Ron Paul!

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by almost40

No doubt....... love to hear him on the economy. I wish or hope he gets a shot at an advisory position on the economy in the next administration.
He goes off the rails with the whole gold standard thing and the no us troops anywhere thing.
He has as much of a chance as Bachman IMO. Dont bet your life savings.
BTW we could be talking about Trump lol

I used to disagree with his stance on gold and foreign policy until I did my own research.

Returning to a gold/silver standard would take serious reforms,(balanced budget,entitlement reform etc.) does that mean we should stay with a valueless dollar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vU6dF2uvc&NR=1

Where do we need U.S. troops and why?

[almost40]

Originally Posted by kyrider

I used to disagree with his stance on gold and foreign policy until I did my own research.

Returning to a gold/silver standard would take serious reforms,(balanced budget,entitlement reform etc.) does that mean we should stay with a valueless dollar?

Where do we need U.S. troops and why?

Well, at present we are way past the point on no return for the gold standard.
Fix the economy, end the deficit spending, return to a balanced budget and the dollar will right itself. Its outside investors that buy our bonds that make the value of the dollar. Not gold. Give the investors a reason to believe they will get a good return on the money and they will flock to the dollar like theres no tomorrow.

As far as the troop thing goes. We are not a self sufficent country. We need "things" to make our economy grow. It takes "guys with guns" to protect and defend our vital intrests. It cant all be done from inside the US.
I hate to say it but OIL is important. If we arent going to drill for it, we have to protect the guys that are supplying us. Imagine if you will, what would happen if China took over the middle east. Think they would give us a better discount on oil than the corrupt Sheiks?? Dont hold your breath. The shieks will look like angles compared to the Chi-coms

[almost40]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Milton Friedman vs. a very young, skinny Michael Moore.(very relevant to us here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&NR=1

I love Friedman read most of his books.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by almost40

Well, at present we are way past the point on no return for the gold standard.

what makes you say that?

Originally Posted by almost40

Fix the economy, end the deficit spending, return to a balanced budget and the dollar will right itself. Its outside investors that buy our bonds that make the value of the dollar. Not gold. Give the investors a reason to believe they will get a good return on the money and they will flock to the dollar like theres no tomorrow.

As far as the troop thing goes. We are not a self sufficent country. We need "things" to make our economy grow. It takes "guys with guns" to protect and defend our vital intrests. It cant all be done from inside the US.
I hate to say it but OIL is important. If we arent going to drill for it, we have to protect the guys that are supplying us. Imagine if you will, what would happen if China took over the middle east. Think they would give us a better discount on oil than the corrupt Sheiks?? Dont hold your breath. The shieks will look like angles compared to the Chi-coms

you realize most our oil comes from canada, right?

[almost40]

SOURCE: Energy Information Administration

The United States imports approximately 62 percent of its oil. Canada supplies approximately 20 percent of these imports, and Mexico contributes 10 percent. But over 30 percent come from regimes that are less friendly or stable, including Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, and Algeria (respectively the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th largest oil importers to the United States).



As far as gold goes. Who determines what an ounce is worth?? If you are a gold investor you might just be a little worried by this.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

All 4 links from the huffington post. They dont pick a side over there at the huffington post now do they??????? They are FAIR, just ask them. LOL Come on Alex........You should know a political hit job when you see one....... Bachman and Palin scare the hell out of the liberals because they get a little traction with some of the issues and voters. The libs cant have that.

These aren't things being said about her. These are things she said. That's not a hit job, it's just reporting the silliness that comes out of her mouth. It's not quite O'Donnell crazy, but it's not far off. Bachman and Palin are photogenic, telegenic, and appeal to the ignorant who like the down-homey "let's get back to this country's roots!" message without a clue of what that means. It's not that they are lying about what they stand for, it's that they don't even know what they stand for other than repeating the same asinine soundbites. Bachman has no hope of governing, she has no clue about legislating, she has no clue about a real vision of anything, other than whatever her advisers feed her to try and bump up poll numbers. The party should be ashamed of putting her and anyone like her front and center, and sooner rather than later, they will get pummeled for being so cynical.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by Alex

These aren't things being said about her. These are things she said. That's not a hit job, it's just reporting the silliness that comes out of her mouth. It's not quite O'Donnell crazy, but it's not far off. Bachman and Palin are photogenic, telegenic, and appeal to the ignorant who like the down-homey "let's get back to this country's roots!" message without a clue of what that means. It's not that they are lying about what they stand for, it's that they don't even know what they stand for other than repeating the same asinine soundbites. Bachman has no hope of governing, she has no clue about legislating, she has no clue about a real vision of anything, other than whatever her advisers feed her to try and bump up poll numbers. The party should be ashamed of putting her and anyone like her front and center, and sooner rather than later, they will get pummeled for being so cynical.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Link to original page on YouTube.

lol...Russ Roberts was one of my professors, interesting guy...I've seen this video waaay too many times. Never gets old though.

Though I come from a school with a strong pedigree in Austrian Economics, and I feel it has a lot to contribute to the field, I wouldn't really consider myself an Austrian Economist. Austrian economics gives incredible insight into entrepreneurship and personal choice as well as an alternative to Keynesian Macro theory. Without getting into why Austrian econ has been kept out of the mainstream for so long, I will say that Keynesian economics has failed the United States again(the first time being the late 70's). It used to work, but doesn't really work all that well anymore. The reason why is debatable.

The saddest thing about libertarians is that they tend to be unrealistic when it comes to social policy and foreign policy. Many fail to understand that in the real world, sound economic policy is not a cure-all for the world's problems in its current state.

[bluepoof]

For those interested in non-partisan fact checking, PolitiFact has a nice page going for the 2012 Presidential race.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/


As a matter of idle curiosity, most of Paul's statements have been rated "True" or "Mostly True", while most of Bachmann's have been "False" and "Pants on Fire".

(Disclaimer: I'm registered independent and have no party affiliation.)

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Bachman and Palin are photogenic, telegenic, and appeal to the ignorant who like the down-homey "let's get back to this country's roots!" message without a clue of what that means.

Im curious what you think, they think it means.

Originally Posted by Alex

Bachman has no hope of governing, she has no clue about legislating, she has no clue about a real vision of anything, other than whatever her advisers feed her to try and bump up poll numbers. The party should be ashamed of putting her and anyone like her front and center, and sooner rather than later, they will get pummeled for being so cynical.

I think you could change the name Bachman to Obama 08-09
Are we saying we elected this as our current president?

["A"]

I support Ron Paul's idea for the act of Auditing the Federal Reserve

[almost40]

Originally Posted by "A"

I support Ron Paul's idea for the act of Auditing the Federal Reserve

Thats no joke.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by bluepoof

For those interested in non-partisan fact checking, PolitiFact has a nice page going for the 2012 Presidential race.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/


As a matter of idle curiosity, most of Paul's statements have been rated "True" or "Mostly True", while most of Bachmann's have been "False" and "Pants on Fire".

(Disclaimer: I'm registered independent and have no party affiliation.)

Im sure someone thinks they are partisan. I dont have an opinion as I have never heard of them until now. The fact that they are called non-partisan is scarry to me.
Raises a red flag anyway. Is there such a thing???

[Liber]

Originally Posted by bluepoof

For those interested in non-partisan fact checking, PolitiFact has a nice page going for the 2012 Presidential race.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/

I did a quick stroll through Ron Paul's statements. The one about unemployment, the site claims is half true because at the time of the statement, unemployment was going down. I actually went to the DoL data and unemployment actually did increase in the last week of April, which would have been the last data available to Mr. Paul at the time of the May 5th debate.

After the revised data was available, continuous claims actually fell that week. However, Mr. Paul wasn't lying since, according to the available government data at the time(initial claims), he was telling the truth. I find it ironic that a website that is supposed to be a fact checker tells half truths of its own.

I respect democrats, socialists, fascists, etc. because they believe in something and they are willing to enter the battle of ideas with me in order to defend their beliefs. I don't agree with them, and I am prepared to take them to task on their ideas because I know how they will affect my life.

This is in no way meant as a personal attack, but here's the deal. There are very many intelligent people on the many points of the political spectrum. There is no such thing as an independent voter, only the indecisive voter. Everyone has a bias and when people, like the editors of this site, claim to be above the "lemmings" on either side of the debate, it only shows their pretentiousness and ignorance.

I've voted for at least 1 Democrat and 1 Republican in every election I've voted in since I turned 18. I believe most people are willing to vote for someone from the other party if they truly believe they are the better candidate. This is especially true in non-presidential elections. Republican and Democrat voters are not the mindless caricatures independent pundits portray them to be. Not everything in the world is Black and White, but not everything is grey either.

data: http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

[highpsiguy]

I support Ron Paul. He is armed with Common Sense and The Constitution.


The greatest speech I have heard in years!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

I used to disagree with his stance on gold and foreign policy until I did my own research.

Returning to a gold/silver standard would take serious reforms,(balanced budget,entitlement reform etc.) does that mean we should stay with a valueless dollar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vU6dF2uvc&NR=1

Where do we need U.S. troops and why?

Ron Paul makes good points on why we need to return to the gold standard but if you do the research into why we left it, you'll see the light of Keynesian.

(Hint Two words, starts with a G, ends in D)

[bdavison]

Keynesian sucks. There's never been a country in history that has spent itself out of debt, and there never will be.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Alex

She won't make it past the first primary, Kevin. She is truly certifiable, and once exposed to even the slightest amount of light, will shrivel up and go back to the crazy corner.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Ron Paul makes good points on why we need to return to the gold standard but if you do the research into why we left it, you'll see the light of Keynesian.

(Hint Two words, starts with a G, ends in D)

Ricardian Equivalence has largely nullified Keynesian economic policy, if Keynesian economic policy ever worked to begin with. There is a growing library of literature that proposes the good does/has not outweigh(ed) the bad.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

Vote for Heman Cain. YouTube him and watch what he has to say. Really good guy.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by Liber

Ricardian Equivalence has largely nullified Keynesian economic policy, if Keynesian economic policy ever worked to begin with. There is a growing library of literature that proposes the good does/has not outweigh(ed) the bad.

Not bad, so you should know we havent truly followed Keynesian policy. A lot of what is happening now is akin to the Great Depression and that is why we look back at it for guidance. Gov't spending in infrastructure should have occurred but it didnt get the program it deserved. Coupled with failing government revenues of the lowest tax rate on "certain" individuals and entities, we have resorted to bonds to fund our expenditures.

Although an opinion piece on the NYT, here are some nice summarized graphics on the budget during W and Obama's term in relation to the talks of the deficit ceiling.

In a nutshell, this all comes down to class warfare and the manipulation of policy at the top to further corrupt the system for themselves.

[kyrider]

Is this where we are headed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efhb4...layer_embedded

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Is this where we are headed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efhb4...layer_embedded

i don't think i understood a word he said... :[

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by alex.s

i don't think i understood a word he said... :[

Read it here -http://www.theblaze.com/stories/right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting/

Then watch this - http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidMcElroy1#p/u

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Read it here -http://www.theblaze.com/stories/right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting/

Then watch this - http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidMcElroy1#p/u

i just laughed my ass off

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Not bad, so you should know we havent truly followed Keynesian policy. A lot of what is happening now is akin to the Great Depression and that is why we look back at it for guidance. Gov't spending in infrastructure should have occurred but it didnt get the program it deserved. Coupled with failing government revenues of the lowest tax rate on "certain" individuals and entities, we have resorted to bonds to fund our expenditures.

Although an opinion piece on the NYT, here are some nice summarized graphics on the budget during W and Obama's term in relation to the talks of the deficit ceiling.

In a nutshell, this all comes down to class warfare and the manipulation of policy at the top to further corrupt the system for themselves.

You know what I see in the inforgraphic?
Dot-com bubble formed under Clinton's term bursting right after Bush was elected and before his policies could have any effect. The depressed economy suffers but, despite necessary and substantial war spending, it was rebounding due to conservative policies. This could be seen in the graphs as a fast-decreasing deficit that suddenly reversed course in 2008 when the housing market and associated financial markets collapsed due to Dems in the legislative branch encouraging unsustainable "NINJA" loans (loans to their constituents with No Income; No Jobs, or Assets).

They then pointed the finger at "greedy capitalism," especially when observing the high-ranking executives pulling the cords on their golden parachutes while being bailed out by the government, but it was actually just the opposite. If the goverenment came and asked my and my private enterprise to loan money to high risk individuals, I would only do so with the understanding that they'd have to bail out the economic mess that potentially makes. I wouldn't be giving up my own rightfully-earned bonuses and perks.

So, you say that it was cause by class warfare and, in a way, it was, but it was the opposite scenario. It was caused by the entitlement class and their party controlling everything but the Executive branch and forcing major financial institutions to take risks that the private enterprise in a pure capitalistic market would never have taken. Ever. In a million years. They then took the executive branch in 2008 and took everything to new lows. The article makes many laughable assertions about Obama's policies being "mostly temporary" as if to say that his effects were not as serious as Bush's, but Bush's tax cuts, which they blame, were always supposed to be temporary while Obamacare wasn't. Not to mention, their effect was clearly beneficial, as the decreasing deficit showed (spurred corporate investment, spending, expansion, etc instead of just sitting on money to avoid taxes).

[Liber]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Not bad, so you should know we havent truly followed Keynesian policy. A lot of what is happening now is akin to the Great Depression and that is why we look back at it for guidance. Gov't spending in infrastructure should have occurred but it didnt get the program it deserved. Coupled with failing government revenues of the lowest tax rate on "certain" individuals and entities, we have resorted to bonds to fund our expenditures.

Although an opinion piece on the NYT, here are some nice summarized graphics on the budget during W and Obama's term in relation to the talks of the deficit ceiling.

In a nutshell, this all comes down to class warfare and the manipulation of policy at the top to further corrupt the system for themselves.

I wrote out a fairly long response to this, but I'll just tl;dr to save you the time and energy:

USA =/= Capitalism
USA = Progressive Corporatism

USA =/= Class Warfare
USA = Racial Tension
Europe = Class Warfare with Religious Tension

Keynesianism = the only dominant economic ideology from the 30s to the late 70s.
Keynesianism = The foundation of the current world economy

Progressivism = ideology of elites in both major US parties
Progressivism = founder of the UN, and many other international elitest organizations.

regulation = good for big business
regulation = bad for small/medium business

[shiroganeshinobi]

Tech bubble was a exacerbated because wall street wanted to get into the next yahoo. Although Clinton did put in legislation to let the lower class qualify for FHA loans Bush spurred this further through his policies. NINJA loans came from the banks in part due to the demand for more CDOs.

Clinton benefited from the surplus from GH Bush's raised taxes (Dont tell that to any other republican because they wouldnt believe it, same with Reagan!) but at least he balanced his budget. You must not have noticed the second graphic because it mentions Medicare D, two wars and a tax cut. (Tax cuts "costs" money, you know?)

Obama tried to reform Medicare which is our number one problem for the deficit but our leaders are incompetent and backed by lobbies of health insurance corps.

Liber, regulation is good. If there was no regulation then you end up with derivatives market today. The key word is simple regulation, like simple tax code. One of the problems of legislation is the legalese it is written in which allows all these loopholes and back doors. Did you know that the failure to regulate the derivatives market was under Clinton and the same people are on his economic advisory board?

Also here's a nice tidbit from Bernie Sanders regarding the preliminary results of a fed audit. I'm glad with these tax breaks on the super rich is creating jobs out the ass.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Tech bubble was a exacerbated because wall street wanted to get into the next yahoo. Although Clinton did put in legislation to let the lower class qualify for FHA loans Bush spurred this further through his policies. NINJA loans came from the banks in part due to the demand for more CDOs.

Clinton benefited from the surplus from GH Bush's raised taxes (Dont tell that to any other republican because they wouldnt believe it, same with Reagan!) but at least he balanced his budget. You must not have noticed the second graphic because it mentions Medicare D, two wars and a tax cut. (Tax cuts "costs" money, you know?)

Obama tried to reform Medicare which is our number one problem for the deficit but our leaders are incompetent and backed by lobbies of health insurance corps.

Liber, regulation is good. If there was no regulation then you end up with derivatives market today. The key word is simple regulation, like simple tax code. One of the problems of legislation is the legalese it is written in which allows all these loopholes and back doors. Did you know that the failure to regulate the derivatives market was under Clinton and the same people are on his economic advisory board?

Also here's a nice tidbit from Bernie Sanders regarding the preliminary results of a fed audit. I'm glad with these tax breaks on the super rich is creating jobs out the ass.

There's a video from only a few months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed where John McCain was addressing everyone and warning of EXACTLY what was going to happen and Barney Frank. I'll try to find it. In the mean time, these are pretty damning:

Link to original page on YouTube.
Barney Frank denied the housing bubble in 2005 specifically and his last line was that he and his committee "will continue to push for home ownership." Doesn't sound like banks demanding more CDOs to me. Government programs influenced morgage lending to lend to risky borrowers to encourage home ownership. The were not conservative policies.

Link to original page on YouTube.
The Bush administration pushed Congress HARD to create a Fed agency to regulate and supervise both Fannie and Freddie. Guess who pushed back? Dem Chairman of the Financial Committee Barney Frank. He specifically said the the govmnt should do more to get low income fams in homes (NINJA!). Once the Dems had control, they did just that. He SPECIFICALLY said that the Feds would not have to bail them out even if he were wrong. In 2006, McCain said that all of the GSEs (Fannie/Freddie) needed to be regulated "without delay" but EVERY SINGLE DEM voted against it. There is absolutely no defense of this. When Obama says that he "inherited" these things, he's implying that it was Bush and not his own party. He is lying through his teeth as anyone can plainly see.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by CZroe

There's a video from only a few months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed where John McCain was addressing everyone and warning of EXACTLY what was going to happen and Barney Frank. I'll try to find it. In the mean time, these are pretty damning:

I'll acknowledge the Barney Frank video but I sure as hell wont acknowledge the Fox news video due to their interests and spinning of the news. I will comment the irony of republicans wanting to regulate although.

If you want to present partisan sources such as Fox News, try reading the other side into the FCIC's report . I dare you to read the counter argument. Remember that report with Barney Sanders and conflict of interest? Did anyone else watch the documentary Inside Job? I'm not blaming just republicans but the democrats as well. It's sad we're "stuck" in a two party system where there clearly needs to be a third.

[almost40]

from Rons paul to Barneys frank.
my how far we have come.

Ron Paul just cant win. sorry guys.

Good guy, Hope he gets appointed to something where his talent can be utilized after the election.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by almost40

from Rons paul to Barneys frank.
my how far we have come.

Ron Paul just cant win. sorry guys.

Good guy, Hope he gets appointed to something where his talent can be utilized after the election.

I agree that he probably can not win but I will be supporting him as I did his son who did manage to beat out the old boy Republican establishment.

[kyrider]

Great video!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSPz...layer_embedded

["A"]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Great video!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSPz...layer_embedded

Maybe for someone who has ADD or ADHD..

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

I'll acknowledge the Barney Frank video but I sure as hell wont acknowledge the Fox news video due to their interests and spinning of the news. I will comment the irony of republicans wanting to regulate although.

If you want to present partisan sources such as Fox News, try reading the other side into the FCIC's report . I dare you to read the counter argument. Remember that report with Barney Sanders and conflict of interest? Did anyone else watch the documentary Inside Job? I'm not blaming just republicans but the democrats as well. It's sad we're "stuck" in a two party system where there clearly needs to be a third.

The left has always tried to portray McCain as far right but he is ostracized and hated by many if not most Republicans for being too moderate. The media doesn't portray it so that they can keep their attacks on full strength ("He's every bit as bad as Bush! He's Bush 2.0! It'd be four more years of Bush!").

As for the Fox News thing, those who dismiss it so readily express the very bias that they accuse Fox of having. All I did was search for the McCain clip I said I would search for and Fox News was ONE of the places reporting something relevant on it. There were plenty of REAL statements and blatantly wrong predictions and assurances straight from the mouths of the Dem leaders themselves regardless of who was playing the clip. Did they get away with doctoring clips and replacing audio? Is that some sort of unbelievably convenient thing he was caught saying year after year for Fox to take out of context and abuse? Did McCain really not so those things when Fox says he said them? THAT is what is important here.

Yes, BOTH sides are responsible for this mess, but it is clear that nothing was "inherited" from the executive branch. Dems put us here and Repubs didn't do anything to fight it when they still had control. They didn't want to be the "bad guys" not letting the NINJA mom buy a house for her kids and we all suffered for their indifference.

[kyrider]

My Senator!

Link to original page on YouTube.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by kyrider

My Senator!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyPBHWQ33uI

you know he makes some very good points about defaulting

[coondog]

I didn't read all the posts, just came to the end here. The younger generation seem to be huge on this Ron Paul, wherein lies his demise. The younger generation, with all their idealogical righteousness, DO NOT VOTE. I wish my generation had when I was young and knew who should be in the Oval, the U.S. would be much different now. But nothing along the lines of who votes and who doesn't hasn't changed enough. In my lifetime only one person I voted for made president. (1 in 10)

[almost40]

Originally Posted by coondog

The younger generation seem to be huge on this Ron Paul, wherein lies his demise. The younger generation, with all their idealogical righteousness, DO NOT VOTE.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

My Senator!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyPBHWQ33uI

I raise you Bernie Sanders, the superior senator.

I applaud the Pauls for recognizing the inefficiency of our government but their ideas are flawed. There needs to be balance on both cuts and revenue, primarily revenue.