Ron Paul in 2012

[punked]

1) No one has spent as much as Obama.

2) No one has racked up as much debt as Obama.

3) No one has started the medicare system that Obama rammed through.

High system? Do you mean highway system? That is not socialist, please try again.

Yes FDR was socialist, but he's been spent under the table by the big O. Putting him way out on the left wing with FDR is a good start, however.

Bush spent more then Obama, Bush racked up more debt, you have no idea what the "medicare" system Obama rammed through even is so......

Right now you are batting 0 for.

I know it is hard for you but I think it is time for you call Bush the most socialist president now. I will be waiting.

[punked]

You really must hate American history too. Medicare was signed into law by President Johnson.

I meant LBJ but got a head of myself. Thank you Shady for the correction.

[msj]

Houses cost more, cars cost more, gas costs more, food costs more.

If you are talking about Canada then, yes, housing does cost more.

If you are talking about the US then, no, housing, on average is down and costs as much in 2012 as it used to cost (on average) in 1999.

Too bad all those people took on debt and are stuck paying the debt on a declining "asset." [Or wisely walking away from it]

Inflation takes into account rising prices, lower wages and a devalued currency (less buying power). I personally think Krugman is out to lunch.

No, inflation statistics look at a basket of goods to account for changes in prices.

You could increase income taxes by 25%, for example, and this would have a dire impact on one's income (lower) while having little to no impact (at least in the short term) on inflation.

A devalued currency no doubt has an impact on inflation but as US inflation statistics show, contrary to your anecdata, the effect has been sweet frick all over the past 4 years of inflationista shrill panic.

Lower wages, however, will certainly exacerbate inflation.

If inflation runs at even 2% per year and your wages don't increase at all then after about 5 years you are going to be behind by over 10%.

But then one should be complaining about an economy where wages aren't increasing rather than a modest inflation rate.

Edited December 21, 2011 by msj

[punked]

The numbers I am giving are not cherry picking, I am telling you exactly what I have observed in over 20 years experience in the grocery business. And I still do not think you understand the scope of what I have explained that contributes to rising prices of goods (aka inflation). The cost of doing business in the grocery industry has risen drastically over the past decade. Trucks cost more, fuel costs more, industrial electronic equipment costs more. Every sector of the grocery industry has experiences higher operating costs. The only thing that may have done down is the wage that people make. And when people don't make as much money as they used to they stop purchasing luxury items just so they can eat.

Houses cost more, cars cost more, gas costs more, food costs more.

I did not say rich people, I said luxury items. Maybe you need to understand what luxury items are. People don't need luxury items like , a TV for example. but everyone needs to eat. The places where people spend the most money on (like food) the prices have gone up up up. Not just goods but services have gone up as well.

And from your article Krugman writes :

Inflation takes into account rising prices, lower wages and a devalued currency (less buying power). I personally think Krugman is out to lunch.

The reason why they calculate inflation the way they do instead of going about to ask grocers opinions on it, is because quantitative numbers with real values give a real idea of inflation. Stories from Grocers just don't cut it when factoring all the things that come with inflation.

In the US houses cost less leading I am sure to the lower inflation numbers. Fact is I posted a link to the inflation numbers and you keep telling me your opinion as a grocer. Sorry that aing going to cute it.

You think Krugman is out to lunch? Why because he uses the real inflation number to prove his point and you tell anecdotes? Is that why?

Edited December 21, 2011 by punked

[sharkman]

Bush spent more then Obama, Bush racked up more debt, you have no idea what the "medicare" system Obama rammed through even is so......

Right now you are batting 0 for.

I know it is hard for you but I think it is time for you call Bush the most socialist president now. I will be waiting.

Then why did you not first compare Bush to Obama? Now suddenly you drop the FDR comparison? So what kind of game are you playing?

[punked]

Then why did you not first compare Bush to Obama? Now suddenly you drop the FDR comparison? So what kind of game are you playing?

I didn't define Socialism by how much they added to the debt you did. I think Socialism is much more complex then that but silly people on the right refuse to actually understand what it is so they make silly claims. I was just pointing out how if that is how you define it then Bush is the most Socialist president. You would agree according to your definition right that you think Bush is the most socialist?

[Michael Hardner]

Right now the US has a president that is the most socialist in their history and as extremist as has ever been.

These are just platitudes. Tax rates are lower than under Eisenhower or Reagan.

[Shady]

These are just platitudes. Tax rates are lower than under Eisenhower or Reagan.

That's just not true. The top rate under Reagan was 28%. Your's is also a platitude.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Shady

[sharkman]

These are just platitudes. Tax rates are lower than under Eisenhower or Reagan.

Whatever they are it's thanks to Bush.

Edited December 21, 2011 by sharkman

[sharkman]

I didn't define Socialism by how much they added to the debt you did. I think Socialism is much more complex then that but silly people on the right refuse to actually understand what it is so they make silly claims. I was just pointing out how if that is how you define it then Bush is the most Socialist president. You would agree according to your definition right that you think Bush is the most socialist?

Yes socialism is much more than spending, but that is a common trait of a socialist. If one is to compare Bush to Obama, who's only had 3 years on office, one could play with the numbers to make it appear that Bush, who had eight, spent more, but that would be a short sighted comparison indeed.

[punked]

Yes socialism is much more than spending, but that is a common trait of a socialist. If one is to compare Bush to Obama, who's only had 3 years on office, one could play with the numbers to make it appear that Bush, who had eight, spent more, but that would be a short sighted comparison indeed.

Yes it would but because Bush spent more then every other president Carter, Clinton, Truman, I guess we can say he is the second most Socialist right? According to you.

[Michael Hardner]

Whatever they are it's thanks to Bush.

Right. So the platitude part is that anybody who doesn't cut taxes is socialist. If taxes are 0% and somebody adds a 1% sales tax then they're socialist.

George Bush Sr. ? Socialist. Etc.

[Michael Hardner]

That's just not true. The top rate under Reagan was 28%. Your's is also a platitude.

I will check my facts on this.

[Shady]

I will check my facts on this.

Also, state income tax rates are a lot higher now than under Reagan and Eisenhower.

[msj]

Also, state income tax rates are a lot higher now than under Reagan and Eisenhower.

I didn't know that the POTUS could set State tax rates.

[sharkman]

Yes it would but because Bush spent more then every other president Carter, Clinton, Truman, I guess we can say he is the second most Socialist right? According to you.

What part of the below do you not understand?

Yes socialism is much more than spending, but that is a common trait of a socialist.

[Shady]

I didn't know that the POTUS could set State tax rates.

They don't. But they're still higher taxes levied on tax payers. Much higher now than under Reagan and Eisenhower. So the myth about tax rates are the lowest ever, or in a long time is completely ridiculous. During Reagan and Eisenhower, there were some states that didn't even have a state income tax. Now some states have one's close to 20%.

[bud]

They don't. But they're still higher taxes levied on tax payers. Much higher now than under Reagan and Eisenhower. So the myth about tax rates are the lowest ever, or in a long time is completely ridiculous. During Reagan and Eisenhower, there were some states that didn't even have a state income tax. Now some states have one's close to 20%.

so... blame the socialist/communist/nazi/muslim obama for what the states choose to do with their taxes?

[dre]

Yes socialism is much more than spending, but that is a common trait of a socialist. If one is to compare Bush to Obama, who's only had 3 years on office, one could play with the numbers to make it appear that Bush, who had eight, spent more, but that would be a short sighted comparison indeed.

No this is really all just horseshit. Obama is a typical corporatist - almost the exact opposite of a socialist. And equating government spending to socialism is too silly to even comment on.

[sharkman]

No this is really all just horseshit. Obama is a typical corporatist - almost the exact opposite of a socialist. And equating government spending to socialism is too silly to even comment on.

Oh come on. At least make the attempt. Obama's complete history, supporters, appointees, legislation and pronouncements against 'big business' all run counter to your claim.

[cybercoma]

Right now the US has a president that is the most socialist

Stop repeating FOX's hyperbole. Obama isn't even remotely close to socialism. That's like saying that Regan was the most fascist president in history. Neither is even remotely close to being true and it does nothing for discussion. I make Obama look like a conservative and I would consider myself a social democrat, rather than a democratic socialist.

[cybercoma]

That isn't the point inflation isn't a measurement of food prices. It is a measurement of the dollar against all things which cost money. Food prices can go up but gas prices go down and you have 0 inflation. That is the point and the fact is over the last three years there has been ALOT and I mean ALOT of American money printed with NO INFLATION. That is the point, Ron Paul is dead wrong.

Usually they exclude food and oil from the basket of goods used to determine the CPI, which they sometimes use to determine inflation. It depends on what calculation they're looking at.

[Shady]

Obama's pretty left-leaning. He'd probably be better suited as a leader of a European country than President of the United States.

[dre]

Oh come on. At least make the attempt. Obama's complete history, supporters, appointees, legislation and pronouncements against 'big business' all run counter to your claim.

No they dont. Obama is a corporate welfare nut. Just about all of his solutions for every problem involve doling out tax payer money to private corporations. A socialist does not even support the existance of these corporations, and the very LAST thing a socialist would be doing is taxing the common population and then turning the money over to the private sector.

Obama is another corporatist. I wouldnt describe these people are either liberal or conservative really. It just depends what the private sectors asks them for.

[LonJowett]

Oh come on. At least make the attempt. Obama's complete history, supporters, appointees, legislation and pronouncements against 'big business' all run counter to your claim.

You mean like the people from Goldman Sachs in his administration?

I can see why you consistently try to avoid providing sources and verifiable facts in your posts. That would just make it more obvious you don't know what you're talking about.