Watch The WaPo/Bloomberg Republican Presidential Candidate Debate Live

Tyler Durden's picture

For all those who can't seem to ever get enough of beltway theater, and enjoy listening to republicans do what they do best when they open their mouths, er, lips are moving, you are in luck: Charlie Rose is hosting a presidential round table with all the usual suspects live from the last resort backup Ivy, Dartmouth college.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pancho Villa's picture

If their lips are moving ...

All of these guys, except for RP, are just tools of the banksters.

CrazyCooter's picture

OMG, Cain just (1) said he used to work for the Fed and (2) said Greenspan was the model for Benanke's replacement in 2013. I am really shocked (that he said it) ...



bxy's picture


The HuffPo has already busted Cain's lies.....Some Paul followers found this video on Cain talking of the Fed......Could this guy really be this clueless especially when he worked at the KC Fed:

legal eagle's picture

You see, and I thought he worked at the KFC

hambone's picture

Headline should have been

"You'll want to perform frontal labotomy on self after watching Republicrony Prez Candi's give side by side stump speeches"

Sorry ya, love ya, but your message is multisyllabic and requires some math capability...MSM has good sense to automatically eject you out from the Prez race to save aMerican public from thinking brain freeze (plus, your hair that Huntsman, and Perry...very presidential hair).

CrazyCooter's picture

Don't mean to one up the thread (re-post for me) but ...

Wrong on many levels, the highest of which the CiC should command more respect (and deomstrate corresponding leadership). Or, (s)he will get, er, um, fried.



Michael's picture

The Federal Government now adds 1 to 2 trillion dollars a year to your national debt.

Do you know what your bill payment is for the national debt?

This should be a commercial like; It's 11 o'clock, do you know where your children are?

Michael's picture

God wanted to see if he could procreate.

That's why he made man in his image and likeness.

Libertarian777's picture

Ron Paul should have asked Herman Cain

"Are you in favour of Central Economic Planning?"

FatFingered's picture

Cain is such an idiot I do not think he would even know what that meant.

bob_dabolina's picture

I like how Michelle Bachman brought up the Community Reinvestment Act as the genesis of the housing bubble

CaptFufflePants's picture

I am here today because we are taking action to bring many thousands of Americans closer to owning a home. Our Government is supporting homeownership because it is good for America; it is good for our families; it is good for our economy. One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a downpayment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.


George W Bush 12/16/2003


Reform1776's picture

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

"They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

navy62802's picture

It's funny how many Republicans in this debate tonight are ripping Bush without mentioning his name.

Market Efficiency Romantic's picture

I bet mentioning his name would buy the ticket. Why all that anonymity, the elite would buy in, they don't care about the perception of their villans in history books.

Market Efficiency Romantic's picture

I bet mentioning his name would buy the ticket. Why all that anonymity, the elite would buy in, they don't care about the perception of their villans in history books.

Hearst's picture

Bloomberg debate completely ignoring Ron Paul.  What a joke.  This is worse than reality tv.

navy62802's picture

To me, it seems they're being too blatant about it. They should be careful, else the plan to ignore him will backfire again.

jeff montanye's picture

i think you are on to something.  why would bloomberg and rose, the nyt and the newshour and everyone in between ignore him so?  i don't think it's the legalizing heroin.  in their heads it's the anti-banksterism, in their hearts it's the anti-zionism.  ron paul/gary johnson '12.  

the msm's just say no to r.p. may work as well as nancy's re: drugs.

High Plains Drifter's picture

i know. its rediculous...............have they even let that man say one word yet?

Freddie's picture

Charlie Rose is a ig lib Dem. ZH seems to still have a lot of Obam-a CS'ers.

jeff montanye's picture

i was a lib dem and i reregistered to vote for r.p. in the fl primary.  charlie rose is a zionist and that cuts a lot deeper than party labels, imo.

jmc8888's picture

Yes Banksters write quite well, and sucker both republicans and democrats, along with the upstart tea party, and trying to the OWS. 

People have to remember that Wall Street likes to make the stealing sound like helping poor people out too.  It provided good cover.


The key thing to remember is that while Gov't that is corrupted is horrible, who was doing the corrupting? Oh yes the banksters.  This was a bankster plan, foisted upon the idiot and/or corruptable because it sounded like it would get them votes.  The banks write the laws, not the other way around.  Of course it takes elected officials to sign off on it.  But lobbyists and bankster have been writing our laws for a long, long time.


I'm sure some idiots believed they were helping out poor people, and in 1 in a 10,000 perhaps it actually did help someone.  But of course the mechanism was put into place to steal. 


Help out the poor, but like this? Yeah fucking right.



Dr. Richard Head's picture

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.” - Ron Paul 2002

ZackAttack's picture

Ritholtz should be required reading for any candidate who opens his/her piehole on the subject of CRA.

JustACitizen's picture

Thank God that none of the Republicans were involved in the financial was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the C.R.A. It had nothing to do with deregulation/non-regulation/captured government officials/derivatives/etc.

/sarc off

Houston - We have a big problem...

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The most egregious schemes were perpetrated during the Clinton administration. Use google to know who's cock was in Barney Frank's mouth. That said, republicans are plenty responsible too.

CaptFufflePants's picture

And Republicans controlloed Congress and wrote the bills and voted for the bills.


Both sides suck.


Also remmebr the Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to jan 2007 they also held the white house from 2001 to 2008 and controlled the justice department from 2001 to 2008


Lets keep this in perspectve, this "it's all Clintons faut" is utter trash.

dark pools of soros's picture

why is there still a debate about repubs and dems on ZH??  we all know their upper strings are pulled by the same hands of wall street and the fed..    their differences are crumbs in comparision to their accord 

navy62802's picture

This is the sad part about our politics. It is so divided and caustic that even in the face of economic armageddon, these egotistical bastards are focused on who caused what ... and it's ALWAYS the other party's fault. When the house is crumbling around you, it doesn't matter who built the faulty foundation or the weak walls. The only thing that matters is that you identify the problem and fix it. Until we have people who are intellectually honest enough to identify the faults in our economy and fix them (no matter how difficult it may be), we are screwed regardless of which party wins the next presidential race.

Reform1776's picture

People treat it like it is a f*ckin sports event where their team is always infallible and the other team must be crushed.

BlackholeDivestment's picture

I spent the last hour typing an experience that confirms our lack of security. I deleted it an just decided to let Jimmy play.

The Shootist's picture

Where is everyone tonight? Newt went guns blazing againtst the Bernak there. Nice.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

It is amazing to me how Ron Paul is driving the discussion with the limited alloted time available to him.

IslandMan's picture

I vote for Charlie Rose !

knukles's picture

Along with Mitt and Slick Rick he's a Bilderburger/CFR, etc., etc., etc.

nmewn's picture

Wonder what it would be like with Roemer on the stage...

Reform1776's picture

He would at least raise the average IQ on the stage into the double digits. If he and Paul would join up.

Maybe run third party as a F-U to being excluded!

nmewn's picture

Seen him on that idiots O'Donnels show....he made sense. I know why he had him on...but I look around anyways.

Third party I would vote against him...Barry has to go no matter what. Period.

It is what it is.

Edit: Cain just lost my Chairman was Greenspan?

Reform1776's picture

What if there are more than three? What does that do to the math?

Aeonios's picture

Edit: Cain just lost my Chairman was Greenspan?

You would've voted for Cain? Sicko.

nmewn's picture

Spoken like a true anus, my hypocritical knife is sharp for you.

So tell me, my adolescent four week member...your choice is or was what?...

dark pools of soros's picture

choose local politics and get involved instead of watching the circus from a bunker

nmewn's picture

You have no idea who I am or what bunker I could be the one right next to you, so watch where you piss.

Dick Fitz's picture

NMEWN- (enemy within, right?)

Until you can critically assess the Repub candidates (and the Dems) and see that all of them (save the flawed but honest Ron Paul) are in bed with the Bankster cartels, and willing to sell out to them for power, then your vote is wasted.

Ron Paul isn't perfect- far from it (I would prefer it if he were more personally "liberal" socially) but I agree with 99% of his policies. I'm gay, and want to get married...and even though he doesn't think Georgia, or Utah, or Arizona should have to recognize it. Other than that, I can't find anything I don't like.

But, I know under a Paul presidency my anti-gov't views won't get me killed, if my state "legalizes" medical marijuana he won't invade, and he will get us OUT of Iraq/Iran/Somalia/Yemen/ The Stans and save hundreds of thousands of lives. He will also restore "sound money".

In my mind, he's the ONLY RATIONAL choice.

cherry picker's picture

I have to agree with you and I have been around quite awhile, long enough to see how much everything has changed.

However, the President is only one man and he is fighting against a cartel of media and government manipulation which refuses to acknowledge that many people like his ideas.

That in and of itself should be enough to scare people

Libertarian777's picture

Your issue is his stance on gay marriage, and yet you quote his stance incorrectly. Ron Paul believes in individual rights. There are NO 'gay' rights. YOU, as an individual, should get the same treatment and privileges as ME. Who cares if you're gay, that is your PERSONAL choice as much as it is a personal choice for anyone else to stay single or get married.

Marriage shouldn't be a 'state (or fed) sanctioned' status. There should be no legal restrictions on anyone associating, bequeathing or donating their assets to anyone. You, as an individual are free to associate with anyone of your choosing, if that other person is of the same sex, there is no difference. If you choose to call your personal commitment 'marriage' and wish to do it in a church that allows it (and to which you are free to associate) that is your choice. You should need no license etc to get married. Yes there are legal issues currently (eg gay partner doesn't get visitation rights), but RPs position is that you as an individual should be able to associate with whoever and thus hospitals cannot restrict you as a gay partner from visiting. Also those legal issues currently exist exactly because THE STATE needs to 'approve' your marriage (via a license).

his standard position is to restore individual rights over state rights and state rights over federal power.

There should be no 'special rights' for 'gay marriage' anymore than there should be special rights for 'straight marriage'. THAT is Ron Paul's position politically.

His personal views on abortion and gay marriage do not change his view of government's role in either of those social issues. Which is to say they should have no role in either.

This is Ron Pauls consistent position in many Social and economic issues. Government should neither favor nor disfavor any person, group or belief.

nmewn's picture

"NMEWN- (enemy within, right?)"

Correct...there is no need to go into why I chose it in this venue.

"Until you can critically assess the Repub candidates (and the Dems) and see that all of them (save the flawed but honest Ron Paul) are in bed with the Bankster cartels, and willing to sell out to them for power, then your vote is wasted."

I'm gonna take a wild ass guess and say the last president you voted for was Obama. And what critical assessments led you to waste your vote that way? 

You don't understand RP's position on gay marriage at all. He's not going to be using the power of the federal executive branch to force your will on anyone else...he is not a statist.

Maybe you should re-assess ;-)

NuckingFuts's picture

I saw him as well last night on O'Donnels show and he did make sense. It's a shame that was the first time I heard him speak for even that long (a short piece on the show). I for one would like hear more from the man. Obviously he is not kissing the right asses.

Reform1776's picture

Google Buddy Roemer, there's a ton of stuff...