Hitler begs Hjalmar Schact for a $7 billion loan

[Terry Mauro]

This is classic. While the financial system is evaporating before our eyes, the "austerity" Governator of California decides to get in on the bail out money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27006906

[David G. Healy]

This is classic. While the financial system is evaporating before our eyes, the "austerity" Governator of California decides to get in on the bail out money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27006906

Governater Arnie looking to sell gold backed dollar bonds, then default on them? (Really Terry, associating Arnie to NAZI *Schact* is not only out there, but unfair and foolish). He's doing EXACTLY what a Governor should do, lookout for States (in this case California) interest...

Edited October 6, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

Once again I agree with David, though I’m no fan of Schwarzenegger as a politician calling him Hitler, a man responsible for the deaths is stupid and obnoxious. In this case I see nothing wrong with “the Governator’s” actions.

[Terry Mauro]

And I called Hank Paulson, "Hjalmar Schact". As economist Abba Lerner admitted during his 1971 debate at Queens College against Lyndon LaRouche "If the German people had just accepted Schact's policies then Hitler would not have been necessary".

As usual you guys miss the boat.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

And I called Hank Paulson, "Hjalmar Schact". As economist Abba Lerner admitted during his 1971 debate at Queens College against Lyndon LaRouche "If the German people had just accepted Schact's policies then Hitler would not have been necessary".

As usual you guys miss the boat.

Though your faulty analogy seems to have confused David (I imagine he assumed Schact was a regional leader) I wrote that you called Schwarzenegger Hitler. A stupid and vile comparison even if I don't agree with his politics.

It's amazing that LaRouche and his followers still rant about an obscure debate between two obscure men. The facts that there was no contemporary coverage and all reports came years later from Larouche (and his followers) are indicative of importance anybody else put on it even then let alone 37 years later.

[Terry Mauro]

And I called Hank Paulson, "Hjalmar Schact". As economist Abba Lerner admitted during his 1971 debate at Queens College against Lyndon LaRouche "If the German people had just accepted Schact's policies then Hitler would not have been necessary".

As usual you guys miss the boat.

Though your faulty analogy seems to have confused David (I imagine he assumed Schact was a regional leader) I wrote that you called Schwarzenegger Hitler. A stupid and vile comparison even if I don't agree with his politics.

It's amazing that LaRouche and his followers still rant about an obscure debate between two obscure men. The facts that there was no contemporary coverage and all reports came years later from Larouche (and his followers) are indicative of importance anybody else put on it even then let alone 37 years later.

As usual you confuse your opinion with truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Lerner

Why do you think Hitler was placed intp power? As Abba Lerner admitted some 37 years ago, Hitler was placed into power to enforce the austerity policies of Brooklyn born banker Horace Greely Shacht. That was the point of my posting Lerner's statement from 1971. You try and switch the subject by disputing a statement that I never made.

But that's the purpose of placing Arnold Schwarzennegger into politics. To act as an Adolph Hitler on behalf of the bankrupt bankers enforcing brutal austerity on the population of California. I suppose the irony is lost on you that after all the brutal "budget cuts" against education, medical care, and other entitlement programs, the state of California is still in need of a $7 billion bail out.

You also pretend to be an expert on Lyndon LaRouche when in fact your'e just repeating old worn out gossip from the ADL and their Dope networks. Anyone who promoted the vile satanic outlook of GG Allin to young people, and still defends his actions today as a 43 year old psuedo intellectual, has no right to point his finger at anyone. LaRouche is hardly an unknown political figure. That you dont like him is of no concern.

As far as your debating skills I had to laugh when I saw how you slipped in the youtube video of Cynthia McKinney; trying somehow to stain Don Jeffries with McKinney's statements. You think these kinds of tricks are the way to win your arguments. You try and debate arguments your opponents never make. If some reader is not paying attention while following your debate with Don Jeffries they might think that Don endorsed McKinney's claim. Of course that wasnt the case. It was just Len Colby pulling the same old stunt.

[Len Colby]

And I called Hank Paulson, "Hjalmar Schact". As economist Abba Lerner admitted during his 1971 debate at Queens College against Lyndon LaRouche "If the German people had just accepted Schact's policies then Hitler would not have been necessary".

As usual you guys miss the boat.

Though your faulty analogy seems to have confused David (I imagine he assumed Schact was a regional leader) I wrote that you called Schwarzenegger Hitler. A stupid and vile comparison even if I don't agree with his politics.

It's amazing that LaRouche and his followers still rant about an obscure debate between two obscure men. The facts that there was no contemporary coverage and all reports came years later from Larouche (and his followers) are indicative of importance anybody else put on it even then let alone 37 years later.

As usual you confuse your opinion with truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Lerner

So Lerner has a short entry in Wikipedia that doesn’t make him an important economist. All Google hits I found about the debate are on pro-Larouche sites, his Wikipedia bio (which had numerous mirrors) or anti-Laroche sites. Yet your messiah and his disciples would have us believe this obscure encounter was pivotal event in post-war history.

Why do you think Hitler was placed intp power? As Abba Lerner admitted some 37 years ago, Hitler was placed into power to enforce the austerity policies of Brooklyn born banker Horace Greely Shacht. That was the point of my posting Lerner's statement from 1971.

Actually Shacht was born in Schleswig-Holstein. Can you provide a citation for that quote not from your guru or one of his followers. Even so you are misinterpreting the supposed quote.

You try and switch the subject by disputing a statement that I never made.

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

But that's the purpose of placing Arnold Schwarzennegger into politics. To act as an Adolph Hitler on behalf of the bankrupt bankers enforcing brutal austerity on the population of California. I suppose the irony is lost on you that after all the brutal "budget cuts" against education, medical care, and other entitlement programs, the state of California is still in need of a $7 billion bail out.

As I said I’m not a fan of his politics but cutting the budget doesn’t make him the equivalent of Hitler and he is not responsible for the current credit crisis. A quick Googling revealed the my recollection that the state was in debt before he became governor and even his predecessor a liberal Democrat proposed steep budget cuts was correct*. In any case $ 7 billion is less than 5% of the state budget. If he is so bad why was he re-elected by a wide margin in an overwhelmingly Democratic state during an election (2006) that tilted Democratic?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9649C8B63

LaRouche is hardly an unknown political figure.

He was in 1971

As far as your debating skills I had to laugh when I saw how you slipped in the youtube video of Cynthia McKinney; trying somehow to stain Don Jeffries with McKinney's statements. You think these kinds of tricks are the way to win your arguments. You try and debate arguments your opponents never make. If some reader is not paying attention while following your debate with Don Jeffries they might think that Don endorsed McKinney's claim. Of course that wasnt the case. It was just Len Colby pulling the same old stunt.

No that’s your misinterpretation, nowhere did I indicate Don believed McKinney’s stupid theory. To the contrary he was trying to "stain" Biden and Gore for stupid remarks and I was hoping to get him to acknowledge that she had made a remark exponentially stupider than anything they’d said.

[Terry Mauro]

And I called Hank Paulson, "Hjalmar Schact". As economist Abba Lerner admitted during his 1971 debate at Queens College against Lyndon LaRouche "If the German people had just accepted Schact's policies then Hitler would not have been necessary".

As usual you guys miss the boat.

Though your faulty analogy seems to have confused David (I imagine he assumed Schact was a regional leader) I wrote that you called Schwarzenegger Hitler. A stupid and vile comparison even if I don't agree with his politics.

It's amazing that LaRouche and his followers still rant about an obscure debate between two obscure men. The facts that there was no contemporary coverage and all reports came years later from Larouche (and his followers) are indicative of importance anybody else put on it even then let alone 37 years later.

As usual you confuse your opinion with truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Lerner

So Lerner has a short entry in Wikipedia that doesn’t make him an important economist. All Google hits I found about the debate are on pro-Larouche sites, his Wikipedia bio (which had numerous mirrors) or anti-Laroche sites. Yet your messiah and his disciples would have us believe this obscure encounter was pivotal event in post-war history.

Why do you think Hitler was placed intp power? As Abba Lerner admitted some 37 years ago, Hitler was placed into power to enforce the austerity policies of Brooklyn born banker Horace Greely Shacht. That was the point of my posting Lerner's statement from 1971.

Actually Shacht was born in Schleswig-Holstein. Can you provide a citation for that quote not from your guru or one of his followers. Even so you are misinterpreting the supposed quote.

You try and switch the subject by disputing a statement that I never made.

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

But that's the purpose of placing Arnold Schwarzennegger into politics. To act as an Adolph Hitler on behalf of the bankrupt bankers enforcing brutal austerity on the population of California. I suppose the irony is lost on you that after all the brutal "budget cuts" against education, medical care, and other entitlement programs, the state of California is still in need of a $7 billion bail out.

As I said I’m not a fan of his politics but cutting the budget doesn’t make him the equivalent of Hitler and he is not responsible for the current credit crisis. A quick Googling revealed the my recollection that the state was in debt before he became governor and even his predecessor a liberal Democrat proposed steep budget cuts was correct*. In any case $ 7 billion is less than 5% of the state budget. If he is so bad why was he re-elected by a wide margin in an overwhelmingly Democratic state during an election (2006) that tilted Democratic?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9649C8B63

LaRouche is hardly an unknown political figure.

He was in 1971

As far as your debating skills I had to laugh when I saw how you slipped in the youtube video of Cynthia McKinney; trying somehow to stain Don Jeffries with McKinney's statements. You think these kinds of tricks are the way to win your arguments. You try and debate arguments your opponents never make. If some reader is not paying attention while following your debate with Don Jeffries they might think that Don endorsed McKinney's claim. Of course that wasnt the case. It was just Len Colby pulling the same old stunt.

No that’s your misinterpretation, nowhere did I indicate Don believed McKinney’s stupid theory. To the contrary he was trying to "stain" Biden and Gore for stupid remarks and I was hoping to get him to acknowledge that she had made a remark exponentially stupider than anything they’d said.

Colby, you're a hack. Nowhere did I ever state that I was promoting the credentials of Abba Lerner. What was of interest, was that here you had a well known Keynsian economist of the time blurting out that Hitler was just a "hitman" for the austerity policy of Brooklyn born banker Hjalmar Schact and his Wall Street and London banker friends.

And $7 billion represents 5% of the California state budget. Good lap dog, but what's the point? The issue is that California is bankrupt and in need of bail out money. In fact the entire US economy is bankrupt.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a nazi. Don't give me your BS about agreeing with this policy or not agreeing with that policy. He is a straight up nazi, placed in office by people like George Schultz. And he is there for the very same reason exposed by economist Abba Lerner back in 1971. And that was the point of my posting about Abba Lerner. I never had any intent of puffing up Lerner or any such thing of that sort. You're such a rabid LaRouche hater, to the point of being irrational that you attack at the very sight of his name.

And all this BS is from a punk who went around promoting satan! And to this day remains proud of it.

[Mike Tribe]

This is the sort of post which could give the forum a really bad name. It's so full of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims. "Arnold Schwarzenegger is a nazi"... No, he isn't. It's easy to condemn everyone you disagree with as a fascist or a nazi. It saves addressing issues and policies. I may not like everything the Governor of California stands for, but that is far from making him a nazi.

"Hitler was just a "hitman" for the austerity policy of Brooklyn born banker Hjalmar Schact [at least you could spell his name correctly!] and his Wall Street and London banker friends."

You've been corrected on the error of historical fact but have chosen to ignore this. The following is from the entry on Schacht on John Simkin's Spartacus site:

"Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, the son of a salesman, was born in Tinglev, Germany, on 22nd January, 1877."

Edited October 5, 2008 by Mike Tribe

[Terry Mauro]

This is the sort of post which could give the forum a really bad name. It's so full of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims. "is a nazi"... No, he isn't. It's easy to condemn everyone you disagree with as a fascist or a nazi. It saves addressing issues and policies. I may not like everything the Governor of California stands for, but that is far from making him a nazi.

"Hitler was just a "hitman" for the austerity policy of Brooklyn born banker Hjalmar Schact [at least you could spell his name correctly!] and his Wall Street and London banker friends."

You've been corrected on the error of historical fact but have chosen to ignore this. The following is from the entry on Schacht on John Simkin's Spartacus site:

"Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, the son of a salesman, was born in Tinglev, Germany, on 22nd January, 1877."

Mike,

I only call Arnold Schwarzenegger a nazi because that is precisely what he is. It is not intended as an insult or to upset the forum members. I use the term nazi in the strictest sense of the word. Like calling a "glass of milk" a "glass of milk".

As far as Schacht, it would appear that there is conflicting accounts of his birthplace. Like Colby you try and twist a fact to make it appear important. The truth is Schacht was no German creation, he had lived in America with his father and was an asset of the Bank of England and the House of Morgan. His job was to bring the Wall Street and London bankers to support Adolph Hitler to Chancellor of Germany. A Germany that had been a staunch allie of the United States during the 19th century. You dont know your history.

Unholy Trinity:The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks

Mark Aarons and John Loftus, NY: St. Martin's Griffin, 1991, 1998, p.294.)

"It is hard to believe now, but fifty or sixty years ago, Nazism was seen as a good thing by many foreign investors. Fascism, so it was thought, was simply an external manifestation of the attitudes of the conservative German people who were traditionally hostile towards Communistst and labor unions. Some of the most prominent and respected German industrialists -- such as the Thyssen family and the Brooklyn-born Hjalmar Schacht -- reassured the American investors that Hitler was simply 'a dog on a chain' to keep the left out of power in Germany."

[David G. Healy]

This is the sort of post which could give the forum a really bad name. It's so full of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims. "is a nazi"... No, he isn't. It's easy to condemn everyone you disagree with as a fascist or a nazi. It saves addressing issues and policies. I may not like everything the Governor of California stands for, but that is far from making him a nazi.

"Hitler was just a "hitman" for the austerity policy of Brooklyn born banker Hjalmar Schact [at least you could spell his name correctly!] and his Wall Street and London banker friends."

You've been corrected on the error of historical fact but have chosen to ignore this. The following is from the entry on Schacht on John Simkin's Spartacus site:

"Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, the son of a salesman, was born in Tinglev, Germany, on 22nd January, 1877."

Mike,

I only call Arnold Schwarzenegger a nazi because that is precisely what he is. It is not intended as an insult or to upset the forum members. I use the term nazi in the strictest sense of the word. Like calling a "glass of milk" a "glass of milk".

As far as Schacht, it would appear that there is conflicting accounts of his birthplace. Like Colby you try and twist a fact to make it appear important. The truth is Schacht was no German creation, he had lived in America with his father and was an asset of the Bank of England and the House of Morgan. His job was to bring the Wall Street and London bankers to support Adolph Hitler to Chancellor of Germany. A Germany that had been a staunch allie of the United States during the 19th century. You dont know your history.

Unholy Trinity:The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks

Mark Aarons and John Loftus, NY: St. Martin's Griffin, 1991, 1998, p.294.)

"It is hard to believe now, but fifty or sixty years ago, Nazism was seen as a good thing by many foreign investors. Fascism, so it was thought, was simply an external manifestation of the attitudes of the conservative German people who were traditionally hostile towards Communistst and labor unions. Some of the most prominent and respected German industrialists -- such as the Thyssen family and the Brooklyn-born Hjalmar Schacht -- reassured the American investors that Hitler was simply 'a dog on a chain' to keep the left out of power in Germany."

This the same Brooklyn-born Hjalmar Schacht, William Dodd wrote of in his diary as Ambassador to Berlin (Amb. August 1933–29 December 1937)? The same Schact that dealt with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) concerning GOLD dollar Bond defaults (amongst other things) circa. 1924-33? Specifically, The Dawes Plan, then The Young Plan? Born and lived in Brooklyn?

How do you define Schact as an asset of the House of Morgan, re this post? Maybe an asset of the BIS, but Morgan?

Edited October 5, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

Continued from the Sarah Palin thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5&start=165

No Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them.

Classic. "He has expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly......

That's like saying "GG Allins audience was over the age of 21, "for the most part".

Quite true both were correct statements. Most GG shows I was involved in were 21 plus because bar/club owners make more money at shows they can sell booze at. As anyone involved in the club/bar music scene can tell you most if not all “the door” goes to the bands, the venue owner gets his profit from the bar.

You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify.

Do you really have $1,000.00 plus in disposable cash? Not long ago you were whining about being broke. If you certify that you do I’ll make you a deal.

1) I will post racist comments made by LaRouche (often under his pseudonym Lyn Marcus/L. Marcus) in pamphlets, articles, internal documents etc put out by the NCLC, EIR and/or other LaRouche groups. These will be backed by scans (in jpg, pdf and perhaps other formats) of the aforementioned documents.

2) With in 2 weeks of my doing so you will “purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art” from me and pay for shipping.

3) If you are unable or unwilling to fulfill your end of the bargain you will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”.

4) If I am unable to produce any such comments I will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”.

5) If you don’t acknowledge that the comments by LaRouche that I post were racist we will accept arbitration by any moderators, administrators or members of this forum (mutually agreed upon) willing to accept such a role.

i. If they agree that at least one of the statements was racist 2) and 3) above comes into effect.

ii. If they indicate that none of them were racist 4) will come into effect.

[Terry Mauro]

Continued from the Sarah Palin thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5&start=165

No Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them.

Classic. "He has expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly......

That's like saying "GG Allins audience was over the age of 21, "for the most part".

Quite true both were correct statements. Most GG shows I was involved in were 21 plus because bar/club owners make more money at shows they can sell booze at. As anyone involved in the club/bar music scene can tell you most if not all “the door” goes to the bands, the venue owner gets his profit from the bar.

You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify.

Do you really have $1,000.00 plus in disposable cash? Not long ago you were whining about being broke. If you certify that you do I’ll make you a deal.

1) I will post racist comments made by LaRouche (often under his pseudonym Lyn Marcus/L. Marcus) in pamphlets, articles, internal documents etc put out by the NCLC, EIR and/or other LaRouche groups. These will be backed by scans (in jpg, pdf and perhaps other formats) of the aforementioned documents.

2) With in 2 weeks of my doing so you will “purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art” from me and pay for shipping.

3) If you are unable or unwilling to fulfill your end of the bargain you will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”.

4) If I am unable to produce any such comments I will quit or accept expulsion from the forum if John or Andy are willing to enforce our “deal”.

5) If you don’t acknowledge that the comments by LaRouche that I post were racist we will accept arbitration by any moderators, administrators or members of this forum (mutually agreed upon) willing to accept such a role.

i. If they agree that at least one of the statements was racist 2) and 3) above comes into effect.

ii. If they indicate that none of them were racist 4) will come into effect.

Why must I repeat myself? Knock yourself out.

PS- we will note vote by popular opinion. We will stick to the truth.

Bye, bye.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

Colby, you're a hack. Nowhere did I ever state that I was promoting the credentials of Abba Lerner.

I described him and LaRouche as “obscure men” you seemed to be citing his Wikipedia entry to refute that; I have seen no evidence he was/is known outside economic circles. If you are vauge you can’t blame people for not figuring what points you are trying to make.

What was of interest, was that here you had a well known Keynsian economist of the time blurting out that Hitler was just a "hitman" for the austerity policy of Brooklyn born banker Hjalmar Schact and his Wall Street and London banker friends.

AFAIK not even LaRouche claims he said that, you’re making things up now. There are no reliable accounts of what was said during the debate, the only versions we have come from LaRouche himself several years after the fact.

And $7 billion represents 5% of the California state budget. Good lap dog, but what's the point? The issue is that California is bankrupt and in need of bail out money. In fact the entire US economy is bankrupt.

Did you actually read the article you linked beyond the 1st paragraph? Here’s the 2nd:

“They [schwarzenegger and California's top finance officials] have been worried that the credit market will hurt the state's ability to get short-term loans to cover basic operating expenses, a step California takes each fall until the bulk of its tax revenue arrives in the spring.”

From later in the article “California seeks short-term loans every year”

To make a long story short getting short term loans from the private sector (normally in the form of bonds) every year is SOP in California but due to credit crunch Arnie is appealing to Paulson. Apparently an aggravating factor is that “state lawmakers delayed passing a budget for nearly three months.”

As Mike and David pointing out calling him a Hitler or a Nazi because he cut the budget is plain stupid. Davis wanted to cut the budget as well, is he a Nazi too?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a nazi. Don't give me your BS about agreeing with this policy or not agreeing with that policy. He is a straight up nazi, placed in office by people like George Schultz.

Rubbish

And he is there for the very same reason exposed by economist Abba Lerner back in 1971.

Not even your guru claims he said that.

And that was the point of my posting about Abba Lerner. I never had any intent of puffing up Lerner or any such thing of that sort.

Of course you do by puffing Lerner you by extension puff Larouche.

You're such a rabid LaRouche hater, to the point of being irrational that you attack at the very sight of his name.

I actually agree with some of what he says (his opposition to Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and deregulation of the financial sector) but most of it is rubbish. You are such a LaRouche cultist you blindly accept his every pronouncement as ‘gospel’.

Other than our “wager” I’m done with this topic unless you produce evidence from sources not affiliated with Larouche.

[Len Colby]

Why must I repeat myself? Knock yourself out.

PS- we will note vote by popular opinion. We will stick to the truth.

Bye, bye.

Are you accepting or declining?

Do you really have $ 1000+ to blow?