Ron Paul in 2012

[maple_leafs182]

Yep, they ignored him at first .. then gave him some air time .. and now sidelined and ignored again.

yup, he got 89 seconds to speak the last debate.

[GostHacked]

yup, he got 89 seconds to speak the last debate.

Is that total?

[maple_leafs182]

Is that total?

yes

[bush_cheney2004]

yes

Sounds about right...that's all Ron Paul has to contribute...about 89 seconds worth of Libertarian extremism. He'll be watching the election like the rest of us.

[Michael Hardner]

Ron Paul - bad lip reading video

[drake]

Ron Paul - bad lip reading video

The video is pretty funny and I'm a supporter and have been for thirty years (though I didn't think he was libertarian enough to run for the LP). Americans have the option to get themselves out of their current mess with Ron Paul, if they don't take it, they'll live with the consequences (as will the rest of us).

Anyway, winning the US Presidency is sort of like winning the Special Olympics.

Edited November 25, 2011 by drake

[Guest American Woman]

The video is pretty funny and I'm a supporter and have been for thirty years (though I didn't think he was libertarian enough to run for the LP). Americans have the option to get themselves out of their current mess with Ron Paul, if they don't take it, they'll live with the consequences (as will the rest of us).

Anyway, winning the US Presidency is sort of like winning the Special Olympics.

Anyway, winning the US Presidency is sort of like winning the Special Olympics.

Well, at least the level of intelligence of that statement helps me understand where your support lies.

But do consider yourself forewarned: "the rest of [you]" will have to "live with the consequences." Americans will not be voting Ron Paul in as POTUS.

[GostHacked]

Anyway, winning the US Presidency is sort of like winning the Special Olympics.

Bush Jr, could have been the poster boy for the event!

But do consider yourself forewarned: "the rest of [you]" will have to "live with the consequences." Americans will not be voting Ron Paul in as POTUS.

Actually you will have to live with the consequences. Just like you are living with the consequences of Obama getting elected. Hope and Change 2.0?

[maple_leafs182]

Americans will not be voting Ron Paul in as POTUS.

Speak for yourself.

Iowa's National Federation of Republic Assemblies Presidential Preference Convention and Straw Poll released its results on Saturday, and Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul was by far the favorite, taking a commanding 82 percent of the vote

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313643#ixzz1er2YyOCi

My prediction, Ron Paul first in Iowa and it is looking like a second maybe third in New Hampshire.

Edited November 26, 2011 by maple_leafs182

[Guest American Woman]

Speak for yourself.

No, I can pretty much speak for America on this one. Trust me.

[tducey82]

Ron Paul should make things interesting throughout the Republican primary but I doubt very much he'll ever become US president.

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul should make things interesting throughout the Republican primary but I doubt very much he'll ever become US president.

If Ron Paul doesn't become president it is because Americans have chosen to remain ignorant towards the biggest problem of their country and that is the Federal Reserve and the monetary system.

[Michael Hardner]

If Ron Paul doesn't become president it is because Americans have chosen to remain ignorant towards the biggest problem of their country and that is the Federal Reserve and the monetary system.

This is a giant bogeyman as far as I'm concerned. Is the point to not allow the government to run any deficits ? To increase the reserve requirements of banks ?

Any big change could cause a greater shock than can be withstood.

[GostHacked]

This is a giant bogeyman as far as I'm concerned.

Not so much the bogeyman but the elephant in the room.

Is the point to not allow the government to run any deficits ? To increase the reserve requirements of banks ?

Not so much deficits, but the amount of total overall debt the nation has and keeps accumulating. Something people are always overlooking.

Any big change could cause a greater shock than can be withstood.

The shock is going to happen anyways.

[Michael Hardner]

Not so much deficits, but the amount of total overall debt the nation has and keeps accumulating. Something people are always overlooking.

The graphs on this page are interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

particularly THIS one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PublicDebtTriade.PNG

Interesting to me as it doesn't seem to reflect any major increases due to the gold standard, but instead we see:

- A large rise during the Reagan/Bush I era - presumably funding the military, which ended the cold war. A good investment IMO

- Slight declines during the Clinton era, and slight increases during Bush II

- A bigger increase since the 2008 recession.

The shock is going to happen anyways.

You also (I believe) said that they were trying to cut all benefits in Greece, i.e. the collapse of the so-called Ponzi scheme. Was that you ?

Austerity measures call for deep cuts, but not 50% ... and definitely not the shock therapy of a Paulist government.

[GostHacked]

The graphs on this page are interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

Yeah that number is correct, 9 trillion in US debt.

You also (I believe) said that they were trying to cut all benefits in Greece, i.e. the collapse of the so-called Ponzi scheme. Was that you ?

Austerity measures call for deep cuts, but not 50% ... and definitely not the shock therapy of a Paulist government.

I said eventually those programs are going to be in trouble. Since they are actually reducing some of those benefits, it's not hard to conclude that those benefits can be completely taken away. The fact they are dipping into these programs in any case shows you what the real state of the economies are in.

You need to consider this. There are continually less and less people fully paying into these programs. Low wage jobs across the board mean people are not contributing as much as they used to. People on welfare can't contribute to the system. So the more people you have making low wages, or no wages at all, the government money will eventually run out. It already has. Just the fact the USA is 9 TRILLION in total debt, regardless of the GDP. The debt keeps rising!

More people making less money

More people on social assistance.

Less people paying back into the system.

Less and less money is available to those who need it.

If all spending was cut now, how long would it take for the USA to pay off a 9 trillion dollar debt load?

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah that number is correct, 9 trillion in US debt.

...

It already has. Just the fact the USA is 9 TRILLION in total debt, regardless of the GDP. The debt keeps rising!

...

If all spending was cut now, how long would it take for the USA to pay off a 9 trillion dollar debt load?

According to THIS if you use 2008 which was a bad year... it would take 5 years.

The number seems big, but inflation does that, see ?

[GostHacked]

According to THIS if you use 2008 which was a bad year... it would take 5 years.

The number seems big, but inflation does that, see ?

So why not just take 5 years and pay it off? What is the benefit and purpose of perpetual debt?

Also would be nice to see the total debt line in comparison with those tax revenue lines.

Edited November 29, 2011 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Also would be nice to see the total debt line in comparison with those tax revenue lines.

Debt is used to fund things over long periods of time.

It wouldn't make sense to pay for a house with cash, so you hold a mortgage. Likewise with large projects, they can be funded over the life of the project. Similarly, you can pay in to "rainy day" funds like EI during good times, and run them at a deficit during bad times.

Of course, that's not what these things are used for. They are increasingly used as credit cards, to satisfy political needs without regard for the real ramifications.

Edited to add:

So why not just take 5 years and pay it off? What is the benefit and purpose of perpetual debt?

The economy would be slammed, spending would grind to a halt... millions upon millions would be unemployed... even if you're thinking about keeping roads and armies under your total austerity plan.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It wouldn't make sense to pay for a house with cash, so you hold a mortgage. Likewise with large projects, they can be funded over the life of the project. Similarly, you can pay in to "rainy day" funds like EI during good times, and run them at a deficit during bad times....

The US has no intention of "paying off" all the debt, because it doesn't have to. Monetizing the debt and selling even more at lower interest rates is the norm. Debt service is managed like any other nondiscretionary budget item....and it is here to stay.

US bonds and T-bill rates are down, not up as the world seeks a stable haven. This is counter-intuitive given advertised economic risks and fiscal largess, but nevertheless is the observed behaviour.

[olp1fan]

Ron Paul is the only hope the US has

[Michael Hardner]

The US has no intention of "paying off" all the debt, because it doesn't have to. Monetizing the debt and selling even more at lower interest rates is the norm. Debt service is managed like any other nondiscretionary budget item....and it is here to stay.

US bonds and T-bill rates are down, not up as the world seeks a stable haven. This is counter-intuitive given advertised economic risks and fiscal largess, but nevertheless is the observed behaviour.

Of course you're speaking about reality, not the case which I was commenting on.

[Michael Hardner]

Ron Paul is the only hope the US has

I thought you were something of a leftist ?

In any case, someone with wild plans to fundamentally change things, with no practical experience will either hopefully fail, or (less likely) succeed and (likely) cause a disaster.

[dre]

The graphs on this page are interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

particularly THIS one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PublicDebtTriade.PNG

Interesting to me as it doesn't seem to reflect any major increases due to the gold standard, but instead we see:

- A large rise during the Reagan/Bush I era - presumably funding the military, which ended the cold war. A good investment IMO

- Slight declines during the Clinton era, and slight increases during Bush II

- A bigger increase since the 2008 recession.

You also (I believe) said that they were trying to cut all benefits in Greece, i.e. the collapse of the so-called Ponzi scheme. Was that you ?

Austerity measures call for deep cuts, but not 50% ... and definitely not the shock therapy of a Paulist government.

I dont read those graphs the way you do. I see pronounced change in how much debt/money was being created shortly after 1971. Up until then 1 trillion dollars of money stock had been created in the previous THREE HUNDRED YEARS. After that point we see both the ammount of debt, and the ammount of M3 take off and expand much faster than the real economy.

From confederation up until the gold window closed (over 300 years) the money supply grew by less than 1 trillion dollars. In 39 years under the global fiat empire it has grown more than 10 trillion dollars. Look at graphs for inflation, M3, and Debt... even across any number of different industrialized nations and youll see roughly the same thing.

Also... Im not sure what there is to argue here. Most economists dont want to go back to the gold standard and neither do I. But the view that closing the gold window had an inflationary effect on both the monetary base and the ammount of debt is utterly uncontraversial. I would have simply been impossible to grow the debt (and by extensiont he money supply) at that rate on any kind of commodity based currency.

This shows the monetary base, debt, and inflation.

Heres similar data for India...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c9/Components_of_the_money_supply_of_india_1970-2007.gif/400px-Components_of_the_money_supply_of_india_1970-2007.gif

Australia...

http://www.southsearepublic.org/files/ssr/16/m3_money_aggregate_2006.jpg

Canada...

http://dollardaze.org/blog/posts/2007/May/29/1/CanadaM1MoneySupply.gif

The only real question is how long can this last? Its pretty clear that we arent going to just voluntarily fix this, so Im curious what the transition will look like, and what will come next.

If this massive exponential growth in the money supply, inflation, and debt is unsustainable then we need a system that does not guarantee those things. If it IS sustainable we need to stop stressing out about defecits and just always dump enough new money into the economy to achieve full employment.

Edited November 29, 2011 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

I dont read those graphs the way you do. I see pronounced change in how much debt/money was being created shortly after 1971. Up until then 1 trillion dollars of money stock had been created in the previous THREE HUNDRED YEARS. After that point we see both the ammount of debt, and the ammount of M3 take off and expand much faster than the real economy.

Why 300 years ? Why not 3000 ? And what about just showing the 20th century.

The graph doesn't show any big bump happening after 1971 to speak of.

Also... Im not sure what there is to argue here. Most economists dont want to go back to the gold standard and neither do I. But the view that closing the gold window had an inflationary effect on both the monetary base and the ammount of debt is utterly uncontraversial. I would have simply been impossible to grow the debt (and by extensiont he money supply) at that rate on any kind of commodity based currency.

But... they could (and did) print more money anyway couldn't they ?

The only real question is how long can this last? Its pretty clear that we arent going to just voluntarily fix this, so Im curious what the transition will look like, and what will come next.

Why won't we voluntarily fix it ? That seems to be the focus of discussion these days.

If this massive exponential growth in the money supply, inflation, and debt is unsustainable then we need a system that does not guarantee those things. If it IS sustainable we need to stop stressing out about defecits and just always dump enough new money into the economy to achieve full employment.

I don't see exponential growth in those graphs. The US went from about 45% to about 60% of GDP, and it actually declined from the peak.