Author Topic: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party  (Read 20475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« on: November 03, 2010, 08:33:59 am »
Real thought leader / think tank of the Tea Party



Fake thought leader / think tank of the Tea Party


----------------
Real manifesto of the Tea Party


Fake manifesto of the Tea Party


----------------
Real political leader of the Tea Party


Fake political leader of the Tea Party


----------------
Real media evangelist of the Tea Party


Fake media evangelist of the Tea Party

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2010, 11:05:46 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taKgvrSWvHQ

Lets begin the fightback and expose the co-opt

Lets teach neo-cons brought into the movement by Fox to control it, who the real standard bearers are and stop them getting conned again.

Offline decepticon

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,489
  • Bury the past, rob us blind, leave nothing behind.
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2010, 11:08:56 pm »
thanks that is refreshing
Ron Paul 2012...because Liberty is too big to fail.
Beat Bailout Barry!!!!!!!!

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2010, 11:10:46 pm »
South Carolina Senator Jim Demint

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2010, 11:36:50 pm »
Kurt Nimmo, extract

Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who famously quipped “we need to pass the bill so we can see what is in it,” is no longer speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. On Tuesday, American voters swept out the Democrat majority and replaced it with a fresh crop of Republicans. Ohio Republican John Boehner will now become the third most powerful person in the government.

Following the historic Tuesday vote, Boehner told Tea Party activists in his south-western Ohio district: “I’ll never let you down.” It will now be up to Boehner and the Republicans to make good on that promise.

In the wake of mixed results for Tea Party associated candidates — former state legislator Sharron Angle lost against Harry Reid in Nevada and Democrat Christopher Coons beat Republican Christine O’Donnell in Delaware — the establishment media warned the movement will now have to break bread with mainline Republicans and their entrenched interests.

“Starting today, the Tea Party movement must find a way to work with the Republican Party establishment, which at first battled against the uprising and eventually embraced it after the upstart candidates began defeating GOP favorites in the primaries. Now a new battle could take place in Congress, where the Tea Party-backed members will caucus with entrenched GOP leaders,” reports the Boston Globe.

Will the trademark Tea Party now merge with the establishment Republican corporate interest Borg hive and will it be business as usual in the district of criminals?
Adam Brandon, communications director for FreedomWorks, told Slate it may be so. Brandon used establishment terminology to describe the partial victory on Tuesday. The election confirms once and for all that America is “a center-right country,” he said. Now the Tea Party enters a new phase. “The Tea Party is done with street protests,” he added. “We’re done, that’s it. Now we’ve got Congress.”
Or does Congress have the Tea Party?

In all fairness, it should be noted that FreedomWorks cannot claim to represent the Tea Party movement out in the hinterlands. Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks is funded in part by the notorious neocon foundation run by CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife and backed by no shortage of establishment Republicans, including Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett. The original Libertarian Tea Party movement was hijacked by establishment Republicans.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/can-establishment-republicans-tame-the-tea-party-fire.html

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2010, 11:39:01 pm »
By the way, funny to sees Mancow join the Libertarian movement.
He can see which way the wind is blowing

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2010, 04:55:58 pm »
Tea Party Purge -- A Cause Without a Rebel
Published 12/26/09

The Tea Party movement has reconnected the cooperation between conservatives and libertarians that harks back to their mutual opposition to FDR’s big government days. But a host of these newly forged alliances have failed to take hold. There is an undercurrent of ill-fitting philosophies and anti-intellectual clashes that suggest freedom is not always brewing in many Tea Parties. One example of a Tea Party divorcing its libertarian brethren recently occurred in Monterey California.

I helped create a nine-member board for the Monterey County Tea Party after an April 15 demonstration that attracted 600 sign-carrying protestors. The match seemed perfect. We all agreed on a mission statement that supported smaller government, lower taxes, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The libertarians wanted to include a non-interventionist plank, but, under pressure, were willing to forgo it for the sake of a peaceful alliance.

But after a successful 4^th of July Tea Party parade and Freedom Rally in Monterey, the cracks in the alliance split wide open. I was accused of belonging to too many leftist organizations. In fact, I am co-chair of the local Libertarians for Peace, which joined the 27-member Monterey County Peace Coalition to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Libertarians for Peace is neither Left nor Right.

Looking back, the fur first hit the fan when Monterey CodePink asked to be one of the co-sponsors of the Tea Party Freedom Rally. I loved the idea of bringing together the anti-war and anti-tax crowds. But this possible alliance alarmed the conservatives. The Left and Right dehumanize each other daily on talk radio and cable news; so I should not have been surprised by their fierce determination to share no common ground with any leftist organization. To calm their fears I tried to put the issue in perspective. Nationwide, CodePink follows a socialist agenda; no argument there. But the Monterey branch of CodePink has worked with libertarians on both anti-war and anti-tax issues for years. In fact, the local Monterey CodePink leader was one of the most active signature-gathers in an attempt to abolish the utility tax in Seaside.

Next, I was accused of being too involved with the Libertarian Party, as if the Libertarians were somehow responsible for the financial meltdown, bailouts and stimulus packages. To their credit, the conservative flock wanted no association with Republicans or Democrats either, saying that both political parties had caused our current problems. But somehow they were upset with the Tea Party Board members who held leadership roles in the Libertarian Party. It did not seem to matter to them that libertarians were heavily involved in starting the Tea Party movement back in 2008, nor that the original 1773 tea partiers at Boston Harbor were classical liberals (libertarians), not Tories or conservatives.

Obviously, the Tea Party conservatives were neophytes; never before had they been involved in political activism. Some had never heard of Congressman Ron Paul. Prof. David R. Henderson, one of the libertarian Tea Party Board members, described this curious phenomenon as "activism without ideals." I thought my phrase captured it best: "a cause without a rebel." In fact, as demands to purge the libertarians intensified, we got the distinct feeling that the purgers fit the category of "reactionary" since they seemed to know only what they were against, not what they were for. Amazingly, they never pointed out any philosophical differences that they found objectionable. It was as if they were devoid of ideas, marooned with empty rhetoric and no real solutions.

One of my major crimes was passing out several copies of my book — /Facets of Liberty/. This occurred at a Tea Party event billed as a "mixer." A few days later I was told that I should have neither passed out educational material nor mixed with the crowd. The libertarians soon labeled this misnamed event the non-mixer mixer.

In retrospect, it did not help our case when we asked these rookies embarrassing questions. We asked them why they had done nothing when President Bush bailed out the banks and auto companies, spent money like a drunken sailor, bashed civil liberties and advanced socialized medicine with Medicare Prescription Drug law, a program that some in Congress estimated will have a price tag of $1.2 trillion by 2016. I suppose our questioning merely rubbed their noises too deeply in their ignorance.

Whatever the reasons, the Monterey County Tea Party purged the libertarians by dissolving the entire organization. That failed to stop us. The libertarians quickly formed the Liberty Tea Party and, in an effort to set up a large tent, invited everyone to join a more enlightened Tea Party.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=477

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2010, 07:10:35 pm »
The Tea Party - Who Started it, and hijacked it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEyJpGpiikM
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2010, 08:56:15 am »
Lindsey Graham: Tea Party will "Die Out"

In the past year, many Republican lawmakers have sought the support of the conservative Tea Party movement. But Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bucking his party once again, is predicting the movement will "die out."

"The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out," Graham said in an interview with the New York Times magazine. "We don't have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009482-503544.html

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2010, 09:38:38 am »
"• 52% of Tea Party supporters believe the amount they pay in taxes is fair.
• The majority of the Tea Party believes that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers.
• The majority support the amount of money spent by the federal government on defense." (CBS News)

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20675.aspx

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2010, 09:53:57 am »
To those wishing to reclaim the Tea Party from the pro-war/pro-police state/pro-debt money Republican Party, if it's your intention to suggest or imply that only those who accept Austrian School dogma as divine gospel on each and every issue -- particularly the issues of tax reform and monetary reform -- are welcome in the "real" Tea Party, then wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to call it the Austrian School party?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2010, 09:58:39 am »
Lindsey Graham: Tea Party will "Die Out"

In the past year, many Republican lawmakers have sought the support of the conservative Tea Party movement. But Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bucking his party once again, is predicting the movement will "die out."

"The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out," Graham said in an interview with the New York Times magazine. "We don't have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009482-503544.html


I would say what is more likely is that Lindsey Graham will lose his Senate seat once more people get informed about how he has deceived them!

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2010, 10:21:10 am »
To those wishing to reclaim the Tea Party from the pro-war/pro-police state/pro-debt money Republican Party, if it's your intention to suggest or imply that only those who accept Austrian School dogma as divine gospel on each and every issue -- particularly the issues of tax reform and monetary reform -- are welcome in the "real" Tea Party, then wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to call it the Austrian School party?

i dont
but its supposed to be about reducing the size of federal government.
Why are +50% happy with defence spending.
it shows there is shallowness.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2010, 10:45:52 am »
i dont
but its supposed to be about reducing the size of federal government.
Why are +50% happy with defence spending.
it shows there is shallowness.

Agreed. I just want everyone to realize that slogans about reducing government are standard Republican Party rhetoric. Thus, the more vague we are as to what must be done, the more easily the movement will be hijacked all over again by establishment operatives like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

So instead of merely calling for the reduction of government, we should be specific as to what we most want to either abolish outright or structurally reform.

For instance, even the Republican Party recently called for a "freeze" on government spending. Yet I guarantee you that, when it comes time to choose between exempting from this freeze either (a) the nearly trillion dollars being wasted each year on our imperialist, terroristic, hornets' nest-stirring foreign policy, or (b) the comparative chump change being spent on food stamps, they'll exempt the former, not the latter.

Yet they'll still be able to get on TV and proudly proclaim: "See, Tea Partiers? We kept our promise. We reduced government spending."  ::)

And I'm sad to say that certain Prison Planet Forum members will actually thank them for imposing IMF-style austerity measures in the name of "liberty."

You won't win very many hearts and minds with that approach.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2010, 12:51:30 pm »
The economy is the hardest thing to deal with because it is a giant ponzi scheme.

Collapsing Madoff's ponzi scheme means lots of people realise their investments are worthless, so some argue we should just keep the scheme going so people dont have to face reality.
If the financial system wasnt saved with trillions in public sector money there would have been more economic chaos, if we believe their claims, so should we bail them out or not.
In reality there is nothing anyone can do except reduce living standards in the short to medium term. Because (1) debt needs to repaid and (2) currency differentials need to rebalance.
Nobody in the Tea Party can fix the mess the western world is in and its not fair to blame them for the mess the establishment has created and the pain it might cause.

You guys have already decided in advance who you are going to blame, Its puts us in a position where we cant fix the fundamentals without being blamed for the chaos that it will cause.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2010, 02:57:54 pm »
The economy is the hardest thing to deal with because it is a giant ponzi scheme.

Collapsing Madoff's ponzi scheme means lots of people realise their investments are worthless, so some argue we should just keep the scheme going so people dont have to face reality.

And then there are others who err in the opposite direction by insisting we should just let everything collapse, which means letting the very bankers who created this ponzi scheme foreclose on everyone.

I, of course, reject the ridiculously false Austrian School-vs.-Keynesian School paradigm that fools people into blindly assuming that these are the only two options, because they aren't.

Quote
In reality there is nothing anyone can do except reduce living standards in the short to medium term.

Bullsh*t! If the monetary reform called for here was implemented, the only people who would have to experience a reduction in living standards are the criminal bankers who created this mess in the first place.

It's interesting that, despite being supposed "opposites," Austrians and Keynesians alike seem equally determined to keep the masses ignorant of this fact, lest the masses realize just how intellectually bankrupt both ideologies are.  

Quote
debt needs to repaid

Yet another ruling-class myth that Austrians parrot just as devotedly as Keynesians do, hoping all the while no one bothers to question the assumptions on which it's based.

For one thing, the quadrillion-dolllar derivatives debt (a) can't be paid, because it dwarfs not only the most liberal estimate of the U.S. money supply, but the annual productive output of the entire planet, and (b) shouldn't be paid, because it's nothing more than the accumulated gambling debt of Wall Street scam artists.

Instead, the mega-banks who created the derivatives bubble to begin with should be put through Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and all of their derivatives contracts legally voided during the reorganization proceedings.

As for the non-derivatives debt bubble to which fractional reserve banking has given rise, Robert De Fremery explains in the following excerpt why the devastating "collpase" that Austrian Schoolers are sooo eager to impose -- by act of omission, and in the name of "liberty" -- on the rest of us is NOT a necessary means of removing excess debt from our economy:

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

"There are those who believe that once bank credit has been allowed to expand, nothing can be done to prevent a collapse (that is, nothing economically sound and consistent with a free economic system). The Austrian school -- best represented by the writings of Ludwig von Mises -- takes this stand as evidenced in the following statement: 'There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.' (Human Action, p. 570).

"Dr. von Mises believes that the expansion of bank credit causes malinvestment and squandering of scarce factors of production that will inevitably lead to a crash and ensuing depression. But a more plausible theory is that all economic activity is continually reaching a new equilibrium between the total circulating medium of exchange and the goods and services being offered for it. In other words, an expansion of bank credit leads to a collapse not because of mis-directions in production but rather because of the operation of Gresham's Law. The use of bank credit as a medium of exchange gives us what Bishop Berkeley called a 'double money.' Even though bank credit is supposedly convertible into money on demand, nevertheless it is not as good as money. It is a short sale of money. And as the volume of these shortsales increases it is inevitable that Gresham's Law will eventually operate, i.e., the undervalued money (gold or legal tender 'fiat' money) will be exported or hoarded -- thus causing a collapse of bank credit.

"According to this theory, it is possible to avoid a collapse following a period of credit expansion simply by converting the existing volume of bank credit into actual money having an existence independent of debt, and at the same time take away the banking system's privilege of creating any more credit, i.e., force banks to confine their lending operations to the lending of existing funds."

-- Robert De Fremery, Rights vs. Privileges, pp. 49-50

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

Quote
currency differentials need to rebalance.

For crying out loud, you don't need a genocidal economic meltdown in order to have a mere "rebalancing" of "currency differentials." That's no less absurd than saying the only way to roast the pig is to burn down the house. The only two groups I know of who blindly insist otherwise are (a) establishment shills who see such a meltdown as a convenient way of advancing the eugenics-obsessed global elite's depopulation agenda, and (b) brainwashed Austrian School types. This is why I regard the latter as, at best, "useful dupes" of the former.

But because they've wrapped themselves in the flag of "liberty," countless well-meaning patriots have been fooled into cutting their own throats economically.

It's time for these patriots to stop parroting Austrian School dogma and start questioning it for a change.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2010, 03:15:44 pm »
if goods cant be bought cheap from China, instead they are manufactured in America on American wages, their prices will increase and consequently living standards will decrease.
How do you propose to stop that happening?

If US consumers have racked up personal debt and the US government has paid for things with debt, cancelling the debt wont be consequence free. Surely it will be the equivalent of declaring bankruptcy.
Whats your proposal?

Putting the mega banks through bankruptcy is refusing to pay their debts. You either believe in keeping the economy stable by making trillion dollar payments or you believe in Austrian style let them fail philosophy. Are you saying if we lets those giant ponzi schemes crash their will be no economic consequences?

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2010, 03:40:20 pm »
if goods cant be bought cheap from China, instead they are manufactured in America on American wages, their prices will increase and consequently living standards will decrease. How do you propose to stop that happening?

By withdrawing from both NAFTA and the WTO, and by removing all of the restrictions on domestic production (including taxes on wages and capital goods) that made us so vulnerable to low-quality slave goods from China in the first place. It is these compulsory restrictions that we need "protection" from, not the non-compulsory purchases made at Wal-Mart. To understand why, please see:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=190382.0

Quote
If US consumers have racked up personal debt and the US government has paid for things with debt, cancelling the debt wont be consequence free. Surely it will be the equivalent of declaring bankruptcy. Whats your proposal?

Please read carefully the following two threads, then you'll know exactly what my proposal is:

       http://globalgulag.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,379.0.html
       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160459.0

Quote
Putting the mega banks through bankruptcy is refusing to pay their debts.

Correction: it's refusing to pay their gambling debts. Why anyone would object to such a refusal is beyond me.

Quote
You either believe in keeping the economy stable by making trillion dollar payments or you believe in Austrian style let them fail philosophy.

Only if you've allowed your mind to be enslaved within the confines of the false Austrian School-vs.-Keynesian School paradigm, which an alarming number of well-meaning people (including you, apparently) have done. If you're going to blindly insist on defining the entire universe through the artificial and self-defeating limits of that paradigm, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2010, 04:01:29 pm »
Don't waste your time Geo, these Austrian school types (planning4acrash comes to mind in the Austrian theory thread) will be happy to blame you for being a victim of economic terrorism. Like Henry George, poverty is a crime...

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2010, 04:26:50 pm »
By withdrawing from both NAFTA and the WTO, and by removing all of the restrictions on domestic production (including taxes on wages and capital goods) that made us so vulnerable to low-quality slave goods from China in the first place. It is these compulsory restrictions that we need "protection" from, not the non-compulsory purchases made at Wal-Mart. To understand why, please see:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=190382.0

This thread just links to a book by Henry George. Please explain precisely what you propose or where you disagree with the tea party. Your support Tariffs, as do I, where we disagree with many Austrians. Other than that? removing NAFTA and WTO you wont find disagreement, so whats your point? If you impose Tariffs, goods become more expensive - decreasing living standards, if i am inferring right, to compensate you want to reduce taxes so people have more money and Austrians disagree with this how?

Please read carefully the following two threads, then you'll know exactly what my proposal is:

       http://globalgulag.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,379.0.html
       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160459.0


I understand you favour cancelling the debts rather than paying them off. Those threads dont help me understand what your proposal are. What about consumer debt and government debt, should it be cancelled or paid off? There will be economics consequences to cancelling the debt, im not sure what all of them will be or how bad theyll be, are you? It will probably damage the dollar, damage Americas credit rating and trustworthiness, mean that credit is very limited in the future. If you disagree please explain why.

Correction: it's refusing to pay their gambling debts. Why anyone would object to such a refusal is beyond me.

Only if you've allowed your mind to be enslaved within the confines of the false Austrian School-vs.-Keynesian School paradigm, which an alarming number of well-meaning people (including you, apparently) have done. If you're going to blindly insist on defining the entire universe through the artificial and self-defeating limits of that paradigm, then we'll simly have to agree to disagree.


Congress approved the bailout, they were told that these institutions would collapse and fail and then there would be martial law if they didnt, that is why they disagree.
And Austrians want to bail out these banks i suppose? Obviously they dont and neither do I.
Please explain to me how your approach is different form the Austrians. Why placing these established mega banks in chapter 11 wont cause economic problems or a decrease in living standards that whatever the Austrians are going to do will. i really cant see the difference.

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2010, 05:44:41 pm »
I understand you favour cancelling the debts rather than paying them off. Those threads dont help me understand what your proposal are. What about consumer debt and government debt, should it be cancelled or paid off? There will be economics consequences to cancelling the debt, im not sure what all of them will be or how bad theyll be, are you? It will probably damage the dollar, damage Americas credit rating and trustworthiness, mean that credit is very limited in the future. If you disagree please explain why.

No, he advocates replacing the current volume of debt-based money with debt-free Greenbacks, and voiding derivatives.

Congress approved the bailout, they were told that these institutions would collapse and fail and then there would be martial law if they didnt, that is why they disagree.
And Austrians want to bail out these banks i suppose? Obviously they dont and neither do I.
Please explain to me how your approach is different form the Austrians. Why placing these established mega banks in chapter 11 wont cause economic problems or a decrease in living standards that whatever the Austrians are going to do will. i really cant see the difference.

Those mega banks are based almost entirely on derivatives, other speculative trading and continue to extract wealth via interest payments on debt-based currency. So tell me how this benefits the general welfare of the people?

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2010, 06:16:52 pm »
Those mega banks are based almost entirely on derivatives, other speculative trading and continue to extract wealth via interest payments on debt-based currency. So tell me how this benefits the general welfare of the people?

Ive no idea

We need to look at how the mortgage system works as well. The banks are so willing to lend money it cant be a fair system. I would favour removing mortgages all together, certainly self-certified mortgages/liar loans. House prices would come back to their real level.

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2010, 06:25:38 pm »
Ive no idea

We need to look at how the mortgage system works as well. The banks are so willing to lend money it cant be a fair system. I would favour removing mortgages all together, certainly self-certified mortgages/liar loans. House prices would come back to their real level.

Same as any other interest-bearing, debt-backed currency issuance, it shouldn't be permitted. Land usage restrictions and improper taxation focuses are part of the reason for inflated values though, and that's a seperate issue which has been discussed elsewhere.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2010, 06:34:05 pm »
what do you mean 'land usage restictions', zoning?

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2010, 06:39:48 pm »
what do you mean 'land usage restictions', zoning?

Using the UK as a specific example...

You can't build so much as another room on the end of your land without some busybody in government prosecuting you for it. Land with planning permission spikes in price hugely. A typical grass-filled acre in Surrey costs £10k. Stick planning permission rights on the deed and that can multiply to perhaps as high as a million or more.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2010, 06:44:24 pm »
This thread just links to a book by Henry George. Please explain precisely what you propose or where you disagree with the tea party.

On the contrary, since I've already explained in the threads I linked to earlier what my proposals are, and since you seem eager to become a spokesman for the "real" Tea Party, instead of asking me to spend hours of time I don't have spoon feeding you everything, actually take the time to read (rather than lazily skim) those threads, then explain precisely where the "real" Tea Party disagrees with me.

Quote
Your support Tariffs, as do I

Actually, no I don't. As recently as a few months ago, I thought that tariffs -- although generally a bad idea -- were perhaps a necessary evil when it came to imported slave goods. But after re-reading Henry George's Protection or Free Trade more carefully, I realized that tariffs are never justified.

Quote
removing NAFTA and WTO you wont find disagreement, so whats your point?

You asked me what I would do about slave goods from China, and I simply answered your question. Was my answer really that difficult to understand?

Quote
I understand you favour cancelling the debts rather than paying them off.

It's fraudulent debts I advocate cancelling. If you purchase a used car with your credit card, I don't advocate cancelling that debt. But the derivatives debt and the national debt are another story.

Quote
Those threads dont help me understand what your proposal are.

I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make it than I've already made it in those threads, so rather than needlessly repeating myself, only to have you claim you still don't understand, I'll simply let my proposals remain an unsolvable mystery to you.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2010, 07:24:12 pm »
On the contrary, since I've already explained in the threads I linked to earlier what my proposals are, and since you seem eager to become a spokesman for the "real" Tea Party, instead of asking me to spend hours of time I don't have spoon feeding you everything, actually take the time to read (rather than lazily skim) those threads, then explain precisely where the "real" Tea Party disagrees with me.


Im not asking you to spend hours
You are the one asking me to spend an hours reading the whole Henry George book and the other threads

The fact remains that when everyone is buying things on credit, if that credit is removed, their standards of living will decrease.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2010, 07:25:54 pm »
And i dont see why i need to read your threads to be a spokesman for the real tea party, assuming thats what i am.
This thread is to point out it is being hijacked, not to make me the leader of it

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2010, 07:32:38 pm »
Im not asking you to spend hours
You are the one asking me to spend an hours reading the whole Henry George book and the other threads

The fact remains that when everyone is buying things on credit, if that credit is removed, their standards of living will decrease.

If you want to ignore solutions go ahead, but the Tea Party will remain hijacked and ineffective without them. Also, since you started this thread here, I think it's reasonable to challenge you on the subject...

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2010, 07:34:53 pm »
So what, you guys are attacking the tea party too? Nice

You infighters can get stuffed.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2010, 11:56:37 am »
Im not asking you to spend hours
You are the one asking me to spend an hours reading the whole Henry George book and the other threads

When you asked what my "proposal" was, it wasn't the Henry George book I linked to, but my monetary reform thread, which doesn't take nearly as long to read through. And in the time it's taken you to make excuses for not reading anything, you could have read a great deal of all those threads.

Quote
The fact remains that when everyone is buying things on credit,

Do you not understand the difference between derivatives debt and consumer debt? Are you saying that if Wall Street scam artists no longer had a quadrillion-dollar gambling debt (which is all the derivatives bubble really is), the rest of us could no longer take out car loans or mortgage loans, or go Christmas shopping with our Visa cards? Didn't people routinely do those things long before there was a derivatives bubble? It might help if you would actually think things through before jumping to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions about the viewpoint or proposal in question.

Quote
if that credit is removed, their standards of living will decrease.

This is how I know you never read my monetary reform thread, because if you had done so (instead of asking me to repeat myself), you would have read the following two excerpts:

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

"Soothing words about the effectiveness of 'government mechanisms' to deal with a liquidity crisis will not allay the fears of those who know its cause. There is only one thing that will allay those fears and that is to put our depository intermediaries on a sound basis. To do this we must convert the existing volume of bank credit into actual money and require banks to stop the unsound practice of borrowing short to lend long.

"Under this stabalized system banks would have two sections: a deposit or checking-account system and a savings-and-loan section. The deposit section would merely be a warehouse for money. All demand deposits would be backed dollar for dollar by actual currency in the vaults of the bank. The savings-and-loan section would sell Certificates of Deposit (CDs) of varying maturities—from 30 days to 20 years—to obtain funds that could be safely loaned for comparable periods of time. Thus money obtained by the sale of 30-day, one-year and five-year CDs, etc., could be loaned for 30 days, one year and five years respectively—not longer. Banks would then be fully liquid at all times and never again need fear a liquidity crisis."

-- Robert De Fremery, Rights vs. Privileges, pp. 84-5


"Since the objective is to have a 100% cash reserve (legal tender) behind all demand deposits, the U.S. Treasury would be ordered by Congress to have printed and then loaned to the banks sufficient new currency to fulfill that objective. In determining the amount to be borrowed, banks would treat their legal reserves at their local Federal Reserve Bank as cash. Those reserves will become actual cash as explained later.

"The debt incurred by each commercial bank to the Treasury could be immediately reduced by the amount of U.S. securities each bank held—simply a cancellation of mutual indebtedness. Henceforth the commercial banks would be prohibited from using the cash reserves behind their demand deposits for their own interest and profit. Those cash reserves belong to the depositors. They are funds against which the depositors wish to draw checks.

"On the day the cash reserves of banks are brought up to 100% of their demand liabilities, they would have outstanding loans which I shall call 'old loans' as distinguished from the new loans that will be made in the future. As these old loans are paid off, each bank would be required to use these funds to pay off their savings and time depositors, and offer them, as an alternative, negotiable CDs. There would be no restriction of any sort on the issuance of such CDs. The maturity dates, the amounts, and the rate of interest would be set by each bank. But banks would not be allowed to lend the funds so obtained for a longer period of time than those funds were available to them; i.e., they would be required to maintain the back-to-back relation suggested by George Moore.

"After each bank had paid off its time depositors, it would still have a sizable amount of 'old' loans outstanding. As the rest of these old loans were paid off, these funds would be used to further reduce the banks’ indebtedness to the Treasury. The treasury, in turn, would be required to use these funds to retire U.S. obligations held by investors outside the banking system. And as the Treasury did this, these investors would presumably buy negotiable CDs offered by the banks.

"Any remaining indebtedness of the banks to the Treasury could be paid off with funds derived from the sale of their 'Other Securities.' Indeed, a good argument can be made for having the Treasury figure in advance how much of each bank’s securities are going to have to be sold and require them to start selling those securities gradually, the day the changeover is made.

"As for the Federal Reserve Banks, they too should borrow from the Treasury sufficient new currency to bring their cash reserves up to 100% of their demand deposits (funds deposited by their member banks for safekeeping plus all government funds against which checks are being drawn by the government). The indebtedness of the Federal Reserve Banks to the Treasury could immediately be canceled by a mutual cancellation of indebtedness as was done by the commercial banks, i.e. by canceling an equivalent amount of U.S. obligations held by the Federal Reserve Banks. The remaining U.S. obligations held by the Federal Reserve Banks should also be canceled in view of the fact that they had originally been bought by the mere creation of bookkeeping entries. That practice would be abolished.

"The supply of money would now consist of the total coin and currency in existence, i.e., the amount previously existing plus the amount newly printed and loaned to the commercial banks and the Federal Reserve Banks. There would no longer be any confusion about what was meant by the supply of money. And the money supply would no longer be altered by such things as the lending activities of banks, or the decisions of individuals to switch funds from a checking account to CDs, or the payment of taxes to the U.S. Treasury, or the disbursement of funds by the Treasury, etc. Whenever an increase in the money supply was needed according to whatever rule of law was adopted (a strong case can be made for a 'population dollar', i.e., a constant per capita supply of dollars), the increase could be made with absolute precision by simply retiring that much of the remaining National Debt with the new money.

"S&Ls and MSBs [money services businesses] should be made to operate as they were originally intended, i.e., those who place their funds in such institutions must be reminded that they are shareholders and that they can draw their funds out only when those funds are available for withdrawal. A run on such institutions would no longer be a threat to the banking world. Nor would the failure of bankruptcy of any large bank, corporation, or municipality be the threat to the banking world that it is today. Any such poorly managed entity could, and should, be allowed to go through bankruptcy. There would be no danger of precipitating the type of financial stringency or credit crisis that is feared so much under our present financial system, and justifiably so.

"The multitude of governmental lending agencies that have arisen since the early ‘30s should be dismantled. The lending of money is not a proper function of government. It has been sanctioned so far because banks operated in such a way as to imperil a continuous flow of funds to areas that needed it. With banks now operating on a sound basis, free market forces should be relied upon to keep money flowing in the most healthful manner for all.

"Having corrected the destabilizing element of our monetary system, we should reject the concept of deficit financing and a compensatory budget. Those concepts arose under the old system because when the business and investment world lost confidence—thus leading to a contraction in the supply and/or velocity of money—the government was forced to indulge in deficit financing to try to keep the supply and/or velocity of money from contracting too far. Under the new system the supply of money is non-collapsible and therefore changes in the velocity of money (caused by changes in liquidity preference) would be minimal and self-regulating.

"Government supervision or regulation of banks would now be greatly simplified. In place of all the governmental agencies with overlapping functions that are busily engaged in regulating various activities of banks, we need have only one agency. Its sole function would be to make certain each bank is keeping its cash reserves at 100% of its demand deposits, and that the maturity profile of its outstanding CDs meshes with the maturity profile of its loan portfolio. Except for these restrictions, banks would be free to set the amounts, the maturity dates, and the rates of interest on the CDs they issued. They would also be free to make loans for any purpose they pleased, secured by any collateral they deemed adequate."

-- Robert De Fremery, Rights vs. Privileges, pp. 117-121

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

Now, are you going to ask me yet another question that's already addressed in that thread, or will you actually take the time to read it now?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2010, 06:27:26 pm »
I am trying my best to understand you

If i can can collapse all of this into one paragraph, you are saying credit should be restricted. There should be less available than currently, banks would be on 100% ratios.
Your proposals are to make credit less available than it is currently.

You are arguing with me because you do not believe this will reduce peoples standards of living in the short to medium term

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2010, 06:45:21 pm »
You are arguing with me because you do not believe this will reduce peoples standards of living in the short to medium term

You ignored the part about money spent into circulation that isn't interest-bearing debt.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2010, 06:50:43 pm »
What i am pondering is - how long can the west remain the consumer of the world.
The hypothesis is, we may have to start exporting primary resources or added value and if we do, it will result in a decrease in living standards

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2010, 10:47:59 pm »
What i am pondering is - how long can the west remain the consumer of the world.
The hypothesis is, we may have to start exporting primary resources or added value and if we do, it will result in a decrease in living standards


I agree that there are people doing useless or damaging functions, getting paid a lot for it, and palming this off in exchange for goods of sometimes dubious value. The problem is the people doing useful things, like say manufacturing, have been repeatedly squashed and marginalised by the "finance will be the new economy" witch doctors.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2010, 02:09:54 pm »
When, in 2007, Ron Paul told a gathering in Freeport, Texas, that it was time for another "tea party," latent popular sentiments in favor of liberty were energized. What Ron was analogizing to, of course, was the famous "Boston Tea Party" that helped to trigger American resistance to British rule.

The owners of the political establishment fear nothing so much as a populace that sees through the racket being perpetrated upon them; an awareness that might give rise to thoughts that would call into question the entire scheme. A renewal of the Boston "tea party" – whose thinking was reflected in the words and actions of such men as Jefferson, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and John Hancock – would threaten the existing power structure. Sons of Liberty descendants would be most troublesome. On the other hand, to openly ignore the millions of persons identifying themselves as "tea partiers" would be seen as even more dishonest than the owners’ attempts to keep Ron out of the 2008 presidential debates.

Just as the 1994 Republicans "contract with America" quickly morphed into a "contract on America," the "Tea Party" episode will quickly be transformed into just another franchise by which the owners reinforce their established controls over the rest of us. In time, audiences will become dissatisfied with the new performance, sensing that the Tea Party has become just another conservative Republican trick that will, in the words of Frank Chodorov, work "to clean up the whorehouse, but keep the business intact."

Tea Party sentiments – which reverberated in the thinking of Ron Paul and other advocates of liberty – will become their antithesis in the mouths of the Republican branch of the political establishment. If you want a very quick test of any alleged Tea Party spokesman, ask him or her if they support an immediate end to all American wars; and demand full exposure – i.e., an open audit – of the actions of the Federal Reserve system. If they stammer, or evade directly answering "yes" to either question, you know you are dealing with another March Hare who, like his predecessor, will reply "let’s change the subject."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer225.html

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2010, 04:48:53 pm »
On Nov. 15, Rick Perry—who was just reelected governor of Texas after a decade in office—will release Fed Up!, a book calling for a radically limited federal government. An early Tea Party supporter, Perry insisted last week that he wouldn’t run for president in 2012—even as he made the media rounds in New York. Regardless, his proposals provide the clearest preview to date of a Tea Party presidential platform. Edited excerpts from his conversation with NEWSWEEK’s Andrew Romano:

Many Tea Partiers want to repeal the 14th Amendment, which provides for birthright citizenship. Do you agree with them?
Is it being abused today? It may be. Does it rise to the level of having a constitutional prohibition? Probably not.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/08/a-q-a-with-texas-gov-rick-perry.html

----
Someone was bound to be co-opted. The question was who. Last week, NEWSWEEK's Eleanor Clift speculated it might be the GOP establishment, writing, "If newly empowered GOP leaders can’t keep Tea Party passions in check and the repeal seems like an overreach, public opinion could turn against the new GOP majority as quickly as it did against Obama."
But one week after the election, it looks as if the Tea Partiers are the ones who are moderating—or, in the words of National Review's Veronique de Rugy, "selling out."
Let's start with Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul, who was the subject of de Rugy's ire. She highlights statements he made to The Wall Street Journal, particularly this passage: "[Earmarks] are a bad 'symbol' of easy spending but ... he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night." De Rugy points out the incongruities between this statement and Paul's campaign, during which he flatly supported a one-year moratorium on earmarks.

Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg Times is already talking about the sellout in Florida, where Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio won his Senate race a week ago. The paper notes that McConnell tapped him to give the weekly Republican radio address and points out Rubio's conciliatory post-election press conference, during which he said he'd work with senior Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and abstained from attacks on President Obama.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/11/09/watering-down-the-tea.html?obref=obinsite

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2010, 01:46:10 pm »

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,238
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2010, 08:44:43 am »

To any relative newcomers reading this, notice how obsessively Austrian Schoolers resort to various forms of the false dilemma fallacy in a desperate attempt to justify both (a) the IMF-style austerity measures that the very bankers who engineered this depression in the first place are chomping at the bit to impose on us, and (b) the consequent genocidal collapse in living standards (which Austrian Schoolers love to euphemistically characterize as a mere "correction" or "adjustment").

That they continue to get away with giving aid and comfort to the financial terrorists waging literal war on the U.S. economy (and hence on the American people) proves once again that there's no amount of aristocratic propaganda that countless well-meaning patriots won't fall hook, line and sinker for as long as the ideological snake-oil salesmen peddling it have wrapped themselves in the flag of "liberty."
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Real Tea Party Vs Fake Tea Party
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2010, 01:06:49 pm »
Actually, what i would recommend is that Ron Paul doesnt touch the ponzi scheme economy, because its too risky.
He should concentrate on political achievements.
The easiest thing he could do is also the most significant, appoint a good team of advisors, throw out the banker insiders, like Hank Paulson.
An advisor team from non establishment higher education institutions would shake the system more than anything else.