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.
Do you really think he will get the US Economy back to pre-2008 levels, Cut the jobless/Unemployment rate to say 4.5-5% and have a surplus in only a year or Two?
Be Honest now?
My hope is it would change to pre-1900 levels in terms of government power and control. That said, I doubt he will be able to achieve that (in one or two terms). I do however think he can seed directions which may help reduce government and its power or severely hamper it from making any more attempts at it. That of course all depends on what we get in Congress. If we get control of congress, it will likely be a fight between the Crony and moderate Conservatives versus the libertarian based conservatives and even though such will stall many aspects of the government to get things passed, it will allow many conservative aspects to have influence and on our system, meaning a reduction of government power and more fiscal responsibility.
As for hoping for anything major to happen in a year or two, no... I don't think these changes are immediately noticed. They take time to see the changes, but you will be able to see some indicators in that time, though not anywhere to the point you are hoping.
It is far easier to change things to the worse than for the better. Obama isn't specifically judged on the "state of the economy", rather the changes he made to which are indisputably obvious to their influence to a change for the worse.
Do you really think he will get the US Economy back to pre-2008 levels, Cut the jobless/Unemployment rate to say 4.5-5% and have a surplus in only a year or Two?
Be Honest now?
I think it'll be a major first step. A lot will depend on rolling back obamacare and the stupid stuff he's rammed in.
I think the point may have been to make an argument that was lost in 2009. For example, how long did you think it would take for a turn around then?
that was bang on.. I was just trying to figure out how much time people would give Ron Paul to fix things before they started to turn against him..Seems he has just 2 years to fix everything or people get mad and want to throw him out and want someone new....
Anyways I am a Canadian looking in... So, I was just wondering what your views on a "economy recovery timeline" were from south of the border if in Fact Ron Paul did get Elected in 2012...
No, Ron Paul would be a lame duck president. If congress couldn't get a super majority to over ride him, he'd veto pretty much every bill. Such an inability for the federal government to function would probably send our economy plummeting further.
Many think the government isn't functioning as is. Or that they are functioning but not for the people.
Your response sounds similar to the "I hate to but I will vote the lesser of two evils" quotes I read dring the last presidential election, too scared to rock the boat because it might make things worse.
Maybe if the Dems and Republicans had a "oh ***" moment they might do things differently than they do now. Maybe if they both lost the presidency their seats in congress would be next.
The federal government not functioning would be the best thing that's ever happened to this country. We'd actually pay the debt down without raising taxes and then phase out the income tax after the debt is paid off. I don't agree with Ron Paul's gold stance though. A gold-backed currency is not necessarily a good thing
Not for our economy. People like stability, and a government that can't govern is not stable.
You can disagree with things the federal government is doing, but Ron Paul vetoing bills because they don't revert us back to the gold standard or disband the SEC is not going be good for our economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
Many think the government isn't functioning as is. Or that they are functioning but not for the people.
Your response sounds similar to the "I hate to but I will vote the lesser of two evils" quotes I read dring the last presidential election, too scared to rock the boat because it might make things worse.
Maybe if the Dems and Republicans had a "oh ***" moment they might do things differently than they do now. Maybe if they both lost the presidency their seats in congress would be next.
Maybe, but I think that would be more realistic with a moderate who cared about sensible governance, not someone like Ron Paul who has views that are simply unrealistic in the modern world.
Not for our economy. People like stability, and a government that can't govern is not stable.
You can disagree with things the federal government is doing, but Ron Paul vetoing bills because they don't revert us back to the gold standard or disband the SEC is not going be good for our economy.
Maybe, but I think that would be more realistic with a moderate who cared about sensible governance, not someone like Ron Paul who has views that are simply unrealistic in the modern world.
How do you know, oh wise one?
What have our benevolent masters within the beltway done correctly, honestly, within the limits of the Constitution, and within budget over the last, oh, forty years or so???
There are no moderates. There are only politicians, and one statesman.
Why would you even ask a silly question like that?
CBO's lasted report projects unemployment at 5.2% by December 2016, but that would require 64 straight months of 375,000 job openings, beginning right now, as in August. That is unprecedented in any economy in history.
To get unemployment to 4.5%-5.0% within a year or two would require 550,000 jobs every month from right now until the end of 2014.
To do it from January 2013 to December 2014 would require 700,000 jobs per month for 24 straight months.
You're pretty much in the same position you were in 2008. It doesn't matter who you elect, you're flat-lining.
The more you spend, the worse off you'll be in the coming decades.
exactly...
the question seems like a set-up
if it was indeed a serious question the OP sounds a little insecure or seems to lack some self-confidence
also, what´s with this ¨let´s go back to 2005 again¨ - why? to flip some more condos? or is that when you lost your virginity?
if you are thinking about voting for Ron Paul, if I were you I would educate yourself - plenty of material out there...
despite the silly question, there have been some excellent responses - making sweetness out of rocks...
I think that would be more realistic with a moderate who cared about sensible governance, not someone like Ron Paul who has views that are simply unrealistic in the modern world.
Unrealistic only for those who cannot open their minds
He will be the biggest disappointment ever. Do you really think he can do all or even any of the things he says he can. He will be isolated by both parties. Stop the industrial military complex? Audit the fed. Get rid of the IRS? Go ahead try to elect him.
Do you really think he will get the US Economy back to pre-2008 levels, Cut the jobless/Unemployment rate to say 4.5-5% and have a surplus in only a year or Two?
Be Honest now?
No, obviously not in a year or two. The economy has been being strangled, and structurally gutted, for many decades now. But it will be MUCH better, MUCH faster, under Ron Paul, than under any of the other candidates.
Everyone keeps waiting for things to get better, since there were always business cycles in our memory, and things always got better after the crash. But that's no longer true. When I was young, they introduced the oxymoronic term "Jobless Recovery." But jobs ARE the economy. Economists now are starting to realize that our economy is now structurally dysfunctional, with no productive engine at all: the little bllps of "growth" we have seen since 2008 are nothing more "bumping along on the bottom."
It won't get better until we change something significantly. And since we only get a say in the Big Government part of the equation, we have to start there. Liberals say government should be even larger. Conservatives say it should be smaller, with a massive War Machine. Libertarians say it should be so small it is negligible, with Defense instead of a bankrupting military that runs around trying to police the world.
There is an enormous amount of pent-up demand and business capital, which has been held in stasis ever since Obama was elected. Businesses wait for a sane and predictable President, and when interviewed consistently report that they cannot invest or hire until the costs and burdens of Obamacare and a million new anti-business regulations and taxes are known. The average worker hunkers down hopelessly as four decades of wage stagnation hit a collapse of the credit market AND the housing market, and every day they lose more of what little they have left. Everyone I talk to is in a state of despair, having lost most of what they earned over a lifetime.
Ron Paul would start making changes immediately upon entering office (hopefully with a landslide of new Libertarian legislators to back him). We would see MAJOR improvements in the economy by the end of the first year, as government stopped strangling small business and taxing the working class into poverty. My spouse and I were ready to buy a small business and retire from the 80-hour a week corporate nightmare over 6 years ago. Today we are less financially secure than we were at age 30, and about as far from retirement.
After three full years of Obama, and far more under Democrat rule, there has been ZERO improvement of any real indicator of health in our economy. Yes, the stock market is artificially flush with government money, but as the government (taxpayer/debt) tap runs dry, it too will collapse. Even worse, it was financed through both debt (that must be paid back with interest) and the Fed's currency devaluation. In other words, every citizen's wages and savings and investments were devalued--known as a "stealth tax" amounting to 40% over the last 10 years--to pay for propping up the stock market. This is why "printing dollars" with nothing behind them is a disastrous strategy: it merely steals from the lower classes to enrich the upper classes.
Big Business still does fine, because with the obedience of Big Government in crushing small business, is has a monopoly on all those things we need to survive. Big Government gets paid FIRST, then Big Business, then the rest we can spend on "discretionary income." And there's the rub: now that the first two are so greedy, there's nothing left over to spend.
Nothing will improve until Obama is gone and his damage undone. That is obvious. And while most of us would lose EVERYTHING, I almost think that if the choice came down to a RINO like Romney versus Obama, it might be better if Obama wins, and brings the nation quickly to total collapse and revolution. Then, like after the first American Revolution, we can start out fresh with the original, Libertarian restrictions that will take corrupt Big Government 100 years to overcome.
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.
