All undesirable results of those were the product of giant ****s taken by the GOP.
The Ultra-Early Best Damn Republican Nominee Political Poll Ever
- Thread starter The-Joker
- Start date
All undesirable results of those were the product of giant ****s taken by the GOP.
Good to have you back... now leave.
I'm in favor of ending these ineffective and worthless programs too. The money being taken from American's paychecks has been treated by the courts as a tax, not a benefit for taxpayers. I think the previous deductions should be repaid at standard bank interest and paid for outta taxes, while no further deductions are made. The other retirement tax sheltered programs like 401(k)s are being looked at with great ideas by progressives considering them assets the government should seize to balance their books and replaced by further unfunded "social security". 'Freakn' thieves.
If you compare all these ideas with Ron Paul's or my idea of ending the ripoff raids on people's money with high-falutin' promises of "securtiy" based on bankrupt fiat-currency-printin' counterfeit money "regulating" government, he's the only one out there calling it all what it is. And promising to end the ripoffs and the excess spending.
Our lack of "inflation" is the result of outsourcing jobs to slave-labor/massive polluters who can produce cheap stuff, and the inability of Americans to generally afford housing even at present still-inflated bubble prices,as measured against peoples' earnings. A lot of prices are going up, and people are not able to afford to spend like they did when they could finance huge consumer outlays with easy credit money from inflating home "values". But a lot of our non-inflation is just being ignored and not accurately tracked by government CPI policies. Been to a grocery store lately? Compare your gas pump outlays with historical prices? People have cut back spending and contracted the economy so much even the Chinese are complaining about losing us as customers.
Deflation is the other head of this economic monster. If people can't pay for stuff, producers have to sell for less. Maybe go outta business. More jobs lost. But government spending for worthless projects like rescuing bad bankers is not gonna do us any good. Goldman-Sachs and other selected/annointed TBTF banks have taken their gov bailout/easy credit funds and used them to try to support their bad investments, and since that money is all worthless so far as sustaining productive jobs, it will fail ultimately to start our economy from having liquidity to support productive jobs.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
You know you love our partisan 4-play.
Without a sense of humor, US voters would just be a bad B-film of the The Walking Dead.
You may want to employ an editor before running for office.
Medicare undeniably provides medical services to those who otherwise couldn't afford them and does so at a generally lower cost than private insurance plans. I would hardly call that "worthless and ineffective."
Social Security has, for the most part, acted as a social insurance program for a lot of people who would otherwise not have any money at retirement and as a compensation system for those who lose their support structures. One need only examine what happened to the elderly before the institution of these programs (and they did not go to a butterfly farm upstate) to refute the proposition that these programs are ineffective and worthless.
Where are you going with this? What relevance does this have? I'm asking because your understanding of the meaning of what courts do and the legal system has been a bit sketchy in the past and this reads as though you think this has some special import.
Link? Sort of sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Funny story: even if SS were to go "bankrupt" they wouldn't stop paying benefits. The rates would just be reduced. That would inflict pain on those who depend on SS benefits, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as ending the program in its entirety.
So what's your position here? There's a lot to unpack here, but it appears you are stating that printing money ALWAYS leads to inflation. That is usually true but not universally so. The liquidity trap is one of the times when it is not so. Ron Paul and other Austrians tend, as a rule, to ignore most empirical data in favor of thought experiments. This renders their theses unfalsifiable, but fair readings of other liquidity trap situations indicate that printing money tends to be non-inflationary for as long as the trap is extant.
These things were true, to the extend that they are true, conditions in 2007 as much as they are today. Hard to claim a unique "deflator" as a result.
Gas and food prices tend to be highly variable which is why they are generally excluded from core inflation. You're information here is a bit old though because that was the complaint about "hidden inflation" circa about three to four months ago. Those prices have been easing and now headline inflation is, once again, very low. Even those once predicting inflation through market buys have eased:
You are correct. We have an aggregate demand problem. Now rethink everything else you've said in the context of that diagnosis.
Medicare undeniably provides medical services to those who otherwise couldn't afford them and does so at a generally lower cost than private insurance plans. I would hardly call that "worthless and ineffective."
Social Security has, for the most part, acted as a social insurance program for a lot of people who would otherwise not have any money at retirement and as a compensation system for those who lose their support structures. One need only examine what happened to the elderly before the institution of these programs (and they did not go to a butterfly farm upstate) to refute the proposition that these programs are ineffective and worthless.
Where are you going with this? What relevance does this have? I'm asking because your understanding of the meaning of what courts do and the legal system has been a bit sketchy in the past and this reads as though you think this has some special import.
Link? Sort of sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Funny story: even if SS were to go "bankrupt" they wouldn't stop paying benefits. The rates would just be reduced. That would inflict pain on those who depend on SS benefits, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as ending the program in its entirety.
So what's your position here? There's a lot to unpack here, but it appears you are stating that printing money ALWAYS leads to inflation. That is usually true but not universally so. The liquidity trap is one of the times when it is not so. Ron Paul and other Austrians tend, as a rule, to ignore most empirical data in favor of thought experiments. This renders their theses unfalsifiable, but fair readings of other liquidity trap situations indicate that printing money tends to be non-inflationary for as long as the trap is extant.
These things were true, to the extend that they are true, conditions in 2007 as much as they are today. Hard to claim a unique "deflator" as a result.
Gas and food prices tend to be highly variable which is why they are generally excluded from core inflation. You're information here is a bit old though because that was the complaint about "hidden inflation" circa about three to four months ago. Those prices have been easing and now headline inflation is, once again, very low. Even those once predicting inflation through market buys have eased:
You are correct. We have an aggregate demand problem. Now rethink everything else you've said in the context of that diagnosis.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
This is some Jon Stewart and Ron Paul's lack of popularity in the Republican party. https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier?xrs=share_copy
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Did you leave Newt out on purpose? He lost my favor over the years, but I loved his passion in the debate.
I really like Bachmann's wit.
I didn't expect Huntsman's attack on the EPA. He said “the EPA's regulatory reign of terror” should be brought to an end. He also said that he implemented a flat tax when he was governor of Utah. Is that true?
I like Herman a lot. I think he would bring a great perspective to the economy.
I love Rick for his dedication to social issues.
I kind of wish we could do like Ron says and withdraw our troops from everywhere and bring them home, but I don't think that is a realistic proposal. He certainly had his following at the debates.
I really like Bachmann's wit.
I didn't expect Huntsman's attack on the EPA. He said “the EPA's regulatory reign of terror” should be brought to an end. He also said that he implemented a flat tax when he was governor of Utah. Is that true?
I like Herman a lot. I think he would bring a great perspective to the economy.
I love Rick for his dedication to social issues.
I kind of wish we could do like Ron says and withdraw our troops from everywhere and bring them home, but I don't think that is a realistic proposal. He certainly had his following at the debates.
I sorta lump Newt with Mitt and Jon on grounds they are proven players with the global governance agenda/CFR groupies and you should parse their rhetoric as sound bites intended to charm you out of your senses. As Ambrose Bierce said of "Language: The music with which we charm the serpents guarding other folks treasures."
But they are very smart dudes, and they know where the market share is so far as what voters want to hear.
I noticed the "flat tax" Utah has now, it's well. . . . flatter but not where it affects the very poor. You actually have to make a certain amount before you achieve the flat top rate, just like with our current Federal tax table. So in some sense, Huntsma's claim makes sense, but not perfect sense.
Ron Paul has stood up for his positions when nobody wanted to listen, but he has also learned to work with other, even extremely different politicians where there was some chance for bringing people together to support a good thing. I think that shows character and good sense. He would achieve some of the things he wants, but only where there is plenty of support for them. Other things would have to wait for the consensus to arrive. . .
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
How is Bachmann witty? I will give you crazy. She is strong to her Tea Party crazy base. To see her popularity among the Republicans just help to show how this country is going to $@#% any dumb@#% like Palin and her just have to throw some crazy bait to the crazies and they come in flocks.
Let me refute this mill-knee-slapper real quick to get on with my idea.
Bush won the straw poll in 99. Doll tied for first in 95. Herbert Walker Bush finished 3rd in 87 and 1st in 79 (although he wasn't the nominee in 80, he was the runner up guy).
So anyway... The Ron Paul thing further intrigues me, and it has been running around in my head a lot since his strong Ames showing. With the voter turnout in the Primary's largely being the party motivated and not the middle ground folk, I think Paul has a good chance of picking up a ton of delegates and really has a shot at the nomination for the first time as long as the hype keeps up. He almost tripled his amount of votes from the 07 straw poll.
But I think the interesting quesiton is: How would the party react to Ron Paul 12??? would the concerned Social Reps put up a lame duck 3rd candidate like Bachmann to keep someone who is decidedly more "socially non-intravenous" then Obama is, from turning the motherland into a teenage wasteland of hookers, gamblers, and heroine addicts.
As an advocate of political turmoil and chaos... I would vote Paul. And honestly with the giant **** the GOP has taken over Obama's tenure, I don't think we can afford 4 more years of hostage situation/ chess match/ political bouncy castle.
Bush won the straw poll in 99. Doll tied for first in 95. Herbert Walker Bush finished 3rd in 87 and 1st in 79 (although he wasn't the nominee in 80, he was the runner up guy).
So anyway... The Ron Paul thing further intrigues me, and it has been running around in my head a lot since his strong Ames showing. With the voter turnout in the Primary's largely being the party motivated and not the middle ground folk, I think Paul has a good chance of picking up a ton of delegates and really has a shot at the nomination for the first time as long as the hype keeps up. He almost tripled his amount of votes from the 07 straw poll.
But I think the interesting quesiton is: How would the party react to Ron Paul 12??? would the concerned Social Reps put up a lame duck 3rd candidate like Bachmann to keep someone who is decidedly more "socially non-intravenous" then Obama is, from turning the motherland into a teenage wasteland of hookers, gamblers, and heroine addicts.
As an advocate of political turmoil and chaos... I would vote Paul. And honestly with the giant **** the GOP has taken over Obama's tenure, I don't think we can afford 4 more years of hostage situation/ chess match/ political bouncy castle.