Arnie (the governator) is playing the federal government like a fine violin. I think we should bail California out, and then follow the money trail to see what entities are responsible for the deficit, and bring them all to justice. There's no reason why the largest state in the union should be in debt. Another thing too, seal off them borders! So many passengers from the sinking ship of Mexico have jumped onto the U.S. cruise-liner that our vessel has exceeded its weight capacity and is running the peril of joining Mexico in davie jones' locker. Some common sense please.

Obama has already put the task to the nation of "curing cancer within our lifetime" he did this at his not-state of the union address.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ Everyone has opinions on what should be cut and what shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that we can keep the deficit spending going without bad things happening.
If you cut spending then you upset people who supported the areas you cut. If you raise taxes then you run the risk of inhibiting the economy and convincing businesses to relocate to less restrictive countries. If you leave the deficit spending in place then you can eventually destroy the economy and/or currency.
I'm curious as to which direction the government will choose (perhaps one not listed), but I think Schiff is very close to the truth about the dangers of our current policies.


If they're to be believed, it's supposed tremendous increases in efficiency coupled with a rise in spending on underfunded sectors while simultaneous engineering investment in other new areas.

In regards to your other post before, regarding inflation and currency depreciation - my thoughts

To add to that, the potential, inevitable problem with cutting spending in a moment of crisis such as now is creating a downwards depressionary spiral. If that happens to substantially diminish later tax returns because of a litany of companies going bust, then current fiscal prudence would have done little other than confirming the inevitable and worsening the budget deficit still. Fiscal policy, while an anathema to ideologues who oppose any form of intervention has been a consistent and effective means governments have used to prop up economies in moments of downturn.

>> ^cdominus:
So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.


Actually yes. If Ron Paul's constituents want there to be spending cuts, let them be the first to forego feeding at the pork trough.

Either this is a principled stand, or it isn't.

If the idea here is to reduce the deficit, that means continuing to pay taxes, or pay higher taxes, while cutting spending. That's what "living within your means" is supposed to mean, right?

Or perhaps you think that meant cutting spending on other people first, while continuing to get your own taxes cut?

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.
And to think the Libtards are on the fringe!
I wonder if Peter knows about his BFF Ron Paul getting almost $100million dollars in earmarks from the new spending bill:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html
"Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million"

Oh sure, Paul railed against the bill. Called it "socialism" and "fascism" at the CPAC circle-jerk. But, just as I expected, he's all talk and nothing else.


So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.


As always, Schiff promotes spending cuts. He thinks the federal government should stop spending more than it takes in... now, or in the future.

Considering how few people there are promoting responsible spending I suppose it would seem like a "fringe" idea.

>> ^RedSky:
Savings have not vanished, at least not globally.


Schiff knows that, but he didn't clarify it in this video. He often cites the high savings rates in Japan and China.

He attributes the poor economic conditions in "creditor" nations to the fact that the USA has borrowed huge amounts from them and hasn't payed it back. That's probably what he meant about the savings being gone... if they loaned their savings to us then they might not get them back.


As far as the inflationary thing, it could definitely happen. If we keep printing money then we'll force the situation. The more dollars there are, the less each dollar will be worth.

Right now a lot of companies are selling their products at deep discounts in order to stay afloat. This helps strengthen the dollar because foreign buyers are more than willing to take advantage of the discounts. The problem is that it can't last forever... once the current inventories are gone many companies will have to raise prices or simply go out of business.


I guess only time will tell whether we'll see yet another "Peter Schiff was right" compilation on youtube.

> that might have been the most superfluous standing ovation ever

Did you miss EVERY Bush State of the Union? : )

@NetRunner:

Woah there. It's apparent by this post and others on this topic that this is a subject that hits close to home. My reply here was without emotion, and merely an observation based on evidence presented and personal experience.

So let's see:

"Go educate yourself about the current state of the unions, and how competitive they are with non-union autoworkers. You'd clearly be shocked."

If you are referring to the $70/hr versus $40/hr versus $28/hr debacle, frankly, it doesn't really matter. If the average currently productive worker (read: not a retiree or whatever) is earning any more money than the labor market would normally support at a non unionized plant, then they are at a competitive disadvantage. That is bad for everyone.

Besides, if unions are so competitive, why do they need them in the first place? You say I need an education? Help me out then.

"The only thing really dragging down the big three as far as labor costs are past obligations that are not subject to renegotiation for reasonably obvious reasons -- are you going to tell already retired workers that they need to lose their pensions and medical benefits, because times have changed?"

I agree with this. I even noted this in my original comment: "Obviously that's not the only problem going on that got the auto manufacturers..." Of course there are other major problems. My point was, a competitive disadvantage due to high (currently productive) labor costs relative to the competition is a contributing factor.

"But hey, clearly you've got an axe to grind about organized labor. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating."

An axe to grind? Hmm. No, I just happen to believe that if I am able and willing to do work for myself, I shouldn't be forced to pay someone else to do it. Unions also make rapid adjustment to market conditions difficult via stonewalling things like salary changes even when they are necessary.

"If you think they shouldn't deserve to exist anymore, aim your criticism with the people who ran the company, and made the decisions that led them to where they are, not the labor unions who did exactly what they were supposed to do."

Which leads to my next point: the fostering of the "them versus us" mentality. That is, management versus labor. There was a really interesting special on the airline industry a while back where this was discussed. You have mechanic unions, pilot unions, flight attendant unions, and the big, bad management who are trying to keep the company afloat. These attitudes don't help anyone out. Organized labor forgets one very important thing: management needs to be able to do their job too, and what's bad for the company is bad for everyone within the company - though the reverse is obviously not always true.

Now, does management bear responsibility for the state of the company? For sure. I never disputed that. Has management been able to do everything they felt they needed to without being blocked by a union under threat of a strike? That's a question worth investigating.

"As for the political motivations of the Republican party, there's hard evidence to support the proposition that this "blame the unions" thing is motivated primarily by politics."

Yup, I saw that (even commented on that video). Personally I was more interested in the text of the note rather than some media's interpretation of it. The first paragraph essentially accuses the Democrats of doing this as a way of paying off the union for their support in the election. The second paragraph I think needs to be repeated:

"This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling."

I can't help but wholeheartedly agree there. Making snap decisions about spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money without having time to understand the ramifications is bad. That is just the common sense view. Fortunately for me, there are also several people who predicted the current economic climate and are far more educated in economics than I am that would also agree. I believe one of the more prominent ones has been floating around on the Sift lately.

In fact, I think the view that bailouts in general are bad has some merit. The money must come from somewhere, and it's not like the government has hundreds of billions of dollars sitting around waiting to bail out failing companies. So, it's either coming from cuts in existing programs, borrowing, or printing more money. If I had to take a wild, uneducated guess as to where it's coming from, I'd say the latter two are the likely suspects, and those aren't good for anyone right now, union or no union.

^ Go educate yourself about the current state of the unions, and how competitive they are with non-union autoworkers. You'd clearly be shocked.

The only thing really dragging down the big three as far as labor costs are past obligations that are not subject to renegotiation for reasonably obvious reasons -- are you going to tell already retired workers that they need to lose their pensions and medical benefits, because times have changed?

But that's not the main source of their trouble, and certainly not the primary reason they're about to go bankrupt. Take your pick of many factors, including poor decisions in product mix, the subsidies that southern states have given to their competitors, CEO pay being about 10 times what their competitors have, and the little problem where people are having trouble getting loans because of the credit market that's putting a dent in all auto manufacturers, even the supposedly unflappable Japanese ones.

But hey, clearly you've got an axe to grind about organized labor. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating.

If you think they shouldn't deserve to exist anymore, aim your criticism with the people who ran the company, and made the decisions that led them to where they are, not the labor unions who did exactly what they were supposed to do.

As for the political motivations of the Republican party, there's hard evidence to support the proposition that this "blame the unions" thing is motivated primarily by politics.

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The pledge of allegiance to the flag says "...to the republic for which it stands" Someone asked Ben Franklin what form of government we were. He said "a republic, if you can keep it."

The fact of the matter is, academia introduced a plethora of new terms and redefined old ones to the point that people are completely confused what they really mean. There is no such thing as a constitutional democracy, it's a god-damned oxymoron. The proper term is "republic" for a nation that has plurality votes, but institutes a constitution to prevent majority consensus from infringing on rights. Democracy is unrestricted plurality votes. Political science profs have completely fucked this one up.

Adding to the confusion is that our two major parties are called "Democratic" and "Republican." They're just names of parties with different social platforms, people, they don't correspond to the lower case terms.

>> ^theaceofclubz:
Uncensored version here - http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion08/uncensored_video.asp?ap=1
hahaha it won't let you fast forward

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
She leads an entire state, and the extremist Hussein boy has never led anything. Yet she's the one not ready to lead. Amazing liberal lies and ignorance.


She leads the largest state in the union that has less people then rhode island.

It was definitely a "check your brain at the door" type of film, but I actually enjoyed it. I think the problem is that many people are critiquing it like it's a sci-fi film, which it really is not. It's just a thriller / action movie that happens to have a dumb sci-fi concept as its MacGuffin. I think the key to enjoying this movie is not to overthink it (or really, to think about it at all) -- just sit back and enjoy the ride. Don't get me wrong, it's far from a great film, but it's entertaining in its own way.

Also, I thought the State of the Union sequence was one of the better parts in the movie, but then I'm a pretty big Hitchcock fan and that scene was overtly Hitcockian (ie. very close to being outright theft).

Wow, you could be a sweet news anchor for CBS or some other dying network. Bring those FACTS with an almost-inconspiuous left-wing bias. Let's fae it son, Hussein boy can have Michigan, McCain don't need it. We've got the best state in the Union, it's called "DieBold" hahahahahahahaha