Putin says U.S. is a "parasite" on global economy

[Saint in Paradise]

LAKE SELIGER, Russia (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States Monday of living beyond its means

"like a parasite" on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.

 

"They are living beyond their means and shifting a part of the weight of their problems to the world economy," Putin told a Kremlin youth group

while touring its summer camp north of Moscow.

 

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9955524/putin-says-u-s-is-a-parasite-on-global-economy/

 

Strong words against the U.S.

[Verbal]

From the godfather of the world's most notorious mafia state.

[jjsaint]

It's hard to argue with Putin, PM of the glorious Russian Federation. If ever there was a paragon of virtue...

[Seaford Saint]

The fact is that the US have to pay this debt back...and they can't not without inflicting pain on themselves. Lets see what happens to their society when you have millions of hungry citizens.

[pap]

Irrespective of what you think of Putin or the way that Russia is run, the man is correct on this matter.

 

The US is living beyond its means - soon to be $16tn beyond its means - and the US knows it too. This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending.

 

The problems aren't even limited to Federal budgets. Look at the debacle in California, or the upcoming crisis that is about to engulf Jefferson County, Alabama.

 

So let's not dilute the message because we don't like the messenger.

[swannymere]

The Tea Party exists to reduce taxes, that can't happen whatever party is in power, Bush Jnr. overspent massively and reduced taxes at the same time add in two wars it's easy to see where all the money has gone. The whole economy is subsidised by the government, everything from farming to manufacturing exists in its own little bubble.

[Verbal]

Irrespective of what you think of Putin or the way that Russia is run, the man is correct on this matter.

 

The US is living beyond its means - soon to be $16tn beyond its means - and the US knows it too. This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending.

 

The problems aren't even limited to Federal budgets. Look at the debacle in California, or the upcoming crisis that is about to engulf Jefferson County, Alabama.

 

So let's not dilute the message because we don't like the messenger.

 

Most of this debt is private-sector debt. And the idea that the Tea Party exists merely as a sort of taxpayers' alliance is missing the mark by quite a bit.

[Seaford Saint]

The Tea Party exists to reduce taxes, that can't happen whatever party is in power, Bush Jnr. overspent massively and reduced taxes at the same time add in two wars it's easy to see where all the money has gone. The whole economy is subsidised by the government, everything from farming to manufacturing exists in its own little bubble.

 

 

You could argue that you have some sort of socialist government in the US, then....if you add people on food stamps etc

[Verbal]

The whole economy is subsidised by the government, everything from farming to manufacturing exists in its own little bubble.

 

This really isn't the case. The economy has been sustained, if that's the word, by series of bubbles, most of the recent ones orchestrated by Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. After the dotcom bubble came the property bubble - both of them encouraging vast amounts of private debt, and precisely none of it government-funded.

[pap]

Most of this debt is private-sector debt. And the idea that the Tea Party exists merely as a sort of taxpayers' alliance is missing the mark by quite a bit.

 

If you've got that idea, it has come from your own head. I didn't suggest that it was a taxpayer's alliance. I don't see how you could have derived that from the post there.

 

 

 

This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending.

[Verbal]

If you've got that idea, it has come from your own head. I didn't suggest that it was a taxpayer's alliance. I don't see how you could have derived that from the post there.

 

 

 

This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending.

 

That's exactly my point. The Tea Party is a socially conservative, back to the prairie movement, wanting to ban single-sex marriage, abortion and scientific work on stem cells, among many other out-there policies. Calling it an organisation devoted to reducing government doesn't begin to cover it.

 

But my larger point was that the real problem in the US is private debt. If you recall, it almost wiped out the world economy in the property bubble that led to the credit crunch.

[pap]

I said that one of the "big reasons" it exists is to reduce the size of Government. At no stage did I indicate that it was the only reason it existed.

 

I like the way that you can read one thing and instantly arrive at a load of other conclusions of your own making. It's an impressive skill, but can be dangerous at times.

[Thedelldays]

I bet verbal has been to the states. Usually he/she throws that in when discussing a point

[Verbal]

I said that one of the "big reasons" it exists is to reduce the size of Government. At no stage did I indicate that it was the only reason it existed.

 

I like the way that you can read one thing and instantly arrive at a load of other conclusions of your own making. It's an impressive skill, but can be dangerous at times.

 

You still haven't got it right. The Tea Party doesn't exist to 'reduce the size of government'. It's not even one of its 'big reasons'. It exists to do many things, one of which is to take sides in the old feds-versus-states debate that goes back to the Civil War. It wants to wipe out Washington, basically, and return power to the states. The same reasoning, although with different tactics, as that used by Timothy McVeigh. Aside from that, it is importantly an ultra-conservative campaign group on social issues. Where this comes together is in their implacable hostility to welfare and publicly-funded health programmes.

 

I'm sorry if my disagreeing with you has caused you such offence. I just think your characterisation of the Tea Party misses the mark.

 

And to repeat, the bigger issue here is that the problem is private debt, about which the Tea Party is stunningly silent.

[pap]

*Sigh*

 

At this point Verbal, you're not even debating with me. You're debating with an imagined version of me that you've extrapolated from a single point I've made.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the extra texture you've added to the debate. I think it's valuable. I just don't see why in making your own point, you have to diminish somebody else's point.

 

Still, have fun debating with this imagined version of me. Let me know what conclusion I reach, will you?

[SuperMikey]

Just goes to show that maybe we're not as f*cked in the UK as all the hysterical right-wingers thought we were...

[Saintandy666]

Just goes to show that maybe we're not as f*cked in the UK as all the hysterical right-wingers thought we were...

 

This is true. To compare us to Greece was absolutely ridiculous. Every economist with a half a brain could see that our economy was built on much more sturdy ground(i.e most people play by tax rules), and in addition our economy is SEVERAL times bigger and so a deficit of that size(which only appeared after the 2007 crisis and bailing out of the banks - money we will get bank and thus will be able to pay down the deficit) is not as bad as it seems.

 

Our debt as a percentage of GDP is also low compared to the USA and so on. And now, instead of having a decent recovery that we can afford Osborne and co blinded by an ideological desire to reduce the state as fast as possible are ruining what otherwise could have been a stable economy.

 

In the long run though, unless we sort ourselves out big time, the only way for the west is down. The east will rise.

[Barney Trubble]

Can't argue with the underlying principle of his words.

 

I am not comfortable with having to assist with another countries debt because if we don't help them directly, it will impact on us indirectly!

 

What sort of message does that send out? How can that be ethically/morally acceptable?

 

It's like me not giving a toss, building up a big debt with my partner and then telling her I can't afford the mortgage payments anymore then telling her that she can either bail me out or we lose the house.

 

I am tired of hearing about the wonders of capitalism and how fantastic it is but it appears to me that there are a very exclusive and elite men/women who basically run the world, borrow money to banks, countries and they have the power to destroy as and when they please.

 

The picture in my mind is of the wealthy being extremely wealthy and there is a huge gap between the next tier down and they are also millionaires too(but relatively poor in comparison), then another huge gap, which is the likes of us.

 

How do banks become a bank? Surely it's rich men/women creating one and then pulling the strings of those countries, other banks etc that they borrow money to.

 

Commerce and Industry is very complex and I suppose I am looking at it in a black and white manner but ultimately, I just see a very few, who are rich to the point of it being quite sick and those are the ones that make the world turn, they are bigger than countries, bigger than continents as it's their money that we all lend.

 

There must be another banking system that is behind all this that is exclusive to just a few powerful people.

 

am i Paranoid? I think it might be the best way to be.

[pap]

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century

[dune]

Just goes to show that maybe we're not as f*cked in the UK as all the hysterical right-wingers thought we were...

 

And that is thanks to the swift action taking by the Conservatives. Without that action we would have lost our AAA credit rating and it would have gone down hill from there. I know you are young and naive, but the inaction by the USA and the turmoil that is happening over there is a clear vindication that the measures we took were right for the country.

Edited 2 August, 2011 by dune

[dune]

In the long run though, unless we sort ourselves out big time, the only way for the west is down. The east will rise.

 

The East has already risen. The stupid Labour party sealed our fate when they scrambled us out of Africa allowing the Marxists to replace us.

[Saintandy666]

The East has already risen. The stupid Labour party sealed our fate when they scrambled us out of Africa allowing the Marxists to replace us.

 

Not that I agree with us ruling over other countries, but the reasons we exited from country after country post-WW2 was not moral, we were bloody bankrupted after the war and could no longer sustain our empire. Many countries were also no longer making profits. It made no financial sense anymore. And it never made moral sense.

 

There was absolutely nothing we could do to stop it happening, empires rise and always fall. And will you please stop going on about Marxists. A true Marxist society has never really existed.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

While we squabble and worry about some credit rating system and its importance, China (and perhaps India) are laughing at us...

[SuperMikey]

And that is thanks to the swift action taking by the Conservatives. Without that action we would have lost our AAA credit rating and it would have gone down hill from there. I know you are young and naive, but the inaction by the USA and the turmoil that is happening over there is a clear vindication that the measures we took were right for the country.

 

There was no inaction in the US, they chose instead to grow their economy to a good level before cutting their debt. Their economy grew greatly last year, it is only now that that growth is slowing as their debt cripples them.

 

You can see the change in growth from the days of Bush to the days of Obama. 2010 saw the US grow their economy back to a good state, unlike ours which is being kicked while it's down. You CAN cut, you just need to make sure that your economy can handle it. That's what the US government is doing - although it may now be a case of too little, too late. If the Iraq and Afghanistan military deployments hadn't happened, i'm sure the world economy would be in a much better state than it is now.

 

The US will go through a rough patch, but they will bounce back a lot quicker than we will. Their economy will grow in leaps of 2, 3, 4% whereas ours will remain in the decimals for the forseeabe future unless the UK government shows a bit of faith and spends some money to increase economic growth.

[Saintandy666]

While we squabble and worry about some credit rating system and its importance, China (and perhaps India) are laughing at us...

 

Exactly, and China doesn't even have a 'Triple A' rating.

[dune]

Not that I agree with us ruling over other countries, but the reasons we exited from country after country post-WW2 was not moral, we were bloody bankrupted after the war and could no longer sustain our empire. Many countries were also no longer making profits. It made no financial sense anymore. And it never made moral sense.

 

There was absolutely nothing we could do to stop it happening, empires rise and always fall. And will you please stop going on about Marxists. A true Marxist society has never really existed.

 

You haven't got a clue. I suggest read "The Great Betrayal" - which are the memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith.

[dune]

The US will go through a rough patch, but they will bounce back a lot quicker than we will. Their economy will grow in leaps of 2, 3, 4% whereas ours will remain in the decimals for the forseeabe future unless the UK government shows a bit of faith and spends some money to increase economic growth.

 

Is there no bounds to your expertise? Personally i'll take notice of the IMF predictions before listening to your left wing dogma.

[Guided Missile]

LAKE SELIGER, Russia (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States Monday of living beyond its means

"like a parasite" on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.

 

"They are living beyond their means and shifting a part of the weight of their problems to the world economy," Putin told a Kremlin youth group

while touring its summer camp north of Moscow.

 

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9955524/putin-says-u-s-is-a-parasite-on-global-economy/

 

Strong words against the U.S.

Putin and the other left wing apologists conveniently forget that the revolutionary Russia of 1917 refused to accept responsibility for Imperial Russia's foreign debt, just like Iceland did with its debts a couple of years ago. So, fast forward nearly a century and barely 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we are taking lessons in economics from Russia.

 

Putin's words may be listened to, by children living under his dictatorship in Russia and posting on here, but spare the rest of us the lectures, Vladimir and stick to repression, something we can all agree you know more than anyone about.

[Saintandy666]

You haven't got a clue. I suggest read "The Great Betrayal" - which are the memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith.

 

Well, of course that racist would say that!

 

I mean come on, at least give me a fair balanced view to read. Just accept that we were broke, and it was no longer profitable. (Oh, and it was *always* morally wrong)

 

I know a lot more about the British in India than Zimbabwe, and I can tell you in that example we clung on the very very end.

[dune]

Well, of course that racist would say that!

 

I mean come on, at least give me a fair balanced view to read. Just accept that we were broke, and it was no longer profitable. (Oh, and it was *always* morally wrong)

 

I know a lot more about the British in India than Zimbabwe, and I can tell you in that example we clung on the very very end.

 

Clearly you must know a lot more about India because you nothing about the situation in Rhodesia.

[swannymere]

This really isn't the case. The economy has been sustained, if that's the word, by series of bubbles, most of the recent ones orchestrated by Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. After the dotcom bubble came the property bubble - both of them encouraging vast amounts of private debt, and precisely none of it government-funded.

 

I meant that everything is cheap in the states food, fuel etc. because those things are lightly taxed or heavily subsidised compared to here, they're not really living in the real world.

[Verbal]

*Sigh*

 

At this point Verbal, you're not even debating with me. You're debating with an imagined version of me that you've extrapolated from a single point I've made.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the extra texture you've added to the debate. I think it's valuable. I just don't see why in making your own point, you have to diminish somebody else's point.

 

Still, have fun debating with this imagined version of me. Let me know what conclusion I reach, will you?

 

Debating your imagined you is more fun, it's true. Saying the Tea Party's 'big reasons' for its existence is cutting government spending is like saying the Nazis came to power to rid Germany of hyperinflation. So I wasn't saying you were wrong so much as that you're being shallow. I hope that makes you feel better.

[Saintandy666]

Clearly you must know a lot more about India because you nothing about the situation in Rhodesia.

 

I do know that there was no way whatsoever that our empire could have carried on in the modern world with the financial state we were in. And the fact, the USA were effectively twisting our arms to get rid of it all. I'm sorry, but why the empire collapse may be painted as some great moral decision by the leaders of the time, it was a reflection of a country in financial decline.

[Guided Missile]

There was absolutely nothing we could do to stop it happening, empires rise and always fall. And will you please stop going on about Marxists. A true Marxist society has never really existed.

You obviously never watched "The Killing Fields". Cambodia and Ethiopa were both Marxist states in the 1970's. Many of the residents living in these Utopian visions ceased to exist, but both societies definitely existed....

Edited 2 August, 2011 by Guided Missile

[Verbal]

I meant that everything is cheap in the states food, fuel etc. because those things are lightly taxed or heavily subsidised compared to here, they're not really living in the real world.

 

What are you measuring this against though? The public sector in the US is a fraction of the size of that in the UK or the rest of Europe. What in particular is heavily subsidised, apart from farming? (And how is that any less of a subsidy than the proceeds of the Common Agricultural Policy?)

 

A little of the 'low tax' argument is a bit of a myth. Compare your council tax bill, for example, with the $20,000+ you'd pay per annum in state property taxes for a two-bedroom apartment in New York.

Edited 2 August, 2011 by Verbal

[Saintandy666]

You obviously never watched "The Killing Fields". Cambodia and Ethiopa were both Marxist states in the 1970's. Many of the residents living in these Utopian visions ceased to exist, but both societies definitely existed....

 

They aren't real Marxist societies. They are just in the name of Marxism. Marxism always fails because some nutjob gets carried away usually with horrendous consequences(Stalin's purges, Pol Pots killing fields and so on).

 

Edit: And Marxist state doesn't really make sense. True Marxism involves no state and no class. There is meant to be an in between state called the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', but that is when it always goes wrong.

[dune]

You obviously never watched "The Killing Fields". Cambodia and Ethiopa were both Marxist states in the 1970's. Many of the residents living in these Utopian visions ceased to exist, but both societies definitely existed....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2SnoKocUL8

 

The mining rights for marange belong to the London listen African Consolidate Resources (ACR) yet Mugabe and his henchmen revoked the mining rights and now a cargo plane leaving regularly for China. Yet another example of how the Marxists operate in Africa.

Edited 2 August, 2011 by dune
wrong vid

[Verbal]

They aren't real Marxist societies. They are just in the name of Marxism. Marxism always fails because some nutjob gets carried away usually with horrendous consequences(Stalin's purges, Pol Pots killing fields and so on).

 

Edit: And Marxist state doesn't really make sense. True Marxism involves no state and no class. There is meant to be an in between state called the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', but that is when it always goes wrong.

 

It really goes wrong with Lenin, and his notion of The Party as 'the vanguard of the proletariat'. And this is where Putin comes in...

[Saintandy666]

 

The mining rights for marange belong to the London listen African Consolidate Resources (ACR) yet Mugabe and his henchmen revoked the mining rights and now a cargo plane leaving regularly for China. Yet another example of how the Marxists operate in Africa.

 

So Marxists operating on a global scale now to help generate huge profits. Do you even know what Marxism entails?!

[Saintandy666]

It really goes wrong with Lenin, and his notion of The Party as 'the vanguard of the proletariat'. And this is where Putin comes in...

 

Exactly, Marx always envisaged a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat as a whole. It was only when people like Lenin and Blanqui came along that the idea of a group or man with absolute power came in to play.

[SuperMikey]

Is there no bounds to your expertise? Personally i'll take notice of the IMF predictions before listening to your left wing dogma.

 

It's called an opinion Duney boy. With the situation changing as often as it is as the moment with the US economy, IMF predictions shouldn't be relied on. This debt ceiling deal could change everything with regards to the US.

[OldNick]

Exactly, Marx always envisaged a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat as a whole. It was only when people like Lenin and Blanqui came along that the idea of a group or man with absolute power came in to play.

Marxists and the like are jealous people who resent others who have money and power, as soon as they get their hands on it they are worse than the ones they took it from. Power and money corrupts, the despots of the world who are normally put in place by the proletariat, who then get a worse deal.Please let me know where there is a Marxist society where the top people do not live the high life and the citizens are in abject poverty?

[Guided Missile]

Marxists and the like are jealous people who resent others who have money and power, as soon as they get their hands on it they are worse than the ones they took it from. Power and money corrupts, the despots of the world who are normally put in place by the proletariat, who then get a worse deal.

History of the Labour Party since the war....

[Verbal]

Marxists and the like are jealous people who resent others who have money and power, as soon as they get their hands on it they are worse than the ones they took it from. Power and money corrupts, the despots of the world who are normally put in place by the proletariat, who then get a worse deal.Please let me know where there is a Marxist society where the top people do not live the high life and the citizens are in abject poverty?

 

On the one hand, you can get a sensible answer to this from Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB, now variously president/PM-for-life/kleptomaniac/giver of favours to plutocrats like Abramovich....

 

On the other, sadly there is a list longer than those who died in the holocaust of those who were committed socialists, and who died for their beliefs, whether in 'Marxist' societies, or in South American or South European fascist dictatorships (Salazar, Franco, the Colonels) - so characterising these people, with their ideals, as 'jealous' and 'resentful' is not entirely fair, is it? It's a bit like damning the people dying in the streets of Hama right now for being selfish and resentful.

[pap]

Debating your imagined you is more fun, it's true. Saying the Tea Party's 'big reasons' for its existence is cutting government spending is like saying the Nazis came to power to rid Germany of hyperinflation. So I wasn't saying you were wrong so much as that you're being shallow. I hope that makes you feel better.

 

For the last time, I said it was one of the "big reasons". That does not preclude other big reasons, nor does it require that I exhaustively list them.

 

Keep talking though, Verbal. I think you're doing exceptionally well on the "jumping to conclusions" front, even better at "digging yourself deeper" and if there's ever been anyone who is better at "not knowing when to shut up", I've yet to witness it.

[Verbal]

For the last time, I said it was one of the "big reasons". That does not preclude other big reasons, nor does it require that I exhaustively list them.

 

Keep talking though, Verbal. I think you're doing exceptionally well on the "jumping to conclusions" front, even better at "digging yourself deeper" and if there's ever been anyone who is better at "not knowing when to shut up", I've yet to witness it.

 

I take it that's a no then? Funny, I was sure you'd be happy.

[OldNick]

On the one hand, you can get a sensible answer to this from Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB, now variously president/PM-for-life/kleptomaniac/giver of favours to plutocrats like Abramovich....

 

On the other, sadly there is a list longer than those who died in the holocaust of those who were committed socialists, and who died for their beliefs, whether in 'Marxist' societies, or in South American or South European fascist dictatorships (Salazar, Franco, the Colonels) - so characterising these people, with their ideals, as 'jealous' and 'resentful' is not entirely fair, is it? It's a bit like damning the people dying in the streets of Hama right now for being selfish and resentful.

but it is not those people who really care who get to the top.

You only have to look at John Prescott, a waiter/steward on a ship, filled with jealousy and resentment because he doessn't have the trappings of power and wealth and when he gets it he plays it large, 2 jags and special lanes on motorways so he doesnt have to wait with the prols.I may be overstating it but Im sure you know what i mean.

The Russian leaders lived the life of kings whilst their comrades toiled, it is the same over and the mystical world of equality and fairness does not exist and never will do. it is just a reversal of who is on top looking down at the rest.

[bridge too far]

No right minded socialist (if that isn't an oxymoron!) wants Equality, Nick. I don't know a single socialist who wants that.

 

But some do want equality of opportunity and that's a different kettle of fish. It's a pipe dream in many ways, I know, but if every newborn had the opportunity to live in decent housing, to have a good health service and to have a first-rate education, then that child has the opportunity to fulfil his / her potential.

 

It's the getting to that point that's so hard.

[OldNick]

No right minded socialist (if that isn't an oxymoron!) wants Equality, Nick. I don't know a single socialist who wants that.

 

But some do want equality of opportunity and that's a different kettle of fish. It's a pipe dream in many ways, I know, but if every newborn had the opportunity to live in decent housing, to have a good health service and to have a first-rate education, then that child has the opportunity to fulfil his / her potential.

 

It's the getting to that point that's so hard.

Not only socialists wish for that, right minded people do. The problem is you can only have that when the society they are in has enough to go around to supply it. If you borrow so that it weakens the strong and so there is no fat to spare to help, then everyone is dragged down into the mire. I personally don't wish for my grand-daughter to live in squalor and poverty because the government tried a social experiment and overspent to try and uplift all, where-ever they come from.(It is not PC, but I resent people coming here and drawing from the system after not paying in, whatever their colour or creed.)

Until society decides that parents and citizens have to face up to their own responsibilities, children from poorer backgrounds will be held back as they do not have the right support from their parents to get somewhere. Most kids want to get on in life but due to the social system that pays you not to work some have no experience how to move up the ladder. It is a self defeating spiral.

[solentstars]

Irrespective of what you think of Putin or the way that Russia is run, the man is correct on this matter.

 

The US is living beyond its means - soon to be $16tn beyond its means - and the US knows it too. This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending.

 

The problems aren't even limited to Federal budgets. Look at the debacle in California, or the upcoming crisis that is about to engulf Jefferson County, Alabama.

 

So let's not dilute the message because we don't like the messenger.

i agree about the right wing tea partys message but i cannot see them cutting the massive spending of the defence industry with their links with big business and oil who pay less tax now than the early 60s and reversing tax cuts for the super wealthy over the last decade because these people fund the tea party.