Congressman: the more we owe, the wealthier we are

Published on September 8th, 2009

Posted by Cherman in Politics

I don’t have to comment — watch the entire video — it gets worse and worse.

41 users responded in " Congressman: the more we owe, the wealthier we are "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 algore said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

never tell a liberal that he is running out of other peoples money.

# 2 Troublemaker said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

i>algore said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

never tell a liberal that he is running out of other peoples money.

Never tell a wealthy conservative that he needs to pay his fair share of taxes to help run the country that helped him get rich.

# 3 Alfred1 said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

What a dork…Attention Birthers, a court has ruled Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, real:

Court document swears Kenyan birth cert legit
Owner risks perjury in high-profile case to insist Barack Obama born in Africa
Posted: September 06, 2009
7:20 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

With a scheduled hearing date Tuesday, Lucas Smith, the man who tried to sell an alleged Barack Obama Kenyan birth certificate on eBay, has filed court papers in a high-profile eligibility case insisting – under threat of perjury – that the Obama birth certificate in his possession is the genuine article.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109113

(“World” usually indicates a commie outlet, but not in this case)

I know this was blogged before…Its new though.

The advertisements in Honolulu papers about Obama’s birth, could have been his mother’s conspiracy to make sure he would be an American Citizen…

That is the most simple explanation for these announcements, rather than suppose there was a conspiracy…just a loving mother wanting to ensure American citizenship for her Kenyan son.

# 4 SparkyOne said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

I wonder if I can stop my Chapter 7. I am so rich and did not even know. Nice use of the F word Fortney!

# 5 Bob said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

#2, its a good thing then, people like you get to decide what a persons “fair share” is. Iagine how horrible, and unfortunately simple it would be if everyone just paid a fixed percentage, no deductions.

Of course, doing that doesn’t increase a politicians power, or help in vote buying.

# 6 Postman said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

This is simple, and it is the basis of western finance. If you owe a bank $5k dollars then you have a problem. If you owe a bank $5m dollars then the bank has a problem.

# 7 Postman said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

#3,

Thankyou for clearly posting the the copyright on that article, it saved me having to read it;)

# 8 clancys_daddy said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Govt./management has no understanding of reality. Ive worked in the private sector, municipal, state, and federal government. The higher it goes the dumber they get.

# 9 deowll said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

#3 Yah know I think if somebody screamed fire you’d still find something completely inane and off topic to say.

Anybody that thinks a nation is richer because it is deep in dept is insane.

# 10 Johnny said, on September 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

#5 paying a fixed percentage point in taxes hurts the poor people the most. if you make 10$ or 100$, bread and butter cost the same.

# 11 Guilherme Cherman said, on September 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

#2, how did the country help him?

# 12 clifffton said, on September 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

#11
By providing this wonderful platform to build wealth on.
And protecting his a$$ while he did it.

# 13 Awake said, on September 8th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

1) Put a fork in this guy, he is done.

2) Alfred1
Here is another “World” news site… notice the similarity in its name to the one that you use as a source? It’s because they are both parodies of real news… there were plenty of gullible dummies that believed in the one that I list below, just as there are plenty of gullible people that believe in your source…. heck… there are people (you?) that even use “The Onion” as a reference, since they don’t know any better!
weeklyworldnews.com
Alfred1 = massive fail!

# 14 waltersobchack said, on September 8th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

What year is this from?

Looks kinda like its from the days when guys like Dick Cheney were championing the Reagan view that deficits don’t matter.

What ever happened to all of those right wing ‘deficits don’t matter’ guys anyway? They seem to have all disappeared like a fart in the wind now that Obama is president. All of a sudden deficits matter more to the republicans now that the money is going to spent on social programs like health care instead of bullshit wars and tax breaks for the top 1%.

Deficits didn’t seem to matter under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Clinton handed Bush 2 a budget surplus which vanished, like a fart in the wind, once Bush 2 became president.

Regardless Peter Stark is a douchebag.

# 15 Thinker said, on September 8th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

What a freakin hack journalist. He’s not there to ask intelligent questions but to get a rise out of the Congressman. Give me a break.

# 16 Hmeyers said, on September 8th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

#1 and #2 for the win.

“Liberals” love to spend other people’s money; “conservatives” love to benefit from the system that made them wealthy but not to pay into it.

(True liberals are about personal freedom and true conservatives are about personal freedom from government but we don’t have those any more … hence the quotes.)

# 17 noname said, on September 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Banks lend money to a business, with justifiable reasons (successful Business plan, credit rating, …) because the more capital investments a successful business makes, such as opening more stores; the more money and wealth a business creates of which a portion is used to pay off the original loan.

That is what Pete Stark is trying to explain, poorly.

However; it’s the “within reason part” that the reporter and public is having a hard time understanding.

Is the USA creating more wealth with it’s deficits or is it burning cash the way dot coms did?

# 18 Brock said, on September 8th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Pete Stark, CFI – Certified F$%@ing Idiot

Truly unbelievable. This explains why Pete Stark never received a an elementary school diploma.

Only in California could he be elected.

He looks pretty intelligent, but he’s so full of himself (FOS) that he thinks he knows womething, when he actually knows nothing.

# 19 Mike said, on September 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

It is a classic red flag when someone trots out “Do you have a degree in XYZ?” That’s the moment when you know they have just run out of hot air.

And when that doesn’t work, then next move is “Get the Fxxx out of here!”

Classic.

# 20 Animby said, on September 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Does Pete Stark have a PhD in economics? Oh, an MBA. Mostly, he’s just another 30+ year professional politician in a body the founders considered to be a non-professional organization with congressmen serving one or two terms and then going home.

You’re stupid. We’re done here. Get the fuck out.

# 21 ArianeB said, on September 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Apparently none of you commenters, NOT ONE, understands the fractional reserve system.

Watch and Learn

# 22 Animby said, on September 8th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Alfie. Thank you for wandering off topic. Oh, and next time, try reading the article you link to. No court has ruled the Kenyan Birth Certificate genuine. The article merely tells how a career crook has sworn a document he obtained illegally is genuine.

Fail.
Fail.

# 23 Alfred1 said, on September 8th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

#22 I’m busted…didn’t have time to read it…the jpg of it looks great!

# 24 lens42 said, on September 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

@#23 “…didn’t have time to read it…” — What a dick. You didn’t have time to read it, but you DID have time to waste everyone else’s by posting it here. Sometimes I thing they *should* require a license to use the internet.

# 25 TThor said, on September 9th, 2009 at 12:46 am

Unbelievable … arrogance of another dimension, swearing and steaming like a teenager. Voting in morons like like that, you almost deserve what is coming to you. Brace for impact all of us… because this is going to be a hard lading!

# 26 Robart said, on September 9th, 2009 at 3:28 am

Probably why California is in such great financial shape. They are a extremely wealthy state by Senator Milton Freakin Friedman’s definition.

# 27 Jason said, on September 9th, 2009 at 3:44 am

ArianeB is correct. So long as you feel that FRB is a good way of running things, then more debt is a good thing as it allows the banks to create more money out of nothing.

But in the REAL world, this is a bad situation that is getting worse. When the rest of the world stops lending money to the USA, you guys are toast. In a non-FRB based system, this would/could not happen.

# 28 Probeee said, on September 9th, 2009 at 4:28 am

It is “Democratic” Congressman Pete Stark from California’s 13th District. Somehow you left that out of the lead.

# 29 Alfred1 said, on September 9th, 2009 at 4:49 am

To be fair, Stark is partially correct, the budget deficit isn’t the same a personal debt…unlike personal debt, in a sense, a budget deficit is in accounting only…

For example, if the budget is 1 billion in the red, takes in 1 billion less than it spends, they sell treasuries to make up the difference, so the money goes out…

Unlike personal debt, the deficit ROBS the economy of the 1 billion, that might have been spend investing in new business etc.

Hence the CBO said the Stimulus, while initially stimulating, eventually depresses the economy, because it robs it of investment capital.

Interesting Stark interpreted the ability to spend the money anyway, as meaning we are richer by spending it…that explains why these fools won’t stop spending money.

# 30 doughoist said, on September 9th, 2009 at 4:51 am

I wish I Lived in California just so I could vote this guy out of office.

# 31 Paul said, on September 9th, 2009 at 6:21 am

#30 Please move here so you can. Politicians have created enough wealth for us.

# 32 Dennis said, on September 9th, 2009 at 6:39 am

I think the key words used are :The more we owe, the richer we are” simply because of what I was taught in my ‘check / credit counseling course’ during the military service. The instructor said “Why write a $20.00 check you KNOW is going to bounce and cost you $75.00 to clear up? If you know the check is going to bounce, WRITE IT BIG. That way, the fee’s and fines you pay leverage out the amount you made from the check”
Meaning, for those of less understanding, you write a $20.00 check with $50.00 in fees when it bounce, it is not a good return on your investment (250% interest) whereas if you write a check for $1000.00 with $50.00 in fees, it is a better return (.02 % interest). I think this is the Government method, and they think it works.

# 33 Animal Mother said, on September 9th, 2009 at 7:08 am

Whoa! Rep. Stark, what a prick!

Term limits now.

# 34 RogerDucky said, on September 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am

Wow. Pete Stark apparently has no idea how to explain it, because he doesn’t know the theory behind it either and just wanted to shout the interviewer down in an attempt to not look stupid.

Basic premise:
Since the government will only take on an amount of debt proportional to how much it can pay back in interest, the heavier the apparent debt load, the better the economy is.

Also:
When a country’s economy appears more stable, foreign bond investors are more likely to want to buy that country’s bonds — higher demand = lower interest rate. So, when debt is accrued during times of economic boom, it’s possible to get a overall lower repayment than when it’s done when people aren’t as sure about the government’s financial health. In other words — better credit rating = lower interest rates, so you might be able to get a bigger loan for the same monthly payment amount.

That wasn’t so hard to explain, was it?

# 35 iCurmdgeon said, on September 9th, 2009 at 8:49 am

While Pete Stark is obviously a bumbling idiot, so is the guy trying to “interview” him. This was clearly a hatchet job right from the start. Hasn’t this guy ever heard of common courtesy? Send him to finishing school!

# 36 Winston Smith said, on September 9th, 2009 at 8:54 am

This Video Is going to give me nightmare.

# 37 The0ne said, on September 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am

Hot damn, I’m am getting richer by the day! Imagine that. You mean to tell me that even though I can’t afford to house myself or my family, buy food for them or clothe them that I’m actually richer?! Woohooo…yes, my life is hit but I’m happy I’m rich!

# 38 Robart said, on September 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am

#34 “Basic premise:
Since the government will only take on an amount of debt proportional to how much it can pay back in interest, the heavier the apparent debt load, the better the economy is.”

I would change “will” to “should” in your argument.

# 39 bobbo, don't get misdirected said, on September 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am

Hah, Hah. Pete Stark is a self declared atheist==one of few if not the only one being truthful on that issue in congress.

He was a banker before running for office.

If you try to understand in context the point he makes, you would be richer for it.

Moderation in all things.

What worth wisdom if my idols must be smashed?

# 40 Terry said, on September 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

This is an old interview. Jan claims the national debt is only $5 trillion, and seems alarmed at that figure, while Stark doesn’t appear to think it is anything to be concerned about. Check the National Debt clock at http://www.usdebtclock.org/ to find out what it is today.

I live in Pete Stark’s district and he’s “my” congressman, though I’ve never voted for him in my entire life. Yes, he was a banker before he ran for office, but that doesn’t mean he understands money and finance at all. He’s been in Washington since 1973 and is one of those “lifetime” politicians who will never lose another election because the district has been gerrymandered to secure it for any Democratic candidate who runs. It just so happens that Stark runs essentially unopposed every year because it makes no sense for anyone to challenge him. He is notoriously rude to journalists because he knows he will never lose an election, so he doesn’t have to pretend to be civil to anyone.

I have been in political forums with him and several other candidates, and he is always condescending like this. He rarely appears at any campaign event that isn’t choreographed by his staff, or if he appears at a League of Women Voters event, it is usually at a senior citizens center where he is popular for his longstanding support of social security and medicare or at a university where he knows the left-leaning students will not dare to challenge him or, if anyone does, he can dismiss them as idiots and never suffer any political damage.

# 41 Uncle Patso said, on September 10th, 2009 at 1:57 am

Who the heck is Jan Helfeld? Oh wow, he’s an Objectivist! [They all seem like proto-Scientologists to me.]

I have long noticed a tendency, as TV news gets worse and worse, for “reporters” to try to hog the camera as long as possible, trying to fill the whole time available with their question, droning on and on and on, with dependent clauses multiplying, never getting to the point – - – oops! I just did it myself.

This guy just never shuts up. An actual example of a “nattering nabob of negativism.”

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!