PDA

View Full Version : Bernanke - TIME Person of the Year



SilverJim
16th December 2009, 07:20
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947251,00.html


A bald man with a gray beard and tired eyes is sitting in his oversize Washington office, talking about the economy. He doesn't have a commanding presence. He isn't a mesmerizing speaker. He has none of the look-at-me swagger or listen-to-me charisma so common among men with oversize Washington offices. His arguments aren't partisan or ideological; they're methodical, grounded in data and the latest academic literature. When he doesn't know something, he doesn't bluster or bluff. He's professorial, which makes sense, because he spent most of his career as a professor.

He is not, in other words, a typical Beltway power broker. He's shy. He doesn't do the D.C. dinner-party circuit; he prefers to eat at home with his wife, who still makes him do the dishes and take out the trash. Then they do crosswords or read. Because Ben Bernanke is a nerd.
(See pictures of Ben Bernanke's life from childhood to chairmanship.)

He just happens to be the most powerful nerd on the planet.

Bernanke is the 56-year-old chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the U.S., the most important and least understood force shaping the American — and global — economy. Those green bills featuring dead Presidents are labeled federal reserve note for a reason: the Fed controls the money supply. It is an independent government agency that conducts monetary policy, which means it sets short-term interest rates — which means it has immense influence over inflation, unemployment, the strength of the dollar and the strength of your wallet. And ever since global credit markets began imploding, its mild-mannered chairman has dramatically expanded those powers and reinvented the Fed.

Professor Bernanke of Princeton was a leading scholar of the Great Depression. He knew how the passive Fed of the 1930s helped create the calamity — through its stubborn refusal to expand the money supply and its tragic lack of imagination and experimentation. Chairman Bernanke of Washington was determined not to be the Fed chairman who presided over Depression 2.0. So when turbulence in U.S. housing markets metastasized into the worst global financial crisis in more than 75 years, he conjured up trillions of new dollars and blasted them into the economy; engineered massive public rescues of failing private companies; ratcheted down interest rates to zero; lent to mutual funds, hedge funds, foreign banks, investment banks, manufacturers, insurers and other borrowers who had never dreamed of receiving Fed cash; jump-started stalled credit markets in everything from car loans to corporate paper; revolutionized housing finance with a breathtaking shopping spree for mortgage bonds; blew up the Fed's balance sheet to three times its previous size; and generally transformed the staid arena of central banking into a stage for desperate improvisation. He didn't just reshape U.S. monetary policy; he led an effort to save the world economy.
(See pictures of the Federal Reserve Bank's history.)

No wonder his eyes look tired.

The last Fed chair, Alan Greenspan, inspired an odd cult of personality. Bernanke hoped to return the Fed to dull obscurity. But his aggressive steps to avert doomsday — and his unusually close partnerships with Bush and Obama Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner — have exposed him and his institution to criticism from all directions. He's Bailout Ben, the patron saint of Wall Street greedheads, or King Ben, the unelected czar of a fourth branch of government. He's soft on inflation, bombarding the country with easy money, or soft on unemployment, ignoring Main Street's cries for even more aggressive action. Bleeding-heart liberals and tea-party reactionaries alike are trying to block his appointment for a second four-year term. Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is peddling a best seller titled End the Fed. And Congress is considering bills that could strip the Fed of some of its power and independence.

So here he is inside his marble fortress, a technocrat in an ink-stained shirt and an off-the-rack suit, explaining what he's done, where we are and what might happen next.

He knows that the economy is awful, that 10% unemployment is much too high, that Wall Street bankers are greedy ingrates, that Main Street still hurts. Banks are handing out sweet bonuses again but still aren't doing much lending. Technically, the recession is over, but growth has been anemic and heavily reliant on government programs like Cash for Clunkers, not to mention cheap Fed money. "I understand why people are frustrated. I'm frustrated too," Bernanke says. "I'm not one of those people who look at this as some kind of video game. I come from Main Street, from a small town that's really depressed. This is all very real to me."
(See pictures of Ben Bernanke's office.)

But Bernanke also knows the economy would be much, much worse if the Fed had not taken such extreme measures to stop the panic. There's a vast difference between 10% and 25% unemployment, between anemic and negative growth. He wishes Americans understood that he helped save the irresponsible giants of Wall Street only to protect ordinary folks on Main Street. He knows better than anyone how financial crises spiral into global disasters, how the grass gets crushed when elephants fall. "We came very, very close to a depression ... The markets were in anaphylactic shock," he told Time during one of three extended interviews. "I'm not happy with where we are, but it's a lot better than where we could be."

Bernanke also has thoughts about the economy's future — and we'll get to them soon. First, though, we should explain why his face is on the cover of this issue. The overriding story of 2009 was the economy — the lousiness of it, and the fact that it wasn't far lousier. It was a year of escalating layoffs, bankruptcies and foreclosures, the "new frugality" and the "new normal." It was also a year of green shoots, a rebounding Dow and a fragile sense that the worst is over. Even the big political stories of 2009 — the struggles of the Democrats; the tea-party takeover of the Republicans; the stimulus; the deficit; GM and Chrysler; the backlash over bailouts and bonuses; the furious debates over health care, energy and financial regulation; the constant drumbeat of jobs, jobs, jobs — were, at heart, stories about the economy. And it's Bernanke's economy.

In 2009, Bernanke hurled unprecedented amounts of money into the banking system in unprecedented ways, while starting to lay the groundwork for the Fed's eventual return to normality. He helped oversee the financial stress tests that finally calmed the markets, while launching a groundbreaking public relations campaign to demystify the Fed. Now that Obama has decided to keep him in his job, he has become a lightning rod in an intense national debate over the Fed as it approaches its second century.

You have entered a world not of sight or of sound but of mind. A world we call...The Twilight Zone. :eek:

Katwoman
16th December 2009, 07:33
He's professorial, which makes sense, because he spent most of his career as a professor.

Translation: "he has no real world business experience and he is running the largest economy in the world"!!

"He conjured up trillions of new dollars and blasted them into the economy"

Translation: "he printed trillion of dollars out of thin air"!

"Technically, the recession is over, but growth has been anemic and heavily reliant on government programs like Cash for Clunkers, not to mention cheap Fed money."

Translation: "The recession is not over and if you believe this sentence just because we used the word technically you are a fool"

"There's a vast difference between 10% and 25% unemployment"

Translation: "The unemployment numbers depend on who is interpreting the data and how it is reported"!

"He has become a lightning rod in an intense national debate over the Fed as it approaches its second century"

Translation: "Lightening never strikes twice so if we do not end the FED because of this we will never get rid of them"!

Yes you have entered the twilight zone:confused:

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 07:47
Kinda like the "O" Bomb winning the Nobel prize. Rewarding stupidity and doing nothing.

ROTFLMAO

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 08:18
Previous winners (no kidding):

Adolf Hitler in 1938, and Joseph Stalin in 1939 and again in 1942, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, have also been granted the title.

podrag
16th December 2009, 08:18
Kinda like the "O" Bomb winning the Nobel prize. Rewarding stupidity and doing nothing.

ROTFLMAO

I second that statement and join you in heartily ROTFLMAOing.

Argyria
16th December 2009, 09:04
Previous winners (no kidding):

Adolf Hitler in 1938, and Joseph Stalin in 1939 and again in 1942, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, have also been granted the title.

So, if that's true, the nobel prize is actually just a form of European ass-kissing? Oh wait, too bad its not true. Cite your sources, please.

1938: Nansen International Office for Refugees
1939-1943: no award
1979: Mother Teresa

http://www.writespirit.net/resources/nobel_peace_prize
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

If you are going to lie about something, please give me the respect of making it not so easy to refute. This was transparent.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 09:08
So, if that's true, the nobel prize is actually just a form of European ass-kissing?

It's become a political joke, yes. Reagan ended the Cold War and took down the Berlin Wall, did he win? Bush ended the rape rooms and genocide in Iraq. Did he win? But mass murder Yasar Arafat, the crooked Kofi Annan, and climate gangster Al Gore are all winners.

Argyria
16th December 2009, 09:16
It's become a political joke, yes. Reagan ended the Cold War and took down the Berlin Wall, did he win? Bush ended the rape rooms and genocide in Iraq. Did he win? But mass murder Yasar Arafat, the crooked Kofi Annan, and climate gangster Al Gore are all winners.

Yes, these are a joke, combined with Obama it does prove the award is bs. But please use facts, and not make up stories to prove your point.

Katwoman
16th December 2009, 09:18
It's become a political joke, yes. Reagan ended the Cold War and took down the Berlin Wall, did he win? Bush ended the rape rooms and genocide in Iraq. Did he win? But mass murder Yasar Arafat, the crooked Kofi Annan, and climate gangster Al Gore are all winners.


Spot on analysis. The liberals are running and ruining the entire world and if we object they say we are the cruel hearted b#st#rds. Give me an fing break.

Carpe diem.....we have the momentum now we need to accelerate and concentrate our efforts to take this nation back in 2010.....it may be our last chance without having to resort to civil war:(

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 09:36
So, if that's true, the nobel prize is actually just a form of European ass-kissing? Oh wait, too bad its not true. Cite your sources, please.

1938: Nansen International Office for Refugees
1939-1943: no award
1979: Mother Teresa

http://www.writespirit.net/resources/nobel_peace_prize
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

If you are going to lie about something, please give me the respect of making it not so easy to refute. This was transparent.

Hey idiot, all were the TIME MAN OF THE YEAR, the subject of this thread.

I want an apology from you.

Argyria
16th December 2009, 11:44
Hey idiot, all were the TIME MAN OF THE YEAR, the subject of this thread.

I want an apology from you.

I'm sorry, they were. I got distracted with the nobel prize award, I thought that's what you were referring to.

Argyria
16th December 2009, 11:47
Kinda like the "O" Bomb winning the Nobel prize. Rewarding stupidity and doing nothing.

ROTFLMAO

Previous winners (no kidding):

Adolf Hitler in 1938, and Joseph Stalin in 1939 and again in 1942, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, have also been granted the title.

This made me think you were referring to the nobel prize.

UmassSteve
16th December 2009, 12:09
It's become a political joke, yes. Reagan ended the Cold War and took down the Berlin Wall, did he win? Bush ended the rape rooms and genocide in Iraq. Did he win? But mass murder Yasar Arafat, the crooked Kofi Annan, and climate gangster Al Gore are all winners.

Reagan's administration also funded a massive war in Afghanistan to help end the cold war that killed an unknown number of human beings(A lot). He then stopped funding after the war was won even though he had effectively given control of the country to a bunch of 15-20 year old men with rocket launchers and AK-47s. I'm not sure how long ago most of you were in college, but that seems like it could not have possibly ended well. Oh wait, it didn't. The Taliban formed.

Reagan's administration also funded Iraq when it invaded Iran and helped prop up that man who would then go on to govern Iraq through a multinational war in Kuwait and through the genocide Bush went on to stop ten years after it had stopped.

And right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush has cost millions of people their lives, as well as his successful bid to ignore Darfur as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama deserved that nobel peace price, but Reagan and Bush DEFINITELY do not deserve one either.

ccjoe
16th December 2009, 12:13
Reagan's administration also funded a massive war in Afghanistan to help end the cold war that killed an unknown number of human beings(A lot). He then stopped funding after the war was won even though he had effectively given control of the country to a bunch of 15-20 year old men with rocket launchers and AK-47s. I'm not sure how long ago most of you were in college, but that seems like it could not have possibly ended well. Oh wait, it didn't. The Taliban formed.

Reagan's administration also funded Iraq when it invaded Iran and helped prop up that man who would then go on to govern Iraq through a multinational war in Kuwait and through the genocide Bush went on to stop ten years after it had stopped.

And right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush has cost millions of people their lives, as well as his successful bid to ignore Darfur as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama deserved that nobel peace price, but Reagan and Bush DEFINITELY do not deserve one either.

We should get the hell out of the Mid East PERIOD> I don't care about the specious arguments. Just get out and come home and frickin work producing NON WAR products.
It's not that tricky.
Let them fight it out.
I wish Dave was President----------from the movie where correct decisions requiring uncommon sense were made.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 12:40
Reagan's administration also funded a massive war in Afghanistan to help end the cold war that killed an unknown number of human beings(A lot). He then stopped funding after the war was won even though he had effectively given control of the country to a bunch of 15-20 year old men with rocket launchers and AK-47s. I'm not sure how long ago most of you were in college, but that seems like it could not have possibly ended well. Oh wait, it didn't. The Taliban formed.

Reagan's administration also funded Iraq when it invaded Iran and helped prop up that man who would then go on to govern Iraq through a multinational war in Kuwait and through the genocide Bush went on to stop ten years after it had stopped.

And right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush has cost millions of people their lives, as well as his successful bid to ignore Darfur as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama deserved that nobel peace price, but Reagan and Bush DEFINITELY do not deserve one either.

Steve, you weren't even born when Reagan was President, so please don't try to dispense your moveon.org re-write of history here, because you are a clueless Mother Frucker.

Katwoman
16th December 2009, 13:20
The one thing we can all agree on is the fiat money has permitted the unconstitutional wars, the establishment of unfunded government entitlement programs, and the perpetual expansion of the federal government.

No matter what the liberals who post here have to say if they want to see an end to the unconstitutional wars then they have anti up with the entitlement programs and big government they love so much because the demise of fiat currency is the only thing that will make all of these impossible to accomplish in the future by putting a nonpartisan leash on congressional spending.

Personally I am all for bringing our troops home and I am all for ending every single entitlement program in this country tomorrow morning. I am not on the contrary in favor of continuing down the same unsustainable path we are on.

If anyone deserves to be blamed for this it is the American people who have tolerate the 3% annual inflation rate that is the hidden tax which covers the costs for a good portion the chronic budget deficits without raising taxes.....yes Virginia without this inflation the budget deficit would be worse!!

So if you are unhappy then work together to end the FED and IRS and put this country back onto the gold standard. If you oppose this shut the heck up and move to Canada.

DaleFromCalgary
16th December 2009, 14:00
"If anyone deserves to be blamed for this it is the American people who have tolerate the 3% annual inflation rate that is the hidden tax"

They didn't tolerate it, they just didn't understand that it is a hidden tax. We all know how economically illiterate the average wage slave is. I've tried to explain this aspect of inflation to people to no avail. They'd rather watch reality shows instead of the reality around them.

"So if you are unhappy then work together to end the FED and IRS and put this country back onto the gold standard. If you oppose this shut the heck up and move to Canada."

But don't forget we have real winters, real language police (they're not just a figure of speech up here), and an undeclared three-way civil war between the western provinces, Quebec, and Ottawa.

UmassSteve
16th December 2009, 14:16
Steve, you weren't even born when Reagan was President, so please don't try to dispense your moveon.org re-write of history here, because you are a clueless Mother Frucker.

Tell me if these things are true or not:

Reagan's administration funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan to kill Russians. (A major reason behind the demise of the Soviet Union Collapse)

Reagan's adminstration removed Iraq from the state sponsored terrorist watch list. Reagan's administration then sold military intelligence and equipment to Iraq to fight Iran.


Look around, do some reading. Tell me if these things are true or false. There is no revisionist history writing going on here (at least not yet, give me a few posts). I just want to make sure we both agree on what Reagan did during his administration first.

Katwoman
16th December 2009, 14:23
Tell me if these things are true or not:

Reagan's administration funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan to kill Russians. (A major reason behind the demise of the Soviet Union Collapse)

Reagan's adminstration removed Iraq from the state sponsored terrorist watch list. Reagan's administration then sold military intelligence and equipment to Iraq to fight Iran.


Look around, do some reading. Tell me if these things are true or false. There is no revisionist history writing going on here (at least not yet, give me a few posts). I just want to make sure we both agree on what Reagan did during his administration first.

Then you should thank God Reagan did what he did because otherwise we might still be fighting a cold war with Russia. And what makes you think Iran is now or ever was the lessor of two evils? There is no doubt that Saddam turned out to be madman but the alternative leaders from Iran have been no bargain either. More importantly your buddy Obama just told the Nobel committee that war is often justified and that American lives have been sacrificed throughout history to keep the world safe. The hypocrisy of you liberals never ceases to amaze me:rolleyes:

UmassSteve
16th December 2009, 14:44
Hey, I'm equally opposed to Bernake being Time's man of the year as I am to Reagan or Bush getting that or a peace prize as I am to Obama getting a peace price for doing nothing. I'm simply making the point that Reagan and Bush don't deserve either award.

Though to be fair I would argue that having funded an eight year long war between Iraq and Iran allowed the radicalization of Iran to continue and to harden their hearts even further against us. Similarly I would argue not against Reagan's funding of the mujahideen but against how his administration completely dropped all interest in them after arming them. I'm arguing not against the idea of using them against the Russians, just the fact that it is very likely that a few billion dollars in school building, economic aid, and nation building could have prevented the rise of the Taliban and consequently 9/11 and its after effects. I know we're getting into more and more hypothetical situations, and it is impossible to comment on how things would've turned out. But even still, the "what if" of the mujahideen still makes me crazy when I think about how very different our world would be if things had gone just a little bit differently.

Katwoman
16th December 2009, 15:00
Hey, I'm equally opposed to Bernake being Time's man of the year as I am to Reagan or Bush getting that or a peace prize as I am to Obama getting a peace price for doing nothing. I'm simply making the point that Reagan and Bush don't deserve either award.

Though to be fair I would argue that having funded an eight year long war between Iraq and Iran allowed the radicalization of Iran to continue and to harden their hearts even further against us. Similarly I would argue not against Reagan's funding of the mujahideen but against how his administration completely dropped all interest in them after arming them. I'm arguing not against the idea of using them against the Russians, just the fact that it is very likely that a few billion dollars in school building, economic aid, and nation building could have prevented the rise of the Taliban and consequently 9/11 and its after effects. I know we're getting into more and more hypothetical situations, and it is impossible to comment on how things would've turned out. But even still, the "what if" of the mujahideen still makes me crazy when I think about how very different our world would be if things had gone just a little bit differently.

So why didn't your boy Clinton solve the problem then? Certainly he too had ample opportunity to intervene if he had a made it a big enough part of his agenda when he first took office. Instead he and his liberal friends in congress focused on disarming Americans and alienating the Republican party even further.

UmassSteve
16th December 2009, 16:07
Kat, you're trying to fight me on something I agree with you on. Clinton didn't do anything worth while to deserve a peace price or man of the year award. Neither did Reagan, or Bush 1, or Bush 2, or Obama so far. Neither did bernake. I don't know why you're trying to argue with me about things I haven't tried to defend.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 16:07
Tell me if these things are true or not:

Reagan's administration funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan to kill Russians. (A major reason behind the demise of the Soviet Union Collapse)

Reagan's adminstration removed Iraq from the state sponsored terrorist watch list. Reagan's administration then sold military intelligence and equipment to Iraq to fight Iran.


Look around, do some reading. Tell me if these things are true or false. There is no revisionist history writing going on here (at least not yet, give me a few posts). I just want to make sure we both agree on what Reagan did during his administration first.

Picking which facts to present a case then twisting is the liars route you've chosen. Such a process can be used anytime, on anyone to prove them a liar.

I'm not 18 years and stupid Steve. I've been around the block. You are a liar, and a trouble-maker.

Added to my ignore list.

hippiebrian
16th December 2009, 20:11
Picking which facts to present a case then twisting is the liars route you've chosen. Such a process can be used anytime, on anyone to prove them a liar.

I'm not 18 years and stupid Steve. I've been around the block. You are a liar, and a trouble-maker.

Added to my ignore list.

O.K., I was in Beirut in '84 in the U.S.N., so obviously I was alive during the Reagan administration (in fact, I voted against him twice), and I've got to say, everything Steve brought up was 100% correct. If you don't like the facts, that's o.k. But to call someone who points out the facts a liar just because you don't like them is the wrong way to handle something. He's not a liar or a troublemaker, just someone, like me, who disagrees with your particular political view. In a country which has freedom of expression, we need to be able to disagree without namecalling.

JesterJay
16th December 2009, 21:31
And with that Brian, happily, joins Steve in the Liberal Wing of the Silverseekforum building.
I think they occupy the only suite there.
Ain't TnSer's* Cute when they agree?
JesterJay
*Tax 'n' Spenders for you non-old-school politicos



O.K., I was in Beirut in '84 in the U.S.N., so obviously I was alive during the Reagan administration (in fact, I voted against him twice), and I've got to say, everything Steve brought up was 100% correct. If you don't like the facts, that's o.k. But to call someone who points out the facts a liar just because you don't like them is the wrong way to handle something. He's not a liar or a troublemaker, just someone, like me, who disagrees with your particular political view. In a country which has freedom of expression, we need to be able to disagree without namecalling.

hippiebrian
16th December 2009, 21:39
And with that Brian, happily, joins Steve in the Liberal Wing of the Silverseekforum building.
I think they occupy the only suite there.
Ain't TnSer's* Cute when they agree?
JesterJay
*Tax 'n' Spenders for you non-old-school politicos

lmao, have I ever denied being a liberal? Are you just now getting this?

JesterJay
16th December 2009, 21:40
YOU FINALLY ADMIT IT!
Broke him down, he didn't stand a chance,
JesterJay



lmao, have I ever denied being a liberal? Are you just now getting this?

hippiebrian
16th December 2009, 21:44
YOU FINALLY ADMIT IT!
Broke him down, he didn't stand a chance,
JesterJay

Oh yes, you are a god, no one else here has ever heard me call myself a liberal...

SilverMeTimbers
16th December 2009, 22:02
This conversation is like an on-line Thanksgiving dinner! All politicians, for the most part, are self serving d-bags and if you like or the other for what ever left or right reasons you tend to over look their faults. Thats human nature. But thats not a reason to attack someone. Personally, I'm suspect of anyone who would want to go into politics. True leaders lead; they are not voted for.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
16th December 2009, 23:23
O.K., I was in Beirut in '84 in the U.S.N., so obviously I was alive during the Reagan administration (in fact, I voted against him twice), and I've got to say, everything Steve brought up was 100% correct. If you don't like the facts, that's o.k. But to call someone who points out the facts a liar just because you don't like them is the wrong way to handle something. He's not a liar or a troublemaker, just someone, like me, who disagrees with your particular political view. In a country which has freedom of expression, we need to be able to disagree without namecalling.

No, we need to be able to stick to a subject and not inject debunked leftist propaganda into a thread, which is what Steve did and has done several times before. He's an ass. This is not "freedom of expression" or "rights" it's about Steve mindlessly pursing his own personal agenda.

And you do it too - in fact I suspect you are the same person. Added to my ignore list.

hippiebrian
16th December 2009, 23:45
No, we need to be able to stick to a subject and not inject debunked leftist propaganda into a thread, which is what Steve did and has done several times before. He's an ass. This is not "freedom of expression" or "rights" it's about Steve mindlessly pursing his own personal agenda.

And you do it too - in fact I suspect you are the same person. Added to my ignore list.

A fitting response to intelligent debate. And, by the way, I have no idea who Steve is. Can you comprehend maybe there's more than one person in the pm community who thinks differently than you do?

Cup-of-Ruin
17th December 2009, 01:42
Whaaa? oh this is too much, Lord it's enough, please stop the pain....it's not funny anymore, I have got a sense of humour, but really, that's just takin the piss.

SilverLite
17th December 2009, 01:53
Can you comprehend maybe there's more than one person in the pm community who thinks differently than you do?


As your precious Oba-maO phrased it "Yes we can" Hippie...his name was Duney

Green is the new Red after all isn't it... :)

Is Hippy is the new Duney...LOL

Cup-of-Ruin
17th December 2009, 01:56
1268

1269

1270

printing press on, printing press off, printing press on, printing press off, priniting press on, printing press off, printing press on, printing press off,
'Do you think you can handle that Benny Shalom Benanke?'... 'Ahuw'

DaBrownsRPhat
17th December 2009, 07:21
I threw up at the part where they call the Fed an independent GOVERNEMENT agency.

Argyria
18th December 2009, 00:12
I threw up at the part where they call the Fed an independent GOVERNEMENT agency.

Yeah, that's completely backwards. The US government is the largest subsidiary of the Federal Reserve.

Just remember,

Under Republicans man exploits man, under Democrats, its just the opposite.

DaBrownsRPhat
18th December 2009, 07:19
Just remember,

Under Republicans man exploits man, under Democrats, its just the opposite.

lol __________________