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.
National gun registry, uniform background checks for ALL gun purchases. Nationally registered title on every gun with required transfer of ownership and all background checks that go with it.
Limited venues allowed to sell ammunition. Limited hours ammo can be purchased. ID logging when ammo purchased.
Ron Paul has a reputation (among his supporters) as a "defender of liberty" and serious on fiscal and monetary matters. Yet, he doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act, which defended the liberties of 20% of the population. He also doesn't believe in the Federal Reserve, which does a much better job keeping the economy stable than the wild boom and bust times before it.
Paul believes that there should be no social welfare system, as if there was no poverty or hunger before these programs were formed.
I don't even have to get into his belief that we should be on the gold standard, which was far from a panacea when we WERE on the gold standard. As Paul Krugman illustrates in this video (apart from the title: "Ron Paul owns Paul Krugman on Bloomberg TV, "money today is more than green pieces of paper with dead presidents printed on them":
In essence, Ron Paul is a man who endorses the polices of the 1840s.
Liberties are supposed to be for all, not 20% or 99%. ALLLLLL..
The argument about the Fed is off mark. The Fed took over in 1913, every few years we've had boom and busts... the bigger issue is that the Fed creates dislocations in the economy, than tries to hide it by making ever greater dislocations. Meaning...the next time the economy hits the crapper, it will likely crash. Crash as in 1929.
I agree on the social welfare, social welfare helps nobody...it simply takes from one and gives the other. People would do this themselves and it should be up to the people to decide whether they'd like to help or not. Capital would also flow to productive hands, and we ALL benefit from this as a society. If you are getting freebies (the 2% gov class) or benefiting indirectly from the freebies, of course you would not like this.
Money is simply a piece of paper forced upon a society by a government. It is the only means of doing business and trade in this economy. The only means of paying taxes. It should serve a societal need, not a government wants to do whatever it choses need. The government uses their power to issue new currency daily, devaluing everyone else's savings, including those with a family of 7 barely making ends meet, and those that worked their whole lives saving all they could and having even their social security payments buy less and less. Creating new currency is theft by force.
In essence, Ron Paul may endorse policies of the 1840s, but those against him support thugery and theft by the iron hand of the government. If you are in the 2% minority group benefiting from this, it sure is so 2015.
Some are fools, others can see right through it.
Last edited by SarasotaBound1; 01-19-2013 at 10:07 AM..
National gun registry, uniform background checks for ALL gun purchases. Nationally registered title on every gun with required transfer of ownership and all background checks that go with it.
Limited venues allowed to sell ammunition. Limited hours ammo can be purchased. ID logging when ammo purchased.
Mine as well just end the 2nd amendment. Registration then confiscation...its easier when you know who has what.
National gun registry, uniform background checks for ALL gun purchases. Nationally registered title on every gun with required transfer of ownership and all background checks that go with it.
Limited venues allowed to sell ammunition. Limited hours ammo can be purchased. ID logging when ammo purchased.
What do all these do besides restricting the freedom of law abiding citizens?
Liberties are supposed to be for all, not 20% or 99%. ALLLLLL..
The argument about the Fed is off mark. The Fed took over in 1913, every few years we've had boom and busts... the bigger issue is that the Fed creates dislocations in the economy, than tries to hide it by making ever greater dislocations. Meaning...the next time the economy hits the crapper, it will likely crash. Crash as in 1929.
Actually, the Fed uses monetary policy to dampen dislocations and it's been pretty good at it.
For evidence, we only need to look at the 100 year period prior to creation of the fed to see frequent inflation/deflation cycled that move ~25% in either direction. (i.e. Panic of 1819, Panic of 1825, Panic of 1837, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1866, Panic of 1873, Panic of 1884, Panic of 1890, Panic of 1893, Panic of 1896, Panic of 1901.)
Since the Fed's creation, there were only a few severe depressions, the one in the 1920s, mainly caused by a sudden drop in government spending after WWI; the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession. The score is that these events are few and far between now that the 100 years prior that were littered with wild boom and busts..
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarasotaBound1
I agree on the social welfare, social welfare helps nobody...it simply takes from one and gives the other. People would do this themselves and it should be up to the people to decide whether they'd like to help or not. Capital would also flow to productive hands, and we ALL benefit from this as a society. If you are getting freebies (the 2% gov class) or benefiting indirectly from the freebies, of course you would not like this.
While you "agree" that social welfare, social welfare helps nobody, the evidence says otherwise. I can point to countless examples of people who grew up poor and would have stayed in that class, had it not been for subsidized nutrition programs and subsidized college education. Those people grew up to be productive members of society.
The idea that a poor child is better off without enough food, than being fed through SNAP, has no logical foundation. The same goes for publicly provided immunizations.
As an example, the poverty rate fell and in my view that helps somebody.
To theorize that "Capital would also flow to productive hands, and we ALL benefit from this as a society," ignores the fact that this didn't happen in the generations prior to these social programs. These programs were a reaction to failures at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarasotaBound1
Money is simply a piece of paper forced upon a society by a government. It is the only means of doing business and trade in this economy. The only means of paying taxes. It should serve a societal need, not a government wants to do whatever it choses need. The government uses their power to issue new currency daily, devaluing everyone else's savings, including those with a family of 7 barely making ends meet, and those that worked their whole lives saving all they could and having even their social security payments buy less and less. Creating new currency is theft by force.
In essence, Ron Paul may endorse policies of the 1840s, but those against him support thugery and theft by the iron hand of the government. If you are in the 2% minority group benefiting from this, it sure is so 2015.
Some are fools, others can see right through it.
Essentially, you are arguing against monetary policy in general. The reality is that the Fed uses monetary policy to control inflation and unemployment.
Actually, the Fed uses monetary policy to dampen dislocations and it's been pretty good at it.
For evidence, we only need to look at the 100 year period prior to creation of the fed to see frequent inflation/deflation cycled that move ~25% in either direction. (i.e. Panic of 1819, Panic of 1825, Panic of 1837, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1866, Panic of 1873, Panic of 1884, Panic of 1890, Panic of 1893, Panic of 1896, Panic of 1901.)
Since the Fed's creation, there were only a few severe depressions, the one in the 1920s, mainly caused by a sudden drop in government spending after WWI; the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession. The score is that these events are few and far between now that the 100 years prior that were littered with wild boom and busts..
While you "agree" that social welfare, social welfare helps nobody, the evidence says otherwise. I can point to countless examples of people who grew up poor and would have stayed in that class, had it not been for subsidized nutrition programs and subsidized college education. Those people grew up to be productive members of society.
The idea that a poor child is better off without enough food, than being fed through SNAP, has no logical foundation. The same goes for publicly provided immunizations.
As an example, the poverty rate fell and in my view that helps somebody.
To theorize that "Capital would also flow to productive hands, and we ALL benefit from this as a society," ignores the fact that this didn't happen in the generations prior to these social programs. These programs were a reaction to failures at the time.
Essentially, you are arguing against monetary policy in general. The reality is that the Fed uses monetary policy to control inflation and unemployment.
The panics you refer to were not related to the pre-fed system, but a lack of enforcement of the law. If you and i lend money that has been placed in our coffers and agreed to be kept there, i't fraud. What a cop out on your behalf.
I also can't believe you want to associate a drop in government spending with the great depression..wow..you must think we are stupid fools. I suggest you revisit gov spending numbers which increased from 3 billion to 9 billion during the great depression. 300% growth in debt in less than 10 years. You also forget to mention that Europe was flattened beginning in 1939. I suggest that what got us out was not spending nor the stupid fed, but hungry, homeless, clotheless people with tons of gold iswhat boosted demand for our goods and services.
You miss the point about welfare. Improved poverty figures merely suggest the rich get richer, while the middle class disappears. You know why the middle class is gone right? I will spell it out, because the middle class has to make the rich richer, make the poor less poor and support the early retirement of public sector workers. So, you are ok with forcing funds out of the middle class so long as it doesnt come out of your pocket. The funds spent on welfare are almost nothing, but there is a human damage. The opposite of what you propose occurs, i lived in the ghetto, people on these programs almost never break the cycle. They are born in the ghetto, they grow up with drunk/drug parents, they see their fathers getting shot by 10, they are criminals by 15. So don't slide this 'good deed' crap on me.
If the fed was in full control, unemployment would be zero. So what happened with the theory? Truth is the S&L's should have gone bankrupt in the 80s. So should have LTCM. So should have the banks that lent to tech startups in the 90s. And let's not forget about the housing bubble in the 2000s. That sure sounds stable...at least the tax payers were not bailing out the rich pre-fed.
There you go, instead of allowing the market to remove these irresponsible society destroying monsters, the fed, the treasury, the government bailed each one out. All on the back of the tax payer. All by fear threats.. all adding to the pile of nuclear waste almost ready to burst.
All this sure sounds like control..sure.. and than you ask why there is no jobs? Well..what do you think happens when you consyantly steal margins from producers to keep deficit spending? You want jobs back? Than let the market self correct, stop deficit spending..otherwise, if you don't have a job it's your own fault for supporting the irresponsible actions from the fed. I'm not holding my breath, i know where you libs will stop. When you and your family are starving and the gov has a gun down your throat.
Last edited by SarasotaBound1; 01-19-2013 at 05:47 PM..
Actually, the Fed uses monetary policy to dampen dislocations and it's been pretty good at it.
For evidence, we only need to look at the 100 year period prior to creation of the fed to see frequent inflation/deflation cycled that move ~25% in either direction. (i.e. Panic of 1819, Panic of 1825, Panic of 1837, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1866, Panic of 1873, Panic of 1884, Panic of 1890, Panic of 1893, Panic of 1896, Panic of 1901.)
A Central Bank is a Central Bank, it doesn't matter what it's called.
Panic of 1819, a few years after the second bank of America was formed (go figure) was the result of expansive monetary policy and suspended specie payments.
Panic of 1825 Englands expansive monetary policy.
Panic of 1837 Expansive monetary policy yet again. The total money supply almost doubled in 4 years
The House of Cooke which caused bad economic times from 1873-1879 happened for the same basic reason as the housing collapse. Free money lent by government. More expansive monetary policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Since the Fed's creation, there were only a few severe depressions, the one in the 1920s, mainly caused by a sudden drop in government spending after WWI;
A Central Bank is a Central Bank, it doesn't matter what it's called. Government or an oligarchy manipulating the economy.
We had a mini depression in the early 1920's. The reason we got out of it was the reason you incorrectly stated that caused it. Taxes and government spending were reduced by 40 percent over 2 years time. Unemployment went from 12 to under 4. The drop in government spending, meaning the opposite of an expansive monetary policy, saved the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession. The score is that these events are few and far between now that the 100 years prior that were littered with wild boom and busts..
While you "agree" that social welfare, social welfare helps nobody, the evidence says otherwise. I can point to countless examples of people who grew up poor and would have stayed in that class, had it not been for subsidized nutrition programs and subsidized college education. Those people grew up to be productive members of society.
The idea that a poor child is better off without enough food, than being fed through SNAP, has no logical foundation. The same goes for publicly provided immunizations.
Quit treating symptoms. The cause of many being poor and needing government assistance is the horrible economic conditions that government creates. The gap between the rich and poor is widening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
As an example, the poverty rate fell and in my view that helps somebody.
To theorize that "Capital would also flow to productive hands, and we ALL benefit from this as a society," ignores the fact that this didn't happen in the generations prior to these social programs. These programs were a reaction to failures at the time.
Technology has been the biggest factor in getting help for the needy, not government. Because government has been the main cause of the economic collapses we should continue to follow their advice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Essentially, you are arguing against monetary policy in general. The reality is that the Fed uses monetary policy to control inflation and unemployment.
Government is the one who creates the booms and busts. And they haven't done a good job of it in the long run, ever.
A Central Bank is a Central Bank, it doesn't matter what it's called. Government or an oligarchy manipulating the economy.
We had a mini depression in the early 1920's. The reason we got out of it was the reason you incorrectly stated that caused it. Taxes and government spending were reduced by 40 percent over 2 years time. Unemployment went from 12 to under 4. The drop in government spending, meaning the opposite of an expansive monetary policy, saved the economy.
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.
