36 votes

Peter Schiff taking on OWS Face to Face, Watch here

This was yesterday, heres the link for the video..

Watch here! Its was great.. Peter was in the heart of the fire!

Here is part 2:




Comment viewing options

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

.

The federal reserve is the alter where Corp and Gov get married.

7:58: "I have seen so much Ron Paul supporters and libertarians" - OWS ANON

8:12: are you a RP supporter (to Peter Schiff)

"Well yeah I was the economic adviser when he ran for president in 2008"

9:06 man asks about RP...

.

Schiff does a great job of letting everyone speak.

ACinMA's picture

Heres another clip

in higher def:

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106909

Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts

ℛ[ƎVO˩]ution
"When one gets in bed with government,
one must expect the diseases it spreads."
‎"It's not like I'm a powerful person. My ideas are."

Occupy is not a person. Real simple.

Occupy is an opportunity for Americans to come together and discuss the corruption in government and corporations. Real simple. This scares the sh@t out of the ruling class. So they broadcast a bunch of bs out to the monkeys and tell the good ole boys that Occupy is a "communist" plot, etc, etc. Now the monkeys get all fired up. How about we just say no? How about we tell the ruling class to F-off and unite? Talk. Exercise our liberty? Stop the divide and conquer train. It's boring and it makes us look stupid.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

Here's a regulation that perhaps OWS can relate to

Here's a regulation that perhaps OWS can relate to.

The Government came in and said we're going to regulate the Banks, by bailing them out. That's a $700 Billion regulation!

And that's just the Government. Need I even mention the way The Fed has regulated the Banks? I will. The most well known regulation from The Fed is known as, back-door bailouts.

Perhaps explaining it that way can help people to understand what Government regulation actually is!

What do you think?

Within the truth of reality, there is no such thing as Too Big Too Fail. There is no business or bank that is TBTF. You know what else is not TBTF? The Government and The Fed. But they will try to convince you otherwise, about themselves and their banking buddie(s)! I say this because, the Government and The Fed have failed. They have failed the people.

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier

This is how change happens

Peter was patient and listened before helping them understand their fallacies and connecting the dots

beephree

You got to have the cojones to do what Peter did

Bump

When You Hear the Term "Trickle Down" Used by People

It is usually used to deride free market capitalism. Tell them instead that it is an excellent example of what occurs when GOVERNMENT intervenes in the economy. Out of all that wealth confiscated by government, very little manages to "trickle down" to the "little people" on main street. The people benefit more when wealth is left in the economy to benefit them as consumers more directly.

Yes

Dollars, trickle up to me from my employer.

Pennies, trickle down from the Government's money laundering scheme when they 'take' the money from the people.

The Government takes money from you before you've even been handed your paycheck. You should always be able to 'keep what you earn'. The only time there might be a reason for the Government to get any of anyone's money, is when they go to spend it.

Let's say we have a Fair/Flat Tax based upon consumption, and, the Government is actually required to live within it's means(required by the rule of law!) Now, if the Government starts becoming overreaching and becoming overbearing, you cut down on your spending and they have to cut down on their spending... and therefore they are reigned in. Conversely, if they are doing their job by abiding by the Constitution, which creates an environment of prosperity, then you are probably doing well and prospering and have no problem with spending your money, even knowing that Government is getting some of that money from your spending.

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier

reedr3v's picture

Peter is even more a courageous hero

than I had realized.

there are always faggot-y people like the guy with the sissy

voice whose only concern is about dropping an one-liner and leave

im not against gay people but i just don't have a care for their cynicism and angst against society (not all, duh).. i wasn't the one that gave them grief.

im pretty sure peter is partly motivated because if he ever converts people, people will look into his business. i know i did. if there weren't these external motivations, i'm not sure how someone can withstand the hack going on and on about unions. i mean i convert my friends and i can take some ignorant arguments from them. but from total strangers? a little more difficult.

It's a real shame you can't think before you post

It's thoughtless posts like this that really cast doubt on your maturity level.

i consider intellectual maturity more important

unfortunately many people who have been put off by this society because of the culture's discrimination against their sexual orientation have become so distracted that they blame, they consider this the backbone of this country and its culture and if it were buddhism, they would blame that instead, and then they go off becoming extreme wings of atheism or promote warped visions of their own social justice

unfortunate and i understand, but doesn't mean i have to like them all the same. i don't participate in name calling in public or any group action against people who categorize themselves into minorities, but it doesn't mean i have to like them when i get a chance to speak my mind. collectivism is when someone hears group terms and immediately self-mentally associate. it's like when people try to put me in groups. if you don't feel you belong to a group, it's easy to ignore. in the end collectivists themselves are the ones who get offended. perfect.

Frankly, I don't even know

Frankly, I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say and if you have any common sense and a modicum of decency, you'll modify or delete your offensive, pointless post.

i'm sure someone will understand

obviously people don't make a post just to fit into your confined thinking space.. otherwise they would send email or private message. it's not here just so you can read it and nod head. get used to it

gay people because of their mistreatment tend to look for social justice through legislation and become a part of the problem, just like raped women usually promote federally funded abortion, feminists support equal pay, and all the rest. what don't you understand?

You've managed to knife your

You've managed to knife your own credibility with these posts in a way that is just breathtaking. Not only do you insult gay people, you insensitively belittle women.

The prize goes to you for several of the worst posts I've seen yet on the Daily Paul... and that is really saying something.

reedr3v's picture

In your several posts on this subject

you made the error of lumping individuals with one sexual orientation into one political category. While some gays do call for state action beyond its proper scope, into the area of personal decisions, many do not. Some of our very enlightened libertarian theoreticians and activists are gay and obviously do not fit the false stereotype you keep bashing.

Nonetheless, you have a

Nonetheless, you have a bigot-y way of describing people. Learn some manners-- Dr. Paul can teach you about that too-- or just keep your thoughts to yourself.

Peter is doing a good job

Allot of those people are confused. they contradict themselves because they agree with some parts of the problems but then side with parts of the problem. God Help Us, oh yeah I forgot you sent us Ron Paul. Wheres Tonto?

"The more you understand everything, the more you can understand anything."
PDV

My hat's off to Peter. He has

My hat's off to Peter. He has the stones to face a crowd of sometimes confrontational people like few others.

haha yes

.

Is he there promoting Cain's

Is he there promoting Cain's Nein, Nein, Nein plan?

Edit: I have watched the first 12 minutes or so. He is doing a fine thing.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

I have not heard Schiff

I have not heard Schiff mention Cain in a positive light since the first or second debate. Regarding the 9-9-9, all I have heard Schiff do is condemn it, and Cain and promote Paul and Johnson (I listen to the radio show and check out the video blog sometimes, but maybe you have other info).

I admit I did not like the initial reaction of schiff to cain in the early debates.

I agree Schiff did a good job here in my opinion.

Schiff on Cain's 999 Shiff gets to the bottom of the fallacy's of Cains plan if you watch the entire video, especially around 5 minutes.

I like a consumption tax myself, provided we end the IRS, and the consumption taxes does not generate more revenue than the current system. For example I think the touted fair tax and other mainstream alternatives to taxing my income, essentially provide more revenue to the state and feds.
---
EDIT: I actually do NOT like like Any Tax :D I am implying that I think a consumption tax that is geared to fund a much smaller role of government seems reasonable. If I want to drive on gvmt roads, it could be funded with a gas tax rather than a
recovery "stimulus" project that only increases deficits. If I need an honest court, maybe a court cost could be imposed, or in some cases make the looser pay. I sometimes think a third party mediation that is private might be a better option for civil disputes.

I do NOT think the government should be in the business of doing business, and the individual should be free to determine money (competing currencies like Ron Paul proposes and F.A. Hayak wrote about).

It seems reasonable a government could protect citizens private property and enforce contracts, but it is obvious this government has no interest in doing either.
--end edit--

I want the government to require less revenue and a smaller role in my life, and I think Schiff does too.

I'm not sure if Cain's plan

I'm not sure if Cain's plan has it, but previous proposals of federal sales taxes had caveats for if you earn less than X amount of money or for your first X amount purchased there was no tax charged. And this necessitated having a system of knowing who got the tax and who didn't, thus even for cash purchases an ID would need to be presented. If this is part of the plan it's very dangerous, because the federal government can have complete accounting of what each person is buying and where. No privacy. And it's really easy to fabricate evidence against someone. It also would make it really easy to "turn off" someone's ability to purchase goods if they were to be put on a no-fly style list, for example.

Maybe contributions should be voluntary?

I used to favor a consumption tax, now I am not sure.
I owned and operated a retail store for 10 years. This meant I was a tax agent for the state of Michigan. I was responsible for collecting the tax from my customers and forwarding to the state treasury.

To burden retailers with the job of being an IRS agent for the Federal government is repulsive to me, based on my experience.

Originally, Federal revenues were collected by the many States and apportioned by population. The House controls the government purse strings. The Senate, was appointed by state legislatures before the 17th Amendment. The Senate was responsible to the State legislatures and represented the tax collecting authority of each State.

So the people's House might have grandiose plans, but the State's would inform their Senators that they would not or could not collect the required taxes.

So, Lincoln destroyed state's rights and the 17th amendment finished the paperwork. This destroyed the Constitutional tension between the wants of the people as expressed by the House and each State's Senators expressing the un-willingness to collect the needed taxes.

If not voluntary taxation, at least return collection to the States and repeal or ignore the 17th amendment as an optional addition to the Constitution. Instead of the Congressionally established IRS fully insulated from public influence, let us return the task to the State legislatures elected by the people of the State.

Check and balances on money matters.

Free includes debt-free!

Imagine a Tax-Free America.

Imagine a Tax-Free America.

No, Peter used the space provided

by Occupy to educate a variety of Americans. Peter was part of Occupy. That's how it works. There is no Occupy gang. Occupy is an opportunity for us to come together and show the ruling class we are pissed. Peter just showed you how much potential the Occupy space has. Use it. Oh and Peter, you are part of the 99%. This thing is just getting started and you may need us, your friends in the 99%.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

Peter is the 1%?

I thought he was smarter than that. He is a Rothschild? I am stunned.... that he does not understand.
I agree that many OWS folks do not understand the Fed and how income taxes got started in this country, but for Peter to act like he does not understand who the 1% really are is just lame.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

hey fishy.. Think about it,

hey fishy.. Think about it, we are all the .000001%. We are individuals with individual rights. Remember there is no such thing as group rights.

What Peter was trying to demonstrate is the faulty logic that the 1% of richest people in the world are the problem. The problem instead is the government who has the power to grant favors. So instead the protest should be directed at the 1% that is the government.

Peter is for corporations,which are created by the government,

but he is against government intervention. That is a theme and contradiction. He likes all the money he makes; he just doesn't want to be responsible, or liable, for his company's actions. Sorry Peter, it doesn't work like that in a truly free market.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."