Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Video: US Comptroller on 60 Minutes: says America is facing total collapse
youtube.com — The US Comptroller, the government's top accountant, says the US is risking total bankruptcy if trends continue on 60 minutes segment. The nation incurring a massive debt on the next generation with its present policies. In 30 years time, the US will only have enough money to pay the interest on its debt, with no money for the military.
thecoolestguy- 2590 diggs
- digg it
- futureteg, on 10/11/2007, -92/+238we need Ron Paul now more than ever. He is the only candidate who has talked about this for YEARS. He is the only candidate who actually has a plan to fix the economy.(axing the Federal reserve and the IRS...will help stimulate the growth of the economy, with people having more money to spend).
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -20/+15exactly
- hlgriggs, on 10/10/2007, -34/+6...the wrong thing to do. What tards. Communism looked good on paper too.
- Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -15/+25You actually think Communism looks good on paper? No wonder you think getting rid of the FED and IRS is a bad thing. Why am I not surprised!
- nick111, on 10/21/2007, -8/+14I'm presuming you've never read Das Kapital then? Do you even know who Karl Marx is?
You know - I bet you couldn't even make a coherent definition of socialism - or communism for that matter. All you've got under that haircut of yours is propaganda from the 70s, re-tooled by the likes of Bill O'Reilly - which you're just parroting without understanding what you're saying. - dagnome1984, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I like my communism the way I like my capitalism, without force.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Karl Marx' communist manifesto calls for the end of private property, end to inheritance rights, and state owned enterprises to provide society's products and services. Karl Marx was a thief and a tyrant. People should be free to do with the product of their labor anything they want.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7That was the point, coolestguy; Under Marx's model, the worker supposedly got the full value of his work from the state (that whole "everyone owns everything" concept). However, like all utopian ideologies that rely on people to behave in ways that run counter to their nature, Marx's system didn't allow for greedy or power-hungry people. This is why you should look askance at any political system that relies on "the people" or some other nebulous, invisible force to regulate power or what have you.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Under Marx' model, people would violently take away all property from any property owners. I don't see how anyone has a right to take by force the wealth that someone has worked for. He was a thief and a tyrant. This is the communist manifesto's call to action:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! "
Theft and violence, that Karl Marx encouraged, led to millions of people being killed and imprisoned, terrible living conditions, and complete erosion of individual liberty in communist countries. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1**This is why you should look askance at any political system that relies on "the people" or some other nebulous, invisible force to regulate power or what have you.**
Libertarianism relies on laws intrepreted by judges and enforced by police to prosecute and deter acts of coercion.
Every form of government relies on the "the people" to regulate power since people make up the politicians, including in democratic socialist governments.
- nick111, on 10/21/2007, -8/+14I'm presuming you've never read Das Kapital then? Do you even know who Karl Marx is?
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget, so he's not going to cut taxes until spending levels have been reduced significantly to a level that the tax revenues can cover, so what you can expect with a Ron Paul administration is huge cuts to federal programs. It's pretty simple really hlgriggs, either pay a terrible price tomorrow, or take some big cuts and pay a price today to avert total economic collapse in the next generation.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9feh, what has future-us ever done for us? nothing, that's what...
let those assholes deal with it
- BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9feh, what has future-us ever done for us? nothing, that's what...
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13You can also expect a removal of federal regulations that keep prices in the medical industry high by preventing emerging technologies from being adopted. Ron Paul often talks about how cost-saving technologies like tele-medicine are prevented from adopted by government regulations. The medical industry is the only industry where prices go up as time progresses, and this is because of more and more regulations that need to be complied with. With other industries, the advent of technology reduces costs and improves quality.
- reeder, on 10/21/2007, -8/+10Um, you have zero understanding of the medical industry. Insurance companies, Hospital conglomerates, and the pharmaceutical industry are the reasons for earth shattering costs.
Your position is that LESS regulation on these swindlers will make things better?!?!
Shear genius. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Actually YOU have zero understanding of the medical industry. Insurance companies, HMO's and PPO's can command high prices because government eliminates competition for them. The huge prescription drug plan recently signed into law by Bush was lobbied for heavily by pharmaceutical companies. Who do you think the Republicans and Democrats get all their campaign contributions from? The Democrats claim they're for government restraining corporations, but they're part of the same racket where corporations use the government to get access to tax payer money.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Read this piece written by a board member of a young company that talks about how the compliance costs associated with government regulations insulates big corps from competition from small companies: http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/preventing-economic-growth-101-section-409a/
"At the macro level, we’re seeing more public money being raised outside the United States’ equity markets than ever before. At the micro level, we’re seeing companies all over the country defend themselves from regulatory quicksand instead of serving the customer and attacking the market. Never before have the interests of large multinational corporations been so favored over small companies and new startup opportunities. A multinational can afford an army of attorneys and accountants, and can restructure operations to take advantage of tax havens overseas. When will our government stop strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs of domestic entrepreneurship and job creation?" - emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Do you realize that a lot of Americans are resorting to buying American-made Canadian pharmaceuticals? It's cheaper to sell it to another country and buy it back than it is to buy domestic product in the first place. How does this make any sense? And the Whitehouse is trying to PREVENT Americans from doing it. Wake the ***** up.
- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Canadian drugs are cheaper because the pharmaceutical companies are willing to sell drugs to Western social democracies at a reduced price, since they know they can charge Americans whatever they want to make up the difference. In essence, Americans are heavily subsidizing the drugs for every other industrialized country. If the U.S. ever adopts universal healthcare, the price of drugs will rise precipitously across the board.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2The price will rise across the board and development of new drugs will slow down because pharmaceuticals will earn less revenue and therefore have money left over for R&D.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Coolestguy, given that they spend a crapload on marketing drugs that only remain under patent because they changed the color of the pill casing, I think there's a lot of room for change. Plus, the pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in drugs that cure or eliminate disease; they want chronic conditions that require their drugs for the rest of your life. Hence, we get depression and impotence pills instead of a cure for malaria.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1they're still going to have less money for R&D if their revenues decrease. They're not going to suddenly allocate a smaller percentage of their expenditure on marketing, because marketing is a vital part of competing in the market, so lower revenues, means less money for developing new drugs. If you're fine with that then go ahead and advocate government regulated pharmaceutical pricing. I agree though that they waste a lot money on useless crap like developing new drugs for depression and impotence, and I think that would change if government didn't subsidize them with programs like medicare.
- reeder, on 10/21/2007, -8/+10Um, you have zero understanding of the medical industry. Insurance companies, Hospital conglomerates, and the pharmaceutical industry are the reasons for earth shattering costs.
- Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11We are in major debt to communist china, what was your point again?
- Agger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Communism is the ultimate, but its very hard to make it work.
So you dont need a right wing government, you need a left wing if you dont want to die!
- Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -15/+25You actually think Communism looks good on paper? No wonder you think getting rid of the FED and IRS is a bad thing. Why am I not surprised!
- hlgriggs, on 10/10/2007, -34/+6...the wrong thing to do. What tards. Communism looked good on paper too.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -35/+10Ron Paul!
If only he wasn't going to drop out of the race after New Hampshire, thus causing Kool Aid sales to increase nationwide as his followers (sheep) go all Owen Wilson on themselves.- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Damn! That was almost funny until the Owen Wilson comment.
- Anub1s, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What are you talking about? That made if funnier.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23He's probably going to win New Hampshire, since New Hampshire is the most Libertarian state in America. It is the only state with no sales or income tax.
- thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Tennessee has no income tax, but a 9.25% sales tax. I think that's a fair trade.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Damn! That was almost funny until the Owen Wilson comment.
- endlessfight, on 10/10/2007, -33/+26Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of fixing this. The guy wants to lower, if not abolish, taxes for christ's sake. Wow. So that would leave us in debt AND with *****(y|ier), underfunded government programs. Awesome!
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23He wants to gradually switch from a debt-based monetary system to a tangible one, so that it will not be a self-exacerbating problem that is worsened by profit incentives. Having that kind of monetary policy will act as damage control. It cannot continue on for much longer without dire effects to the public's living standards.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6But, you know living standards would just plummet into and beyond the red until enough voices were heard. What do you mean tangible? Like the gold standard? Watch China skyrocket even more.
- popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The gold standard would be more logical. Other countries supported by gold standards and not living on borrowed time (Federal Reserve attaches interest to every dollar printed) are doing much better financially. Look at Germany, pre-EU. Before they joined the European Union they had a deutschemark worth of gold for every mark on the street. They were "in the black" from a banking standpoint. The value of the Euro (higher) vs. the value of the mark meant that Germany had to create inflation to match the Euro value. Germany was very, very reluctant to get into this situation, and understandably so. The world has seen what happens to banking systems that get overwhelmed by debt by watching the US's crappy Federal Reserve system.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6But, you know living standards would just plummet into and beyond the red until enough voices were heard. What do you mean tangible? Like the gold standard? Watch China skyrocket even more.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20He wants to lower spending and get rid of useless programs while tiding over people who are dependent on them by cutting back overseas spending. He is not arrogant enough to think that he can just fiddle around with some crazy government programs and make everything better.
Anyways as president the only thing he has direct control over, if I understand correctly, is the military so he is in a position of saving money and trying to persuade congress and the country of how to change the other programs.
Of course with middle of the road programs there is going to be some arbitrariness but it is a hell of a lot better than some Utopian government programs like universal health care etc The proponent's of them are the crazy ones who haven't looked at what a mess it has done in other countries. Also, in Europe the entitlement systems are failing, they will fail everywhere, they do not work. I remember practically the first thing I was taught on the first week of high school is that government pension schemes are basically just a fraud, it is pretty much the same with the other things--eventually the money will run out. Taxing people more will just make the mess even worse by removing peoples incentive to be productive and putting the money down the ***** toilet (ie putting it in very unproductive channels.)
Government schemes are just crazy (in the long term) and that taxes will not fix the problem, the only way to get back on track is slowly remove them. Paul's way of doing this is to simply allow people to opt out. I have heard this strategy working in other countries fine before.- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8A president also has the power to veto bills that have less than two-thirds of Congress' support, thus giving him great powers in reducing the growth in the size of government spending.
- popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Just wait for another false-flag 9/11 operation. If anyone that doesn't drink the military-industrial complex koolaid gets into office, I'm sure the CIA will cook up another scare that justifies another hundred trillion worth of debt and lost lives.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8A president also has the power to veto bills that have less than two-thirds of Congress' support, thus giving him great powers in reducing the growth in the size of government spending.
- bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4endlessfight, yet another guy who slept thru basic economics. Please explain, using logic, how taxes are good for the economy. I won't hold my breath for your response.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Exactly. It's basic common sense. The more money in your pocket. The more you'll spend. The more stimulated the economy is.
C'mon. A Majority of taxes are nothing but ***** do-no-good programs meant to line officials pockets. - Cornflake917, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Endlessfight never said taxes are good for the economy. He said that lowering taxes will increase government deficit spending and the national debt. This deficit spending is what the top-notch accountant in the video said will bankrupt our nation in several decades.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Exactly. It's basic common sense. The more money in your pocket. The more you'll spend. The more stimulated the economy is.
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23He wants to gradually switch from a debt-based monetary system to a tangible one, so that it will not be a self-exacerbating problem that is worsened by profit incentives. Having that kind of monetary policy will act as damage control. It cannot continue on for much longer without dire effects to the public's living standards.
- Ngai, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9i need sources people... or I aint believing *****!
- CanIGetAWitness, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8How about getting off your ***** ass and finding them. It's all out there for you to learn.
- Ngai, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6find it where?
the internet?
you believe everything you read on the internet?
- DontGiveADamn, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35Axing the IRS, that will really help pay off the national debt. How about taxing the guys that have been raping the country for the last 6 years.
- BarneyF, on 10/10/2007, -3/+43What we need to do is ax the Pentagon. They spend trillions and can't beat anyone bigger than Grenada.
True fact: There are more admirals than ships in the US Navy. Think about it.- nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Yeah, and if we ax the Pentagon we don't have any problems with war...until someone invades/nukes us.
Most of those admirals happen to be desk officers btw. - dementia, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4To make peace you must prepare for war
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They actually lose track of trillions, without so much as a slap on the wrist as punishment.
I remember one excuse being something about their computers not being able to communicate with eachother. - thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. I was reading Profit over People by Noam Chomsky last night, and apparently 30% of the Pentagon budget goes to subsidizing oil companies. Yeah and also Aircraft carriers and Battleships usually have multiply admirals.
- nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Yeah, and if we ax the Pentagon we don't have any problems with war...until someone invades/nukes us.
- BarneyF, on 10/10/2007, -3/+43What we need to do is ax the Pentagon. They spend trillions and can't beat anyone bigger than Grenada.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -25/+74*****. Yeah, I can see it now.. "Why does the interstate cost so much to drive on?! I don't have job insurance, I got downsized, how will I pay my bills while I find a new job? Why are all the loans 25%? That's robbery!! Gas prices!? I don't have the cash to private school my kid! What's with this increase in muggings? Rental tax, wtf? $7.99!? I never expected consumption tax would make milk so expensive! What do you mean my insurance premiums went up? Medication costs what!? I can't afford cancer therapy!"
The blind eye people turn to the poor when it comes to privatization sickens me. Oh, you've got your stuff taken care of so ***** other Americans. You act like if you give the American people more money to spend, that the corporations won't immediately raise the cost of goods to net the sudden affluence. Go to hell.
C'mon Paulites, digg me down and prove that you're just a mindless horde whose power extends little beyond the internet.- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -8/+37It's not that corporations would raise the cost of goods once everything was privatized -- quite the opposite. But you touch on a good point, which is that if you give the people most of their 33% in taxes back, they aren't suddenly 50% richer. They now have to individually purchase a lot of goods and services which were previously provided by the government, paid for with those tax dollars. The real money saved off that 33% is merely the overhead cost associated with government bureaucracy, which I'll concede is not insignificant. Still, instead of a third of your paycheck getting lopped off at the end of the week, that extra money gets siphoned off by partially voluntary micropayments -- higher bridge and tunnel tolls, higher college tuitions at formerly state-subsidized schools, higher gas prices. The trains cost more, you have to drop a quarter in every public urinal, you have to slide a dollar into a vending machine to enter city parks. You are also now fully responsible for saving for your retirement and you have to pay for all of your healthcare. And you need to have additional money saved up for a rainy day, because the government will provide you absolutely no assistance if something goes wrong beyond your control. You pay only for what you use, which certainly benefits single, healthy, childless, gainfully employed young men who live with their parents. If your wages drop significantly due to unregulated global competition, or you lose your job to outsourcing, or you incur unexpected medical costs -- ***** YOU, you should have managed your money better. I'm not helping you out, that money is MINE. Maybe some church-based charity will offer you assistance, but that's purely up to them. While on your way to the mailbox to send a check for the repaving of your individual street, try not to step on the homeless senior citizens, and have your concealed gun at the ready in case some father who went bankrupt after a hip surgery tries to mug you to feed his daughter. But look at your paycheck, you have an extra 50% for free!
- Mortikhi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Because this is how America was until 1913!
/doIReallyNeedASarcasmTag?- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11If you're that enamored with 1913, I recommend you find some plutonium and a DeLorean and go check for yourself. You'll have that DeLorean back on the train tracks in minutes. Life expectancy was 51; the cities were cesspools of unsanitary waste, disease, corruption and lawlessness; labor conditions were deplorable; children were barely educated and then put to work. Not to mention all the segregation and lynchings. And women couldn't vote. But yes, upper-middle-class and upper-class white men paid lower taxes, so I guess 1913 was a better overall society.
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Gerz1219
Improvement in social conditions has nothing to do with the introduction of the Federal Reserve. Correlation does not equal causation. Our society has achieved great progress. If we weren't paying taxes through our noses on government bureaucracies, the progress would've been even greater. - Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fair enough -- I completely agree -- but then I wasn't the one who implied that America in 1913 was some sort of libertarian utopia that was dismantled by the Federal Reserve.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17"It's not that corporations would raise the cost of goods once everything was privatized -- quite the opposite."
Then why doesn't government privitization of anything lower costs while maintaining the same level of service? Just yesterday, Digg had an article about how privitization eliminated fresh produce from a school lunch program because the program increased costs. Walter Reed army medical center was under private contract when it went to *****. Halliburton has cost this nation more than even the most pessimistic cynic would have guessed.
I guess you've never heard of the phrase "All the Market Will Bear." Look at the behavior of corporate entities across history and you'll see collectives whose last thought is passing savings along to the consumer unless it's absolutely necessary. - BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"Just yesterday, Digg had an article about how privitization eliminated fresh produce from a school lunch program because the program increased costs."
Yes, and just yesterday it was made clear by dozens and dozens of comments that the article had nothing to do with privatization. The problem was caused by a lack of privatization. - MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Privatization? How about my former-school lunch program where over the past years our prices have soared because we don't want dig into the budget? The government doesn't want to spend the money on things are a necessity.
Gerz, you do make a point. I don't want to see every tax eliminated, because guess what, education and road taxes are necessary. People have no clue about financial literacy. But how about things such as Social Security? Or Medicare. Or Unemployment insurance. It just screams inequality and you should be saving up for these things out of your own pocket. If I want to save for my retirement, I can do it on my own, I'm not also paying for Joe Schmore who only did half the work.- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, we do have a cap on Social Security payments to address the inequality issue. The rich only pay money on their first $90,000, not 12.5% of their total income, which I agree with. I'm glad you brought up Social Security and Medicare, because that accounts for half the budget. Conservatives like to foam at the mouth about relatively cheap welfare hand-outs, but cutting a lot of these social programs would save very little money and cause a significant amount of social harm. It's like those investment banks that hand out one and only one bag of paper clips when new employees get hired -- a symbolic, counterproductive penny-pinching measure. If we're going to shrink the government, we have to reform the expensive entitlements and slash defense spending. Those two things are what’s really going to bankrupt the country.
I have a serious problem with the privatization arguments for Social Security. If you give people the sole responsibility for managing their retirement, you're obviously allowing for the possibility that they'll either blow the money on X-Box games, or (under Bush's proposed plan) sink their private accounts on bad investments. So what happens when people ***** up? Any plan that allows for a massive underclass of millions of broke, homeless senior citizens is fundamentally flawed. Either we leave these people on the streets to rot, or -- more likely -- wind up paying more money out the ass to house them anyway.
Social Security reform is ill suited to historical arguments, because no society in history has ever had to deal with a growing senior population concurrent with a declining birth rate. It’s a side effect of the twentieth century’s massive increase in life expectancy. When SS was established, it was meant to provide 5-10 years at most of financial security for retirees, and it was paid for by a much larger pool of able-bodied workers. Now the program has ballooned into what is essentially a taxpayer-subsidized "second adolescence," in which a person's working years are merely bookended by 40 years of total financial dependence. It’s an unsustainable situation. I think the solution lies not in ideological arguments, but in practical reforms. Raise the retirement age, do something about age discrimination, cut benefits and means test. The baby boomers (and future generations) will be technologically savvy to an unprecedented degree, so with telecommunications technology senior citizens can work from home in semi-retirement until they’re no longer mentally competent to do so. I think that’s the most viable and likely compromise to the problem, particularly given the realities of the senior voting block’s power. - Emceay, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0...yeah, raise the retirement age so that your average black worker gets -4 years of retirement..
- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, we do have a cap on Social Security payments to address the inequality issue. The rich only pay money on their first $90,000, not 12.5% of their total income, which I agree with. I'm glad you brought up Social Security and Medicare, because that accounts for half the budget. Conservatives like to foam at the mouth about relatively cheap welfare hand-outs, but cutting a lot of these social programs would save very little money and cause a significant amount of social harm. It's like those investment banks that hand out one and only one bag of paper clips when new employees get hired -- a symbolic, counterproductive penny-pinching measure. If we're going to shrink the government, we have to reform the expensive entitlements and slash defense spending. Those two things are what’s really going to bankrupt the country.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Max, you're assuming that all poverty is somehow the result of sloth or a willful desire to not work, which is untrue. Also, you do derive a benefit when those that need help are able to get it, and pay into the economy by consuming, paying taxes, and NOT resorting to robbery or other illicit means to sustain themselves. And a great many of our jobs don't allow for savings or a cushion. "Well, move somewhere where there are better jobs." How, if you're broke, do you move? There is such a thing as a cycle of poverty, and it takes a lot to break it. I do grant there are lazy, overentitled people out there, but there are also a lot of people who, financially, were in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. those who worked for mortgage companies, recently). And you do benefit when people can find work and create stable lives for themselves, the same way you benefit when everyone pitches in to buy your roads.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@BabaRamDass: What are you smoking? The article clearly stated the program was a success until an attempt at privitizing part of the program brought in surcharges that were unsustainable.
- Mortikhi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Because this is how America was until 1913!
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18If the federal reserve system of devalueing currency is stopped, it will help the middle class more than anything else. Since 1971, when Nixon took the US off the gold standard, median wages have remained stagnant or dropped for most demographics. Household wealth for median wage earners is lower now than it was 27 years ago in 1980.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Name a single other nation that has a Asset-Backed currency... NAME ONE.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What's your point? If everyone else wiped their ass before shaking your hand, would you start doing it too? America can once again be an example to the world of doing what's right and best for its people, and if we abandoned fiat currency, you can bet the rest of the world would follow suit in short order when they saw the prosperity it would promote merely by forcing our government to be honest about its expenses instead of hiding them via inflation. In fact, it almost behooves us to be the first, since you don't wanna be the last pioneer heading out to the gold rush. Let's not wait for China (who routinely advises its citizens to buy gold), Mexico (on the brink of revolution over restoring a silver standard), or India (ingrained in their culture to buy gold after several fiat currency collapses) to be the first to go back to commodity-backed money because if they beat us to it, by the time we decide to do the same there will be nothing left in the vaults for us to use to replace our worthless paper money.
Do you realize you could buy ALL the above-ground silver in the world today for only about $10-15 billion dollars and that there's been a structural deficit in silver for over 50 years that has brought us to this point of unparalleled scarcity? Or that there's only about $3.5 trillion in above-ground gold in the world? China could buy up 1/3 of the gold in the world and all the silver just by liquidating its dollar reserves. Then there's Japan with another $800 billion or so... you get the idea. We definitely do NOT want to be late to the precious metals party.
So here's my question to you: Why is it that banks still keep gold in their vaults at all if they're so supremely confident in their fiat currencies? Why not just sell it all into the market and amass even more of their kick-ass paper money? Oh, and why do government central banks still settle debts with other central banks by transferring bullion instead of just printing up some paper to pay the debt? Isn't it odd to you that they tell us gold is a "barbarous relic" even though they continue to treat it as money in interbank settlements? - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul doesnt actually want to go back to an asset-backed currency, he simply wants to let gold and silver compete with fiat currency as legal tender, thus forcing government to restrain monetary inflation. He also wants to end the federal reserve system of monetizing debt, which would stop government from being able to borrow money at will.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What's your point? If everyone else wiped their ass before shaking your hand, would you start doing it too? America can once again be an example to the world of doing what's right and best for its people, and if we abandoned fiat currency, you can bet the rest of the world would follow suit in short order when they saw the prosperity it would promote merely by forcing our government to be honest about its expenses instead of hiding them via inflation. In fact, it almost behooves us to be the first, since you don't wanna be the last pioneer heading out to the gold rush. Let's not wait for China (who routinely advises its citizens to buy gold), Mexico (on the brink of revolution over restoring a silver standard), or India (ingrained in their culture to buy gold after several fiat currency collapses) to be the first to go back to commodity-backed money because if they beat us to it, by the time we decide to do the same there will be nothing left in the vaults for us to use to replace our worthless paper money.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5And the governmental policies and tax shelters favoring the rich (often bought by corporate interests via donations and backroom deals) have nothing to do with screwing middle to poor America. Got it.
- Trublmakr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The boomers were the middle class because they voted themselves that way,.. now they'll want free health care,.. and probably get it. What should be today's middle class is really just a bunch of oppressed over-worked, over-taxed, underpaid and stressed out Gen X'ers who have become accustomed to getting screwed - so much so they've forgotten how to get angry.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@Dumbledorito, government policies and attempts to stop tax evasion have helped big corporations and hurt small business and the middle class because small players don't have the money to hire the accountants and lawyers needed to comply with the ever more complex tax code.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12307554/
---------------------
tax complexity has created an entire industry devoted to aggressive tax avoidance. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, an internal IRS watchdog, talks of an "endless cycle" in which the complexity of the tax code creates loopholes that are exploited, leading to yet more regulations.
------------------------
The tax code is so complex now that requires 66,000 pages to explain it, this hurt small businesses:
http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/preventing-economic-growth-101-section-409a/
--------------------------------------------------
At the macro level, we’re seeing more public money being raised outside the United States’ equity markets than ever before. At the micro level, we’re seeing companies all over the country defend themselves from regulatory quicksand instead of serving the customer and attacking the market. Never before have the interests of large multinational corporations been so favored over small companies and new startup opportunities. A multinational can afford an army of attorneys and accountants, and can restructure operations to take advantage of tax havens overseas. When will our government stop strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs of domestic entrepreneurship and job creation?
-------------------------------------------------------
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Name a single other nation that has a Asset-Backed currency... NAME ONE.
- stealthc, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10Incorrect. Private is better than socialized for *moral* reasons. Do you care about the poor? Fantastic. Want to pay for other people's retirement? Knock yourself out. Does funding the education of other people's kids make you feel like a winner? Awesome. Just don't use government as your proxy to force ME to give the exact same way you do. That is theft.
But that isn't even the actual issue here. Income taxes do not go to pay for ANY of that. Income taxes are gobbled up exclusively by interest paid to the Federal Reserve. Keep in mind, when the Fed and banks write money into existence in the form of a new loan, they do not write into existence the money necessary to pay all the interest, so what you have is a mathematically impossible situation, where the debtor must borrow asymptotically more every year just to keep pace with the interest. This is the situation our federal government is in. It is mathematically impossible to repay that federal debt, and they finance what they can by putting you and me up as collateral. The whole thing is a scam that need not exist. Without the Fed, the Treasury could print all the money they needed, debt free, and there would be no need for an Income Tax. The Income Tax only exists to feed an arbitrary beast that sits atop the economy, causing only uncertainty and instability.
But on top of all that is the problem of an unbacked currency. Without a hard standard, the government can borrow or print unlimited amounts of cash, and the burden this is on the economy is the same as that of a very prolific counterfeiter. Buying power is diluted, harming everyone, just because the guy with a printing press wants space shuttles, armies, Social Security and "public" schools that serve his agenda.
Theft is immoral. Therefore I must philosophically oppose taxation. Fraud is immoral. Therefore I must oppose fiat money and the lies integral to modern (central) banking.- dBLiSS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12We have a lot of those socialized things here in Canada plus free health care to boot, we're not in huge debt, in fact the the Government constantly has budgetary surpluses to pay down the national debt. Canadian citizens have more money and more spending power more then ever. So the problem isn't with the system, the problem is with the people who run it and make bad decisions.
- Zettabyte, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Same in Australia.
Medicare, is given health insurence companies a run for there money. I do not know why Amercians against Medicare, because of 'taxes' etc. In fact the Rich and the Middle class only pay a 'Medicare Levy' something like $500 a year, but that does not cover therapeutic nor Ambalance.
Australia has 10 Billion in Surpluss, despite war (but small) efforts. - randeepjalli0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Yeah, we don't like social security becasue as an "EVIL" employer, my company has to pay 20% of all our gross, to FICA. Thats basically money I will probably never see again, and then there's the 30% corporate tax, as well as the 10-15% state income tax so all in all thats like 50-65% IN TAXES. Because of the way that the IRS does exemptioin now, pretty much nothing is exempt.... so at the end of the day, we only get to keep like 30-35% of our goss..... which sucks.. I think we shoud have a national sales tax.... that would make sense.... The US tax structure is MUCH MUCH different from that of canada or australia, you guys dont give out 10-20BILLION dollars in foreign aid(which i think is *****). There should be no foreign aid... ITS POINTLESS... if individuals want to give let them, but otherwise don't take it out of my taxes...
- Duffeh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Amazing... Your selfishness couldn't be more immoral, by any standard.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@dbliss, Canada is facing the same medicare crunch as the baby boomers retire. All western socialist democries are facing this problem. Opportunistic politicians promised goodies to the voters, and now this generations has to pay for their immoral/socialist policies.
- Mortikhi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3OOOooo can I borrow your time machine?!
You've obviously been to the future since you know how everything is going to turn out.
Do we have hoverboards? Come on...loan it to me! - MrESaulved, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Emceay, all of your points are based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. You suddenly expect the worst in people when they would be given the free choice, which they have not had in a long time, to do with what they will with all of their earnings? Instead of having a large portion of those earnings subtracted with very little evident in return?
Americans, as a rule, would happily pay taxes if they knew (and felt) very close to the amounts now paid per individual if they knew those taxes were being spent wisely, efficiently, with long term benefits for all as the desired outcome. The fact that much of our siphoned off income and earnings goes to fund institutional inefficiencies, even for programs we specifically desire, is what fuels many peoples desire for wide reaching overhaul including abashment of the IRS.
So I might have to pay more for "health care". If every dime I spend on health care is going to a specific doctor, so he can stay well trained, have a strong staff and the newest tools and testing equipment, I think that is the proper trade. Instead, today, how much of my health-dollars are going to the inefficient system that merely calculates, collects, processes and records my health dollars spent and has nothing to do with health?- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Bravo, I couldn't have said ti better myself.
- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -8/+37It's not that corporations would raise the cost of goods once everything was privatized -- quite the opposite. But you touch on a good point, which is that if you give the people most of their 33% in taxes back, they aren't suddenly 50% richer. They now have to individually purchase a lot of goods and services which were previously provided by the government, paid for with those tax dollars. The real money saved off that 33% is merely the overhead cost associated with government bureaucracy, which I'll concede is not insignificant. Still, instead of a third of your paycheck getting lopped off at the end of the week, that extra money gets siphoned off by partially voluntary micropayments -- higher bridge and tunnel tolls, higher college tuitions at formerly state-subsidized schools, higher gas prices. The trains cost more, you have to drop a quarter in every public urinal, you have to slide a dollar into a vending machine to enter city parks. You are also now fully responsible for saving for your retirement and you have to pay for all of your healthcare. And you need to have additional money saved up for a rainy day, because the government will provide you absolutely no assistance if something goes wrong beyond your control. You pay only for what you use, which certainly benefits single, healthy, childless, gainfully employed young men who live with their parents. If your wages drop significantly due to unregulated global competition, or you lose your job to outsourcing, or you incur unexpected medical costs -- ***** YOU, you should have managed your money better. I'm not helping you out, that money is MINE. Maybe some church-based charity will offer you assistance, but that's purely up to them. While on your way to the mailbox to send a check for the repaving of your individual street, try not to step on the homeless senior citizens, and have your concealed gun at the ready in case some father who went bankrupt after a hip surgery tries to mug you to feed his daughter. But look at your paycheck, you have an extra 50% for free!
- Rodman930, on 10/10/2007, -12/+38How the hell is Ron Paul going to get rid of the National dept when he doesn't believe in federal taxes.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3welcome to fairtax.org
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22He wouldn't move to remove federal income taxes until the deficit is eliminated. Ron Paul has lobbied more for spending cuts than he has for tax cuts. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He hates debt because it hurts the next generation.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3...and then what will he do with the debt?
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know, I assume he would allocate a percentage of federal revenues to paying it off.
- bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15One wonders how this country ever survived without an income tax before 1913? It's not taxes, it's the spending stupid!
- pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2amen bratpack...
why has repudiation gone undiscussed? prior generations accumulated all this federal debt ($66 trillion if you include medicare & medicaid & SS)... then they hand us the bill.
lets say: "nope"
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Not being picky... but now that there is an ALL section in the front page... there is No more reason, to submit video's into the non-video news section.
Obviously this article was submitted before the change... But I hope this weird video submission thing, will end now...
Anyway, more on topic. Very good video, and the US REALLY needs to wake up. We are the MOST in debt country in the world right now... -_-
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html
*we're there, just scroll down... ALL the way down... -_-
Something has to be done, if we want to maintain our quality of life, and stay on par with the rest of the world... - LucidHawk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15People have to realize that a fairly large amount of income goes toward income tax filing. Also when the income tax (which makes up 30-40% of the revenue for the Federal government) is abolished it will boost the economy at least for the short term fairly significantly ,which means the revenue that the fed is getting from existing taxes will increase. Overall the amount of money pouring in won't be significantly less. Also Ron Paul will work his damnedest to reduce spending and remove troops from overseas and get rid of various departments like that abomination the Dept of Education.
- khafra, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If we reeled in the international interference and established a flat tax, our economy might well blossom like Estonia's has with their flat tax--but it'd be more vulnerable to short-term, large fluctuations like the Great Depression and the other, frequent and large depressions before it that history's forgotten.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1without the federal reserve, the country would be less vulnerable to huge crashes like the one that triggered the great depression. It was the federal reserve artificially controlling the nation's money supply that caused the crash of 1929.
- khafra, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If we reeled in the international interference and established a flat tax, our economy might well blossom like Estonia's has with their flat tax--but it'd be more vulnerable to short-term, large fluctuations like the Great Depression and the other, frequent and large depressions before it that history's forgotten.
- imeddy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11Too late. The US is FUBAR.
- nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Is that German?
- umrgregg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1'Memphis Bell' anyone? Talk about obscure movie references.
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3FUBAR = F*cked Up Beyond All Repair
- wupike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I looked up FUBAR in the German dictionary and there's no fubar in there.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's military slang for ***** Up Beyond All Repair for anyone who doesn't know.
- wupike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1nigh7dagger and my replies were quotes from Saving Private Ryan for anyone who doesn't know.
- nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Is that German?
- tonton2012, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9Ron Paul wants to reverse Roe Vs. Wade as well. He's also against birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals who were born here which is totally unfair because almost everyone here have roots with birthright citizenship unless you're 100% native American. No thanks! US Presidency - Not yours!
- mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It must be awesome to be a one-issue voter. Makes it really easy to pick your candidates, huh?
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4To be fair, Tonton2012 stated 2 issue's, not one.
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3While I'm a Kucinich guy, I do have respect for Ron Paul. I disagree with his pro-life (read: anti-choice) stance, but I do think his stance on abortion is that he does not want to legislate it on the national level. That would mean that he does not want to overturn Roe Vs Wade.
Not sure about his stance on foreign nationals. Sounds kinda ***** if you are right. But the guy is right on the really big issue's and I would rather vote for someone that will fix more than he will screw up, unlike Hillary who will fix nothing.- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4While I'm a Ron Paul guy, I do have respect for Dennis Kucinich.
On Roe vs. Wade, Ron Paul claimed the fourteenth amendment had been violated. His definition of human life, shaped by his experience as an obstentrician and hypocritical medical laws, affords protection to all humans - bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He would want to overturn Roe vs. Wade because it is unconstitutional and not an issue that should be decided on at the Federal level. Remember the Constitution clearly states these issues are to be determined by the States.
- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4While I'm a Ron Paul guy, I do have respect for Dennis Kucinich.
- pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0go back to the '60s, hippie.
- toolsdrummer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He wants to reverse it to let the states decide. It's a matter of preferring the local government to the federal government.
- aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2His reasoning about being against birthright citizenship is about getting rid of incentives for people to come to this country. He is pretty consistent no this, as he also doesn't want to give them benefits and free care simply for showing up here. It seems cruel, but less people would be trying to come into this country and focus on making their own country better, if we get rid of those incentives. His position on Roe Vs. Wade as others have said, is that different people have different views as to when human life is protected by the constitution. Leaving it up to the state, or even making it even more local then the state, like a county, town, or city, that way it doesn't angry the locals.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He wants to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because it would remove a huge incentive for people who try to get into America illegally. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade because he believes abortion is a State issue. He does not want the federal government to have the power to either ban or permit abortion nation-wide.
- mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It must be awesome to be a one-issue voter. Makes it really easy to pick your candidates, huh?
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3What's fiscally responsible about a dude who wants to abolish the IRS? That's called "Buying your vote" and I hardly think it's realistic.
Sadly, he's more fiscally responsible than most of his republican peers, who don't seem to understand that tax cuts mean you should also reduce spending.- there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We need to....
- stop giving golden retirement parachutes to politicians and other government workers
- create a public accounting office that is a forth distinct branch of government (checks on spending habits of other 3)
- adopt a universal healthcare program and we'd half our spending on healthcare. (and actually live longer and healthier to boot)
- re-examine the books where going to privatization has ended up in greater government spending not less... and bring it back to government
- reduce the military to 1/4 its current size (stll making it by far the largest military in the world)
- instead of greedy weasels like Rupert Murdock paying little if any taxes.... we start collecting on the billions they owe and even increase their taxes significantly (rather than say it being flushed down golden toilets at 100 million dollar cottage homes.
- create a law that makes it illegal for a government to have a deficit over a certain threshold (an immediate election called if they do so)
Done.- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1increasing taxes on the rich leads to the rich finding creative ways to avoid taxes. it leads to a cycle of exploiting loopholes, and government creating more regulations to close loopholes, thus leading to an ever larger and more complex tax code that bogs Americans down and reduce economic activity:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12307554/
-------------National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, an internal IRS watchdog, talks of an "endless cycle" in which the complexity of the tax code creates loopholes that are exploited, leading to yet more regulations.--------------------
the tax code is so large and complex now, that 2% of US GDP, $265 billion per year, is used just for compliance (e.g. filling out the paper work):
--------------------By itself, the complexity of the nation's tax system imposes high costs on businesses and individuals. Just complying with the system through record-keeping, education and compliance costs the nation $265 billion, or 2 percent of the gross domestic product, said Chris Edwards, director for fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.-------------------------------------
The tax code is too big, it now takes 66,000 pages to describe it all. A complex code and other forms of government regulation hurt small companies most:
http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/preventing-economic-growth-101-section-409a/
-----------------At the macro level, we’re seeing more public money being raised outside the United States’ equity markets than ever before. At the micro level, we’re seeing companies all over the country defend themselves from regulatory quicksand instead of serving the customer and attacking the market. Never before have the interests of large multinational corporations been so favored over small companies and new startup opportunities. A multinational can afford an army of attorneys and accountants, and can restructure operations to take advantage of tax havens overseas. When will our government stop strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs of domestic entrepreneurship and job creation?-----------------------------------------
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1increasing taxes on the rich leads to the rich finding creative ways to avoid taxes. it leads to a cycle of exploiting loopholes, and government creating more regulations to close loopholes, thus leading to an ever larger and more complex tax code that bogs Americans down and reduce economic activity:
- bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul screams IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SPENDING STUPID. Apparently you weren't listening. You could remove all income taxes, but if spending doesn't stop, the hidden tax (inflation of the money supply) will need to increase, and that is a bigger disaster.
- there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unauthentic reply. Its about the balancing the budget. That can be done by both decreasing spending and increasing taxes. Both s is what will inevitably happen sooner or later.
- there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1-
- there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unauthentic reply. Its about the balancing the budget. That can be done by both decreasing spending and increasing taxes. Both s is what will inevitably happen sooner or later.
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He isn't a silver bullet solution, but a means of at least bringing the major problems to the forefront, so that they can be critically assessed, as opposed to simply ignored and allowed to fester. Most of the other candidates are just not focusing on the main issues, and are even suggesting further encumberances to an already overburdened social services budget.
I do think that his election could be the best chance of saving the US on non-violent terms, before it deteriorates into yet another authoritarian regime that regards all rights as privileges, which could happen in the case of a severe economic downturn.
Either path is going to be difficult, but the status quo is going to make the eventual impact even harsher the longer it is maintained, so the ill effects should be dealt with as soon as possible.
- there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We need to....
- 3drage, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9I'm tired of seeing Ron Paul's name everywhere as the miracle fix-all cure. He's not going to save the world, the entire US political system needs a rework.
- billm317, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3it's a start, dude
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3promoting Ron Paul is not just promoting one man, it's promoting the entire message of constitutional government.
- bmang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly dude....That's the point. Ron Paul would say the same thing. That's why we need him.
- jonathanho, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1futureteg, i doubt you even have a high school diploma
- kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Have you really thought out what would happen with a Ron Paul presidency?
Ron would just about veto every bill that wound up on his desk, and that would unite the Congress against him and they be overriding a lot of his vetoes. In effect, the presidency would be marginalized, and the lobbyists would get everything they wanted.
Be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it. - bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Cheers for 60 Minutes on putting on this story, but boo to them for making it look like Clinton balanced the budget (complete BS), and not mention Ron Paul, but rather Ross Perot. Paul has been talking about this for the past 20 years!
- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1THe US Comptroller also said that tax cuts never pay for themselves. Damn, there goes the Ron idea.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -20/+15exactly
- itripn, on 10/10/2007, -36/+20Yeah, I am sure it's that easy. Just whack a few pieces of the Government off, and viola - paradise!
- futureteg, on 10/10/2007, -14/+24yeah you are right, its better to do nothing or even better increase spending.
Let me guess you never took economics in your life...or if you did you took it at some community college. You gotta cut the fat of the government in order to stop runaway spending- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Ohhh, zing! An insult to community education.. You definitely sound credible now.
- BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Community education tends to teach Keynesian economics. He's not attacking the school, but rather the school of economics it teaches.
- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nothing like a few more broken bridges.
- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nothing like a few more broken bridges.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Ohhh, zing! An insult to community education.. You definitely sound credible now.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18nothing's easy but at least tackle the problem rather than letting the nation go bankrupt. If you watched the video , you would see that rising healthcare costs is the number one problem for the long term federal budget, and Ron Paul more than anyone has advocated the federal government getting out of healthcare.
- hlgriggs, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4And he can turn water into wine, clear acne and keep us all regular! Go L. Ron!
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15You're not too bright are you? The biggest cause of the financial trouble the US is in is spending (to buy votes of ignorant voters like you), the biggest advocate of cutting spending (by adhering to the Constitution) has been Ron Paul through the decades.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No. You're not getting it. The comment while abrasive *is* insightful. Most diggers treat Ron Paul like the Second Coming while ignoring the fact that he will head a mere single branch of the federal government. There is no 9/11 for Ron Paul to unite Congress. The guy wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and re-implement the gold standard. These aren't issues which are easy to sell to the public and there will be significant resistance in Congress.
Hell the guy has tried to introduce legislation to do these things and they never get out of committee. They have been nothing more than symbolic. And you yahoos think that if he gets elected that he will magically be able to ram all these reforms through Congress in 4 years? If that's the case then you're deluded and the Scientology jibe is well founded.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg imho. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Fair enough but Ron Paul is a step in the right direction so I hope he gets elected.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No. You're not getting it. The comment while abrasive *is* insightful. Most diggers treat Ron Paul like the Second Coming while ignoring the fact that he will head a mere single branch of the federal government. There is no 9/11 for Ron Paul to unite Congress. The guy wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and re-implement the gold standard. These aren't issues which are easy to sell to the public and there will be significant resistance in Congress.
- knowyourrights, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4L. Ron? As in the scientologist? Sir you Fail.
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That was the point.... so you fail.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15You're not too bright are you? The biggest cause of the financial trouble the US is in is spending (to buy votes of ignorant voters like you), the biggest advocate of cutting spending (by adhering to the Constitution) has been Ron Paul through the decades.
- hlgriggs, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4And he can turn water into wine, clear acne and keep us all regular! Go L. Ron!
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works. :
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of Am...
3 hr 35 min - Mar 27, 2007 - No ratings yet (853 ratings)
the power to create the world's money..." THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 - ReadItAndWeep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10We will have two choices: 1. slash and burn large Federal programs, or 2. take your advice and pretend the problem does not exist which will eventually lead to bankruptcy. You do realize what would happen if our nation went bankrupt, don't you? Our dollar would become almost worthless. Ever since we went off of the gold standard, our dollar has not been backed by any real asset. It is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Federal Government. A bankrupt entity has no full faith and credit. We would be left in similar position as a lender to a bankrupt borrower without any collateral. In such situations, the lender is lucky to get back pennies on each dollar lent. There is perhaps a 3rd option, but the result wouldn't be much better than the 2nd option. The third option would be to have the Treasury print a lot of extra money to pay off the existing debts, but this would cause massive inflation unlike anything the US has ever experienced, which would also drastically reduce the value of the dollar. Given these choices, I think the 1st option is the best.
- ramiro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Learn some damn French! It is VOILÀ - meaning "look there" - not viola (a musical instrument).
- Aluze, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No worse than slapping on another wasteful department or pushing another mis-titled "everything becomes wonderful and happy" bill through congress and having it magically fixed, either.
- futureteg, on 10/10/2007, -14/+24yeah you are right, its better to do nothing or even better increase spending.
- TexasWaterSnake, on 10/11/2007, -24/+177This is exactly why we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal, nor a Reserve.
FDR sold us into perpetual debt slavery when he allowed those banksters to take over our currency, and they've been stealing from us for decades.- mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I'm verklempt!
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -17/+27Yeah, FDR really ***** us over with that whole new deal thing.. What with social security and stock market controls to prevent another major crash at the hands of unrestrained banks and corporations. Privatizing everything will be way better, especially once they tax our retirement savings!
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10can someone say failure of the "Government Funded Education System"? Atleast I learned the difference between capitalism and socialism/communism and how the New Deal still hurts us to this day.
- Emceay, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Can someone say *****? Point fingers all you want, but something had to be done. The system is antiquated, yes, but it got us out of rough times. How you think making it private will be some panacea in spite of the greedy nature of corporations is astounding. If you had your way, you'd have it decentralized to the point that one hand has no clue what the other's doing.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8What is astounding is you feel that the government has more power and responsibility to take care of you then you taking care of yourself. Self responsibility starts with the parents.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Perhaps people actually think that they, and society as a whole has some responsibility towards the less fortunate.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Responsible to the point where they should go to prison if they don't want to help them?
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6taking away the wealth of corporations by force (government taxation, regulations) will be helpful to you in the short-run, but in the long run it will hurt you as it will mean less economic activity and therefore fewer new technologies, advances in efficiency, and the reductions in the price of products and services associated with economic development.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I have been reading you all through this forum, and you Sir, have truely drank the coolaid long and deep. Do you have *ANY* idea how the rest of the world works? The rest of the world with lower taxes and better standard of living?
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You think the rest of the world has lower taxes than us?
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Redistributing wealth will neither help you in the short run or in the long run. It will always lead to tyranny and will only benefit the politically connected while making life worse for everybody. Socialism will always be a pipe-dream because politicians will always be self-serving. There's no such thing as "selflessness," even those who give to charity do it to make themselves feel better-- and that's OK. People who do things for selfish reasons and improve the lives of others should be respected just the same. Claiming to do something out of "selflessness" is intellectually dishonest.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3wageslaven, the rest of the world doesn't have lower taxes than the US. In Europe, half of people's money is taken by the government, and Europe is absolute *****. They have ***** decaying government social programs, no jobs, no opportunities, civil strife, etc. If the US didn't have all the special interests pulling strings in Washington wasting the nations' money, it would be head and shoulders above any other country in the world.
- stealthc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Actually, he did ***** us over with that New Deal crap. Social Security is just another slush fund with a superficial label on it in the Treasury. They raid it all the time. Do you have any idea how bad it is for the stock market that there is a plunge protection team? The market will take all sorts of stupid risks when they know the government will bail them out. This makes the economy less stable. Not more. Bank runs only happen if banks act dishonestly, and fractional reserve banking is dishonest.
So yeah, FDR's was a pretty ***** Deal.- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6You'd prefer Corporate Feudalism? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?
- AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think what you don't understand is that corporate fascism, e.g. corporatism, is not the same as a free market. I have yet to see your opinion though except in a non productive flame-war fashion.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You say that as if that's the only other option available, wage.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6You'd prefer Corporate Feudalism? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ooops buried you when I meant to digg. I'm not convinced New Deal was a bad idea, only flawed due to the much larger problems needing to be fixed by the corrupt Fedral Reserve and IRS system.
We need to make the Federal Reserve something that is run by an accountable government. Not a private for profit corporation. Just a few hurdles to get over. :( - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED FEDERAL RESERVE THAT CAUSED THE MARKET CRASH OF 1929. You big government stooges have been brainwashed by the big-government propaganda. You can't artificially stop market crashes by imposing government regulations, when you do that, all it does is decrease the frequency but increase the severity of crashes. Market crashes are a natural part of the economy, as people get burned for investing in overvalued assets. When you try to use government regulations and taxes to stop market crashes, it distorts the market and prevents natural corrections. People need to get burned when they make mistakes in the market.
- Emceay, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0How you all think that big business can manage themselves for the good of the country is beyond me.. Almost any time their power is unchecked, they abuse it. Not to say big government doesn't do the same, but rather, they necessitate each other.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10can someone say failure of the "Government Funded Education System"? Atleast I learned the difference between capitalism and socialism/communism and how the New Deal still hurts us to this day.
- MPOmnis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Actually, it was that snake Woodrow Wilson who sold out to the banks. I think W.Bush spawned from him.
- mutz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1not being an american wasn't nixon into this too?.... wait maybe every president is into it...
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nixon tried to prevent the economy from coping with inflation, by introducing "wage and price controls". He also ended the redemption of dollars for gold.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nixon tried to prevent the economy from coping with inflation, by introducing "wage and price controls". He also ended the redemption of dollars for gold.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Woodrow Wilson did in fact help create the FED. He could have effortlessly vetoed it, were it not for the fact that some of the banking interests had some dirt on him and would have used it to destroy his political career. He later went on to say:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
At this time, the standard was that a dollar was equal to 1/20th of an ounce of gold. (Therefore, one ounce = $20)
These dominant men had Congress pass a law during the Depression making it illegal to own more than a certain, small amount of gold (rings were okay, but not much more than that) and everyone had to turn their gold in to the banks for paper. The excuse given was that if the FED had all of that gold, they could use it to restart the economy. And so, it was all transferred to Ft. Knox. Shortly after this, the value of a dollar was readjusted to 1/35th of an ounce of gold, or $35 = one ounce.
Fast forward to Richard Nixon. Good news, people! He repealed the law making it illegal to own gold, so people can now have all the gold they can afford to carry! Three cheers for Ni-- Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to tell you guys. He's also the same guy who signed a bill into existence breaking the link between American currency and the gold standard that used to back it. When that link was broken, the price of gold went up hundreds of dollars.
Now, while I support the idea of a gold standard, or any other commodity backing currency, do not get me wrong by claiming I want a return to the gold standard. Some people have made claims that I do, but actually I don't. Let's assume that were to happen. This would mean that the only people who have any money are people who already own gold. If you don't own gold, you would be penniless, so to speak.
The answer to solve the problem isn't the gold standard. Considering the problems with the American Dollar, a more practical solution would be to issue debt free money. The last guy who tried to do that got shot. What was his name? Oh, yeah. John Kennedy. Money that is created without debt is a tool for the economy, not a tool for the banks. Abolish Interest.
Some people think that banking institutions cannot operate without charging interest rates on everything, but that is not the case. Banks in the Middle East are banned from charging Usury (Interest), and yet they have adopted policies and practices that generate revenue for them without milking the people of everything they own. I bring this up because what I am suggesting is that there are always other options to try.- MrFunions, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually the Federal Reserve holds gold as collateral against the national debt. So to return to the gold standard would simply mean liquidating the federal reserve and dividing the gold among the people equally in regards to the dollars they hold. This would of course mean the price of gold would have to be adjusted to it's relative market value against the doller. At the same time you would have to eliminate fractional reserve banking to keep inflation against gold from happening. Whether the banks or the government create the money, inflation is still a tax against the people and will always be a tool for redistributing wealth amongst all classes of citizens.
- mutz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1not being an american wasn't nixon into this too?.... wait maybe every president is into it...
- ReadItAndWeep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Tthe Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson. It was also during Wilson's administration that the Federal income tax was created (along with the IRS) and the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations). FDR is the president most responsible for creating the welfare and entitlement state, which was called the New Deal. From the Nations founding, in 1776, until the New Deal, the Federal Government had mostly functioned in a manner similar to modern libertarianism, with a few notable exceptions.
Before I'm accused of picking on Democrats, I will point out that every President (and Congress), since the administration of FDR, has steadily increased the size of Government at increasing rates. This includes both Republicans and Democrats. In fact, George W. Bush may be the worst offender in our nation's history. The Kennedy-Bush prescription drug program could almost be considered an act of financial treason against future generations, and I won't even bring up a needless war and bridges to nowhere.- daniel85at, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And what did you have in the 19th century? An out of control capitalist economy that pushed the vast majority of the population into a position of near slavery, forced to work for minimal wages with very little hope for ever rising above it. You can spit out as much of the "work really hard and you'll do fine" rhetoric but that isn't a true. The free market is fine if you have an agricultural economy, but as soon as you bring industry into it you're treading on a very slippery slope. There's a reason that Marx was so popular toward the end of the 19th century-- free market capitalism was a failure for the vast majority of the American and European population. It might have brought vast national wealth, but what do I care about that if I have to work 12 hour work days and have the black lung?
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The 19th century wasn't perfect, because big companies manipulated the government to let them suppress individual rights of workers -Ron Paul often talks about this-, BUT, it was far better than today. A far smaller percentage of each person's income was confiscated by the government and America was progressing more quickly than any nation in the world. As far as "forced to work for minimal wages with very little hope for ever rising above it", that's a consequence of the economy being far far more primitive 120 years ago. The lightbulb had just been invented, people got around on horse and carriage, etc. People were simply a lot less productive back then and therefore the standard of living was lower. This has nothing to do with the government of 19th century America so don't blame it. It had to do with how technologically advanced society was back then.
- AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Capitalism is not at fault for the scenario you described, the industrial revolution had just started and the economy grew largely, after the great depression, nearly 50 years later the negative effects you have described were greatly reduced because of new techniques and innovation, not because we became more socialist. Surely you agree that conditions are better today than they've ever been, and they will continue to get better, not because of a change in who controls the money, but because society is progressing.
- daniel85at, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And what did you have in the 19th century? An out of control capitalist economy that pushed the vast majority of the population into a position of near slavery, forced to work for minimal wages with very little hope for ever rising above it. You can spit out as much of the "work really hard and you'll do fine" rhetoric but that isn't a true. The free market is fine if you have an agricultural economy, but as soon as you bring industry into it you're treading on a very slippery slope. There's a reason that Marx was so popular toward the end of the 19th century-- free market capitalism was a failure for the vast majority of the American and European population. It might have brought vast national wealth, but what do I care about that if I have to work 12 hour work days and have the black lung?
- dementia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Have any of you ever taken a macroeconomics course? Or did you learn all of this on google video?
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8So people without the means or the time to thoroughly educate themselves should remain ignorant? I can't vouch for any Google video people may have seen, but to suggest that he shouldn't be expressing his opinions because they didn't come straight from a textbook or a professor is just stupid.
That being said, following up on the sources of anything you see on the internet would be a very good idea, because otherwise you have no way of knowing which orifice they could be pulling facts out of. - frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Damnit.
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8So people without the means or the time to thoroughly educate themselves should remain ignorant? I can't vouch for any Google video people may have seen, but to suggest that he shouldn't be expressing his opinions because they didn't come straight from a textbook or a professor is just stupid.
- battletrax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I dont know if this has any truth to it, but supposedly the US was out of debt or almost before we went to war in iraq.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not out of debt, but no deficit. Of course, the Democrats were raiding the Social Security trust fund all throughout Clinton's tenure (just as the Republicans have done), so the supposed surplus was just a clever accounting trick.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul introduced a bill that if passed would have stopped thieving politicians from raiding the Social Security trust, but it wasn't supported by Congress.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=663
Introduction of the Social Security Preservation Act
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest-bearing instruments.
- pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the name of the game is bailout ;)
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html - zachshmack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I don't understand the whole ditch-the-fed bandwagon. Do you blame the credit card company when you go into debt because you suck at budgeting? We don't have to get rid of the fed. We just need to stop borrowing from them. ;-)
- AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The fed does nothing but bad for our economy, our inflation rates have gone up non stop since it was introduced, and the purchasing power of the average American has been reduced, only one generation ago you could buy a loaf of bread for a quarter. The fed attempts to know what the economy is going to do, but we need to accept that economics is a very abstract subject that no expert on the planet can predict with 100% certainty, it's better to not meddle in it and leave the market to its own devices.
- ScoobyG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I love the way TexasWaterSnake is dugg up, even though I'm sure the ones digging him have no clue what he's talking about. But hey, he found a culprit so he must be right... right?
- mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I'm verklempt!
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -3/+47Our debt spending, especially our military spending, point to the idea that many people inside the power structures of our nation are playing an end game. To them, power over resources and military might matter much more than the interest on the money we've borrowed.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Or maybe they're just trying to consume as much of the pork as possible for themelves while the US government can still borrow money.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17They'll be dead long before any of it matters.
- bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Watch the clip. It has very little do with military. The entitlements that the government is liable for will bancrupt the nation. The medicare prescription drug benefit has only accelerated it. Military spending in a mere blip.
- duke1776, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2U.S. military spending a blip? A "small chunk?" The 2008 U.S. budget allots nearly 31% of our total annual budget to the military. That amounts to nearly $750 billion! The U.S. spends more on military than ALL COUNTRIES ON EARTH COMBINED! U.S. military spending IS THE PROBLEM.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Spending on medicare and social security is going to skyrocket once baby-boomers start hitting retirement age, so that's going to be a far bigger problem than military spending.
- duke1776, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2U.S. military spending a blip? A "small chunk?" The 2008 U.S. budget allots nearly 31% of our total annual budget to the military. That amounts to nearly $750 billion! The U.S. spends more on military than ALL COUNTRIES ON EARTH COMBINED! U.S. military spending IS THE PROBLEM.
- manstein01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1*****, military spending, even at Bush levels, is a small chunk. Entitlements are what are killing us. Specifically, medicaid and medicare.
- sodade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What the *****? Last I saw, military spending was something like 50 ***** percent of your tax dollar.
- mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It all depends on what dollars you're talking about. There are many different kinds of 'tax dollars' - FICA, SS, general treasury. The government doesn't just take all of your taxes and puts it into a huge Scrooge McDuck vault. The money is appropriated to different funds.
When you total everything together, SSI, Medicaid and Medicare accounts for most of your gross income spent towards taxes but that money does not mix with the dollars spent towards defense spending - or at least, it shouldn't. Congress borrows from Social Security all the time to fund the general treasury which is one reason why we are facing a huge reckoning in the near future when all the Boomers start to retire.
- EPH99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What's this "our" business?? I don't recall ever being consulted about this country's fiscal policies.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And it's too bad too. Most of us probably wouldn't treat our personal finances the same way that Congress treats our national finances. Most people just don't spend more than they have. Simple, isn't it?
- Infantrydude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Get real the budget for the Military (Dept of Defense) for 2008 is 481.4 billion for Social Security it is 656.2 billion at least according to the Govt. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/browse.html Wikipedia has different numbers, but know one disputes that Social Security will go under it is just a matter of when
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um. People generally spend their SS money. Often, the very same day they get the check. It goes back into the economy. Social Security is partially money you pay into Social Security to begin with anyway. Look at your paycheck. Maybe bombs and dead Iraqis are a great investment somehow? I tend to think that any protection we get from our military spending is made useless by the bad decisions our leaders seem to be making these days. Yeah, lets' occupy a middle-eastern nation. What could go wrong? My point is that they don't seem to care about *any* of the spending, even though if we continue to spend at this rate we'll eventually need every cent of tax revenue just to make interest payments on the debt.
- CAKochenash, on 10/10/2007, -26/+17man...we really could use Ron Paul right now
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8we are not going to get him. Time to end your life if all you have going for you is your belief that Ron Paul will save you. Just do it and make your family proud.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3You're going to have to elect a congress that would work with him and implement his policies. Good luck.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why dig Flower down? It's a valid point. I acknowledge that Ron Paul is much more fiscally responsible than most others in Washington, however let's assume he's the President. I don't care how, or why, just run with this for a moment. Now let's assume that Congress hasn't changed one bit. Okay, that's not hard to assume, but I digress. Would a fiscally irresponsible Congress work well with a fiscally responsible President? I can see how this would work:
Congress: "Here's the budget proposal for 200X, Mr. President."
President Paul: "Are you kidding me? We don't need to spend all of this money! What is this? $3 Million to subsidize the manufacture of pork rinds? $18 million to save rainforests in somebody else's country? $5 Billion to Israel and $1.5 Billion to the Saudis? Don't you see a conflict of interest in that last part alone? I can't pass this!"
Democrats in Congress: "We didn't think you would. You're just like every other Republican in the White House!"
Republicans in Congress: "Are you crazy?! We need to send that money to our allies in the Middle East otherwise the region will become unstabalized!"
Congress united: "If you think we're going to work with you, think again!"
John Q. Public: "Oh, come on, Ron! Work with them! If things fall apart around here, we'll blame YOU!"
Okay, so this is just a bit dramatized, but I'm trying to illustrate a point. Ron Paul cannot do this kind of thing on his own. Could he be President? Sure, he's got a shot at the White House, but how effective will he be unless Congress is also changed? If he becomes the next president, then that's only the first step in changing the government. You cannot stop there and expect him to be the messiah of the United States. Nothing good will come of it. Change Congress, too. Scrutinize your Congressmen and women. If you don't think they'll do what it takes to fix this country without selling out, then give them the boot.- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A president can veto bills, so new government spending could be seriously reduced if Ron Paul gets elected. As the economy grows, if government spending is kept constant, that will mean lower deficits.
- Aluze, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0True, but I do believe that however close to your values the man on top is, real change does have to eventually come from the roots. Otherwise a simple phone call to political party head right before the primaries, a private corporation counting public vote or another Oswald magic bullet would derail it all quite fast
- Jelfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree. People seem to forget that the president is not a monarch, but the head of the executive branch, not the legislation. The biggest decision that Ron Paul could make as president is bringing back the troops. Unfortunately, in a 2-party caucusing system, a change in Congress will come slow or not at all.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why dig Flower down? It's a valid point. I acknowledge that Ron Paul is much more fiscally responsible than most others in Washington, however let's assume he's the President. I don't care how, or why, just run with this for a moment. Now let's assume that Congress hasn't changed one bit. Okay, that's not hard to assume, but I digress. Would a fiscally irresponsible Congress work well with a fiscally responsible President? I can see how this would work:
- Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -9/+26I refuse to pay.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15you part of the problem ..
- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5...because you're elite and you benefit from the economic war of the Federal Reserve carried out by the IRS? Do you know about the Grace Commission Report? Do you have any evidence that the big issue therein is no longer relevant? Congress does not even receive the M3 data anymore! What benefits from the federal income tax do you appreciate? I'd like to know because, if there are any, I can identify better ways to achieve those results.
- Ngai, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3stay a bum and ruin it for us you *****...
- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You remind me of a hurried beetle-man who would not even take a Ron Paul pamphlet on his way into a monolithic office building. "I have a job," he said. Well, go ahead and judge everyone else. After all, yuppies are omniscient. Right? wait-
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Have fun in jail.
- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Have fun letting the IRS run roughshod on your ass.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Like the IRS cares.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4As long as you are willing to accept the fact that your protest will wind you in jail I say go for it. Personally I have no interest in being the Rosa Parks of income tax reform.
- PlaceboNation, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6So how does your mob mentality feel now? You guys are the example of a nation that will not fight. Good job.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I choose my fights. and how I wish to live. Get over it. I'm not leaving two kids without a father and losing my wife, my home, etc. because I don't want to pay money for a few government programs that I feel are wasteful while other dollars I contribute do go to things I support. Not when I actually do keep myself informed and vote. But hey, civic responsibility is something most compound dwellers never put much effort in before they decide it's better to go all nut job now isn't it?
So yeah I'll definitely go with my "mob" mentality over your simpleton viewpoint.- PlaceboNation, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That, is your choice. Im pretty sure you will raise your kids with the same slave mentality. Don't be that upset with my opinion of you, just be content in the idea that you are happy with your decision.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I choose my fights. and how I wish to live. Get over it. I'm not leaving two kids without a father and losing my wife, my home, etc. because I don't want to pay money for a few government programs that I feel are wasteful while other dollars I contribute do go to things I support. Not when I actually do keep myself informed and vote. But hey, civic responsibility is something most compound dwellers never put much effort in before they decide it's better to go all nut job now isn't it?
- PlaceboNation, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6So how does your mob mentality feel now? You guys are the example of a nation that will not fight. Good job.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Try to get the tax system changed legally all you want, but refusing to pay is only going to land you in jail.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1baby boomers make a big segment of the voting populace so you'll have trouble getting a politician in power who doesn't force you to pay.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15you part of the problem ..
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+58Recognize the institutions that strangle us economically and pursue radical and extremely poor fiscal routes. Ask the question, why would the worlds top business minds make decisions that the worlds top accountants claim will lead us to economic ruin?
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of Am...
3 hr 35 min - Mar 27, 2007 - No ratings yet (853 ratings)
the power to create the world's money..." THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports EXPOSED! (Alex Jones)
2 hr 4 min - Mar 14, 2006 - No ratings yet (167 ratings)
and local government through investment fund participation. According to Burien CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report), only one-third of government's gross income is tax income
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5195274119869140315- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1It's a nice way to assassinate scary socialist concepts as UHC and social security, while at the same time rendering the environment more hospitable to the concept of the North American Union- which itself will go a long way towards solving the problems associated with democracy and confederacy, such as Canada's unreasonably high environmental standards and utter neglect of intellectual property issues.
- captZEEbo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Ask the question, why would the worlds top business minds make decisions that the worlds top accountants claim will lead us to economic ruin?
____________________________________________
Do you honestly think that congress is filled with the world's top accountants? lol. I think the world's top accountants are working for the world's biggest companies. I also think the congress doesn't have a ***** clue about how money works. - captZEEbo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Ask the question, why would the worlds top business minds make decisions that the worlds top accountants claim will lead us to economic ruin?
____________________________________________
Do you honestly think that congress is filled with the world's top accountants? lol. I think the world's top accountants are working for the world's biggest companies. I also think the congress doesn't have a ***** clue about how money works.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+67Not to be an *****, but any 6th grader with a calculator could figure that one out. And yet, fiscal responsibility eludes us...
- durant0s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah I mean our country does the one thing you are not supposed to do as an individual when it comes to credit. Pay off one credit card with another. It's elementary.
- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Perhaps the bankruptcy of this country will benefit the multinational corporate and banking elite. Oh, they're robbing us. The federal income tax is a mechanism of slavery. I'd prefer to make that an issue than to accept it on the grounds that everybody already knows.
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1***** Ron Paul.
- Lafftermath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I figured out how to make my calculator say "BOOBIES" in 6th grade.
- woofers07, on 10/10/2007, -7/+104How about cutting the war on drugs? Or more realistically at least cut it back a bit. I'm pretty sure the current administration has already blown the whole 'family values' idea out of the water.
- thejoker86, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3that would be political suicide. Pot smokers dont vote.. they wake up the day after :) so non smokers would care... which are the majority of voters.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13That's quite a blanket statement, I'd bet more people than you're aware of smoke and still manage to vote while leading productive lives.
- 1town, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9A third of americans have tried wacky tobacky
- nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1But if a third have tried it and less than a third kept doing it, that means some didn't like it!
- yhack001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I bet that most don't keep smoking weed because of what other people think, and because of the propaganda about it, not because of whether they like it.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The key is to structure it so that you can levy a tax on pot. That way everyone gets something, and they can slowly increase the tax over time like tobacco.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Less non-violent offenders eating up prison resources? revenue from public smoking fines? taxes? At the very least de-schedule it below cocaine? No, we should just keep it illegal because it's illegal - ***** logic and revenue it's at least a million times worse than drinking and anyone that smokes becomes a serious sexual deviant or schizophrenic murderer. I mean, the last thing we need is more consumerism in the economy fueling convenience stores.. And besides, if people want to unwind, they can just pop some pharmaceuticals.. Oh, but when it comes to gay marriage no no no, that can't be federal, it's a state issue.
- Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9war on drugs is actually what covers the fact that drug trade on US soil involves US government agencies such as CIA and has been for decades, drug money is what has prevented US economy from collapsing and now it is required for US economic system to function.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ah, that would make sense. They'd have to outpace their current revenue to actually WANT to replace it. God damn I hate your corpse, Nixon.
- jimmy72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Mind citing your facts? That sounds a lot like conspiracy whackjob talk to me.
- BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's actually common knowledge (for us drug users at least), and the CIA has admitted to doing it. Shouldn't be too hard to verify.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Don't digg him down, he's right. Back in 2000 and 2001, the Taliban nearly eliminated poppy production in Afghanistan. We invaded and restored poppy production. That money goes straight to Wall Street. The same goes for Colombian drug money. We've gotten to the point where our economy now needs that cash. We make money on being able to loan that money out! Jimmy72, just read anything by Gary Webb or Michael Ruppert or Alfred McCoy. The Iran Contra thing was just a small part of our national misdeeds. Heroin played as big a role in Vietnam as it does in Afghanistan. Look up Air America, or "Cocaine One." http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/outline.html Here's a link that's a bit of an eyesore, but it has some good sources, and a list of reading at the end.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We absolutely need to legalize drugs. The sad fact that no one recognizes the potential tax cash that could come out of it, not to mention, the crime it would help clean up, It would eliminate one of the leading causes of the slums staying slummed.
Laws then can be enacted regarding usage. It would have to be inside your own home, nowhere public nor in any public facilities (restaurants, schools, etc.) If people want to ***** their own lives over, then let them. However, allow us to take a nice cut of it! And as shown in Vancouver, by legalizing marijuana, the usage has little gone up, if at all. - pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0but then what would happen to rap music???
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul has been trying to legalize drug use (i.e. legalize freedom) since at least the 80's.
- thejoker86, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3that would be political suicide. Pot smokers dont vote.. they wake up the day after :) so non smokers would care... which are the majority of voters.
- badassninja, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2This guy is going to get killed. Please don't take this the wrong way, I kill no one ever. I'm saying the nail the sticks out gets driven in. He might as well invent the car that needs no fuel.
- Emceay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Uh oh, you're gonna get digged down for anti paulism.
- EvilOtto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Killed? You think this guy isn't just a lackey serving his masters? He's spreading anti social services fud while not mentioning any other aspects of government overspending.
nope, no agenda there.
- stonedgeek, on 10/10/2007, -14/+13USA! USA! USA! USA! etc
- pmcall221, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! etc...
- ohio1965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0poor kid... well keep on babbling while the Titanic is sinking (after all they said it was unsinkable!!)
- Ryfael, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14Ron Paul isnt needed. All we need to do is bring the Miltary back into our borders and the money saved will pretty much help America. Plus more college funding. But whatever. RON PAUL YAY. HE WILL CURE EVERYTHING!!
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Well the Libertarian ideas of limiting the Federal Government will save us, but seeing as how you want MORE funding from the Federal Government, I doubt you really want a limited government.
- PhoebusApollo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11You missed the point of the video. Entitlement spending far outweighs our military expenditures, especially because our population is booming and the entitlements are surging. Cutting the military spending back and "growing" the economy are futile gestures. We already pay about $250 billion a year just on outright interest alone (that's about double the annual expense of the Iraq War), and with our massive deficits and insane debt, interest will soon become our #1 national expense. Not even the debt itself, just the INTEREST on the debt.
What happens when we can't pay even the interest? The country goes bankrupt. Historically, that means the country suffers political upheaval, government is dictated by those with military ties, there is spread of mass unemployment and poverty even amongst the upper class, and the government (much to the chagrin of the populace) devalues the dollar severely. It's happened in many other countries already, just on much smaller scales. When it happens here, well, just remember that you were one of the typical many mocked the idea of voting for Ron Paul for the purpose of fixing this mess.
- theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -7/+46Ok so what would happen if America hunted down all the ***** Iraq-reconstruction contractors who had raped US tax money and then simply shipped them off to Guantanamo and seized their assets? While your at it you can do the same thing to Bush and the rest of his Administration.
Sounds like a plan to me..- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4When is the left going to get over their "Bush Hate" and try to start moving forward? He won't be impeached, period. Get over it already.
- theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Oh im not talking about impeachment mate, im talking about kidnapping the *****, repatriating all his assets back into the treasury and dumping him in Cuba.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1lol have fun in Cuba!
- theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2With your sister?
- theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Oh im not talking about impeachment mate, im talking about kidnapping the *****, repatriating all his assets back into the treasury and dumping him in Cuba.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4When is the left going to get over their "Bush Hate" and try to start moving forward? He won't be impeached, period. Get over it already.