THE Peter Schiff Thread (merged)

[Ferretlover]

Peter appears before FHA committee. Check out this amazing of video as Peter's incredible intellect illuminates a collection of disturbingly dull and dim-witted government goons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvMGHzB37lo

[ColossalContrarian]

Hopefully Washington DC will annex from the United States of America...

[JohnRM]

This guy just doesn't get it. He basically says, in the first round of testimony, that there will always be enough jobs unless the gov't gets in the way, as though energy has nothing to do with it. He's just toting the Republican line of slash regulation, cut taxes, and let big business reign supreme! No thanks.

"Bring down the cost of labor"...or...let us pay people less.

"Get rid of minimum wage."...or...let us pay people in peanuts.

"We need more factories."...or...business as usual.

"Stimulus doesn't stimulate the economy."...I can't argue with stupid.

What I'm hearing...

OMFG, slash regulations so we can create jobs...........that really suck and pay nothing and give no benefits and we make you work 12 hours a day, six days a week, and we can fire you whenever we want, and you can't bargain for a better deal, and...yea.

He doesn't want to get government out of the way. He wants to get government behind the rich.

[TreeFarmer]

Well, it was government who rammed thru NAFTA while at the same time enforcing a number of laws in this country that make it impossible for us to compete with foreign competitors. Ross Perot, who is very rich btw, warned everyone about NAFTA but he was ignored.

Peter also is against bailouts. If anything is the government behind the rich it was/is the bailouts for Wall Street. Peter wants to return to a competitive America that is not so burdened by an overly large government.

[JohnRM]

Yea, after the rich have already gotten their bailouts, NOW its time to get government out of the way. How convenient! NOW its time to slash spending and where are those cuts going to be made? Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, programs that are relied on predominately by the less affluent. What isn't going to be touched? "Defense" spending, programs that are relied on predominately by the wealthy. The bottom line is that he wants government out of the way so that businesses can exploit workers and for government to cut social spending. You can rationalize it any other way that you want, but that's the bottom line.

[careinke]

The Federal Governments ONLY job should be to protect its citizens freedom and liberty. Everything else is fluff and should be handled by the states.

[newman1979]

In 2001 the Bush tax cuts were approved. Non farm jobs in the US are the same in 2011 as 2001, but the tax cuts have cost the treasury $4 trillion. Supply side economics as proven over the last 11 years is bunk. Schiff is just a political shrill who lives in a fantasy world.

[careinke]

In 2001 the Bush tax cuts were approved. Non farm jobs in the US are the same in 2011 as 2001, but the tax cuts have cost the treasury $4 trillion. Supply side economics as proven over the last 11 years is bunk. Schiff is just a political shrill who lives in a fantasy world.

I believe after the Bush tax cuts, revenue actually increased. Or are you counting the hypothetical taxes that may have been accrued if the tax cuts had not taken place? In Washington, they increased the tax on cigarettes expecting a windfall. In actuality, tax revenue dropped by 30%.

If the tax cuts were so bad, why didn't the Dems repeal them when they controlled the presidency, the house and the Senate? Seems Dems like to complain, but never actually do anything.

[dinopello]

In Washington, they increased the tax on cigarettes expecting a windfall. In actuality, tax revenue dropped by 30%.

That might have had something to do with the increased spending on smoking cessation propaganda that was very effective in getting people to quit. Have you seen these ads ? Lots of people with holes in their throats and other deformities as a result of smoking. If revenue increase was the goal they should have spent the money on pro-smoking propaganda. Actually the government wouldn't need to spend money, just eliminate laws that prevent cigarettes from being marketed on TV and to children. Instead of deformed smokers lamenting their choices, we would have Justin Beber pushing brightly colored, cherry flavored cigarettes to tweens. And, the money would be rolling in

[careinke]

Actually the government wouldn't need to spend money, just eliminate laws that prevent cigarettes from being marketed on TV and to children. Instead of deformed smokers lamenting their choices, we would have Justin Beiber pushing brightly colored, cherry flavored cigarettes to tweens. And, the money would be rolling in

Or, we could just stop trying to make the government into our mothers. So there would be no need to raise even more revenue.

[dinopello]

Or, we could just stop trying to make the government into our mothers. So there would be no need to raise even more revenue.

Yeah, I was just agreeing with you on the idea that if government was expecting a big windfall from taxing cigarettes then they were really stupid to try and convince people not to smoke and to ban cigarette companies from advertising - especially to children. Getting children hooked is something the cigarette companies were really good at and then they become lifelong smokers. Life expectancy is much lower then, of course. The governments policies all work against each other - they make laws that unquestionably caused the rise in life expectancy, but then have trouble raising revenue sufficient to keep their nanny state healthcare and social security solvent because people are living so long. Nature should be our government - smoke'em if you got em.

[Plantagenet]

In 2001 the Bush tax cuts were approved.

In 2010 Obama extended the Bush tax cuts AND added his own 25% cut in the social security payroll tax so social security will go bankrupt that much sooner.

Whats the point of complaining about what happened eleven years ago if you ignore it when Obama does something even worse in 2010?

[Lore]

The Federal Governments ONLY job should be to protect its citizens freedom and liberty. Everything else is fluff and should be handled by the states.

You mean South Carolina can then bring slavery back?

[careinke]

What part of protect its citizens freedom and liberty did you not understand?

[Lore]

What part of protect its citizens freedom and liberty did you not understand?

By definition slaves are not citizens. If they were it would not have been allowed under the founding fathers, or didn't you understand that?

[careinke]

The Federal Governments ONLY job should be to protect its citizens freedom and liberty. Everything else is fluff and should be handled by the states.

You mean South Carolina can then bring slavery back?

What part of protect its citizens freedom and liberty did you not understand?

By definition slaves are not citizens. If they were it would not have been allowed under the founding fathers, or didn't you understand that?

I think telling an American black he is no longer a US citizen would constitute taking away your freedom. Now lets be real about this, which do you think is more likely to happen: 1. the continual taking away of our freedoms if we keep on the current path 2. South Carolina bringing back slavery?

[Lore]

I think telling an American black he is no longer a US citizen would constitute taking away your freedom. Now lets be real about this, which do you think is more likely to happen: 1. the continual taking away of our freedoms if we keep on the current path 2. South Carolina bringing back slavery?

You're projecting a stereotype. It could just as easily be someone new from Bangladesh. Realistically your're missing the point, government has done a great deal to enable universal freedoms. It has also given us interstate highways, satellites and the Internet.