CA Dem to Interviewer: ‘Get the F**k Out of Here or I’ll Throw You Out the Window’

breitbart.tv ^ | 9/3/09 | Jan Helfeld

[Sammy67]

Michelle Malkin: Independent TV documentarian Jan Helfeld asks California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark about the national debt and the economy. Stark tells him repeatedly to “shut up,

[PapaBear3625]

The interviewer blew this opportunity. He clearly doesn’t understand that Mr. Stark repeatedly made statements based on fact regarding our monetary supply / system. By not understanding exactly what Mr. Stark was saying, he failed to take the opportunity to further enlighten his viewers that while Mr. Stark may be correct about our present system, that doesn’t mean it is Constitutional, or safe for the Republic.

Did you actually listen to the interview? Stark made the statement, near the beginning of the interview, that the higher the level of national debt, the more wealthy the US is. This is ABSURDLY FALSE.

[Desron13]

"More campaign ad material which should be used by the GOP in 2010."

Libtard politicians of all stripes are providing a virtual cornucopia of suicidal video footage this cycle. 2010 is going to be their Little Bighorn. I can't wait.

[reagan_fanatic]

Just wow. The smarmy arrogance just drips from Stark’s superior lips, doesn’t it?

This is a perfect example of why REAL change is needed in Washington, and why elitist inside-the-beltway libtards like Stark need to be run out of Washington on rails.

[Bitsy]

More debt = more prosperity. It’s the liberal way.

What total asinine reasoning. I don't even have a degree in economics and I know that is insane.

[PapaBear3625]

That is all Stark was saying, because we are a wealthy nation, we can borrow more money, then a poor one.

Listen to the first 30 seconds of the video. Stark is not saying that our ABILITY to borrow is an indicator of our wealth, he said, in response to the question "So the more you owe, the more you are worth?", he said "in the national scheme of things, you are quite right".

He didn't like admitting he had made an error, and then got angry.

[cliniclinical]

Oh yes, I did listen. Mr. Stark is tying the money supply to the debt that is created when bringing the money supply into existence. He is exactly correct that under our current system the “wealth” (money supply) of the Nation is exactly equal to our “debt” (associated with the creation of money out if thin air). By his definition, increasing the debt means that the wealth had to have increased. All of this is factual.

The interviewer failed to continue to allow Mr. Stark to make these statements and then take him to task over who benefits from this system, how politicians use the system as a bottomless revolving line of credit to fund endless entitlement programs that concentrate power into the hands of a few, and how the whole thing is simply un-Constitutional.

[Bitsy]

why many are now recognizing how corrupt, punitive and evil government has become

It is truly amazing how many unscrupulous, corrupt, evil and stupid people that have been elected to represent us -

TERM LIMITS!

[paul51]

Your tortured attempts to justify or ‘explain’ what the congressman meant pushed my limits. I apologize. As for him, he said what he said and the words speak for themselves.

[Michael.SF.]

Listen to the first 30 seconds of the video.

I did, twice. In that first 30 seconds Jan interrupts him a couple of times and talks over him. We are also coming into the middle of the interview, not seeing the earlier questions, it has been selectively edited.

I do not believe Stark meant what he said the way most here are interpreting it. I believe this for two reasons: Jan was being or is an idiot and Stark was frustrated in his lack of comprehension.

I give Stark a pass on the comments in the first 30 seconds, call it a slip of the lip or a 'misspeak'. All public people can say something in a manner that is subject to misinterpretation.

I will not give Stark a pass on being liberal POS, with a short fuse and one who is an embarrassment to Congress.

[PapaBear3625]

“Wealth” as I see Mr. Stark using it is a mis-leading term to try to describe the value of the money supply of the US, more precisely, the number of dollars in circulation. Therefore, by these definitions if one dollar of debt = one dollar of money in circulation, increasing debt means we have a corresponding increase in the money supply, hence “wealth”.

By that viewpoint, the people of 1930's Germany and present-day Zimbabwe became incredibly wealthy due to the hyper-inflation of their money supply.

A generally accepted definition of wealth is:

In economics and business, wealth (or net worth) of a person or nation is the value of assets owned net of liabilities owed (to foreigners in the case of a nation) at a point in time.

Increasing the national debt decreases the national wealth, when that debt is owed to foreign entities (to a large extent, China)

[paul51]

He didn't like admitting he had made an error, and then got angry

He couldn't stand that someone he would consider sooo inferior could expose him as the fool he is and he imploded

[cliniclinical]

I understand as politicians like him make me ill, but that does not mean that he made factually incorrect statements. That is my point - here is a politician actually demonstrating a basic understanding of our monetary system and yet the interviewer either doesn’t recognize it or cannot capitalize on it. Sure, Mr. Stark looks like an ass in some ways, but what value does that bring? It would have been very easy to take Mr. Stark’s words and use them against him, but the interviewer chose a different route.

I’m not justifying or explaining anything Mr. Stark said to his benefit. I’m trying to explain what he was saying so others can get beyond the emotions and deal with the facts. That’s all...

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Mr. Stark repeatedly makes factual statements about our present monetary system and how “debt” is really a measure of the money supply, hence in his mind the “wealth” of the Nation. More debt = more money = more wealth.

... how the present system is not tied to any fixed measure that allows a reasonable growth in the Nation’s “wealth” based upon its productive output.

In addition, he fails to make the point that such a system is un-Constitutional, and that it gives politicians essentially an endless supply of “free” money with which to fund their entitlement programs that keep them in power. The system robs “wealth” from the Nation, instead of acting as a measure of the true wealth of the Nation.

Calvin Cooledge said it is easy to understand why politicians spend money. There seems to be plenty of it laying around and it doesn't seem to belong to anyone.

However, the accounting method seems to be intentionally Orwellian. Yet, it is the common accounting procedure for banks, too. Money they have on hand is considered a liability and money they have loaned out is considered an asset.

[cliniclinical]

By Mr. Stark’s assertion, your comments about Germany and Zimbabwe are correct, if we see the money supply as equal to “wealth”...

The problem is wealth is actually tied to assets and production, not the mere printing of money.

You, along with others on this thread are using the word “debt” too broadly compared to Mr. Stark. He is referring to the debt created when we ask the Federal Reserve to lend us a dollar. Not debt as money owed to other countries, not debt as interest or unfunded liabilities.

In this sense, his words are correct and factual, therefore presenting a great opportunity for the interviewer to skewer him on the how our present system is un-Constitutional and gives tremendous power to a few at the expense of the People.

The interviewer fails because the interviewer does not know what “debt” is as used by Mr. Stark, or chooses to not press Mr. Stark in a productive manner on this issue.

[cliniclinical]

I’m hoping others will continue to realize what you write... This “sham” has robbed our Nation of its true wealth, and will continue until we can no longer fight unless something is done - stat!

[wac3rd]

He is a Commie maggot.

[truthguy]

Stark is the most hated member of Congress even among the Democrats. In the words of Van Jones, Stark is an Ahole.

For those of you not familiar with Pete Stark, this is not the first time he has done something like this. He has acted in an outrageous fashion many times before.

There may have been a time in Stark's early life that he was in an academic sense an intelligent person. Hence the fact that he went to MIT. But just remember Timothy Leary use to teach at Harvard. So academic degrees are not necessarily an indication of intelligence or sanity. However ideology has consumed him and twisted and distorted his brain. He really has lost a few screws.

This concept that debt is wealth is not shared by someone like Milton Friedman or the Chicago School. You cannot create wealth with a printing press. If that was possible, then third world countries would be able to to just borrow money and then pay it back with printed currency. Just try that and see what happens.

Stark is a fool and on the brink of madness. His district is so pathetic in that the people who live there are simply politically unaware of what's happening. I'll bet the majority of people who voted for Stark in the last election couldn't identify him by name as their Representative. These are the types of troglodytes who simply go to the ballot box and press the D button.

[DarthVader]

Yes, it is fun watching the politics of self-immolation.

[dragnet2]

Your tortured attempts to justify or ‘explain’ what the congressman meant pushed my limits. I apologize. As for him, he said what he said and the words speak for themselves.

Thank you...Cliniclinical is a babble fish, who's spin is so great, it's speeding up up the rotation of the planet.

[cliniclinical]

Sorry you see it that way... Just trying to help others understand what we are up against.