any predictions on tonights rebublican debate?

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

nice to see you guys going into it with the open minds you all talk about



and who ever said it was right....Bachman's campaign will be pure comic gold...I am hoping for another pro/against america type test like she wanted for members of congress before...should be wonderful.

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

if you think that "reaganomics" have been left alone to run a muck for 30 years you are sadly mistaken.

You realize that if we DOUBLED income tax we would still be in a ~900 billion dollar deficit?

but if you simply aren't going to listen to it why even watch it? why not get a new perspective on things...simply taking more in isn't a solution...taking more from those evil rich people isn't a long term solution...Why not prove to the american people that they can be responsible with our money, something that the spending of the current and previous administrations have been unable to do...because then asking for more in the form of tax increases (or in my opinion a tax simplification) won't be seen as putting more money on a bonfire.
It is unfortunate that people had such hatred for bush that watching any republican/conservative say anything needs to be thrown out in that bathwater too...Because Paul's stance on pulling out of Afghanistan and what he said about the weak dollar policies were spot on.

fife

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

nice to see you guys going into it with the open minds you all talk about



and who ever said it was right....Bachman's campaign will be pure comic gold...I am hoping for another pro/against america type test like she wanted for members of congress before...should be wonderful.

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

don't you find that both parties have their key ideas that are always the core of their platform. Obama said the same things that every Democrat said before him but the difference was that more people believe it when he said it.

I think this election will be very interesting.

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

nice to see you guys going into it with the open minds you all talk about



and who ever said it was right....Bachman's campaign will be pure comic gold...I am hoping for another pro/against america type test like she wanted for members of congress before...should be wonderful.

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

As if the last Democratic debates weren't a Bush-bash festival. Keep drinking the Democratic cool-aid. Believe it or not, politicians on both sides are awful... yes, Republicans are wrong sometimes and so are Democrats. I know the latter will come as a shock.

Regardless, question for you... do you even know what the word Keynesian means? If so, explain it and please comment on how the U.S. economic policy, particularly over the last decade, has NOT been actively Keynesian.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

nice to see you guys going into it with the open minds you all talk about



and who ever said it was right....Bachman's campaign will be pure comic gold...I am hoping for another pro/against america type test like she wanted for members of congress before...should be wonderful.

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

if you think that "reaganomics" have been left alone to run a muck for 30 years you are sadly mistaken.

You realize that if we DOUBLED income tax we would still be in a ~900 billion dollar deficit?

but if you simply aren't going to listen to it why even watch it? why not get a new perspective on things...simply taking more in isn't a solution...taking more from those evil rich people isn't a long term solution...Why not prove to the american people that they can be responsible with our money, something that the spending of the current and previous administrations have been unable to do...because then asking for more in the form of tax increases (or in my opinion a tax simplification) won't be seen as putting more money on a bonfire.
It is unfortunate that people had such hatred for bush that watching any republican/conservative say anything needs to be thrown out in that bathwater too...Because Paul's stance on pulling out of Afghanistan and what he said about the weak dollar policies were spot on.

trickle down economics does not work. it is proven to be a horrible economic policy.

you HAVE to increase revenue via taxes. if this is such an emergency situation you have to increase revenue in addition to cutting spending. what do people who are in massive debt do? they cut back on spending AND try to generate more revenue by taking a second job. that is the fastest way out of debt, as opposed to keeping the same revenue and saving the money not spent and putting that towards the debt.

and i agree with ron paul on his foreign policy stance. too bad we are owned by the military industrial complex.

also something i find funny.... "on my first day in office i will repeal obamacare!!!" yeah, like one man can change something that has to be ammended by the congress :roll: when will people stop buying into shit that is contrary to the procedures of our government???

gimmesometruth27

fife wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

nice to see you guys going into it with the open minds you all talk about



and who ever said it was right....Bachman's campaign will be pure comic gold...I am hoping for another pro/against america type test like she wanted for members of congress before...should be wonderful.

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

don't you find that both parties have their key ideas that are always the core of their platform. Obama said the same things that every Democrat said before him but the difference was that more people believe it when he said it.

I think this election will be very interesting.

it will be an interesting landslide if the gop pushes the ryan budget and changes medicare. 80% of the population in most polls i have seen do not want medicare touched or changed at all. why would the gop put their neck on the guillotine by messing with something that 80% of the population feels is a necessary program?

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

nice to see you guys going into it with the open minds you all talk about



and who ever said it was right....Bachman's campaign will be pure comic gold...I am hoping for another pro/against america type test like she wanted for members of congress before...should be wonderful.

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

As if the last Democratic debates weren't a Bush-bash festival. Keep drinking the Democratic cool-aid. Believe it or not, politicians on both sides are awful... yes, Republicans are wrong sometimes and so are Democrats. I know the latter will come as a shock.

Regardless, question for you... do you even know what the word Keynesian means? If so, explain it and please comment on how the U.S. economic policy, particularly over the last decade, has NOT been actively Keynesian.

first of all i am not a democrat. i am too liberal for them, and they are too spineless for me. they have their faults, so no that is not a shock to me. i criticize them frequently on here. frankly i think that they would fuck me less hard than the gop. the gop is the party of the rich, and their policies seem to despise the poor and eradicate the middle class. i am not rich so i will never support them. i feel that they would only further divide the country and damage the country with reversing everything obama has done.

yes i am familiar with that term, and it sounds all well and good, but why is the private sector not hiring? could it be that they have figured out how to do more with less? as in more with less employees?

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

first of all i am not a democrat. i am too liberal for them, and they are too spineless for me. they have their faults, so no that is not a shock to me. i criticize them frequently on here. frankly i think that they would fuck me less hard than the gop. the gop is the party of the rich, and their policies seem to despise the poor and eradicate the middle class. i am not rich so i will never support them. i feel that they would only further divide the country and damage the country with reversing everything obama has done.

yes i am familiar with that term, and it sounds all well and good, but why is the private sector not hiring? could it be that they have figured out how to do more with less? as in more with less employees?

Ok. I don't really care whether you're left or right of democrats. I come here rarely and typically see you spouting Democratic talking points, more so than anyone else. I call that sort of behavior a Hannity-Democrat.

As for the term... I asked a question, which you did not answer. I asked what does the term Keynesian mean (you don't need to answer if you know)... but, I would like you to explain how the U.S. has not been actively Keynesian, particularly over the last decade. I think this exercise would help you understand something.

To answer your question, I'd say the private sector is not hiring because they have no incentive to hire and their confidence is shook. For incentives, business tries to maximize profits. Profit is revenue less costs. Wages are a cost. If demand is low, because consumer confidence is still low, then one way to maximize profit is to try to minimize costs. Business typically won't hire when they're trying to minimize costs, unless there are incentives to do so. For instance, lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrialized world (35%) to a more competitive rate would cut costs for business and create incentives for them to hire.

As for.... have they figured out to do more part, or better yet asked their employees to pick up a bit of slack... sure, in some cases. But, it's not like the computer was just invented or some other form new capital. So, is this different from any other point in time? Have people become suddenly more productive like they did when the computer was invented? I'd say no. Business is acting just like consumers are... scared. They are timid and saving more just like consumers are.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is kind of hard to have an open mind when you have 30 years of reagan's economic policy so you know what is going to be said on the economy.

it is also hard to have an open mind when going into it you know that they will not offer solutions, rather they will just bash obama. just like their party mantra has been since early 2008...

they did not even bash each other...

if you think that "reaganomics" have been left alone to run a muck for 30 years you are sadly mistaken.

You realize that if we DOUBLED income tax we would still be in a ~900 billion dollar deficit?

but if you simply aren't going to listen to it why even watch it? why not get a new perspective on things...simply taking more in isn't a solution...taking more from those evil rich people isn't a long term solution...Why not prove to the american people that they can be responsible with our money, something that the spending of the current and previous administrations have been unable to do...because then asking for more in the form of tax increases (or in my opinion a tax simplification) won't be seen as putting more money on a bonfire.
It is unfortunate that people had such hatred for bush that watching any republican/conservative say anything needs to be thrown out in that bathwater too...Because Paul's stance on pulling out of Afghanistan and what he said about the weak dollar policies were spot on.

trickle down economics does not work. it is proven to be a horrible economic policy.

you HAVE to increase revenue via taxes. if this is such an emergency situation you have to increase revenue in addition to cutting spending. what do people who are in massive debt do? they cut back on spending AND try to generate more revenue by taking a second job. that is the fastest way out of debt, as opposed to keeping the same revenue and saving the money not spent and putting that towards the debt.

and i agree with ron paul on his foreign policy stance. too bad we are owned by the military industrial complex.

also something i find funny.... "on my first day in office i will repeal obamacare!!!" yeah, like one man can change something that has to be ammended by the congress :roll: when will people stop buying into shit that is contrary to the procedures of our government???

I think we will have to agree to disagree on what horrible economic policy is...I think weak dollar policies are far more damaging than what you call trickle down economics. all people worse off today then they were yesterday because the value of the dollar in their pocket is getting lowered all the time.
you don't have to increase revenue...it isn't revenue...it is tax money...revenue is something that is earned not simply taken...
if they want to increase revenue why not increase services and charge fees for them...maybe they should nationalize energy...that would "increase revenue", why not simply just take everything from every one that will surely increase revenue...they could confiscate all the wealth in this country and the next year still run a deficit....what have they done that has earned the confidence of the people to give them more while they continue to engage in the EXACT same behavior that brought us here today...

but you are right, I do get tired of politicians false promises and creating unrealistic expectations...if they treated us like adults more of us would act like it I think...

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

first of all i am not a democrat. i am too liberal for them, and they are too spineless for me. they have their faults, so no that is not a shock to me. i criticize them frequently on here. frankly i think that they would fuck me less hard than the gop. the gop is the party of the rich, and their policies seem to despise the poor and eradicate the middle class. i am not rich so i will never support them. i feel that they would only further divide the country and damage the country with reversing everything obama has done.

yes i am familiar with that term, and it sounds all well and good, but why is the private sector not hiring? could it be that they have figured out how to do more with less? as in more with less employees?

Ok. I don't really care whether you're left or right of democrats. I come here rarely and typically see you spouting Democratic talking points, more so than anyone else. I call that sort of behavior a Hannity-Democrat.

As for the term... I asked a question, which you did not answer. I asked what does the term Keynesian mean (you don't need to answer if you know)... but, I would like you to explain how the U.S. has not been actively Keynesian, particularly over the last decade. I think this exercise would help you understand something.

To answer your question, I'd say the private sector is not hiring because they have no incentive to hire and their confidence is shook. For incentives, business tries to maximize profits. Profit is revenue less costs. Wages are a cost. If demand is low, because consumer confidence is still low, then one way to maximize profit is to try to minimize costs. Business typically won't hire when they're trying to minimize costs, unless there are incentives to do so. For instance, lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrialized world (35%) to a more competitive rate would cut costs for business and create incentives for them to hire.

As for.... have they figured out to do more part, or better yet asked their employees to pick up a bit of slack... sure, in some cases. But, it's not like the computer was just invented or some other form new capital. So, is this different from any other point in time? Have people become suddenly more productive like they did when the computer was invented? I'd say no. Business is acting just like consumers are... scared. They are timid and saving more just like consumers are.

oh really? what specifically are the democratic talking points that i am spouting off more than anybody else??? i am speaking from my own reality and from what i see happening every day in this country. forgive me if i post passionately. and frankly i don't care if you agree with my opinions or my presentation. i call things as i see them. if i am so wrong all of the time why is it that people don't call me on it?

now that we have that straight, i know what the term means. what is your point in asking me that question? i think that we have attempted to be keynesian but that would mean that the economy would be driven primarily by the private sector, which has been bleeding jobs the last 4 years. we need more government jobs for things like clean energy and infrastructure, which is crumbling by the way..

the tax cuts argument is worn, tired, and useless. what good will cutting corporate taxes do? many corporations do not pay taxes or have offshore tax shelters, which is cheating... they have moved overseas. does anyone really believe that they will pay to uproot their business in other countries and move back here? i don't believe that for one second.
this is not a thread on economics, so you should probably start a thread if you want to discuss these things.

fife

don't you find that both parties have their key ideas that are always the core of their platform. Obama said the same things that every Democrat said before him but the difference was that more people believe it when he said it.

I think this election will be very interesting.[/quote]
it will be an interesting landslide if the gop pushes the ryan budget and changes medicare. 80% of the population in most polls i have seen do not want medicare touched or changed at all. why would the gop put their neck on the guillotine by messing with something that 80% of the population feels is a necessary program?[/quote]

you do ask an interesting question, WHY would they touch medicare if political its suicide esp with seniors who lets face it are a major faction in the GOP I don't know the answer.

as for the Ryan budget, i don't see that passing at all but maybe it just me.

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

first of all i am not a democrat. i am too liberal for them, and they are too spineless for me. they have their faults, so no that is not a shock to me. i criticize them frequently on here. frankly i think that they would fuck me less hard than the gop. the gop is the party of the rich, and their policies seem to despise the poor and eradicate the middle class. i am not rich so i will never support them. i feel that they would only further divide the country and damage the country with reversing everything obama has done.

yes i am familiar with that term, and it sounds all well and good, but why is the private sector not hiring? could it be that they have figured out how to do more with less? as in more with less employees?

Ok. I don't really care whether you're left or right of democrats. I come here rarely and typically see you spouting Democratic talking points, more so than anyone else. I call that sort of behavior a Hannity-Democrat.

As for the term... I asked a question, which you did not answer. I asked what does the term Keynesian mean (you don't need to answer if you know)... but, I would like you to explain how the U.S. has not been actively Keynesian, particularly over the last decade. I think this exercise would help you understand something.

To answer your question, I'd say the private sector is not hiring because they have no incentive to hire and their confidence is shook. For incentives, business tries to maximize profits. Profit is revenue less costs. Wages are a cost. If demand is low, because consumer confidence is still low, then one way to maximize profit is to try to minimize costs. Business typically won't hire when they're trying to minimize costs, unless there are incentives to do so. For instance, lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrialized world (35%) to a more competitive rate would cut costs for business and create incentives for them to hire.

As for.... have they figured out to do more part, or better yet asked their employees to pick up a bit of slack... sure, in some cases. But, it's not like the computer was just invented or some other form new capital. So, is this different from any other point in time? Have people become suddenly more productive like they did when the computer was invented? I'd say no. Business is acting just like consumers are... scared. They are timid and saving more just like consumers are.

oh really? what specifically are the democratic talking points that i am spouting off more than anybody else??? i am speaking from my own reality and from what i see happening every day in this country. forgive me if i post passionately. and frankly i don't care if you agree with my opinions or my presentation. i call things as i see them. if i am so wrong all of the time why is it that people don't call me on it?

now that we have that straight, i know what the term means. what is your point in asking me that question? i think that we have attempted to be keynesian but that would mean that the economy would be driven primarily by the private sector, which has been bleeding jobs the last 4 years. we need more government jobs for things like clean energy and infrastructure, which is crumbling by the way..

the tax cuts argument is worn, tired, and useless. what good will cutting corporate taxes do? many corporations do not pay taxes or have offshore tax shelters, which is cheating... they have moved overseas. does anyone really believe that they will pay to uproot their business in other countries and move back here? i don't believe that for one second.
this is not a thread on economics, so you should probably start a thread if you want to discuss these things.

Not trying to be rude, just also calling it like I see it. I rarely come in here because most people in here just like to hear themselves type. They aren't really listening to the opposition (or new people, like me) because they "think" they are right and the opposition is "wrong". When I do come in, I scroll through a few threads and see talking points that could be easily gathered by watching MSNBC, or on the other side, Fox News. There's Hannity-types on both sides.

My point in asking the question, was to see your response. Since, it's pretty obvious you won't answer the question, I'll get to the point. First, I wanted to see if you knew what the term meant. You said

i think that we have attempted to be keynesian but that would mean that the economy would be driven primarily by the private sector, which has been bleeding jobs the last 4 years.

, which clearly states that you don't really understand the term. That's not a big deal, a lot of people don't. Basically, Keynes was a "DEMAND"-sider, he favored government intervention. He thought government could create jobs. He was of the notion that people need to be given money in order to stimulate the economy. Any type of government spending to boost the economy is typically Keynesian. Tax cuts, for instance, "could" (depending on how they were given) be considered Keynesian. Also, pretty much every policy Obama has enacted could be considered Keynesian.

Earlier in this thread, before I posed the question, you stated something about Reagan and Supply side economics and how we've been following that path for 30-some years. Keynesian economics and supply side economics are at odds. Although there have been times when we've followed a bit more of a supply side approach, it's a flat out factually wrong to act as though the U.S. has advocated more of a supply side approach then a Keynesian approach. Also, I know you like the term trickle-down economics. But, I'm imploring you to learn a bit more about economics before you lump certain terms in with other terms. For example, I'd say... Bush was more of a Keynesian than a Supply-Sider, as was his father.... as was every other President since... maybe, just maybe... Reagan.

So, in total, my response was to educate you on the terms you used. We have not been supply-siders for the past 30-years. I don't think many, who actually know what they are talking about, would say we've really had a real supply-sider in office in recent times.

butterjam

inlet13 wrote:

Basically, Keynes was a "DEMAND"-sider, he favored government intervention. He thought government could create jobs. He was of the notion that people need to be given money in order to stimulate the economy. Any type of government spending to boost the economy is typically Keynesian. Tax cuts, for instance, "could" (depending on how they were given) be considered Keynesian. Also, pretty much every policy Obama has enacted could be considered Keynesian.

Earlier in this thread, before I posed the question, you stated something about Reagan and Supply side economics and how we've been following that path for 30-some years. Keynesian economics and supply side economics are at odds. Although there have been times when we've followed a bit more of a supply side approach, it's a flat out factually wrong to act as though the U.S. has advocated more of a supply side approach then a Keynesian approach. Also, I know you like the term trickle-down economics. But, I'm imploring you to learn a bit more about economics before you lump certain terms in with other terms. For example, I'd say... Bush was more of a Keynesian than a Supply-Sider, as was his father.... as was every other President since... maybe, just maybe... Reagan.

So, in total, my response was to educate you on the terms you used. We have not been supply-siders for the past 30-years. I don't think many, who actually know what they are talking about, would say we've really had a real supply-sider in office in recent times.

Very well put. I would bet that 99% of Americans do not know what Keynesian economics is, which is why we are in the mess we are. I asked my congressman(Perlmutter) about Austrian economics and he was clueless. And he's even on the house committee on financial services.

What is even worse is that Bernanke, Geithner, and their big banker ilk are Keynesians. This should not be a partisan issue, both parties have led to our financial ruin. But they play it back and forth and the majority of American just keeps blaming the other side.

inlet13

311jj wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Basically, Keynes was a "DEMAND"-sider, he favored government intervention. He thought government could create jobs. He was of the notion that people need to be given money in order to stimulate the economy. Any type of government spending to boost the economy is typically Keynesian. Tax cuts, for instance, "could" (depending on how they were given) be considered Keynesian. Also, pretty much every policy Obama has enacted could be considered Keynesian.

Earlier in this thread, before I posed the question, you stated something about Reagan and Supply side economics and how we've been following that path for 30-some years. Keynesian economics and supply side economics are at odds. Although there have been times when we've followed a bit more of a supply side approach, it's a flat out factually wrong to act as though the U.S. has advocated more of a supply side approach then a Keynesian approach. Also, I know you like the term trickle-down economics. But, I'm imploring you to learn a bit more about economics before you lump certain terms in with other terms. For example, I'd say... Bush was more of a Keynesian than a Supply-Sider, as was his father.... as was every other President since... maybe, just maybe... Reagan.

So, in total, my response was to educate you on the terms you used. We have not been supply-siders for the past 30-years. I don't think many, who actually know what they are talking about, would say we've really had a real supply-sider in office in recent times.

Very well put. I would bet that 99% of Americans do not know what Keynesian economics is, which is why we are in the mess we are. I asked my congressman(Perlmutter) about Austrian economics and he was clueless. And he's even on the house committee on financial services.

What is even worse is that Bernanke, Geithner, and their big banker ilk are Keynesians. This should not be a partisan issue, both parties have led to our financial ruin. But they play it back and forth and the majority of American just keeps blaming the other side.

I agree. It's unfortunate that people are so passionate about the political system and our two political parties and are clueless when it comes to economic ideologies. Like you said, the reality is both political parties have been more Keynesian than not for as long as I've been alive.

The other unfortunate thing is that the U.S. just does not care at all about Monetary Policy. All we talk about is Fiscal policy (President and Congress). Monetary Policy may be more important. People get their panties in a bunch arguing that this Keynesian "fiscal" policy was right and this Keynesian "fiscal" policy is wrong, but when it comes to the Fed they shut up. I understand it's rare to learn about the Fed, but the reality is no one wants to learn about it. Like you said, these same economic ideologies also exist in Monetary Policy. Keynesian ideology is what caused this Great Recession and it's very rare someone can put that together. The worst problem is that Keynesians always respond to economic problems with more Keynesian actions (be it Monetary and/or Fiscal Policy). Then another bubble builds, and inevitably it bursts. Then it's always Keynesian policies to the rescue!

It's ironic that when the government responded to the housing crisis, the easiest bubble to see forming was within our own government. First homeowners obtained loans they couldn't afford, now our government is. I wonder what will happen...

butterjam

inlet13 wrote:

I agree. It's unfortunate that people are so passionate about the political system and our two political parties and are clueless when it comes to economic ideologies. Like you said, the reality is both political parties have been more Keynesian than not for as long as I've been alive.

The other unfortunate thing is that the U.S. just does not care at all about Monetary Policy. All we talk about is Fiscal policy (President and Congress). Monetary Policy may be more important. People get their panties in a bunch arguing that this Keynesian "fiscal" policy was right and this Keynesian "fiscal" policy is wrong, but when it comes to the Fed they shut up. I understand it's rare to learn about the Fed, but the reality is no one wants to learn about it. Like you said, these same economic ideologies also exist in Monetary Policy. Keynesian ideology is what caused this Great Recession and it's very rare someone can put that together. The worst problem is that Keynesians always respond to economic problems with more Keynesian actions (be it Monetary and/or Fiscal Policy). Then another bubble builds, and inevitably it bursts. Then it's always Keynesian policies to the rescue!

It's ironic that when the government responded to the housing crisis, the easiest bubble to see forming was within our own government. First homeowners obtained loans they couldn't afford, now our government is. I wonder what will happen...

Exactly. Its our monetary policy that has caused this mess, but both parties just continue to point at each other and the majority of America goes along with them. Good thing Dr. Ron Paul is on the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy. He is Bernanke's worst enemy.

I wish that Ralph Nader would have more of a voice for the left to speak out against the government crony corporatism and Federal Reserve. Then maybe we can start getting some light on this topic and start making some changes.