Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now hes pretty much the underdog, but he is the best person for the job that is running. Now does he have a good chance of winning. Nope.
But that just makes it even more convincing he is the best one. Because both mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republican parties hate him and disregard him so much, it just makes him all the more reliable.
Linda McMahon = fake, bought election and only wants power like all politicians.
Simmons = war vet who cant really help the economy, maybe with war strategy but that is the last thing we need right now.
Blumenthal = democrats and lawyer. Lawyers = waste of tax money and one of the problems with society. Suing people does not create any wealth for economy. You will only get regulations only from him and stupid ones at that. NEED smart regulation not more of it. Lawyers want as much as possible so people dont understand anything and then they can charge them extreme fees for it.
Anyway Schiff is right on many issues but I think he is just stressed about being ignored so much by both sides so he might come off as a little bit annoyed.
I also don't agree with the phone banking strategy much, but those that wish to do it more go ahead. I think posting on popular message boards are better.
BTW if you want, try to look up Irwin Schiff. Famous tax protester who got jailed at 78 and now 81 years old. (Give the old man a break).
He has the money to pay income taxes, but refuses based on his principles. Pretty much a life sentence you could say at his age.
You can see where he is coming from since he lived through the 1971 gold standard and great depression.
I know this is going to locked but here's my piece anyways. Schiff is by far the least qualified person to be in the Senate. Yes, he did predict a housing crash. But, among leading academic and professional economists he was hardly alone. There were others that pinpointed what would go wrong (OTC Derivitatives acting as casino bets, AIG FP not having the capital to pay off the bets, and those firms that placed the bets leveraging against what they felt were anticipated earnings, defaulting because AIG was financially unsound. Also the asset bubble formed by DFI, more concentrated wealth thanks to the Bush-era handouts to the super rich, and Pension Funds in an age when start-up capital wasn't being provided with emphasis on trendy financial products. And oh yeah outright fraud.) Schiff blammed essentially regulation and Governmental intervention in the economy. He really missed the boat on that, IMHO.
He is too commited to the idea of "restricted currency" to the point where he forgets why we left the Gold Standard (hoarding is a huge issue, plus doesn't do wonders with curbing money supply with leverage and cheques being the real currency distributor, and at a philosophical level moot because gold is just as useless as paper and not really rarer than governmental notes). His fears of inflation seem farsical at best, with Government borrowing hardly placing pressure on weakened private capital demand, and the fact Paul Krugman (a man much smarter than I) is claiming with specific evidence we face a deflationary cycle because of the contraction of the money supply (people not having money to spend). The main arguement is that "a dollar just ain't worth what used to" which is stupid because the rise of mutliple competing currencies and the fact we've had a stronger dollar than we've deserved (which helps capital classes but hurts manufacturing and production) becuase dollars remain the largest reserve currency in the world, helping with FDI and interest rates etc etc. He's a snakesoil salesman, he favours and evowes a system that has worked in the past to crush anyone that isn't super rich.
All of this and outside of the economic sphere (which he is slightly above par, at best... at best.) he has nothing. Nothing about commodity futures regulation, nothing about social issues, or anything really.
And suing people may not create wealth in an economy, it settles claims in a predictable fashion. The economy is about confidence, if people don't have faith in some sort of ultimate recourse they are less likely to invest. Without Lawyers contracts would be meaningless. While I don't like abuse of the system, to simply write it off seems silly to me.
I'm voting Simmons personally, but really am starting to tire from modern day Republican candidates. I'm a Yankee Republican dammit, I want things cheaper in the long run and done right the first time. Although I'm a niche market I don't feel any of the candidates understand the plight I see.
I know this is going to locked but here's my piece anyways. Schiff is by far the least qualified person to be in the Senate. Yes, he did predict a housing crash. But, among leading academic and professional economists he was hardly alone. There were others that pinpointed what would go wrong (OTC Derivitatives acting as casino bets, AIG FP not having the capital to pay off the bets, and those firms that placed the bets leveraging against what they felt were anticipated earnings, defaulting because AIG was financially unsound. Also the asset bubble formed by DFI, more concentrated wealth thanks to the Bush-era handouts to the super rich, and Pension Funds in an age when start-up capital wasn't being provided with emphasis on trendy financial products. And oh yeah outright fraud.) Schiff blammed essentially regulation and Governmental intervention in the economy. He really missed the boat on that, IMHO.
He is too commited to the idea of "restricted currency" to the point where he forgets why we left the Gold Standard (hoarding is a huge issue, plus doesn't do wonders with curbing money supply with leverage and cheques being the real currency distributor, and at a philosophical level moot because gold is just as useless as paper and not really rarer than governmental notes). His fears of inflation seem farsical at best, with Government borrowing hardly placing pressure on weakened private capital demand, and the fact Paul Krugman (a man much smarter than I) is claiming with specific evidence we face a deflationary cycle because of the contraction of the money supply (people not having money to spend). The main arguement is that "a dollar just ain't worth what used to" which is stupid because the rise of mutliple competing currencies and the fact we've had a stronger dollar than we've deserved (which helps capital classes but hurts manufacturing and production) becuase dollars remain the largest reserve currency in the world, helping with FDI and interest rates etc etc. He's a snakesoil salesman, he favours and evowes a system that has worked in the past to crush anyone that isn't super rich.
All of this and outside of the economic sphere (which he is slightly above par, at best... at best.) he has nothing. Nothing about commodity futures regulation, nothing about social issues, or anything really.
And suing people may not create wealth in an economy, it settles claims in a predictable fashion. The economy is about confidence, if people don't have faith in some sort of ultimate recourse they are less likely to invest. Without Lawyers contracts would be meaningless. While I don't like abuse of the system, to simply write it off seems silly to me.
I'm voting Simmons personally, but really am starting to tire from modern day Republican candidates. I'm a Yankee Republican dammit, I want things cheaper in the long run and done right the first time. Although I'm a niche market I don't feel any of the candidates understand the plight I see.
~Cheers
Well I didnt agree with everything Peter says actually. But I'm just saying he's more honest at least.
He was ridiculed way too much in the past, when it did make sense and now he might be a bit annoyed and saying, ha ha I told you so.
But I disagree with Paul Krugman. Sorry gov debt makes it much worse in the long run. He just wrote something in WSJ about it too and said something to Peter about hyperinflation. I disagree with his argument that a little debt is good for gov.
I say 0 debt is the best debt you can have for a government. Why pay interest? I rather the gov print the money than borrow the money. Taxation would be the best for gov to generate funds of course. But just because Krugman got a Nobel Prize it does not make him any smarter than anyone else.
Now peter says printing is worse, then borrowing, then taxing. I say borrowing is the worst one, printing, then taxation.
Also I would say we are in stagflation mode like Japan's lost decade. I agree with Mike Shedlock more than Peter in this regard. I agree with Peter, Marc Faber and Jim Rogers that luxury goods go down while necessities will go up with what the FED are doing.
But you know what I don't give a damn about luxury goods being priced down. Its the staples food, water, health, energy and they are not even included in the cpi. The staples are the true inflation detector.
By the way, people do not have confidence in the dollar because it is in reality worthless. They have confidence in gold because it has history of being money for thousands of years. Also when you print as much as you can and everyone knows it, then everyone knows it is worth less as well. If the FED was smart they would do it behind closed doors then. But they probably already do.
I would actually have advocated just doing away with the FED. Just let the gov print as much as they want and devalue the currency and pay off the debt and give everyone millions of dollars equally just so they can pay off the bankers.
That would have been much cheaper than giving the money to bankers. The amount of derivatives being imploded around the world will be 100s of trillions not just 10 trillions or so. Just let the banks go bankrupt. Only thing, it would have diluted the rich people's savings while poor people get something and cause a lot of inflation short term.
True wealth is production of course. We don't need gold for trade and those hoarding gold sure does not help. Gold does have a use though. Gold can be used for med you know, gold does not rust so it is sprayed on electronics so it can be used longer, for superconductors, green energy(solar panels) etc.
It does have industrial use but cannot be used too much because of cost.
To deal with gold you can trade other stuff maybe commodity backed currency like oil, gas, food, water and all other commodities. You can set up an exchange rate of currencies like what we have now for countries fiat money but instead it is for all commodities, resources.
One regulation I want no matter what is 1:1 banking no more fraction reserve. Much deflation will come after so many years of inflation of course but it means honest money.
Oh yes do away with the FED or make more regulation ON the FED. NO more discounts window for banks meaning no 0% loans to any international bank. Maybe they can only loan to banks that do not have presence outside of USA. Their incentive to only work here and pay here. If they want to go international they cannot borrow cheap money they can borrow it from other countries.
As you can see I have some different views from Peter Schiff. But out of all of the candidates I think Peter is the most Honest and is sincere.
Now some stuff that I agree with him on is something like getting rid of FDIC.
Tell me why we must have it? Yes so people have confidence in putting money in the banks so others can borrow it. Ok fine.
What is wrong with getting rid of it? We can just research which bank is safe to put our money in and that is done. Also if you cannot research then spread it to many banks to hedge against bank failures. Doing these things would almost guarantee you not lose much if any money putting them in banks. This will also completely stop too big to fail.
That is why I say Peter is correct in his debate with Cenk from the young turks who said we needed FDIC insurance. We don't need it in reality.
I'm voting Simmons personally, but really am starting to tire from modern day Republican candidates. I'm a Yankee Republican dammit, I want things cheaper in the long run and done right the first time. Although I'm a niche market I don't feel any of the candidates understand the plight I see.
Yes actually I don't have much bad things to say about Simmons. But you know what, his party pretty much screwed him over for McMahon. Now Simmons isn't even bothering to run. Actually he ain't so bad, but we're in bad economic times so I want someone with a business degree and he has only war strategy degrees.
Its like hiring a war general to do a civil officer's job.
Maybe when we head off to war again. Hopefully we don't have ww3.
Let's face it if McMahon wins its the same thing bought election corruption. If Blumethal wins it just means much more regulation that's not going to be even enforced unless they feel like it again when they already have the power.It is just more stupid laws for lawyers to charge fees over.
If Schiff was not running I guess Simmons would be the best choice for me actually.
Do you all realize that Linda McMahon won the convention and is officially the nominee (as of May 20, 2010)? Schiff and Simmons are history. Thank God. Go LINDA!!!
I don't want my state represented by a circus entertainer or a disingenuous attorney general.
Ain't that the truth? We have one candidate who spent her way into becoming the Republican nominee and one candidate who created a facade in order to increase tax revenue and get high marks with voters. (Blumenthal makes my blood boil with some of the decisions he's made over the years; his treatment of the Pequots and other tribes in CT has been downright atrocious.)
I don't want my state represented by a circus entertainer or a disingenuous attorney general.
hollllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! great post....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
