Money bomb

2

Comments

  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    What party is he running on? Because as long as he cozies up to the 2-party system, I won't vote for him...
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    Jeanwah wrote:
    What party is he running on? Because as long as he cozies up to the 2-party system, I won't vote for him...

    I guess he won't get your vote. He IS running Republican. He HAS run as a Libertarian back in 1988. Since Perot, 3rd parties have hardly cracked 3% in this country in a national election. Part of the reason for this is that the league of women's voters used to get to choose who was in the televised debates, and has since been replaced by a committee made up of strictly Republicans and Democrats. I can't remember the acronym they use, but I'm pretty sure there's an R and a D in there, and they're not hiding the fact that THEY choose who gets to debate. Ideally, Dr. Paul would love for there to be more competition in elections, but there are very powerful forces from keeping this from happening as I just mentioned. Since he returned to Congress, he has decided to work within the system. Technically, according to the orginal Republican platform, he's one of the few true Republicans actually left-- why should he change his party when everyone else desecrated the meaning and name of being a Republican ? ;)

    Jean, I'm like you. I never vote for either of the 2 parties because I feel that they are ultimately the problem. They only compromise to screw us all. They'll fight and fight and fight, talk aboug cutting each other's programs, and then compromise on spending us into oblivion by spending more on each-- all thanks to the never-ending money tree, The Federal Reserve, as they will always be there to write the checks (until our money becomes useless). This guy has my vote. I've followed him closely since late '07, and he's easily the most consistent and honest person I've ever seen in politics. If people could ignore the (R) in his name, and actually READ his ideas, I think most people will find that he's not an evil anarcho-capitalist as so many paint him to be.

    I just re-read the article I posted above. Check that out. It gives a pretty concise plan of what his first term as president would look like-- and I don't think people will be all that afraid of him being a "radical" based on what he has written there.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    Technically, according to the orginal Republican platform, he's one of the few true Republicans actually left-- why should he change his party when everyone else desecrated the meaning and name of being a Republican ? ;)

    I just re-read my post. It reminds me of Michael Bolton from Office Space, in reference to Michael Bolton the singer...

    Samir: "Why don't you just go by Mike?"
    Michael Bolton: "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks!"

    :D
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    RW81233 wrote:
    no i'm suggesting that free market capitalism doesn't work. see how it treated argentina, chile, iceland, etc.

    I don't know their histories, but if they had central banks, and government issued fiat currencies, they sure weren't Free Market or "Austrian Free Market" as Dr. Paul endorses.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    his platform will not win over the majority needed to win. pure and simple, people will not take the positions of ayn rand. i'm sorry, but selfishness has no place in out society. he was not even allowed to debate last time, and when he did the republicans and especially fox news scoffed at him. do not forget that if you are republican or "conservative" and fox news does not back you, you are sunk.

    He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    RW81233 wrote:
    no i'm suggesting that free market capitalism doesn't work. see how it treated argentina, chile, iceland, etc.

    If you're suggesting that we have free market capitalism, you are way off. The free market doesn't have gov't bailiouts. It doesn't have the gov't pick which banks and companies are "too big to fail"We have a crony corporatist capitalism.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,840
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    his platform will not win over the majority needed to win. pure and simple, people will not take the positions of ayn rand. i'm sorry, but selfishness has no place in out society. he was not even allowed to debate last time, and when he did the republicans and especially fox news scoffed at him. do not forget that if you are republican or "conservative" and fox news does not back you, you are sunk.

    He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
    are you telling me that latinos, african americans and other minorities are going to vote for him? are you telling me that someone who depends on medicare, like the elderly are going to vote for him? doubtful, and those are 2 of the main demographics anyone has to win. regardless of who gets the gop nob, they will lose the latinos for the gop stance on immigration. they will lose the elderly with talk of cutting or fucking with medicare. this society is not as selfish as it would have to be to elect ron paul. sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. look at the backlash against rand paul already. the tea party is furious because he found out that it is not so easy to implement his campaign promises. far right economic policy will not work. too many people will be left to die.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Dr. Ron Paul was the only Republican to vote NAY on entering Iraq. He has my vote and today he has my MONEY. Happily donated.
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    RW81233 wrote:
    no i'm suggesting that free market capitalism doesn't work. see how it treated argentina, chile, iceland, etc.

    tell that to the 10.5 million households in the USA that are millionaries.
    projected to be 20 million in 2020.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,840
    in march 2011 there were approximately 8.4 million in the us with assets of a million or more.... did it increase 20% in a month and a half? if so our economy is booming...

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bus ... 75023.html
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    his platform will not win over the majority needed to win. pure and simple, people will not take the positions of ayn rand. i'm sorry, but selfishness has no place in out society. he was not even allowed to debate last time, and when he did the republicans and especially fox news scoffed at him. do not forget that if you are republican or "conservative" and fox news does not back you, you are sunk.

    He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
    are you telling me that latinos, african americans and other minorities are going to vote for him? are you telling me that someone who depends on medicare, like the elderly are going to vote for him? doubtful, and those are 2 of the main demographics anyone has to win. regardless of who gets the gop nob, they will lose the latinos for the gop stance on immigration. they will lose the elderly with talk of cutting or fucking with medicare. this society is not as selfish as it would have to be to elect ron paul. sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. look at the backlash against rand paul already. the tea party is furious because he found out that it is not so easy to implement his campaign promises. far right economic policy will not work. too many people will be left to die.
    Society may be too selfish to vote for Ron Paul! Wars, government programs that help the poor in-name-only, all while inflation destroys what little money they have to pay for it all. The poor are TAXED through inflation to pay for their own benefits. It's all smoke and mirrors. Read the article that I posted above. Some would argue that the war on drugs is biased against minorities, it has encarcerated more minorities than any other policy. Shit, cannabis prohibition was racially motivated-- research how cannabis became known as Marijuana. Anyway, back on topic-- Ron Paul wants to end all of this bullshit. Liberty is a popular message-- I don't see why anyone would want to vote against it, although it happens. I think the hearts and minds of the youth are trending strongly towards a freer society, and it's with the youth that any good revolution begins. And if we're worried about people being left to die, did I mention that Ron Paul wants to end the wars and bring the troops home? Again man, if he's not your thing, he's not your thing. All I'm saying is, calling him unelectable is kryptonite, even if it's how you really feel. I do believe he has a legitamite shot at being elected this go-around.

    As for Rand-- he's a Junior single-vote in the Senate. He's made no promises but to vote consistently as he campaigned and he has done that. He put out his version of the budget long before Ryan OR Obama, which did make significant cuts. In the words of Peter Schiff, and I paraphrase, our budget-cut goals if framed in the perspective of a football field, would require us to score a touchdown from our own 1 yard line on 4th and long. When money cut from the deficit was converted to yards, both Ryan and Obama's budgets were akin to advancing us to our own 2 and 2.5 yard lines. Rand's would have put us at our own 30, and he called it "modest."

    Maybe your point is that the general worldview of libertarian thought is equal to selfishness, although I would argue that is not true if fully understood. I wish it were that people could judge the Ron Paul / Obama debate from the stand point of What both of these men have done, and how they have voted instead of what they say they will do combined with party affiliation. To anyone who values peace and liberty, it's a no-brainer, and I can't see why the people won't be demanding this for themselves in the near future.
  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    in march 2011 there were approximately 8.4 million in the us with assets of a million or more.... did it increase 20% in a month and a half? if so our economy is booming...

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bus ... 75023.html

    Probably just different methods of counting them.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Number-of ... 8.html?x=0

    Again, you can call it selfish, but I call it giving people liberty and freedom.

    I personally believe that our gov't should provide for some sort of safety net to those that truly need it. But from my own personal experience and knowledge, it is inefficient, abused, and way too bloated.

    At my company(40+ employees), we have gone through numerous lab technicians because they have basically stopped showing up because they would rather get unemployment than to work. The pay isn't that great, starting at 26-28k, but we pay for health/dental/vision insurance, two yearly bonuses, and 3% matching retirement. Yet, they would rather get unemployment benefits than work.

    My mother's company is the same way. Except its a much larger compnay(1000+) and the pay is much less(20-24k), but it is located in Iowa where cost of living is extremely low. Unemployment is about 6.7%, but because people think they are above taking phone calls and can make about the same or more than that not working, they work for 3 months and then stop showing up.
  • RW81233
    RW81233 Posts: 2,393
    let me clarify...Argentina and Chile were the Chicago School's test study's on Free Market Crapitalism (read David Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism for a fuller explanation). The Chicago School (Milton Friedman etc.) were Randian economists, and have since suggested that they were wrong (see: Giroux and Giroux 2008 something like beyond bailouts on the truthout website). Put differently, a system that is essentially the science of exploitation (of resources, labor, etc.) is bound to fail...it may work for a few years, but it is seemingly unsustainable (what happens when we reach the upper-limits of exploited people? do we go back to those we exploited first?). I don't agree with the bailouts or TARP, I don't agree with the war, but I do agree with more flexible social welfare policies that have the ability to change with the times (i.e. people are living longer so we need to change social security, many "blue collar" jobs have been outsourced for cheaper labor so the middle class is disappearing so we need to tax/tariff the people who are benefiting most from outsourced labor, etc.). In other words I believe in Obama the man not Obama the politician. Further libertarianism is basically the end result of the uber-rich shifting the blame from themselves (who have seen an increase in real income since 1970) to the poor (who have not seen the same thing), and the middle class who is currently unfairly taxed believes them. If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    RW81233 wrote:
    If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.

    The Federal Reserve is not to blame?
  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    RW81233 wrote:
    If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.

    The Federal Reserve is not to blame?

    Have you done a study on libertarians to back this up?

    Ron Paul is a believer in Austrian economics, which is different than Chicago.
  • CH156378
    CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    311jj wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    in march 2011 there were approximately 8.4 million in the us with assets of a million or more.... did it increase 20% in a month and a half? if so our economy is booming...

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bus ... 75023.html

    Probably just different methods of counting them.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Number-of ... 8.html?x=0

    Again, you can call it selfish, but I call it giving people liberty and freedom.

    I personally believe that our gov't should provide for some sort of safety net to those that truly need it. But from my own personal experience and knowledge, it is inefficient, abused, and way too bloated.

    At my company(40+ employees), we have gone through numerous lab technicians because they have basically stopped showing up because they would rather get unemployment than to work. The pay isn't that great, starting at 26-28k, but we pay for health/dental/vision insurance, two yearly bonuses, and 3% matching retirement. Yet, they would rather get unemployment benefits than work.

    My mother's company is the same way. Except its a much larger compnay(1000+) and the pay is much less(20-24k), but it is located in Iowa where cost of living is extremely low. Unemployment is about 6.7%, but because people think they are above taking phone calls and can make about the same or more than that not working, they work for 3 months and then stop showing up.


    3 months of work then not showing up qualifies someone for unemployment?
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    311jj wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    RW81233 wrote:
    If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.

    The Federal Reserve is not to blame?

    Have you done a study on libertarians to back this up?

    Ron Paul is a believer in Austrian economics, which is different than Chicago.

    You don't hear Paul talk about Friedman very much, that's for sure.
  • CH156378
    CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    i love companies that hire through temp agencies work you like a dog with the hope that after six months you might get hired in. but when it comes to that time the foreman is waiting by the time clock and says to that person "sorry we don't need you anymore" just to get in a new bunch of temps the next day.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    Two of the greatest videos on youtube!
    Keynes vs. Hayek!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo ... re=related

    2nd Round!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    CH156378 wrote:
    i love companies that hire through temp agencies work you like a dog with the hope that after six months you might get hired in. but when it comes to that time the foreman is waiting by the time clock and says to that person "sorry we don't need you anymore" just to get in a new bunch of temps the next day.

    May i suggest you hone your skills or chose a different career path?

Categories