How awesome would it be to have a dollar that was actually worth something that didn’t lose its value but actually became worth more? How awesome would it be to keep government from spending into oblivion?
What you call goldbuggery I call common sense. There is a reason why real commodities were used for exchange – because people actually want them, because their value is stable, because its quantity is fixed and thus its value cannot be deflated, because there could actually be market competition.
The centralized banking cartel called the Federal Reserve has destroyed our money and yet no one cares because they think its necessary to maintain the economy. Isn’t a stable currency is more important?[/quote]
I don’t know, but if you ask my grandparents, who were around during the Great Depression, and gave them the option of the 70s or the 30s, they’d take the 70s.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why would corporations give money to Paul?
So he will legalize prostitution or they can pollute more or any number of reasons.
He doesn’t take PAC money nor does he take money from businesses or special interest groups. He has stated numerous times he only takes individual donations. BTW, the average is less than $50. He has more than 200K individual contributions from original sources.
His forums are full of discussion on how to get around the $ 2,300 donation limit.
You seem to think democracy means electing people with the loudest supporters and people with the most money.
I think it is about electing the president based on how the people in the states vote for him (or her).
The people have risen up. They have voted against Ron Paul, his loud mouth supporters and his money making machine.[/quote]
ha! You and everyone who speak against him have proven your ignorance when it comes to the real issues. Believe me, I know what this election is about.
Ending the war.
Stopping the gov’t money printing machine.
Restoring civil and economic liberties.
Why should an individual not be able to give more than $2300 of his or her own money to a candidate…funny how McCain’s law is hurtng him but not Paul. Freedom means I can do whatever the fuck I want to do. We are not free.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He has a small group of supporters. The voting proves that. The fact that his forum is full of people trying to donate more that the allowable amount and showing how they donate oithers names proves that. [/quote]
Well, you’re barely starting to make sense. I still don’t see any evidence that Paul supporters are more prone to do what every other supporter of every other candidate can, in fact, do.
You are singling him out for no other reason than your dislike of what he stands for. Next time you feel like dropping bombshells and insinuating Paul is more of a corporate-whore than the other candidates, you’d better be ready to back it up.
Given four choices, 45 percent of Florida Republican primary voters said the economy is the most important issue facing the country. Terrorism was picked by 21 percent of voters, while immigration and Iraq were picked by relatively few. The economy also was the top issue out of three choices for voters in the Democratic primary, which none of the candidates contested because of questions about whether Florida’s Democratic delegates will be seated at the convention. The economy has been seen as increasingly important since the start of the 2008 presidential nomination season. McCain won the votes of Republican voters most concerned about the economy, getting 40 percent of their support. Clinton easily won the support of those Democrats who were most concerned about the issue.[/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t know, but if you ask my grandparents, who were around during the Great Depression, and gave them the option of the 70s or the 30s, they’d take the 70s.[/quote]
Yes, maybe. But what would they say after someone clearly explained to them that the 30’s sucked because of government intervention in the banks and revaluing the dollar? The bubble that burst in 1929 could have corrected itself much quicker had the Fed quit tinkering with banks. They actually prolonged the depression.
The 70’s sucked because we still were paying off all that debt from those needless wars. That’s why Nixon canceled the gold window – so he could pay back gov’t debt with worthless paper. They sold it to us in a nice little Keynesian package ensuring us that we needed it to help stimulate consumption…?
Ask your grandparents what happens when one endlessly consumes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He has a small group of supporters. The voting proves that. The fact that his forum is full of people trying to donate more that the allowable amount and showing how they donate oithers names proves that.
Well, you’re barely starting to make sense. I still don’t see any evidence that Paul supporters are more prone to do what every other supporter of every other candidate can, in fact, do.
You are singling him out for no other reason than your dislike of what he stands for. Next time you feel like dropping bombshells and insinuating Paul is more of a corporate-whore than the other candidates, you’d better be ready to back it up.[/quote]
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t know, but if you ask my grandparents, who were around during the Great Depression, and gave them the option of the 70s or the 30s, they’d take the 70s.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes, maybe. But what would they say after someone clearly explained to them that the 30’s sucked because of government intervention in the banks and revaluing the dollar? The bubble that burst in 1929 could have corrected itself much quicker had the Fed quit tinkering with banks. They actually prolonged the depression.[/quote]
Yes, and because they tightened the money supply - which, of course, is what a gold standard would do.
And this particular effect was again shown in the early 80s when Volcker manipulated the money supply by tightening it to induce a brief recession to kill stagflation - which we then climbed out of thanks to nice, massive tax cut.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The 70’s sucked because we still were paying off all that debt from those needless wars. That’s why Nixon canceled the gold window – so he could pay back gov’t debt with worthless paper. They sold it to us in a nice little Keynesian package ensuring us that we needed it to help stimulate consumption…?
Ask your grandparents what happens when one endlessly consumes.[/quote]
And apparently this didn’t sink the U.S. economy in the 80s when we were spending a much higher portion of GDP on defense, and essentially spent the USSR out of existence?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He has a small group of supporters. The voting proves that. The fact that his forum is full of people trying to donate more that the allowable amount and showing how they donate oithers names proves that.
Well, you’re barely starting to make sense. I still don’t see any evidence that Paul supporters are more prone to do what every other supporter of every other candidate can, in fact, do.
You are singling him out for no other reason than your dislike of what he stands for. Next time you feel like dropping bombshells and insinuating Paul is more of a corporate-whore than the other candidates, you’d better be ready to back it up.
Large donations
Few voters
You figure it out.[/quote]
Zap, how do you still have a job as an engineer? I mean, I know you guys need a calculator to figure stuff out but come on…
For the mathematically challenged:
$20M/$50 == 400K total donations.
If you accept that there are 40M registered republicans then 400K is roughly 1% of registered Republicans. As donations go, this is nothing to sneeze at but still not that much. Take into consideration many people gave much more than $50 and we can see the total number of contributors is much smaller than the aforementioned 1%. He is receiving more than 1% at the polls. This is assuming my figure for R voters (40M) is not much smaller. Also keep in mind that most of his contributors were probably not registered Rs.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He has a small group of supporters. The voting proves that. The fact that his forum is full of people trying to donate more that the allowable amount and showing how they donate oithers names proves that.
Well, you’re barely starting to make sense. I still don’t see any evidence that Paul supporters are more prone to do what every other supporter of every other candidate can, in fact, do.
You are singling him out for no other reason than your dislike of what he stands for. Next time you feel like dropping bombshells and insinuating Paul is more of a corporate-whore than the other candidates, you’d better be ready to back it up.
Large donations
Few voters
You figure it out.
Zap, how do you still have a job as an engineer? I mean, I know you guys need a calculator to figure stuff out but come on…
For the mathematically challenged:
$20M/$50 == 400K total donations.
If you accept that there are 40M registered republicans then 400K is roughly 1% of registered Republicans. As donations go, this is nothing to sneeze at but still not that much. Take into consideration many people gave much more than $50 and we can see the total number of contributors is much smaller than the aforementioned 1%. He is receiving more than 1% at the polls. This is assuming my figure for R voters (40M) is not much smaller. Also keep in mind that most of his contributors were probably not registered Rs.
Problem solving isn’t your strong suit is it.[/quote]
Most voters do not donate. He has raised a lot of money. He has relatively few votes.
I don’t know what you are trying to talk yourself into.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, and because they tightened the money supply - which, of course, is what a gold standard would do.
[/quote]
Stagflation?! Give me a break. There is no such thing. This is a made up term by investors to scare people when really it just means people are not spending and the economy is humming along neither growing nor shrinking. Hello, McFly!! Dollar Stability is a good thing. I don’t care what the Wall Streeters are crying about
The gold standard does not tighten the money supply. There is no effective money supply on a gold standard. There is either money in a bank account or their isn’t. When there isn’t it is a signal to banks to raise interest rates to stimulate savings and slow down debt when there is an excess of money in savings banks can lower interest rates.
The concept of a money supply on a gold standard is nonexistent because the supply can neither be increased nor decreased but rather saved or spent. Why should savers be punished for putting off consumption for a later time? Saving is the only real way wealth can be accumulated – not by infinite borrowing which is what the Fed causes. Eventually, someone has to pay it back.
[quote]
And apparently this didn’t sink the U.S. economy in the 80s when we were spending a much higher portion of GDP on defense, and essentially spent the USSR out of existence?[/quote]
Did you sleep through the recession in the 90s or were you still in grade school? The effects of military spending weren’t felt 1990, coincidentally before we went into Kuwait with our new gear.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, and because they tightened the money supply - which, of course, is what a gold standard would do.
Stagflation?! Give me a break. There is no such thing. This is a made up term by investors to scare people when really it just means people are not spending and the economy is humming along neither growing nor shrinking. Hello, McFly!! Dollar Stability is a good thing. I don’t care what the Wall Streeters are crying about
The gold standard does not tighten the money supply. There is no effective money supply on a gold standard. There is either money in a bank account or their isn’t. When there isn’t it is a signal to banks to raise interest rates to stimulate savings and slow down debt when there is an excess of money in savings banks can lower interest rates.
The concept of a money supply on a gold standard is nonexistent because the supply can neither be increased nor decreased but rather saved or spent. Why should savers be punished for putting off consumption for a later time? Saving is the only real way wealth can be accumulated – not by infinite borrowing which is what the Fed causes. Eventually, someone has to pay it back.
And apparently this didn’t sink the U.S. economy in the 80s when we were spending a much higher portion of GDP on defense, and essentially spent the USSR out of existence?
Did you sleep through the recession in the 90s or were you still in grade school? The effects of military spending weren’t felt 1990, coincidentally before we went into Kuwait with our new gear.[/quote]
You should really stop posting. You don’t understand how this stuff works.
You can debate whether Ron Paul has a chance until your asshole’s bleed. What you need to concern yourself with is who is a best man for the job. Fuck what the polls say, fuck want your grandma thinks, pick your guy and roll with it. Some people like to win, others like to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you don’t.
I’m voting for Ron. If he’s not on the ballot, I’m writing him in. I think he is the best guy for the job. I’m not going to vote for McCain or Romney just because they are republicans(well, Romney is).
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
You can debate whether Ron Paul has a chance until your asshole’s bleed. What you need to concern yourself with is who is a best man for the job. Fuck what the polls say, fuck want your grandma thinks, pick your guy and roll with it. Some people like to win, others like to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you don’t.
I’m voting for Ron. If he’s not on the ballot, I’m writing him in. I think he is the best guy for the job. I’m not going to vote for McCain or Romney just because they are republicans(well, Romney is). [/quote]
I don’t think Paul is the best man for the job. I don’t care if you vote for him. I won’t.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, and because they tightened the money supply - which, of course, is what a gold standard would do.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Stagflation?! Give me a break. There is no such thing. This is a made up term by investors to scare people when really it just means people are not spending and the economy is humming along neither growing nor shrinking. Hello, McFly!! Dollar Stability is a good thing. I don’t care what the Wall Streeters are crying about. [/quote]
Stagflation was the combination of a stagnant economy and inflation, which conventional Keynesian economics held couldn’t happen, but did happen - in the U.S., under Nixon, Ford and Carter. Volcker and Reagan killed it.
BTW, if the economy isn’t growing, the effects of inflation are worse than if the economy is growing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The gold standard does not tighten the money supply. There is no effective money supply on a gold standard. There is either money in a bank account or their isn’t. When there isn’t it is a signal to banks to raise interest rates to stimulate savings and slow down debt when there is an excess of money in savings banks can lower interest rates.
The concept of a money supply on a gold standard is nonexistent because the supply can neither be increased nor decreased but rather saved or spent. Why should savers be punished for putting off consumption for a later time? Saving is the only real way wealth can be accumulated – not by infinite borrowing which is what the Fed causes. Eventually, someone has to pay it back.[/quote]
The gold standard restricts the ability of the Fed to expand the money supply when a credit crunch effectively decreases the money supply because people take money out of circulation, via bank runs, or because banks tighten standards and refuse to lend - which, of course, is one of the main worries now.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And apparently this didn’t sink the U.S. economy in the 80s when we were spending a much higher portion of GDP on defense, and essentially spent the USSR out of existence?
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Did you sleep through the recession in the 90s or were you still in grade school? The effects of military spending weren’t felt 1990, coincidentally before we went into Kuwait with our new gear.[/quote]
I was in high school and college, depending on the precise time.
The net military spending was decreased between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Iraq I - and then continued to decrease throughout the 90s under Clinton. To the extent, actually, that Clinton could truthfully claim to have reduced government spending while raising spending on everything except the military.
Here’s a look at U.S. historical military spending as a percentage of discretionary governmental spending:
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
analog_kid wrote:
You can debate whether Ron Paul has a chance until your asshole’s bleed. What you need to concern yourself with is who is a best man for the job. Fuck what the polls say, fuck want your grandma thinks, pick your guy and roll with it. Some people like to win, others like to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you don’t.
I’m voting for Ron. If he’s not on the ballot, I’m writing him in. I think he is the best guy for the job. I’m not going to vote for McCain or Romney just because they are republicans(well, Romney is).
I don’t think Paul is the best man for the job. I don’t care if you vote for him. I won’t.[/quote]
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
You can debate whether Ron Paul has a chance until your asshole’s bleed. What you need to concern yourself with is who is a best man for the job. Fuck what the polls say, fuck want your grandma thinks, pick your guy and roll with it. Some people like to win, others like to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you don’t.
I’m voting for Ron. If he’s not on the ballot, I’m writing him in. I think he is the best guy for the job. I’m not going to vote for McCain or Romney just because they are republicans(well, Romney is). [/quote]
That’s your prerogative of course. But like an FL Dem who voted for Nader in 2000, you need to accept the fact that this is essentially a 1/2 vote for the other major party candidate. So remember: writing in Paul is a 1/2 vote for Clinton or Obama, to the extent you would otherwise be voting GOP.
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
You can debate whether Ron Paul has a chance until your asshole’s bleed. What you need to concern yourself with is who is a best man for the job. Fuck what the polls say, fuck want your grandma thinks, pick your guy and roll with it. Some people like to win, others like to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you don’t.
I’m voting for Ron. If he’s not on the ballot, I’m writing him in. I think he is the best guy for the job. I’m not going to vote for McCain or Romney just because they are republicans(well, Romney is). [/quote]
Yup. I’m not going to vote just to give the Republicans a victory. Been there, done that. I was going to sit this one out, but I’m considering the write in option now, just for the hell of it. Not sure who I’d write in yet, but I definetly won’t be voting for the Republican nominee this time around.
Edit: I think from now on I’ll support Constitution Party candidates when I can. So, I’ll write in Michael Peroutka in that case. The party isn’t a pefrect fit for me, but I believe it’s now closer to my own thinking than the GoP.