Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt

You Tube - Jan Helfeld ^

[Globalist Goon]

Watch Congressman Pete Stark blow up when Jan Helfeld asks him why Stark believes, "the more we owe, the wealthier we are."

[sausageseller]

Mr. Stark’s answers are actually not far at all from the truth regarding the Nation’s debt.

Absolutely NOT!

He nailed Stark on the "Why not increase the spending".

He nailed Stark on the "interest" question.

Stark was made out to be the blathering idiot he is!

[Teacher317]

Stark has no Econ degrees, either. His background was engineering.

[freekitty]

“What Mr. Stark fails to point out is that the inflation and deflation of the monetary supply in the Nation is not tied to an economic barometer (say for example - gold), but controlled at the whim of a few to the detriment of many.

He fails to point out that the system is not tied to the combined productive wealth of the Nation, but manipulated to reduce the individual wealth acquired through these productive activities.

He also fails to mention that the present system is arguably un-Constitutional.”

Couldn’t have said it better. You know your stuff.

[cliniclinical]

I don’t want to argue with you, but I stand by what I wrote. Mr. Stark makes many factual points about our monetary system. That doesn’t mean it is the best system, or a Constitutional system, but it is what we have today...

I’m sorry, but even the manipulators know you cannot just increase the debt (monetary supply) dramatically in a short time. Completely crashing the system will benefit no one... Now, it is possible and it does happen where the monetary supply increases outside of the control of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but mostly it is a slow drain on the wealth of the Nation so the people don’t necessarily notice...

[cliniclinical]

Thanks...

It’s possible that Mr. Stark actually has a fairly solid grasp of economics and the monetary system in the US. That means he therefore is a total shill for the present banking system, or he has never really answered for himself the question “who really benefits from this system?”...

A moral, just person could see that answer as nothing less than a call to oppose the system with all their might.

[JusPasenThru]

Mr. Stark will never be voted out of office. If being a wealthy arrogant butt-hole of an idiot was an impediment to public office in a heavily Democratic district, it wouldn’t have taken only the Grim Reaper to dislodge Ted Kennedy.

BTW, remember the media outrage when Cheney told Leahy to F himself? Wonder when we’re going to hear that about Fortney’s comment.

[sausageseller]

I don’t want to argue with you,

Just as Stark chose not too.

Whats next you telling me to get the ____ out too?

[freekitty]

I agree.

[cliniclinical]

No, I won’t be telling you anything like that. I’m just suggesting that this interview failed to focus on the problem, and badgering Mr. Stark with simple questions that don’t make sense even for those in control of the system will not help.

Also, the questioner never takes the time acknowledge an important point that Mr. Stark repeatedly made (but without saying this simply) - Dollars = Debt. Mr. Stark says that the increase in debt is an increase in the wealth of the Nation. This is very true in many ways given our present system.

It would be even better if it was tied to the productive output of the Nation, but it is not, and therefore politicians are free to spend money like, well, criminals because there is no check to their creation of debt (wealth).

I’m telling you in the best way I know how that we are in serious trouble in America right now, and the root cause is almost assuredly tied into the banking system and how our Nation now creates its “wealth”.

[popdonnelly]

I can’t believe that Fortney is still in Congress. He is a great argument for term limits.

[Principled]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

What a idiot this stark... raving idiot!

[sausageseller]

I would say your premise and his is unworkable because increased debit does not really equal wealth. Increased debt for highway project's is just servicing a decaying asset. Dollars spent on the cash for clunkers is a prime example of investing in a deprecation asset.

Even if you and Stark really believe debt= wealth, the extra debt dollars needed to pay interest to other nations that hold our debt would decrease our wealth.

[Globalist Goon]

I think he is saying that the politicians are rich with an endless stream of tax dollars, and debt is meaningless because we have to pay it.

[M Kehoe]

You can monetize the debt, but you create inflation. Or worst, if nobody buys the debt, you eventually create deflation, which will lead to poverty. Just ask those still alive from the Wiemar republic, or Zimbabwe or...

5.56mm

[cliniclinical]

It’s not a belief, it’s a fact.

The Dollars that create our wealth come into existence in a very special way. They are literally created out of thin air by an agreement between the Treasury (Government component) and the Federal Reserve (Quasi-government / Private component). In exchange for an IOU (completely made up) that the Fed “buys” from the Treasury, the Fed prints money for release into circulation to create our Nation’s wealth.

One Dollar owed to the Federal Reserve (our Nation’s “debt”) = One Dollar printed and entered into circulation as “wealth”. Get rid of the debt and you get rid of the wealth.

[cliniclinical]

Now you are talking about a different type of “debt”. The Fed tries not to monetize this type of debt (sometimes referred to as budget deficits or other shortfalls in money needed to pay for government programs) because of exactly what you wrote. They prefer to slowly bleed us dry.

It’s the politicians who push to monetize this debt because it is so easy to hide their criminal, un-Constitutional behavior behind an endless stream of “free” money...

[ExpatGator]

Thanks for your heartfelt condolences... ;)

[kenavi]

Take a private sector example:

I borrow money to buy a bigger home. I have exchanged some cash, my down-payment, and an intangible, a promise to pay off the loan, for a tangible asset, a nice, big house.

I have not increased my wealth. I may be living in a wealthier manner. I have converted my ability to generate cash in the future, for a tangible asset today.

The problem arises if I cannot pay off that loan, or can do so only by scrimping to such an extent that I end up living a poorer life, bigger home notwithstanding. I should not have borrowed so much money to buy that bigger home.

It's not much different for a nation, or for our federal government. People who lend the money expect to get it back along with the interest, which is supposed to be sufficient to offset the expected decline in the value of the currency. The loan is based on assumptions about the future income and spending of the nation.

Taking the loans does not make our nation wealthier. It is a claim on future income, or our ability to get new loans to pay off the old loans, again based on lenders' assumptions about our future income.

Stark the politician can huff and puff his theories, but it is our nation's creditors, those who hold our debt and hold our currency, who determine the outcome of the argument.

[M Kehoe]

From your posts, I know you probably know this, the Fed is buying "Agency," paper now. Just like Kalifornia issuing "script," it's all the same.

And yes, you are correct, it's all unconstitutional.

In my not so humble opinion, the excrement is going to hit the oscillator in the next two or three quarters, and it won't be pretty.

5.56mm

[PubliusMM]

What an arrogant gasbag! Stands to reason he’s from Kalifornia...