Users who Dugg This
Follower Of Leonardo The Vinci
930 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
publikjohn9Mar 1, 2012
For the people who do not realize this, Dr.Paul is speaking to the future. The people at present largely do not listen to what he has to say. After the FED has spent its way into oblivion, the people will know that Ron was right all along.
nmw6Mar 1, 2012
The Fed has actually been the most profitable bank in America for the last 2 years and has turned a significant profit on its operations. It then gives those proceeds to the treasury, because it is a non-profit enterprise. The fed has actually made money for the gov't the last 2 years, not lost it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rival138Mar 1, 2012
Making money isn't a hard thing to do when you're the one printing it.
chadpyleMar 1, 2012
That is preposterous. The Fed charges the treasury a fee to produce currency (over $700 million budgeted for 2012); and that is a pittance compared to the inflation tax on the People.
The only way it "made money for the gov't" is by printing it.
nmw6Mar 1, 2012
$700 million is pennies compared to $81 billion profit in 2010.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/federal-reserve-record-profits_n_839085.html
Sure, the hawks continue to talk about the inflation threat but where is the evidence? The chained CPI hasn't even shown hints of an upward trend. What data series are you looking at?
lew2048Mar 1, 2012
The evidence is at the grocery store and the gas pump.
I don't know what world you live in, but $4.50 gasoline is a hell of a lot higher than 3 years ago. The price of cheese has gone up $1/pound every year for those 3 years.
The CPI was designed to minimize inflation. Nixon did that. It has been modified repeatedly to minimize inflation further every few years ever since.
People who live on fixed incomes, e.g. SS and medicare, are seriously hurt, but people like you quote the CPI at them, say everything is A-OK, stop complaining.
Ron Paul is connected with reality and is consistently honest. Our government lies about everything.
How can you even consider believing the government?
nmw6Mar 1, 2012
Ron Paul is so concerned with those that live on fixed income and how inflation might hurt their SS checks that he would just stop sending SS checks all together. He would also say to those that are on medicare that, they are cut-off and stop complaining.
How can you think that Ron Paul has the right ideas for America?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
@nmw6, Such a totally Ridiculous comment, All out Lies to be exact. How can you live with yourself saying things that aren't true, oh, learned from past politicians, eh'.
lew2048Mar 2, 2012
nmw6:
Progressives present themselves as representing the poor, the un-educated, people who can't care for themselves.
In the name of those people, they have engineered a system that is shifting the wealth of the world to the 0.1%, while the poor have seen their share of the GDP falling. At the same time that the economy is in the toilet with double-digit inflation and unemployment, the governments all have huge debts and no ability to fulfill the promises they have made, e.g. "retire on SS".
Progressives did all of this. Progressives of the left and the right have been control of nearly all of the significant social and political institutions for 50 years.
That model of government, which makes government and political action central to all of society, has thus been decisively shown to produce failure, at a nearly 100% rate. (It is possible one or more of the European countries will avoid default and reboot, so I don't claim 100%.)
Which was well-known to the people who wrote the Constitution : they defined tyranny as 'consolidated power', which is precisely what our government has, which is precisely why so few people have any clue about what is going on and otherwise upright people like NY's AG Schneiderman finally caved on the bank settlement and so the Banksters will not only not go to jail, but they are rewarded by the taxpayers for their crimes.
(Most of the other AGs are scum, like CA's Pamela Harris, there was never any question about their caving.)
Ron Paul will tell you all this better than I can.
He doesn't intend to cut off SS or Medicare, btw, for anyone who depends on it, rather phase it out over time.
However, I think that even if we made RP dicator for life, he couldn't save the US. Too much debt, unfunded liabilities, laws that prevent the system from adjusting to changing conditions, ... Bureaucratic sclerosis everywhere.
After the crash-and-burn, we can rewrite the Constitution so this can't happen again.
southsideirishMar 1, 2012
Hahahahahahahahaha.
bersercMar 1, 2012
20 years from now everyone is going to recognize RP was right. The issues that most people disagree with RP are for things that as President he has little or no control over. If you focus in on what's important, like our economy and our out-of-control government, there is no other candidate that is taking about any form of meaningful change. This video is a good example of how he stands up for the principals that are important on the issues that matter. If you like the way things are going feel free to vote for Romney or Obama. If you want to try a new direction there is only one candidate who will take you there, RP.
The_SovereignMar 1, 2012
As much as I hate him for various other reasons, all signs seem to indicate that you're absolutely right.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
This country's problems aren't caused by runaway government alone, they are caused by a runaway Wall Street which pours billions into campaign coffers to corrupt politicians, undermine rational/responsible public policies and drown out the concerns/interests of the American people.
Ron ignores the Wall Street threat at every turn because it's the centerpiece of the Free Market utopia he believes exists (it doesn't). It's why I tend to dismiss his attacks against the government. To be clear, I oppose crooked businessmen as much as I oppose corrupt politicians, NOT the institutions they serve in per se. Eliminate those corrupt bastards and both of those institutions would embolden our nation once again.
I recognize and am alarmed by the same economic/fiscal threats Ron points out, I simply disagree with many of the "solutions" he favors because they tend to be naive and half baked. One discovers this every time a journalist probes deeper into Dr.Paul's economic/fiscal theories. He always gets that dumbfounded "deer in the headlights" stare when those "theories" are examined more closely.
Considering the millions who depend upon a robust, stable U.S. economy, this country can't afford the luxury of MORE half-baked and deeeply flawed Conservative economic/fiscal theories.
bersercMar 1, 2012
None of the other candidates are doing anything to combat the problems you are talking about either. Ron Paul at least has a different direction to take as far as fixing some of the issues that are at hand. Feel free to wait for the perfect, non-corrupted candidate to emerge.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
Correction...none of the REPUBLICAN candidates are doing anything to combat those problems, but Democrat's DID pass a financial reform bill aimed at curtailing the most destructive, anti-American business practices Wall Street uses. While it didn't go far enough, this political independent gives them credit for making the effort.
Care to guess WHO is stonewalling the implementation of those financial reform measures? Answer...CONSERVATIVES, on behalf of Wall Street's weasels.
I don't harbor the illusion of ANY perfect political candidate, I simply oppose the COMPLETE corporate sell-outs.
corydorningMar 1, 2012
and yet the same democrats you talk about just keep printing money and spending it with the illusion that as long as they don't run out of ink, they can keep spending it.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
Democrat's don't print money, the FEDERAL RESERVE does. Don't forget, Republicans control the Congressional House/nation's "purse strings", NOT Democrat's.
Where were your concerns when Dubya/Cheney burned through piles of money and even managed to "misplace" several billion in Iraq?
Take a hard look at where that money's "spent" and most importantly WHY it’s spent before you start whining about "Democratic" spending. HERE, take a GOOD look:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
@eraptor, Funny you wouldn't put another chart for comparison. or a chart of all presidents in the past 20, 30, 40 years, there readily available on BusinessInsider.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
@FrankLuska,
As much as I detest the prospect, we'll be stuck with that chart as long as Dubya's policy mistakes continue harming the nation. With any hope, his irresponsible tax policies for corporations and the top 1% will be overturned and we can start reducing the national debt.
However, if Republicans gain any Congressional power, or God forbid, the White House, I'll be battening down the hatches in anticipation of the next Great Depression. Conservatives are clueless when it comes to responsible economic/fiscal stewardship.
StopAnimalTortureMar 2, 2012
@eraptor - all I asked for was some documentation on the specific allegations you made. Your first answer was to tell me to go look it up in google as if that's evidence. ok, kinda lame, so I called you on it. Now you act as though you're so high and mighty and lob over a bunch of garbage with a whole lot of caveats about how we're supposed to "see the whole pattern" and all that s**t. Then you act as if you've got this so buttoned up that you can stand around and cast disparaging insults. Wow. Good job. You've got some talent for communication there. I admire you.
As for my taking more than 50 minutes to respond, gosh I'm sorry but I don't sit on the computer all day waiting for you to write your words of wisdom. I have other things to do. I'll check your links though, in the hopes that maybe, despite all your wierd disclaimers I might be able to digg up a kernel of truth that might validate your original points... though frankly I doubt there will be much there of substance to be honest. Why? Because you spent all that time telling us that we should not bother to take into account your sources (as though we should listen to your advice on that for some reason), and your insistence on using phrases like "The ULTIMATE evidence of Republican economic stonewalling comes directly from THEM (or, rather, the blatant absence of it)" (which frankly does not make a whole lot of sense in terms of English sentences, but whatever) and "Don't get too caught up by a single article since the proof is found in the sheer volume and pattern of behavior, NOT a single incident." ... which also does not make a whole lot of sense. Volume of accusations does not constitute "proof" of anything, actually. All it does prove, if anything, is that a certain faction likes to spew out a never ending gush of unsubstantiated allegations and pretend that the volume of them equal "proof" somehow. Ok. If you say so.
My guess is that none of your original points are "proven" in any of these links, but I will take a look for myself and see. I could be wrong about that. Let's hope so.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
@S.A.T.,
I gave you what you asked for so stop whining.
Now, it's YOUR turn to prove the position you took in defense of Conservatives/Republicans on the economy. What have Conservatives proactively done to revive the U.S. economy and CREATE jobs directly.
Feel free to take your time, but don't waste mine with the usual tax cut/deregulation/spending arguments Conservatives ALWAYS try to use. The country has endured over 30 years of those ideologically-driven lies with NOTHING credible to show for it. The jig is UP.
I've SHOWN evidence of Republican stonewalling on the economy and job creation. In the process I used Progressive, Independent AND Conservative sources as well as ACTUAL Congressional legislation. The evidence contained within those sources is BEYOND damning as far as I am concerned.
By the way, those "crickets", denials and character assassination aren't impressing anyone. Deflection is a sign of debate WEAKNESS, NOT strength.
corydorningMar 2, 2012
@eraptor this is where you mistake me for a republican shill. "Dubya" was a complete moron as well.
The government is a well-oiled machine and both parties have it running exactly how they want it to.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
Would you be kind enough to provide the specifics on this? I'd be curious to read up on it. Who, what, when would suffice. Thanks.
corydorningMar 1, 2012
google: "us raises debt ceiling" it will tell you everything you need to know.
if you're feeling frisky, you can even google:
"us raises debt ceiling AGAIN"
(note: putting again in all caps shouldn't change your search results, so you may wish to type it in lowercase letters as well)
corydorningMar 1, 2012
you don't even have to take my word for it...you can take Peter Schiff's. Surely he knows more than two users on Digg.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/fed-keeps-printing-dollar-worth-less-toilet-paper-20110328-102419-726.html
You'll have to pardon my 'partisan' economics...but hey, you wanted answers, I gave them to you. Don't shoot the messenger.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
The source material can be found by tuning into CSPAN. It gives you the players, political positions taken AND their legislative debates on a 24/7 basis.
Aside from that daily nonpartisan video coverage, you can also read about their antics in most business print media or Google your topic/query of choice. I realize Conservatives look at Google in the same fashion as a vampire looks at a cross, but it provides ample nonpartisan material to substantiate everything I've written. You juts have to make the effort and maintain an open mind to ALL facts to discover REAL truth.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
actually, my question was to eraptor who made allegations I'd like to confirm for myself. But thanks for the link just the same. I catch Peter now and then as it is, and agree that he often makes good points.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
@corydorning, oh my, last time i mentioned his name, you would have thought the world was coming to an end on Digg.
Overall, you can't do anything but call him correct.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
@eraptor: I was hoping you could provide more specific evidence of your allegations than "look in google". I guess you can't do that. It's ok. I was not necessarily expecting that much so you met my expectations.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
S.A.T.,
I'll bet you thought you had me by asking for citiations which don't exist (i.e., Congressional Republican behavior they take GREAT pains to hide). Not to worry, a resourceful researcher can ALWAYS cut through the lies and deceitfulness morons rely so heavily upon.
I've taken the liberty to pull a variety of articles which substantiate Conservative stonewalling in Congress. Before you start whining about some of the sources, be mindful of the fact that Conservatives will NEVER expose their underhanded political behavior. So, we have to look to those who have nothing to lose by exposing it...Progressives and Independents. Don't get too caught up by a single article since the proof is found in the sheer volume and pattern of behavior, NOT a single incident.
The ULTIMATE evidence of Republican economic stonewalling comes directly from THEM (or, rather, the blatant absence of it). I ALSO took the liberty of providing a citation to the 112th Congress' legislative record and surprise, surprise, surprise...there isn't a SINGLE piece of proposed OR passed legislation which credibly attempts to create jobs or revive our economy. Have Congressional Republicans "forgotten" the basis upon which they were elected in 2010? WE HAVEN'T...job creation. They were just too busy PREVENTING economic recovery and job creation from HAPPENING as CONFIRMED by their Congressional negligence and VAPID legislative record.
Here ya go, pal. Read it and weep:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010104/president-sidesteps-gop-obstruction-consumer-rights-appointment-workers-rights
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/eric-cantor-tips-gop-hand-passing-the-whole-jobs-plan-is-not-the-way-to-get-a-win/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/republican-ruh-roh-economy-looking-up-despite-obstruction/
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-success-gop-obstruction
http://www.politicususa.com/en/gop-job-obstruction
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/06/312070/republicans-promise-to-continue-obstruction-during-cfpb-nominees-first-hearing-today/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/orwellian-obstruction-rep_b_555183.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/20/92705/dodd-rips-obstruction-explain/
Quote from BernardGoldberg.com (you know, THAT “commie” website)...” there’s an argument to be made that the Republicans have indeed been effective in thwarting the president’s economic strategies.” (Source: John Daly article, “Why is “Obstructed” Obama the Beneficiary of Good Economic News?”, Jan 8, 2012)
Let’s take a GOOD look at what your Conservative pals in the House of Representatives have “accomplished” since 2010 in the way of legislation or “proposed” legislation aimed at CREATING jobs or reviving GENUINE economic activity.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/all?types=house
Shame, shame, shame... If this record of political and economic disgrace hasn't earned Congressional Conservatives a pink slip in 2012, NOTHING will.
P.S. Get off your lazy ass and do your own research in the future.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
@corydorning,
Is that what passes for Conservative economic "wisdom" these days? I could have told you that fundamental economic truth during my undergraduate years almost 3 decades ago.
It's fundamental economic logic based on the relationship between supply and demand. Thanks for the refresher...
Now, let's see if you can grasp this fundamental fiscal concept. What happens to the national debt when the economy recovers?
Ding...time is up.
Answer: National debt levels and political support for Republicans FALL and the political pressure to gut social safety net programs disappears like "fart in the wind" along with their arguments in support of irresponsible tax cuts.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
What's wrong, S.A.T., Koch Brothers got your tongue?
Where's that witty confidence?
I showed you my evidence, now let's see YOUR proof of Republican-led economic intervention and/or job creation? See, I can ask for vapid evidence TOO.
Good luck finding THAT evidence...
StopAnimalTortureMar 2, 2012
@eraptor - I sent a reply of sorts to you in the thread above, but you may have missed that. so just in case I'll copy it down here... sorry for the duplication everyone... my bad... anyway here you go...
@eraptor - all I asked for was some documentation on the specific allegations you made. Your first answer was to tell me to go look it up in google as if that's evidence. ok, kinda lame, so I called you on it. Now you act as though you're so high and mighty and lob over a bunch of garbage with a whole lot of caveats about how we're supposed to "see the whole pattern" and all that s**t. Then you act as if you've got this so buttoned up that you can stand around and cast disparaging insults. Wow. Good job. You've got some talent for communication there. I admire you.
As for my taking more than 50 minutes to respond, gosh I'm sorry but I don't sit on the computer all day waiting for you to write your words of wisdom. I have other things to do. I'll check your links though, in the hopes that maybe, despite all your wierd disclaimers I might be able to digg up a kernel of truth that might validate your original points... though frankly I doubt there will be much there of substance to be honest. Why? Because you spent all that time telling us that we should not bother to take into account your sources (as though we should listen to your advice on that for some reason), and your insistence on using phrases like "The ULTIMATE evidence of Republican economic stonewalling comes directly from THEM (or, rather, the blatant absence of it)" (which frankly does not make a whole lot of sense in terms of English sentences, but whatever) and "Don't get too caught up by a single article since the proof is found in the sheer volume and pattern of behavior, NOT a single incident." ... which also does not make a whole lot of sense. Volume of accusations does not constitute "proof" of anything, actually. All it does prove, if anything, is that a certain faction likes to spew out a never ending gush of unsubstantiated allegations and pretend that the volume of them equal "proof" somehow. Ok. If you say so.
My guess is that none of your original points are "proven" in any of these links, but I will take a look for myself and see. I could be wrong about that. Let's hope so.
----
However, I have to add to that ... wow! Seriously? Your first link is from "Campaign for America's Future" an Obama Campaign website? Um... I see. So you expect us to seriously believe that this is giving us an unbiased and factual account of Republican / Conservative actions and intentions, huh? Really. wow.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
@S.A.T.,
I already covered the source issue. Do you honestly expect ANYONE to believe Congressional Conservatives would openly expose their own political disgrace? This ain't my first rodeo, cowboy. I'm more than a little familiar with the Conservative "bag of tricks" in D.C.
Get a grip on your ideological bigotry and focus on the fundamental facts contained within those sources. The MOST damning piece of evidence comes from the Congressional Record. You want to refute the credibility of THAT source too?
Your excuses and denials are lame. Let's see what evidence YOU have in support of Republican/Conservative efforts to PROACTIVELY revive the economy AND create jobs.
It's time for you to lay "your cards on the table". We both know you're bluffing and holding squat for a hand.
libertylogMar 2, 2012
Democrats have done nothing to fix the problem, they are just better at putting Orwellian names on pieces of legislation designed to enrich themselves and their cronies. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, GE, Goldman Sachs, Solyndra...etc.
YachtRokrMar 2, 2012
Putting Orwellian names on legislation? You have the party's confused as we see far more of that behavior from Republicans than Conservatives.
Do you honestly think Healthcare Reform and Financial Reform are "Orwellian". Read both pieces of legislation, then consider the lengths Congressional Republicans are going to repeal both of them on behalf of the special interest groups they affect.
It appears you're distorting those records out of a conflict of interest. Conservatives and Republicans are clearly the greater of the two evils.
rmaurer3Mar 2, 2012
Conservatives and Republicans are not each mutually exclusive
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
Could we point out that it is Congress who created the laws by which the Corporations are able to "pour billions into campaign coffers to corrupt politicians"? The root cause of the problems we face sit inside the august halls of Congress.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
You could point out deeply flawed campaign contribution legislation, but it STILL won't indict institutional government. Eliminate the motivation (i.e., money/greed) and you reduce the incidence of inappropriate government behavior. Enablers are ALWAYS more reponsible for corruption.
You're STILL pointing out human flaws (greed and the lust for power) that are enabled by the private sector. Do you honestly think Congress would be NEARLY as corrupt and dysfunctional if Wall Street money/access were shut off?
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
My point is that Congress is responsible for creating the laws by which the Corporations are ruled... therefore Congress is primarily responsible for the outcome.
We can not do anything about human greed, since no one is in a position to change human nature except God. And it does not look like He's getting around to that any time soon. So we have to deal with the reality as it is. As for greed and lust for power, I'm sorry to say but the private sector has no monopoly on those. You find that among government officials as well (lust for power in particular, I would say).
The framers of the Constitution were well aware of these issues. They provided a government that would be responsible for maintaining the law of the land. Congress creates those laws. If the people skirt the laws they should be prosecuted and punished. If Congress makes bad laws they should be held accountable. If the government does not enforce the laws it should be held accountable. Our job as citizens is to ensure that the Government behaves responsibly and creates sensible laws and then enforces them.
In this case the laws themselves are not sensible. And Congress should be held accountable for that during the election cycle.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
Have you ever worked with or for a high-powered lobbyist and/or politically connected CEO? I have, for DECADES.
As such, I can assure you that your ideological views are beyond naive. This country isn't run by politicians (aka puppets), it's run by the campaign contributors/corporations (aka puppet masters) who pull their strings. It's an ugly truth, but it's REAL. It's why David Koch blew a gasket when his political meddling came to light. These weasels could NEVER manipulate the U.S. government on their behalf if the American people woke up and applied SIGNIFICANT public pressure on Washington politicians to clean up their act.
As for doing something about greed, I agree that it can't be fully eradicated. But, it can be SIGNIFICANTLY minimized in government. How? Simple. You increase the penalties for government corruption until they EXCEED the benefits. Self-preservation is a POWERFUL motivator. Extend RICO statutes to Congress and the business world, hand the enforcement reins to the Justice Department, then watch as the rats run for cover.
As for what the framers intended, they NEVER counted on the army of corporate attorneys and lobbyists when they founded this country. The American people are outgunned and outmaneuvered by highly organized business interest groups at every turn. That doesn't mean we should give up, it simply means we have to dig in our heels to root them out of our lives.
As for having a political choice, the American people need to wake to the fact that their political candidates are hand-picked in BOTH parties by corporate interest groups. The ONLY way to change that would be to elect people to CONGRESS they know intimately and boot those politicians the moment they fail to fight for the CORRECT causes.
StopAnimalTortureMar 2, 2012
@eraptor: Actually, it may surprise you but I am not against your positions. All I did originally (to piss you off apparently) was to ask for your sources. Instead of helping me to understand your evidence and point of view you've spent a lot of energy trying to jump down my throat with lots of bigass assumptions about what I do and don't believe. You should chill out on that. The fact is I agree that the problems are both in the business world and the government and I've said so many times on Digg. Nor do I think that the problems are only on the one side of the aisle (though i do spend a lot of time ridiculing Digg Liberals here, I admit - it's probably a bad habit). There's a lot of malfeasance going around and it's been going on for years, and I've been saying so for a long long time. I agree with your idea of increasing penalties for government corruption, and also for corporate malfeasance. Unfortunately, the fact is, as a practical matter, politicians and corporate execs are in bed together, and that makes reform pretty damn difficult. I also think that your suggestion of voting in only people you know personally is impractical. But I do believe we should vote out all incumbents. But I don't think that will happen either... possibly because people are too dumb, and possibly because the system itself is rigged. I found a video that seems pretty persuasive on that point.
http://digg.com/news/lifestyle/this_hoax_affects_everyone
To be honest I'm not sure really what to make of this... but it's worth considering... I'd be curious to hear what you think of it... unless you intend to keep bashing me over the head for stuff you think I do and don't believe, in which case, please never mind. But if not, ... what's your take on that? Thanks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YachtRokrMar 2, 2012
@StopAnimalTorture,
There's no disputing the hard line eraptor takes on some political and economic matters, but he's not angry with you. He's angry with those who have undermined our country at every turn (misguided ideologues).
Consider the issue that has his blood boiling, "economic stonewalling by Republicans for political purposes" even as millions of Americans suffer. You haven't caused that behavior or the consequences they create so don't take his righteous indignation personally.
StopAnimalTortureMar 2, 2012
@YachtRokr - I share the same indignation, but I am more careful to listen to what people are actually saying than jump to conclusions and leap on them with all claws bared. Just saying ... it is one thing to be angry with the elites for f*cking up the country and the world - we all can share the same outrage... but when we turn on one another (especially for simply asking to have sources verified so that I can check them myself, and perhaps pass them on if they are worthy), in my humble opinion, it is counter productive. We don't gain anything by sniping at each other, no matter how incensed we may feel. I hope eraptor will give that consideration. He may have very good points to make, but if he cloaks them in a veil of hostility, it will be hard for others to listen.
U_logic_error_broMar 1, 2012
the problem is the market is under crony capitalism not a free market this is why many small businesses never last
YachtRokrMar 2, 2012
You should really revisit the Bush administration's economic stance and why it neglected to enforce longstanding business regulations before you assume solutions lie in free market theory. It was their guiding principle and one of the principle reasons our economy collapsed.
clitniblr036Mar 2, 2012
"Considering the millions who depend upon a robust, stable U.S. economy, this country can't afford the luxury of MORE half-baked and deeeply flawed Conservative economic/fiscal theories."
Exactly.
kprindivilleMar 1, 2012
Can we get a national poll on who believes the Federal Reserve is a good system?
Closed AccountMar 1, 2012
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq really helped us go down the black hole.
ghengiskhan1Mar 1, 2012
Those wars would have been much more difficult to wage without a fiat currency system.
freeformjazzMar 1, 2012
No other candidate speaks about the issues of liberty, or even gives much of a damn that the federal government has slowly been gobbling up our rights for years now. Liberals seek to tie you down economically and conservatives want to legislate their morals to the country at large. Both are dangerous to the cause of freedom.
warlok480Mar 1, 2012
If you listen carefully toward the end, Ron Paul winds up answering his own question....that conversion to a Gold based currency would require us getting rid of Sales Taxes and Capital Gains Tax ; If theres one thing we can be sure of...its that Government is like a Crack Addict when it comes to new and more taxes.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
Ron Paul in 1983 on the Gold Standard -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk
cyberprunesMar 1, 2012
I don't know if he's right but its a compelling argument.
Is there even enough gold in the world to support an economy as large as the US?
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
No, there is not, not at current prices anyway. India "Households" hold more than 18 Billion dollars worth of Gold, more than the entire US and EU. governments combined. 2009, China held 10+ Billion, they won't reveal their current holdings, but are still actively buying, two gold exchanges in Asia have 3 - 6 month backlogs of buyers. Russia has stopped exporting Gold. All Fed reserve big wigs we have access to, hold massive amounts of Gold in their portfolio's.
It appears to be something everyone want's, reasons are many.
Donuts4UMar 2, 2012
No and it would fuel inflation to try to make gold that expensive. Gold used in many applications. Direct commodity backed money would not be better than fiat. There's a reason owning gold was banned with significant penalties beyond confiscation for private ownership when we went off the gold standard in the USA. There's plenty on the Internet if you want to learn more and are wiling to look at both sides.
However the debt based economy Paul spoke of is a obviously a problem to anyone with half a point of intelligence. The CPI is not a very good measurement, although there are real attempts to fix it occasionally, when it doesn't interfere with politics.
90% of what Paul says is either solid good sense or has a philosophically solid basis behind it. It's the 10% of batcrap crazy, like gold backed money that is worrying.
cyberprunesMar 3, 2012
I will look into it more deeply, thanks.
Agreed, a debt based economy has gotten us into some trouble. lol.
Yeah, Paul does have some ideas I like but as you say it's the 10% batcrap crazy that is worrying.
A president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to get such drastic changes through congress anyway.
His foreign policy ideas are too isolationist IMO also. The U.S. shouldn't be the world police but we are too globalized to turn our back and proclaim the plight of oppressive governments as "not our problem".
noblecanineincMar 1, 2012
Stating the obvious is a rare thing these days in campaign rhetoric. That's why Ron Paul is so well liked. He is not acting.
anomaly100Feb 29, 2012
I was just reading about Bernanke. Just two seconds ago.
alanocuMar 1, 2012
I was just reading about herbs attracting butterflies, 8 seconds ago.
HYIPBloggerMar 1, 2012
and you must be feeling you contributed greatly to this discussion?
tyhoMar 1, 2012
You missed the irony that anomaly contributed nothing so alan followed suit. Deep huh....
stevanoskiMar 1, 2012
Ohhh snap
publikjohn9Mar 1, 2012
That charbroiled horse uterus topped with cherry jello that I ate for lunch is doing somehting horrible to my bowels.
kingnovaMar 1, 2012
I was just reading about a Montana judge forwarding a racist email about Obama, 15 seconds ago.
anomaly100Mar 1, 2012
I saw that.
salbatrossMar 1, 2012
I think enough of Ron Paul's ideas about how the country should be run are naive and crazy that he should never be president. However, the man is bluntly honest, incredibly consistent, and very good at getting to the heart of Washington corruption. I firmly believe an intelligent president should have Ron Paul or someone like him as a close adviser--regardless of how much he or she disagrees with Paul--because that stark perspective would undoubtedly be helpful in the muddy waters of presidential decision-making.
Donuts4UMar 2, 2012
He'd be an excellent President IMO. The President has very little power at home so very few if any of Paul's ideas would happen, and If Paul as President could avoid some of the more... dumb ideas like a gold standard, he could make a big difference in the USA.
Under Paul there would be some positive talking points and philosophical discussions about what this country really should be doing. Even the more outlandish ideas would be informative at the national level, because so many things are taken for granted, such as the CPI and debt based inflation as practiced by Congress.
HYIPBloggerMar 1, 2012
Bernanke walked away from answering the direct question. The proposal was to have currency backed not by hell knows what, but by the gold and silver as it used to be in the past. I also think that it is really too late today to go and buy gold on individual basis. Its price relative to the currency that we are stuck with is way too volatile.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaMar 1, 2012
"but by the gold and silver as it used to be in the past."
Because that is ridiculous. Who sets the price of Gold? How do you prevent the price dropping dramatically when one country finds a whole bunch of Gold?
But answer the first question. Who gets to set the price of gold? Some world organization maybe? Why not use copper, or silver, or agate instead of something that is used primarily to make jewelry?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anub1sMar 1, 2012
I don't know why you were buried at time of this comment. In the end, all currency, even those based on precious metals, are determined by its availability. The more money in the system, the less each unit is worth, it doesn't matter if it's an ounce of gold, or a printed dollar. One main difference is that one is "universally" accepted as being valuable, the other is valuable to those recognizing it as valid currency. Another big difference is one allows for growth by manipulation and forcast where the other requires actual production. Hence Wall Street.
In the end, really, nothing is of ACTUAL value, it's all subjectively determined in order to keep a group of barely conscious primates from killing each other over everything.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Buried? Gold, Silver, what ever it may be, has intrinsic value, not just some BS promise from a broke ass country. This provides stability. This makes others want to own it. This makes others trust us and our money.
"Backed by the full faith and credit of the united states of America" Faith? Credit? Remember when money used to say this? It doesn't anymore. Backed by a country with almost 15 and half trillion in debt.
Why Yes, if everybody agreed one day that gold had no value, then that could all be thrown right out the window. Until then, it is the only logical form of value. You must have something to base value on, if not, your correct, very correct, people would be killing each other over everything.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigMar 1, 2012
Nothing has intrinsic value. Scarcity doesn't determine the value of gold, but it can effect the market value.
yurmutha412Mar 1, 2012
Gold has been a standard of value for hundreds of years. You can't cheat and print more of it. The only way to stop inflation is to go back to a gold standard. The trouble is, governments don't like it because they can't cheat. They like inflation. Businesses like inflation. Consumers hate it.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Intrinsic Value - Definition of Intrinsic Value on Investopedia - 1. The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying "perception" of its true value.
I agree that it's perceived, something has to be a base for value.
ncmusicMar 1, 2012
@yurmutha are you suggesting there was no inflation under the gold standard?
peppermintpigMar 2, 2012
Now you are entering the realm of ontology.
Economics deals in a number of principles, one being that perspective determines action. It is our individual perspective, our ability to perceive the universe around us and our set interest in existing within it that we derive value to the substance.
That we can agree that a certain thing exists, or recognizing a law of nature, we form the basis of sharing knowledge. And in assigning value to ideas or material goods, we establish a market for that knowledge.
There is nothing which has intrinsic _market_ value, to be more precise. I cannot exist in a state of objective existence. My life span and my ability to act is perceptibly limited.
Our suspicions about the quantity of gold which exists, or which has yet to be mined, are all forms of informed speculation which help the marketplace determine gold's value. It is not in spite of individual action that a thing has value.
jhw539Mar 1, 2012
"Backed by a country with almost 15 and half trillion in debt. "
And the largest military in the world, and the largest economy in the world, and a century long record of stability.
You can rant and rave all you want, but the people who put their money where their foam flecked mouths buy US dollars, backed by a modern and productive economy of hundreds of millions of people, over gold, literally dug from holes in the ground, for a secure asset.
Graf_OrlockMar 1, 2012
Just as they did with the pound, for the 250 years the UK held the same advantages.
blydchyldMar 1, 2012
sorry this is just not the case, international investments in the $ are almost non existant vs mid 00' levels, there just isnt trust in the fiscal integrity.
The US Dollar is far from stable, people are buying gold and in vast amounts that's why gold has rocketed in price over the last few years.
corydorningMar 1, 2012
"century long record of STABILITY"
Bwa-hahahahahaha!
ncmusicMar 1, 2012
@blydchyld yield rates on Tbills tell another story
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
So we have the largest military in the world, why? and if things go bad, we just go take what we need from others? What a way to live.
And that's totally untrue, just read "blydchyld"'s comment, it is the truth, if you bother to check for your self.
jhw539Mar 2, 2012
"international investments in the $ are almost non existant vs mid 00' levels, "
Citation please. (The gold bubble, like many other commodity bubbles, is not very convincing.)
I am curious if there has been a real drawback, or if you are simply pointing out the dead-obvious reduction in ALL investment caused by the banking crisis.
ncmusicMar 1, 2012
"One main difference is that one is "universally" accepted as being valuable, the other is valuable to those recognizing it as valid currency."
Those the same thing. Is there some place you're doing business that doesn't believe in the value of the dollar? They are both based on agreement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadpyleMar 1, 2012
The main difference between gold and a FIAT currency is that the gold supply cannot be artificially inflated.
jumpyjmanMar 2, 2012
This is partly true, the Fed used to hold on to gold which was never used to back notes or bills. They would sometimes start to artificially release more of that gold and back it by new currency thus inflating and deflating.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
HYIPBloggerMar 1, 2012
"..Who gets to set the price of gold?..."
It is in fact the opposite: It is gold that would hold ("set" if you wish) the value of any other tender note, not the other way around.
It has been like that for centuries and it has been working on global scale for thousands of years. The failing "experiment" mentioned by Ron Paul is based on the fact that at some recent point in time, Federal Reserve issued its own "notes", known today as "money" and which are released by privately owned (!!!) Federal Reserve System into circulation with INTEREST. Note also that the old. gold backed United States Notes issued by Treasury were interest free, therefore STABLE.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
While I'm not a big fan of Milton Friedman's monetary policies, there are downsides to basing one's currency on precious metals (like gold). Currency devaluation caused by theft, destruction and price/value volatility come to mind.
Food for thought...
GeorgeTheDemocratMar 1, 2012
"Currency devaluation caused by theft, destruction and price/value volatility come to mind."
That describes our current system perfectly!
truthroxMar 2, 2012
Sadly true.
chadpyleMar 1, 2012
It is the value of our currency that's volatile, not the value of gold and silver.
laurahoustonMar 1, 2012
Words, always words and from someone who has been in politics for 30 years...and can NOT point to ONE single policy he has 'fixed'.
beforesputnikMar 1, 2012
His contributions have been in what he has stopped the government from doing.
laurahoustonMar 1, 2012
what has he stopped? the states even regulate and fine citizens over how tall their grass is.
All he does is vote no, over bills other people propose. I understand he has a very loyal group of followers and some of his talk about exessive crappy local/state gov makes good sense. But it's just words and no action for a lifetime.
beforesputnikMar 1, 2012
You say he has a very loyal group of followers but then follow it up with saying he has done nothing. His stance, voting "No" on other people's bills, has inspired others to his viewpoint. One man can't change the outcome of voting on bills (unless its a tie) but he can inspire others to his cause, thus directing more votes. He has stuck to his principles despite enormous opposition, many times being the lone "No" vote in the House. I can get behind that sort of conviction. I know what i'm going to get when I vote for Ron Paul.
BegginMuttMar 1, 2012
Here comes more inflation and the Fed is going to put more money into circulation again. I notice that in this election year no politician is touching this one. They babble about jobs and economy but it all starts with the money and its worth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsMar 1, 2012
Is inflation currently abnormal in any way?
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Ask your parents and grand parents who lost 93% of their value over the last 100 years.
chilidogsMar 2, 2012
That's ridiculous. Inflation has run at about 3% per year and it is not currently out of the ordinary.
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
So money has 300% less worth by your theory, need a calculator? Ask your buddies Robert Reich, and Kruggy, they have both stated likewise.
chilidogsMar 2, 2012
What do you think happens if cash gains value?
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
@chillydogs, many things will happen, one of which is you get more value for your money. But we have this world knowledge that inflation is good, deflation is bad, but we all know the latter has never been put to any real test.
tyhoMar 1, 2012
When Romney is elected, he should make Paul chairman of the Fed. He's got some great economic ideas, plus watching the Keynesian's heads explode would be entertaining.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
The Fed is a consortium of private banks... I wonder how they would respond to Ron Paul as the head. How would that work, really? I'm having trouble imagining how that would turn out. Any idea?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
realcoolguy9022Mar 1, 2012
Public pressure, Ron Paul could parade around everything the Fed is doing and criticize everything that isn't a sound monetary policy.
anub1sMar 1, 2012
People do that already, the difference being nobody really listens these days until something goes very wrong. I doubt it would REALLY make a difference with Paul in charge.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FPSmotoMar 1, 2012
When Paul is elected, he should make sure Romney stays in the private sector and out of governing our lives.
tyhoMar 1, 2012
I get it. You like Paul and dislike Romney.
My scenario is plausible, yours is a Paulite fantasy.
FPSmotoMar 1, 2012
Except that mine is actually plausible, yours is a Romnite fantasy.
chadpyleMar 1, 2012
RP as the Fed Chairman is hardly plausible.
ageofmasteryMar 1, 2012
Except Ron Paul will never be elected. Something every sane American is glad of.
FPSmotoMar 1, 2012
Except Ron Paul WILL be elected. Something every sane American is glad of.
ageofmasteryMar 1, 2012
He's won no primaries and is dead last in the number of pledged delegates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html
Short of the other three candidate dropping dead, how is he going to win the nomination, let along the general election?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockMar 1, 2012
He's provoking greater review of the issues he's raising, vs all other candidates (including Obama) trying to skirt them and make this just another popularity contest based on the usual trivial fluff.
Just expanding awareness that we're on an unsustainable path that is increasingly eroding personal liberty is a win.
corydorningMar 1, 2012
While you may be right in saying Paul is last in pledged delegates, your link is bogus. These aren't ACTUAL PLEDGED delegates.
http://www.capitalfreepress.com/republican-primary-delegate-allocation-2012/
ncmusicMar 1, 2012
Sure you could call it a win, but it won't make him president.
ageofmasteryMar 1, 2012
@corydorning
Thanks for that link, I've bookmarked it for future reference.
sicofitMar 1, 2012
I am with you Age
These guys have found a convenient cover for their bigotry and malice. He would be elected at our serious peril.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Just shows your unwillingness to see the truth and follow the crony way of life, enjoy while most others don't. Great way to live.
sicofitMar 14, 2012
Well... considering my insult is about your ilk's bigotry and malice, I think it is incumbent upon me to study the philosophy and policy of the sinister jack asses in question. I even agree with much Libertarian dogma. In the word's of the illusive Kaiser Soze (cum Verbal Kent) "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." Your boys are racists and you are in league with that flavor of devil although, (by the sound of your reply) too ignorant to get it. Ironic that you feel I'm the ignorant one. I was marveling at the Sociopath succubus Ayn Rand while you were trying to make sense of common rhetoric like "those damn commies". You are MANY steps behind. So far behind, in fact, that you can't see me ahead, trying to protect the real Liberty in this country and stab the heart of the REAL TYRANNY. I know Libertarians have that trade marked but, f**k them.
reverantMar 1, 2012
RP is a little crazy on some things, but he's got some foresight and balls on financial stuff.
laurahoustonMar 1, 2012
must have been why he sold his gold stocks last year.
reverantMar 1, 2012
Because he sold gold stocks.... that means he doesn't know what he's talking about with financial policy at all? What's your point?
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
She doesn't have a point, she just a troll.
craig1958Mar 1, 2012
I can't tell if Paul doesn't understand basic economics or if he is just playing to his base (who don't understand basic economics). Either way, he's not qualified to participate in this discussion. The scary part is that about 10% of American voters think he knows what he's talking about. Oh well, it will be over soon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
Care to possibly back that up with an example?
craig1958Mar 1, 2012
Inflation? Seriously? No one outside of the lunitic fringe is worried about inflation. Prices and wages are flat. When we see full employment and wages increasing, it will be time to start thinking about inflation.
What is the nonsense about shopping for himself? Who cares?
This guy is amateur hour. It might be fun to listen to him over a beer, but I wouldn't trust him to manage a pizza joint.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Care to possibly back that up with an example? Still waiting.
Are you some kind of expert, you don't go shopping, evidently, or you would know food is up over 30% since the start of the recession, clothes, fuel, furniture, why hell, everything has inflated. Try the grocery store and mall before you make nut-ball comments.
As for Amateur, really, you can't be serious, or just a troll?
craig1958Mar 1, 2012
I hate shopping, so I just looked up the numbers for you. With the exeption of oil (which isn't even part of the index), prices are up about 3% for the year. More importantly, wages are still flat. When I see wages increase, I'll start to worry about inflation. Until then, let's not do anything to slow down the recovery in the interest of preventing imaginary inflation. Let the markets recover, then let unemployment recover, then take a look for any signs of inflation (in a couple of years). Obviously, the fed understands this, which explains their recent actions.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid11av.pdf
As for Paul, I'm officially bored with his nonsense. I'm not sure why he is still in the debates or being covered by the media. He's done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
for the year? how about since the recession started, like i stated?
So, your taking information from the same people who do not include food and energy in inflation estimates.
And 3% for the year as you state, does that mean it will be up 12% by the end of the year.
Since you don't shop, and i do, i know that the exact same products i purchased in 2007-2008 from the grocery store now range 15 - 40 % higher. Some prices haven't really changed much, but the package sizes are reduced by the same amounts.
How do you think the poor are dealing with this?
Hey you can bored all you want, the point is, do you really care?
craig1958Mar 2, 2012
I will start caring when we see real inflation (not your version that incorrectly includes food and energy in the index) and wage inflation (which is when we really should start to worry). What we have today is not even close to significant inflation; the worst thing we could do is slow down the recovery to address a non-issue.
If real inflation (not including food or energy) gets anyplace near 12%, it will be time to slow down the economy; this will kill the recovery and extend high unemployment for a couple of years. Hopefully that will not happen; fortunately, no one credible thinks it will happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
juliochavezMar 2, 2012
How retarded can you be? You're not worried about inflation because wages aren't rising?! A young, dim-witted child could tell you that that makes matters worse. Prices of consumer goods can and will increase drastically while wages can and will stay flat or decline. Welcome to the end stages of a fiat currency. Hint: Those people who you think are smart because they wear suits and are on TV are lying and / or stupid.
craig1958Mar 2, 2012
What you are seeing is still part of the resession with a few price bumps due to the cost of oil, not real inflation. You can be concerned about prices beginning to rise faster than wages, but you don't get to redefine the term "inflation." Once unemployment levels off, wages will start to catch up; then it will be time to slow down the economy to prevent actual inflation; we don't want to see wage inflation feeding price inflation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seltaeb4Mar 1, 2012
Or a newsletter.
auditortuxMar 1, 2012
"Prices and wages are flat"
Actually, even the government states that inflation is around 3.1%. Yet if you take out big ticket items (cars, housing, furniture, etc) and look only at normal monthly spending, its around 8%.
The idea behind is is that your car payment, house payment and all are fairly fixed - you cover those things in your income before anything else. Now after that, that's when you start to notice your budget not going as far as before.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57387655/inflation-not-as-low-as-you-think/
juliochavezMar 2, 2012
Also, hedonics is irrelevant. It is also a lie. The old rotary phone my parents had lasted them for decades. I've been through 3 cheap f**king chinese pieces of s**t cordless phones in the last 5 years. Because I can store 10 numbers in it and it lights up, the government says it actually costs LESS than a phone used to. The opposite is obviously true. Inflation is 9%. When my phone can suck me off, they can use "hedonics" to value it.
Graf_OrlockMar 1, 2012
"Inflation? Seriously?"
Yes, seriously. Also known as devaluing your currency, something Greece (and if so, likely other Euro nations) is potentially going to have to do.
Debt is at such a level, even raising taxes and imposing severe austerity will not dig us out. GDP growth would, but the percentage is going to have to be far more than our anemic 2% -- and given we're shedding low-value manufacturing faster than we're replacing our workforce with high-value workers (eg designers/architects and other knowledge workers more immune to automation), the only other way to make the debt load bearable is paying the debts with dollars that don't have as much value - inflating the currency.
Our debt is growing at 2 to 3 times GDP growth. That is absolutely unsustainable, even if you start confiscating 1%er wealthy by gunpoint.
craig1958Mar 2, 2012
The current economic conditions that you are describing have nothing to do with inflation. I agree that debt is to high and that attempting to pay off that debt may devalue the currency and eventually lead to inflation, but that is not the current problem. People (including Ron Paul) throw around the term inflation without understanding what it means. Most people seem to think that inflation means "bad.". Everyone can complain about the economy, but we don't all get to invent our own economic indicators. Inflation has a specific definition.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beerhoundMar 2, 2012
"Inflation has a specific definition."
In government circles, in talking head circles on the television, etc. yes it does. The problem is the government definition doesn't count energy or food costs in it's inflation statistics. I find that my definition, which includes ALL of my costs, fits the real world much better. Thank you **next to nothing** for your highly inflated, but artificially deflated, opinion.
Out here where actual people, instead of politicians, are paying the bills, inflation is far above what the gov tells us it is. The government doesn't count the rising cost of FOOD or ENERGY in it's inflation stats. Really? The rising cost of feeding myself, heating my house or putting gas in my car, isn't eroding my spending power?
ncmusicMar 1, 2012
Actually inflation becomes a bigger problem if wages remain flat because it means that real income is falling. But he's not making a good case about people losing faith because of "lies" about inflation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zero123Feb 29, 2012
While I agree with some things Paul says, damn he's painful to listen to. He doesn't actually create arguments to follow, it's just ramblings that other people have to decipher once the words stop coming out of his mouth. He's like a continuous run-on sentence. Can you imagine the state of the union.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lew2048Mar 1, 2012
I can listen to Ron Paul all day. He deals with reality. Not smooth, polished, ... but dealing with reality to the best of his ability. No politics.
I can't listen to any politician for longer than 30 seconds before I am outraged by an obvious lie. George Bush, Barak Obama, the various other candidates, senators, ... are such lying bastards who assume we are all unbelieveably ignorant, or that lies don't matter.
zero123Mar 1, 2012
I just wish he was a better speaker so his ideas were more effectively communicated
deputydonMar 1, 2012
check out some of his latest speeches. His speech from yesterday in Virginia after the Arizona primary was spectacular and well delivered.
zero123Mar 1, 2012
I saw it. I'm trying to follow this stuff like it's my 2nd job, that's why I knew he was going to interview Bernanke today. I was hoping Paul would have asked about all the billions that left the country and went to fund foreign banks when they printed all that money. Does Bernanke do his own shopping? Come on. I get what where he was going about the value of the dollar, but kinda stupid question to ask a person that actually needs to answer for things that were clandestine. It was a punch that didn't land.
Again, if anyone has a link to the entire session, I'd like to see it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seidnuMar 1, 2012
he is an excellent speaker. He speaks the truth while all the others are name calling and being childish he tells it like it is.
seidnuMar 1, 2012
he is also the most qualified person in the running for president right now
zero123Mar 1, 2012
certainly the most consistent candidate. hands down. for that fact alone, I wish every politician had his convictions and commitments to their ideals. I'm just not convinced he'd be a great President. Bury if you like, but it's pretty clear the vast majority of the republican party feels the same way. He's kinda like the head of the snake eating its tail. His politics wrap back around to the point that even democrats agree with some of the things he says.
seidnuMar 1, 2012
Of course the republican party is scared of him because he is running as a republican the last election he was running as an independent. I have always looked at the republicans and democrats as one in the same they are all crooked.
alanocuMar 1, 2012
I like the guy, Ron Paul. He seems to have sincere honesty that you don't get with most politicians. Or, he's just really damn good and setting the stage for his son Randal in the future.
stevanoskiMar 1, 2012
I think he's sincere but who knows.
StopAnimalTortureMar 1, 2012
He's been pretty consistant over the years. Find his videos on youtube from 1980's. He was predicting these results way back then. He was spot on. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. I think he is sincere.
YachtRokrMar 1, 2012
Rand Paul is nowhere near the man his father is. He'll fade into oblivion (along with the Tea Party) as soon as Ron retires since he has nothing credible to offer the country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaMar 1, 2012
"I can listen to Ron Paul all day"
"I can't listen to any politician for longer than 30 seconds before I am outraged by an obvious lie"
LMAO at True Believers...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lew2048Mar 1, 2012
You impute to me characteristics you cannot know and use your assumption as a reason to ignore the statement.
Not a clever argument.
Not dealing with reality.
spatula7Mar 1, 2012
OB/GYN vs. Economist, both doctors, both capable of thinking, but lets talk about their models and how accurately they've held up, let's talk about core inflation as a measure of inflation which excludes certain items that face volatile price movements, notably food and energy and why....ah what's the point, once again it's all back to ideology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lew2048Mar 1, 2012
Lets talk about the fact that $40 of the price of a barrel of oil is due to the speculators, fully-funded by our Fed. I haven't seen an estimate for the speculator's share of my food bill, but food has been rising steadily, ahead of inflation.
Lets talk about how the Fed has caused all of the booms, and thus all of the resulting busts, since it was formed, including the Great Depression and how the Greater Depression that we are entering. Serious economists hold those opinions as a result of serious research of their own and others.
These are not matters of ideology.
Cause and effect are indeed difficult to tease out of very complex systems, impossible without experiments. You can't do experiments on that scale, of course.
But there are some fundamentals most can agree upon : "Money buys power" being one. That is the fundamental that has put the US where it is : owned by the .1%.
All of this was discussed at the time the Constitution was written, and from many POVs since then, e.g. C.Wright Mills "The Power Elite". His was serious study that claimed the Power Elite of the 1950s/1960s had accomodated/subverted the Progressive positions and were increasing their control and wealth as a result. A good academic, C.Wright Mills, and his predictions of increasing wealth for the elites has been correct over the last 50+ years.
These are NOT matters of ideology. You would like them to be so you can ignore the clash of your views with the hard reality we all live within, I think.
alaskalonewolfMar 6, 2012
Two words come to mind: No s**t
prettyboyfloydMar 2, 2012
Sounds to me like a great argument for investing in Bitcoin.
emherhMar 2, 2012
While I do not support Paul for president due to his foreign policies he does have many good points
emherhMar 2, 2012
While I do not support Paul for president due to his foreign policies he has many good points.
suzanepolgarMar 1, 2012
mee tooo
nmw6Mar 1, 2012
Sure RP is the crazy uncle of the republican party that everyone loves, but his economic ideas are not backed by economic facts!!! Why do people insist on calling them "refreshing"? Bernake has done a lot to help the economy (e.g. QE and expansionary policy) without increasing federal deficits. Bernake isn't perfect and monetary policy is not a magic pill, but abolishing the fed or something to that effect would set us down the path of Greece. The reason for Greece's excruciating fiscal hardships is their lack of independent monetary policy, not because of their "extensive welfare state" as some have hijacked facts for their own ideological purposes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningMar 1, 2012
one could argue that we are headed down the path of Greece with the Fed. Have you seen our Debt to GDP ratio?
We are starting to approach 100%, inching ever so closely to where Greece is.
nmw6Mar 1, 2012
Greece's debt to GDP is currently around 140% but we don't know for sure because their gov't statistics are inaccurate. The media in general likes to say that Greece's fiscal deficits and excessive gov't spending are the cause of their sovereign debt problems but this is not true:
If you look at history, the US has endured debt to GDP of over 200% and Japan has topped out the ratio at about 250%. During the 50's and 60's our debt to GDP was crazy high but because of a combination of a high growth rate and devaluing the dollar we were able to out grow and shrink our debt, respectively.
The primary problem with Greece is that they have no way to independently conduct monetary policy. If they were able to devalue the drachma (if they had not entered the Euro) their currency would naturally devalue and their debt would shrink. The euro mucks up the workings of this process and is the only reason Greece has forced private bondholders to endure haircuts in recent months...
The media stays away from monetary policy and international finance issues because it is complicated and boring. It sells more papers by talking about "spending more money than you make" being the problem. Granted, this makes sense to the average person, but it is also wrong. I cannot emphasize this point enough!
Full disclosure: I am working on a masters in economics at SUNY BuffaloComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
"If you look at history, the US has endured debt to GDP of over 200%."
You do mean during WW2, were we basically had no choice. Seems logical to have these massive debt always, are you in massive debt?, and if not, why not? I think you should go out and buy a bigger house, a couple of new cars, new furniture, and then keep borrowing money to pay it back. Sound's great doesn't it, to live well beyond your means, but you do know what eventually happens, Bankruptcy, and your fellow Americans wind up paying for your mindless trip through life.
Graf_OrlockMar 2, 2012
"If you look at history, the US has endured debt to GDP of over 200%."
Don't forget that we were able to pay it back because we were the only ones still standing - every other industrialized country was bombed back to square one. It's easy to dominate all forms of commerce when you're the only competitor.
We do not have that luxury today.
You speak of devaulation in relation to Greece -- I agree, had they stayed on the drachma they could have devalued, and forced the haircut onto the greek population. Worked for Argentina, right? Damn that Euro and those heartless bureaucrats in Brussels.
But... devaluing would force the entire country (regardless of whether the population agreed with the spending or not) to shoulder the burden of deleveraging. In many cases for cronyism that could have been avoided. Case in point, a state railway system where government employees are paid 2-3 times the average wage in Greece (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/business/global/21rail.html?pagewanted=all)
Devaluing can work to dig yourself out of hole, but wouldn't it be better not to be so far in the hole to begin with?
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Proof? Stop listening to corrupt crony media.
nmw6Mar 1, 2012
I am merely listening to the facts of international finance, and maybe The Economist. Read my post above ^^^^
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
Haven't they been proven wrong enough times? And especially, this last time?
kantspelwriteMar 1, 2012
The guy would be a great economics professor. He explains economics so well that even liberals can understand it. My problem with him is his foreign policy stance of non involvement in world affairs that can have effect on the U.S. well being.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CrescentSkies_2Mar 1, 2012
My main issue with him is that even though his bullet points are pretty good...when he expands on them there are huge flaws...like how he expects other countries to calmly abide by treaties that they've been wanting to break for decades and attack when we get rid of our military.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
So you will give up America's standard of living, to police the world?
Having a soldiers spread out thinly around the world does nothing to stop war, and why do we still have soldiers in Germany? Expecting another Hitler?
kingnovaMar 1, 2012
"So you will give up America's standard of living, to police the world?"
Care to tell us what percentage of the United States budget goes to support our bases around the world? I know the answer. Do you?
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Exact number, nobody knows for sure. like spending money we don't have to protect others interest?
anub1sMar 1, 2012
Granted, we are in certain situations helping only to further the interests of others where we really don't belong, but sometimes it is in our best interest to interfere or to police.
I appreciate the fact that we are spending money that we don't have in places we don't belong, but it isn't just a black and white issue like Paul seemingly thinks it is.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
@anub1s, I can see from a caring point of view where we could and would want to help others, but that's as far as we should go. Being where were not wanted or needed at present just doesn't make sense.
I have listened to Paul for years, i don't think he wants total isolation, If other countries, like Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia want us there, let them pay for it. They are fully capable of protecting them selves, and if not, then they can rely on us if needed. Every country knows they can wiped out at a moments notice by us.
CrescentSkies_2Mar 1, 2012
For the most part we don't need to police the world, that's for certain. But we need to still have a strong military presence. At the very least we need enough power to make other countries fear us to the point they're too scared to try anything against us. It worked on governments in south america that supported terrorism, when we showed we were more than willing to blow up their mansions and military buildings they generally got the idea and stopped financing terrorism against America.
I'm saying that Ron Paul isn't just trying to stop america from policing the world...he's trying to insanely decrease our military power. With him in charge we'd have a militia effectively...which means we'd be attacked within an hour.
corydorningMar 1, 2012
Making countries fear us is a double edged sword. You have those that will be afraid and cower in that fear...but you also have the flipside of those that vow to do us harm and try and prove we aren't as powerful as we claim.
I liken it to a few people in a bar fight. You have the guy who outlandishly says he is the bees knees and some ppl are afraid of that. Then someone comes up and knocks his out.
Then you have the quiet guy. He's sociable when he needs to be and is liked by others. But at the same time, EVERYONE has the sense that he is not someone you should betray, not only for the protection he can bring you but also because you know he will simply crush you.
Paul's approach is the second. The other GOP nominees and even Obama's is the first.
atomheartmotherMar 1, 2012
"Exact number, nobody knows for sure"
In other words you don't even have a ballpark number. You represent the Ronulan norm quite nicely; spout unworkable Libertarian platitudes with an almost religious fervor without ever stopping to ponder their modern-day practicality, or even inform yourself with basic facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Where is your number? Where is the number from Kingnova? You talk s**t like "i know", but you can't back it up.
Always attacking instead of giving a s**t, always saying "your wrong" like the little child you are. The Government doesn't even know for sure. If they do, they sure ain't going tell peon-ons like you and me, Paul knows? Better than you or I. Your arguments are moot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherMar 1, 2012
You were the one who claimed, "So you will give up America's standard of living, to police the world". That clearly implies that the number is such that it would, in fact, kill our standard of living, but you don't even have a clue about what the number is.
But hey, that's OK because "Paul knows". What kind of a f**king hero-worshiping lemming are you anyway? Think for yourself, sheep.
FrankLuskaMar 2, 2012
@atomheartmother, I never said money was the only problem, just one of many, how would you like an occupying force in your neighborhood? How would you like to be hated by all those people, oh wait, we are, and don't pull that BS about, "people don't hate us because were ruling them like dictators". And don't forget the long term health and mental problems that come along with policing the world. So if you like all those detriments to our society, our standard of living, by all means continue your way forward, hopefully, those deranged by combat or hate wont take your life away from you. But then again...
Childish mind reading again? Hero worship? Boy, you extremist are really extreme. You don't think Paul has access to information you could never dream of seeing.
But hey, it's ok, because you know best, you have all the facts in front of you, right? You have access to classified information, right? You have years of experience dealing with government, right?
Sheep? Bah, Bah, bad sheep. And i do think for myself, and watch the world closely, you live in dream land, where facts and reality have no meaning.
Talk to later Troll Man, i mean Kingnova. Maybe I'll flip you a quarter next time i drive over the bridge.
atomheartmotherMar 2, 2012
"And i do think for myself, and watch the world closely"
No you don't, you simply agree with everything and anything your superhero spouts.
peppermintpigMar 1, 2012
Why is military action the default response when "diplomacy fails"? Pushing foreign countries around in an effort to occupy or maintain a military presence doesn't help matters and it makes sense why there is a desire to cancel treaties.
CrescentSkies_2Mar 1, 2012
If diplomacy fails then there's only two real responses left. Appeasement and War. Look at world war 2 and you'll learn very quickly why appeasement doesn't work...ever...so most countries will inevitably turn to war.
America has no business occupying other countries, but we do have a business maintaining the balance of power. As long as we remain a formidable power in the Americas we balance out potential threats in Russia, China, and other countries that generally dislike America and its allies (England and other European countries).
The_SovereignMar 1, 2012
I agree that to cut spending on military R&D would be the height of stupidity, but it should certainly be more carefully directed from what I know. Apparently there is great wastage in the "D" part of that equation, with ridiculously infeasible projects started and abandoned.
However a convential military is only useful for invading non-nuclear states. The money should be spent on post-nuclear superweapons and defensive networks before the Chinese gain any kind of real technological advantage.
mjlittle99Mar 2, 2012
Ron Paul is right about the Fed on how to get rid of it and save our money. Because inflation will go higher.
etubruteMar 1, 2012
Although I do agree with some of what Ron Paul says I do believe he is using Bernanke as a scapegoat. During Bernanke's tenure inflation has been the lowest they have been in years.
The reason purchasing power for going down is due to stagnation in wages, lack of liquidity (banks holding all the money), unfair trade policies, climate change, lack of agricultural implementation of new technologies, false propping of agricultural markets using subsidies. Of all the reasons for food price going up for the average American inflation is not even worth mentioning in the current climate..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
At least your partially correct, keep learning, you'll get it all.
lew2048Mar 1, 2012
So sorry, Bernanke deserves far more blame than he is getting. Bernanke pushed the 'sky is falling' nonsense and push for more bailouts of the big banks. $17T under his watch.
There is another scandal brewing, way bigger. A British House of Lords Lord, on a committee overseeing banks, money laundering, released info this week about 3 $5T plus some less awsome amounts deposited from the US Fed into a Scottish bank account, from whence it was moved to other banks. That Lord didn't know what was going on, but $17T (memory, but I saw it on news.google.com, I believe) is quite a lot of money.
Our Fed is owned by the Banksters, in bed with the CIA and military, corrupt to the core. Bernake is either an idiot or a serious propagandist, as he still professes Keynesian policies, a POV for which there is no empirical support (all the countries that have followed Keynesian policies are falling into the trap of insolvent govs supporting insolvent banks) and which has been thoroughly discredited by serious economists repeatedly.
Bernanke belongs in jail with all of his bankster crook friends. Fraud, malfeasance, conspiracy to rape the tax payer, helping the Departent of inJustice to delay prosecuting the banksters until the statute of limitations ran out, ... The man is a criminal, a kelptocrat who helped the kleptocracy steal more $ in less time than any previous kleptocracy. The Saudis, ... are pikers compared to that achievement.
etubruteMar 2, 2012
My response was not whether he deserves blame but on the subject he is getting attacked on.
fehuruneMar 1, 2012
PROOF THE FED IS LYING AND RON PAUL IS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!! check out the link from the FEDs themselves.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=5nYComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
moikypMar 1, 2012
Sorry Ron. Love but 8 years of lying corrupt hypocritical Republicans bought off and destroying the country did it and all the lies in your campaign foes' statementsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaMar 1, 2012
Ah, the ol' judge someone for what others did, not what they have done, Smart, Real Smart.
lsiahaan94Mar 1, 2012
http://onyxblog94.blogspot.com/2012/03/nokia-808-pureview-spesifikasi-dan.html
http://onyxblog94.blogspot.com/2012/02/sumber-berita-cerita-inspirasi-motivasi.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.