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.
i read the article and it is a criticism of the institution of the federal reserve and piling on more debt, so how does that disagree with ron paul?
The United States as a whole reached the debt saturated condition quite some time ago. Once reached, adding more debt, as we are massively attempting to do, no longer results in real economic expansion. Instead it results in real economic contraction, the exact opposite of what worked before! Let me make that clear, attempting to stimulate a debt saturated economy with more debt will only lead to real economic contraction and higher levels of structural unemployment.
it is a criticism of adding more debt to the system, with very valid points made by william watt and bill still. it is anti-keynesianism.
Fact is in past elections nobody really cared much about the deficit and monetary issues. This is on the forefront now. Paul will destroy any and all during the debates with common sense and reality while they yoyo's yammer off their usual canned responses. That could push him over the top. It will be interesting to see how they try and keep him out of the debates.
I dunno, he was roundly booed and hissed during the debates of the Republican primaries in 2008 for such common sense as suggesting we were attacked on 9-11 for building military bases in the Middle East.
I dunno, he was roundly booed and hissed during the debates of the Republican primaries in 2008 for such common sense as suggesting we were attacked on 9-11 for building military bases in the Middle East.
sadly, just as many democrats support big spending government, some republicans support big military spending government. we need to follow the money on both sides.
what ron paul actually said was this:
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years."
ron paul certainly wasn't wrong on that score. most citizens strenuously object to the bombing of the countries they have to live in. (as do we)
fear is the foundation of most governments.
if we were really fearful of the "muslim" onslaught or whatever it is we are fighting over now, why would we continue to have open borders? why wouldn't our OWN borders be secured? there is a lot of flat out lying going on.
sadly, just as many democrats support big spending government, some republicans support big military spending government. we need to follow the money on both sides.
what ron paul actually said was this:
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years."
ron paul certainly wasn't wrong on that score. most citizens strenuously object to the bombing of the countries they live in. (as do we)
Yeah, he also asked the audience how would we (Americans) would feel if China built bases in Mexico, and the crowd was having none of it.
I don't know how well the audience in Columbia, SC that evening represents the rest of Republicans, but if the majority of GOP voters react to him the way those people reacted to him that night, he has no chance.
Yeah, he also asked the audience how would we (Americans) would feel if China built bases in Mexico, and the crowd was having none of it.
I don't know how well the audience in Columbia, SC that evening represents the rest of Republicans, but if the majority of GOP voters react to him the way those people reacted to him that night, he has no chance.
remember that was 2008, and i don't think that most americans were actually paying much attention to the economy, to the federal reserve, to the oligarchy, or to the spending. times have changed since then.
ron paul appeals to the most reasonable members of both parties, which is exactly why he could win a general election.
those republicans who think that we need to be over there fighting ought to stop and think about the financial cost of these wars if they are truly republicans. i bet most republicans, if polled, would prefer the continuation of social security checks for their parents over foreign spending.
i also do not trust media reports on ron paul. when i have watched the republican debates, he got more applause than any other candidate-although i noticed that the media failed to mention that, (up to and including fox).
Let's suppose for a minute that Ron Paul actually won a national elections, what if anything do you think he would be able to accomplish with a Democratic/Republican congress? What major piece of legislation has Ron Paul been able to a pass during his tenure in Congress?
I suspect he can as commander in chief bring the troops home, I believe he can lead the fight against using the presidents powers not authorized in the constitution. He can repeal many exective orders.
He has a presidents working group on finincal markets of which can keep an eye on the FED and keep the congress in check and most importantly, when he takes the oath to defend our constitution I can assure you he will take that oath seriously.
I would rather have a president who has the brains and power to only do what is authorized in the constitution. PS the bill to audit the fed has done something and if your looking for bills that were passed maybe that is a good thing that his hands weren't in this mess we got ourselves into.
Instead the was telling us what we shouldn't have been doing but nobody wanted to listen well they are listening now.
The one and only thing I don't like about Ron Paul is his monetary policy. He advocates a return to the gold standard, which I am skeptical of. I don't think having a gold standard is sound monetary policy when Ft. Knox's gold reserves are alleged to be minimal or non-existent. Paul should monetize silver again in addition to gold and maybe throw in copper or bronze
Actually he doesnt want to return to the gold standard, he doesnt think that would logically work in the current situtation we have and dependancy on the current paper money. Ron Paul would like some of our money to be backed by gold giving our currency physical value with possible other credit value keeping the printing press in check. Also legalizing gold and silver as legal tender against the FED dollar is always what he wants to destroy the FED system all together. Also we would print our money not let banks do it so we can pay them interest to print our own money.
I dunno, he was roundly booed and hissed during the debates of the Republican primaries in 2008 for such common sense as suggesting we were attacked on 9-11 for building military bases in the Middle East.
That is true.. he was booed and many people still believe 9-11 didn't happen, Osama bin liden is still alive, we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we were attacked for our freedoms and many people still have no idea what is really going on and why we were attacked. I guess when you speak the truth instead of chanting USA, USA, USA you will not get the warm and fussy feeling SOME republicans want.
Ron Paul investigates, reads and makes sure he knows why we were attacked. Why were we attacked? Well according to the 9-11 commission report and CIA experts on the bin ladin unit as quoted by RON PAUL in the debates. We are in their holy land, our miltiary bases and our continued support of murderous dictators and our support of Israel. So with that being the truth I guess it's a unconstitutional idea to think we should be supporting any nation, pretending to be for democracy while supporting people like SADDAM, and other radical leaders who destroy all freedom.
Its time to come home.
Our constitution and our freedoms do not go away if we are no longer in the middle east. If you want to support Israel stop arming the ARAB nations with just as many weapons if not more.
They arent booing anymore :-) Maybe you need to wake up and watch some new debates.
If the federal government stops spending then which part of the economy picks up the slack in terms of making up for the lost GDP?
The point I'm making is that federal spending needs to be reduced GRADUALLY. The worst thing you can do to an economy that is slowly coming out of an economic downturn is to drastically reduce government spending.
History has proven that statement incorrect. From ~ 1920-1922 government spending and taxes were reduced by ~40 percent which got us out of the depression. Unemployment went from 12 percent to under 4.
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.
