
Senior Fed Economist Calls Ron Paul a Pinhead
by Robert Wenzel at 1:49 PM

David Andolfatto, Vice President in the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, makes one of the most ludicrous arguments against Ron Paul's attack on the Fed that one could make. I mean even for a Fed apologist, it is off the wall.

He attacks this paragraph in Ron Paul's book End the Fed:
One only needs to reflect on the dramatic decline in the value of the dollar that has taken place since the Fed was established in 1913. The goods and services you could buy for $1.00 in 1913 now cost nearly $21.00. Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the purchasing power of the dollar itself. It has fallen to less than $0.05 of its 1913 value. We might say that the government and its banking cartel have together stolen $0.95 of every dollar as they have pursued a relentlessly inflationary policy.
What are the details of the attack?

He starts out this way:
The guy can be a real pinhead at times. And this is never so evident as in his persistent "attacks" against the Fed...Now, of course, I work at the Fed, so maybe you think I'm just complaining for the sake of defending my employer. If you think that, I can understand why you do. It is because you do not know me.
There are legitimate arguments one could make against the Fed as an institution and/or about the conduct of Fed policy. And then there are the stupid arguments, for example, the one contained on pg. 25 of his book End the Fed
So what is at the heart of Andolfatto's defense of the Fed destroying 95% of the value of the dollar and calling Ron Paul's argument stupid?  Here it is:
There is this old idea in monetary theory called money neutrality. Money neutrality means that larger quantities of money ultimately manifest themselves in the form of higher nominal prices (and wages), and not on real quantities. No serious economist disputes the idea of long-run money neutrality.
Yes, what cost $1 in 1913 now costs $20. But so what? Money neutrality states that if you were earning $1 per hour in 1913, you are now earning $20 per hour (and even more, if labor productivity is higher).
That's it, the beginning and end of Andolfatto's Fed defense of destroying 95% of the value of the dollar. It all works out in the end, says Andolfatto. But, please, Mr. Andolfatto explain to me how this works out for someone who has been a careful saver of his money and now sees the purchasing power of that money destroyed? Please explain to me how this works out for a retired person on a fixed income who sees the declining purchasing power of that income? Please explain to me how this works out for the rest of the country when Wall Street bankers are the first to get their hands on newly printed Fed money, so that they can bid up all kinds of prices, including rents on apartments, which makes it difficult for anyone but a Wall Streeter to afford to live in Manhattan?

These damages, Mr. Andolfatto, you somehow don't see and even think Ron Paul is stupid and a pinhead for raising questions about them. I would say you are suffering from what I have seen a lot in those working for the government: delusion. Phil Swagel, who was the chief economic advisor to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, told me that he didn't even know there was any major decline in  money supply growth during the summer of 2008. To not watch money supply growth when you are the Deputy Treasury Secretary for economic affairs is simply bizzare to me.

That you can't see how a destruction of 95% of the value of the dollar might hurt some people, falls right into that category. You guys really suffer from what Brad DeLong has admitted he has suffered from and what he calls, Greenspanism, the absurd belief that whatever the Fed does is right, even if logic suggests the exact opposite.

But, hey, if you think the destruction of a currency is no biggie, here's a job tip for you, call Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. He really thinks the same way you do.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/senior-fed-economist-calls-ron-paul.html

Contra the Pinhead ‘Fed’ Bankster Puppet

Contra the Pinhead 'Fed' Bankster Puppet
Posted by David Kramer on March 4, 2011 11:43 PM

Apropos Robert Wenzel's LRC essay today on the pinhead 'Fed' lackey David Andolfatto, I would like to point out a disingenuous remark that Andalfatto made. He stated:
"Yes, what cost $1 in 1913 now costs $20. But so what? Money neutrality states that if you were earning $1 per hour in 1913, you are now earning $20 per hour (and even more, if labor productivity is higher)."
In 1920, a person making $20,000 was considered making a very nice salary. Today, adjusted for inflation, that person would be making $220,000 a year. In 1920, a person making $220,000 would today be making (again, adjusted for inflation) $2,422,453 a year.

Let's not adjust for inflation. Let's take that same $220,000 a year in 1920 and bring it up to date for 2011. Is there anyone reading this post who thinks that $220,000 today couldn't provide a very comfortable living for a family of four, albeit not quite as extravagant as an $2,422,453 salary a year? (My father was earning $35,000 a year in 1969 -- about forty years ago -- and he was comfortably supporting a family of five. Try doing that today with $35,000.)

Now let's take that same $20,000 dollars a year back in 1920, not adjust for inflation, and bring it up to date for 2011. Is there anyone reading this post who thinks that $20,000 today can provide a very comfortable living for a family of four?

That is how the Banksters have purposely destroyed the middle class over the past century with their destruction of the value of the dollar.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Rhetoric

Guten Morgen from Köln John!

I can think of nothing profound to say, so I prefer to sit idly by, and watch,  at least on this round!
 
All of ya'll are so humble, yet your brilliance is literally blinding! 
 
I only ask that ya'll play nice!!
 
KeithInKöln
 
 
 
 
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:26 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Keith in Koln:  Don't be shy; say something!  — J. A. A. —

On Mar 4, 5:31 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Grin>!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.