6 votes

Greenspan: Govt. should destroy houses. Peter Schiff destroys Greenspan's idea



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

video

Yes this along with the burning down the houses issue should be made as one video along with Cain's lie. See post on it.
http://www.dailypaul.com/182404/how-to-capitalize-from-cains...
We can kill a few birds with one stone .

Just my thoughts but

Could this be the plan to move us toward Agenda 21 and sustainable development? Destroy the homes and not let anyone build on the land.

Thanks

for the link.

If you finished watching the

If you finished watching the CNBC clip, they brought on some stupid putz that agreed with Greenspan. Unbelievable. How would Greenspan have liked it if he had to pay a lot more for his first house b/c the government artificially kept prices high? I've never owned a home - how the hell am I better off if I have to pay more money to buy a house? Why not destroy crops and animals so I have to pay more for food too? Then the economy would really take off! Destroy excess cars too! (oops, they already did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA9ZJbYF2Sc )

BTW, Romney also thinks we'd be better off if the price of housing went up, though I haven't heard him call for destroying houses... yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=013EviCAASc

They've already done this...

...except with used cars instead of houses.

I just bought a used car for $8,600. The book value of the car is about $7,500. Why did I pay so much more? Just go to any used car lot and you'll see why. ALL used cars cost more than they're worth these days. Why? Well, one big reason is the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

With the Cash for Clunkers program, the government trashed a bunch of used cars. Now, you combine the results of that wonderful government program with the effect of all of the natural disasters as of late... and the fact that the economy has gotten so bad and so more people are buying used cars rather than new... and you have a recipe for HIGH PRICES.

Just what we need.

This is the kind of genius stuff they come up with up there in D.C. Now, you might say, "Well how could the government know that natural disasters were coming and that thousands of used cars would be destroyed? They were just trying to help." Exactly... the government CAN'T know what is going to happen in the future, so they shouldn't try to "help".

I've had about all the "government helping me" I can stand. I was a mortgage broker a few years ago and I was making good money. Now I'm a pizza delivery driver making next to nothing. In between I had a job as a manager of a pool hall. I love to play pool so I loved the job. I lost that job because the government outlawed smoking in public places and the pool hall had to close down because they had no business. Now I'm paying too much for a used car because of the government.

Do you see why I'm voting for Ron Paul?

exactly. The same goes for

exactly. The same goes for houses. There are tons of vacant homes in some parts of the country. But you know if they just destroyed them you are destroying capital. If somebody buys it for 1/2 off or even less, now they have the ability to get ahead more-so then having to buy the house at a govt approved price.

Ooops....

Double post.

Greenspan: Maestro of Economic Annihilation

American people right now cannot afford to buy houses, so Greenspan's solution is for government to incur further indebtedness spending money to destroy millions of good homes in order to make the reamining homes even more unafforable for the people who can't buy houses now.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

LOL

Only Schiff can call em out like this.

Thanks for posting.

p.s. on a side note...

"Excerpt:

Many European policymakers are beginning to envisage the fund, known formally as the European financial stability facility, as a nascent eurozone treasury that could sit alongside the European Central Bank. It would be quickly tapped to deal with crises without relying on national parliaments, which cannot act at the speed demanded by markets.

Senior officials have even begun referring to this future construction by a new name, the European Monetary Fund, which would operate like many other European Union institutions – with decisions taken by a qualified majority vote rather than unanimity. Such proposals will feature in a review of eurozone governance overseen by Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, next month

Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies think-tank, estimated that under some scenarios, the EFSF – and its successor, a permanent agency called the European Stability Mechanism – would have to be as big as €4,000bn ($6.2 trillion).

Such an increase would mean France, whose triple A rating is essential to the market credibility of the EFSF, would see its debt levels rocket, at a time when its bond rating is already under scrutiny. “It’s just not conceivable to have a much larger EFSF and still have France as triple A,” said Mr Gros.

---

DB here. Meanwhile UK Prime Minister David Cameron is in the news today calling for "a big bazooka approach to bailouts" warning they have only a few weeks to avert economic disaster. And Merkel and Sarkozy met again today and claim to have reached agreement on a massive EURO bank bailout, though neither would release details."

donvino

Its not the govt's job to buy

Its not the govt's job to buy houses.

this is no longer a government

and yes it is the LAND they want control of.

If we don't even have the option of subsistence (being able to grow a garden on our OWN land through ownership or rents) because the government owns it all and therefore controls every aspect of contract, then we are forced to use the system/purchase from the system/work for it through the system.

I brought attention to this the other day where several judges in different states are now ruling against organic farmers and even home gardens (in subdivisions, etc) through any means they can find. Whether it be for minor civil infractions or local weed/pest control or against the "Landscape" ordinances, etc. We do NOT have a basic right to grow our own foodstuffs. Period. Not even on our own lands. This is the decision of several judges.

Maybe the government is gonna need lots of land back to have areas to grow their genetically modified crap for us.

And of course force us into paying more for existing housing.