Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
again, yeah, it seems so simple. its funny though that of 535 US Congressmen and Senators, one was talking about the inevitable housing collapse in 2001. Say what you want, but Paul deserves some credit there. If you cant admit that, then youre just not a fair person.
I can give him credit for saying things other people in congress wont. I'm not a Ron hater. I just don't think he's what his supporters want him to be.
Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
If that is the case, why did no one listen when he was saying we needed to do something to avoid a housing bust? Hmmmm? Why was everyone else ignoring this "fact" of yours and even marginalizing those who wanted to talk about it? Surely if it was so obvious to everyone something would have been done in time to prevent the housing bust.
I'm betting that back then you weren't saying anything about how we need to be careful because our policies are going to lead us into a depression. So, since it is apparently common knowledge that every fool should have known about it, I'm led to believe that you too knew about this. So, why then, if you knew about it, did you not do something to get the word out?
I'm pretty confident that you wouldn't have paid attention to him back then when he was saying this stuff, just like you try not to pay attention to him now.
I think a lot of people saw the housing bubble and knew it was going to bust. What did Ron Paul propose to avoid it? Everyone on the inside was making money hand over fist, and if any of them would've pulled back, all that would've happened would be that they lost money, and others made the money that would've been theirs. It would've taken outside intervention in the form of (gasp) the government.
Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
If that is the case, why did no one listen when he was saying we needed to do something to avoid a housing bust? Hmmmm? Why was everyone else ignoring this "fact" of yours and even marginalizing those who wanted to talk about it? Surely if it was so obvious to everyone something would have been done in time to prevent the housing bust.
I'm betting that back then you weren't saying anything about how we need to be careful because our policies are going to lead us into a depression. So, since it is apparently common knowledge that every fool should have known about it, I'm led to believe that you too knew about this. So, why then, if you knew about it, did you not do something to get the word out?
I'm pretty confident that you wouldn't have paid attention to him back then when he was saying this stuff, just like you try not to pay attention to him now.
I think a lot of people saw the housing bubble and knew it was going to bust. What did Ron Paul propose to avoid it? Everyone on the inside was making money hand over fist, and if any of them would've pulled back, all that would've happened would be that they lost money, and others made the money that would've been theirs. It would've taken outside intervention in the form of (gasp) the government.
A lot of people saw it coming? You may be right about that but the funny thing is, many people who should've known better in high profile positions with the power to actually do something, within the government, no less (or influential to the government...i.e the Fed Reserve) certainly didn't, or they at least weren't listening to those who knew:
It is BECAUSE of the government that the crises was even a thing. Government intervention kept interest rates low and forced the banks to make risky loans because "...its the American dream to own a home" and "we need to get more homes to people who can't afford homes". Well, there is a reason why some people can't afford homes and it's because they can't afford homes. Having the government intervene to make it so these people can get risky loans to "afford" a house distorts the market and only served to set the groundwork for the housing bubble.
Ron Paul proposed bills that would've removed the government mandates and interventions in the housing market allowing it to correct itself and then to grow at a normal non-inflated rate. For example, in 2005 he introduced an amendment in Congress to end the implied taxpayer guarantee that was backing Fannie May and Freddie Mac's debt. You take away the taxpayer guarantee and there is no longer the concern of moral hazard.
You had me up until the point that you said Obama got Saddam Hussein. Hussein died in December 2006 which was before Obama was even elected. Am I missing something here?
Yeah, my own brain fart. I have no idea why I typed "Saddam Hussein" when I was thinking about Anwar al-Awlaki.
Too much coffee.
The point is that Obama has shown a good deal of guts and he even has taken a lot of shit from those of us who elected him.
you should have left it at Osama...... Barack set a dangerous precedent when he killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen. For the first time in history, a US president authorized the assassination of a US citizen w/o due process. Im not saying Anwar al-Awlaki was a good dude, but he was an American and all american's deserve a trial.
This is one of the reason i will not be voting for BO in november....... he had a shot at my vote until this act and the NDAA.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
you should have left it at Osama...... Barack set a dangerous precedent when he killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen. For the first time in history, a US president authorized the assassination of a US citizen w/o due process. Im not saying Anwar al-Awlaki was a good dude, but he was an American and all american's deserve a trial.
This is one of the reason i will not be voting for BO in november....... he had a shot at my vote until this act and the NDAA.
Yeah, I'm still not sure which side I come down on, either.
My point in bringing his assassination up was that he hasn't really shown that he's worried about what his voter base thinks... An act like that showed some guts, knowing that he was going to catch shit for it, mostly from his own side, but he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do.
When he sent the message that "American or not, if you are openly working to attack us, we're going to take you out," it was quite a bold message. Don't think you can say he hasn't shown guts.
You had me up until the point that you said Obama got Saddam Hussein. Hussein died in December 2006 which was before Obama was even elected. Am I missing something here?
Yeah, my own brain fart. I have no idea why I typed "Saddam Hussein" when I was thinking about Anwar al-Awlaki.
Too much coffee.
The point is that Obama has shown a good deal of guts and he even has taken a lot of shit from those of us who elected him.
Yeah, I know how that goes. There is a tipping point where coffee goes from being helpful to a hinderance
Yeah, I'm still not sure which side I come down on, either.
My point in bringing his assassination up was that he hasn't really shown that he's worried about what his voter base thinks... An act like that showed some guts, knowing that he was going to catch shit for it, mostly from his own side, but he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do.
When he sent the message that "American or not, if you are openly working to attack us, we're going to take you out," it was quite a bold message. Don't think you can say he hasn't shown guts.
I think I tend to agree with WaveRyder on the point he brought up on this and the NDAA. The question I have is, did Anwar actually even attack us? I thought this was another preemptive strike.
I mean, there is already a process in place for people who do attack us. Why must we further circumvent that? We are at the point that we circumvent the process so much so that we are becoming a real life version of Minority Report.
Although would the world be a better place if we'd assassinated hitler in 1936?
the real answer to that question is who knows...it isn't like Stalin was a safe haven, or Hitler invented anti-sematism...it is interesting to think about though...I do think the world would be a better place without the invention of gun powder...
Obama has shown guts. I cannot say he hasn't. But the times he has shown them vs the times he should have but didn't are strange. I really wanted him to be the one that changed America's damaging foreign policy nightmare...but he hasn't. I think it showed guts to assassinate an american citizen without due process...but that really isn't the kind of guts I am looking for...
Paul does have guts to tell people what they need to hear. Not what they want to hear. To stand in front of a group of Hispanic voters and talk about how he won't support the dream act in Nevada isn't exactly political smart...
If bubbles were easy to see and easy to fix we wouldn't have them. To all those claiming that everyone knew what was going to happen in the housing market are being a little disingenuous...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Although would the world be a better place if we'd assassinated hitler in 1936?
An interesting question. I think there may be better questions to ask such as: Would Hitler have even been able to rise to power had the powers that be not punished Germany so much for World War I?
Or to ask an even better question: Would Hitler have been able to rise to power had the U.S. not helped to fund European countries during World War I? A war fought over land disputes and entangling alliances that escalated out of control because the politicians had access to easy money. If Europe was left on it's own to fund its battles it certainly would've been a war on a much smaller scale because it would have been unsustainable. Eventually those countries would've went bankrupt much sooner. The citizens of those countries would start to worry more about food instead of which group in power was right about who owned what land. A truce amongst the European countries would've been quicker in coming and more realized to be in everyone's best interest.
I think a lot of people saw the housing bubble and knew it was going to bust. What did Ron Paul propose to avoid it? Everyone on the inside was making money hand over fist, and if any of them would've pulled back, all that would've happened would be that they lost money, and others made the money that would've been theirs. It would've taken outside intervention in the form of (gasp) the government.
A lot of people saw it coming? You may be right about that but the funny thing is, many people who should've known better in high profile positions with the power to actually do something, within the government, no less (or influential to the government...i.e the Fed Reserve) certainly didn't, or they at least weren't listening to those who knew:
It is BECAUSE of the government that the crises was even a thing. Government intervention kept interest rates low and forced the banks to make risky loans because "...its the American dream to own a home" and "we need to get more homes to people who can't afford homes". Well, there is a reason why some people can't afford homes and it's because they can't afford homes. Having the government intervene to make it so these people can get risky loans to "afford" a house distorts the market and only served to set the groundwork for the housing bubble.
Ron Paul proposed bills that would've removed the government mandates and interventions in the housing market allowing it to correct itself and then to grow at a normal non-inflated rate. For example, in 2005 he introduced an amendment in Congress to end the implied taxpayer guarantee that was backing Fannie May and Freddie Mac's debt. You take away the taxpayer guarantee and there is no longer the concern of moral hazard.
Here's and article from Krugman predicting the bust in 2005:
Both missed on the fallout after the bust, though. But the point is, people saw it coming. Me personally, I made 55% on a house I owned for 5 years. You know when something like shelter costs are unsustainable, then something's going to give.
Whether one blames the private sector or the government about the bust only reveals that individuals bias. You seem to blame the government. I think it's interesting how Fannie/Freddie blame has crept into conservative dialogue. It seems like that was generated in order to put more fault for the recession on the Democrats.
Both missed on the fallout after the bust, though. But the point is, people saw it coming. Me personally, I made 55% on a house I owned for 5 years. You know when something like shelter costs are unsustainable, then something's going to give.
Whether one blames the private sector or the government about the bust only reveals that individuals bias. You seem to blame the government. I think it's interesting how Fannie/Freddie blame has crept into conservative dialogue. It seems like that was generated in order to put more fault for the recession on the Democrats.
You are right in that I blame the government for these bubbles. It is because ever since the government better got a hold of things in 1913, and continues to distort the natural workings of the market, that our economy has been far more rocky than it was in previous times. This is especially true in modern times.
The last part of your comment I find interesting in that Ron Paul, a Republican, was putting fault on Fannie/Freddie before the recession. As a Republican, it didn't matter if it was conservatives or liberals who listened to him and supported his position on this. What mattered was that it should have been supported before things escalated the way they did. As you said yourself, there were plenty of signs showing that the housing market was on an unsustainable path of growth. Unfortunately, Congress decided that this wasn't something worth debating even though Ron Paul was attempting to warn the rest of them about it.
If, as you say, the conservative dialoge is now using this to solely blame the Democrats, I do not defend that. I say get them a mirror so they can see where the other half of the problem came from, but to keep in mind that Ron Paul was trying to do something about this before it happened and that he blames all of Congress regardless of party affiliation. To discredit him for this is disingenuine and only points out ones own individual bias.
Both missed on the fallout after the bust, though. But the point is, people saw it coming. Me personally, I made 55% on a house I owned for 5 years. You know when something like shelter costs are unsustainable, then something's going to give.
Whether one blames the private sector or the government about the bust only reveals that individuals bias. You seem to blame the government. I think it's interesting how Fannie/Freddie blame has crept into conservative dialogue. It seems like that was generated in order to put more fault for the recession on the Democrats.
You are right in that I blame the government for these bubbles. It is because ever since the government better got a hold of things in 1913, and continues to distort the natural workings of the market, that our economy has been far more rocky than it was in previous times. This is especially true in modern times.
The last part of your comment I find interesting in that Ron Paul, a Republican, was putting fault on Fannie/Freddie before the recession. As a Republican, it didn't matter if it was conservatives or liberals who listened to him and supported his position on this. What mattered was that it should have been supported before things escalated the way they did. As you said yourself, there were plenty of signs showing that the housing market was on an unsustainable path of growth. Unfortunately, Congress decided that this wasn't something worth debating even though Ron Paul was attempting to warn the rest of them about it.
If, as you say, the conservative dialoge is now using this to solely blame the Democrats, I do not defend that. I say get them a mirror so they can see where the other half of the problem came from, but to keep in mind that Ron Paul was trying to do something about this before it happened and that he blames all of Congress regardless of party affiliation. To discredit him for this is disingenuine and only points out ones own individual bias.
it's pretty easy to tell when people toe the party line.....am i right sludge factory?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Both missed on the fallout after the bust, though. But the point is, people saw it coming. Me personally, I made 55% on a house I owned for 5 years. You know when something like shelter costs are unsustainable, then something's going to give.
Whether one blames the private sector or the government about the bust only reveals that individuals bias. You seem to blame the government. I think it's interesting how Fannie/Freddie blame has crept into conservative dialogue. It seems like that was generated in order to put more fault for the recession on the Democrats.
You are right in that I blame the government for these bubbles. It is because ever since the government better got a hold of things in 1913, and continues to distort the natural workings of the market, that our economy has been far more rocky than it was in previous times. This is especially true in modern times.
The last part of your comment I find interesting in that Ron Paul, a Republican, was putting fault on Fannie/Freddie before the recession. As a Republican, it didn't matter if it was conservatives or liberals who listened to him and supported his position on this. What mattered was that it should have been supported before things escalated the way they did. As you said yourself, there were plenty of signs showing that the housing market was on an unsustainable path of growth. Unfortunately, Congress decided that this wasn't something worth debating even though Ron Paul was attempting to warn the rest of them about it.
If, as you say, the conservative dialoge is now using this to solely blame the Democrats, I do not defend that. I say get them a mirror so they can see where the other half of the problem came from, but to keep in mind that Ron Paul was trying to do something about this before it happened and that he blames all of Congress regardless of party affiliation. To discredit him for this is disingenuine and only points out ones own individual bias.
it's pretty easy to tell when people toe the party line.....am i right sludge factory?
Haha, yeah. It is especially easy for me to pick up on it sometimes because I used to be one who was guilty of doing so myself from time to time before I had the power of the internet to get my news that way. Now I don't give a fuck what party you are from. I'm skeptical until you have actually proven yourself to not be a charlatan.
Haha, yeah. It is especially easy for me to pick up on it sometimes because I used to be one who was guilty of doing so myself from time to time before I had the power of the internet to get my news that way. Now I don't give a fuck what party you are from. I'm skeptical until you have actually proven yourself to not be a charlatan.
this was the worse. just about threw up in my mouth
these are some additional things i am saying as a non paul voter.
27. i will never vote for a republican, even if jesus christ came back and ran in 2016.
28. i will never vote for the man who spawned rand paul.
29. i will never vote for someone who is pro-life.
30. i will never vote for another texan in any race at any time in my life.
31. i will never vote for someone who will never ever consider raising taxes when necessary. shit happens sometimes and we might need that increased revenue.
32. i will never vote for a man who is more concerned about freedom vs. tyranny than doing the right thing.
33. i will never vote for someone who champions state's rights over everything else.
34. i will never vote for a man who will cut medicare, medicaid, or any other publicly funded program that is there as a safety net to help the elderly, infirmed, or less fortunate.
those are just a few off the top of my head that i did not put much effort into.. i am sure if it were worthwhile to me i could come up with more, but i am pretty much just over the know it all, condescending tone of the blogger who came up with that list....talk about generalizations and shoveling words into peoples' mouths.... sheesh...
#27 and #32 just goes to show.....
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
these are some additional things i am saying as a non paul voter.
27. i will never vote for a republican, even if jesus christ came back and ran in 2016.
28. i will never vote for the man who spawned rand paul.
29. i will never vote for someone who is pro-life.
30. i will never vote for another texan in any race at any time in my life.
31. i will never vote for someone who will never ever consider raising taxes when necessary. shit happens sometimes and we might need that increased revenue.
32. i will never vote for a man who is more concerned about freedom vs. tyranny than doing the right thing.
33. i will never vote for someone who champions state's rights over everything else.
34. i will never vote for a man who will cut medicare, medicaid, or any other publicly funded program that is there as a safety net to help the elderly, infirmed, or less fortunate.
those are just a few off the top of my head that i did not put much effort into.. i am sure if it were worthwhile to me i could come up with more, but i am pretty much just over the know it all, condescending tone of the blogger who came up with that list....talk about generalizations and shoveling words into peoples' mouths.... sheesh...
#27 and #32 just goes to show.....
That actually made me sad because, while I don't agree with gimme on everything he says, I have enjoyed reading some of his more well thought out posts as he does sometimes have good points that can be thought provoking from time to time. I'm hoping he was just trying to be facetious here and that this isn't exactly representative of his true feelings.
I mean, technically, in 32 he would end up voting for whoever is more concerned with freedom because being concerned with freedom vs tyranny IS doing the right thing.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
typical generalization of the economy.
and yeah, i could have went without the Republican Revolution thing. I view Dems and Repubs as exactly the same. Neither give a damn about actual liberty.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
typical generalization of the economy.
and yeah, i could have went without the Republican Revolution thing. I view Dems and Repubs as exactly the same. Neither give a damn about actual liberty.
And viewing them the same is a problem I have with Ron Paul supporters/libertarians. They act as though they are outside the system, but their views only exists in theory. Therefore this leads to the aloof, condescending tone that often comes through. You'll actually find dems and repubs valuing liberty, but going about it differently.
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
typical generalization of the economy.
and yeah, i could have went without the Republican Revolution thing. I view Dems and Repubs as exactly the same. Neither give a damn about actual liberty.
And viewing them the same is a problem I have with Ron Paul supporters/libertarians. They act as though they are outside the system, but their views only exists in theory. Therefore this leads to the aloof, condescending tone that often comes through. You'll actually find dems and repubs valuing liberty, but going about it differently.
i guess we have different ideas of what liberty is then.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
leave it to the republicans to purposely fuck up their own elections...
yeah, it is pretty disgusting. before you take a pot shot at Paul, get your facts right.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Comments
I can give him credit for saying things other people in congress wont. I'm not a Ron hater. I just don't think he's what his supporters want him to be.
I think a lot of people saw the housing bubble and knew it was going to bust. What did Ron Paul propose to avoid it? Everyone on the inside was making money hand over fist, and if any of them would've pulled back, all that would've happened would be that they lost money, and others made the money that would've been theirs. It would've taken outside intervention in the form of (gasp) the government.
A lot of people saw it coming? You may be right about that but the funny thing is, many people who should've known better in high profile positions with the power to actually do something, within the government, no less (or influential to the government...i.e the Fed Reserve) certainly didn't, or they at least weren't listening to those who knew:
Loan regulators discount fears of housing bubble
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... oom28.html
Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02255.html
Experts see no housing bubble/Economist notes predicted price cuts haven't happened.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... B8FS61.DTL
It is BECAUSE of the government that the crises was even a thing. Government intervention kept interest rates low and forced the banks to make risky loans because "...its the American dream to own a home" and "we need to get more homes to people who can't afford homes". Well, there is a reason why some people can't afford homes and it's because they can't afford homes. Having the government intervene to make it so these people can get risky loans to "afford" a house distorts the market and only served to set the groundwork for the housing bubble.
Ron Paul proposed bills that would've removed the government mandates and interventions in the housing market allowing it to correct itself and then to grow at a normal non-inflated rate. For example, in 2005 he introduced an amendment in Congress to end the implied taxpayer guarantee that was backing Fannie May and Freddie Mac's debt. You take away the taxpayer guarantee and there is no longer the concern of moral hazard.
Yeah, my own brain fart. I have no idea why I typed "Saddam Hussein" when I was thinking about Anwar al-Awlaki.
Too much coffee.
The point is that Obama has shown a good deal of guts and he even has taken a lot of shit from those of us who elected him.
you should have left it at Osama...... Barack set a dangerous precedent when he killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen. For the first time in history, a US president authorized the assassination of a US citizen w/o due process. Im not saying Anwar al-Awlaki was a good dude, but he was an American and all american's deserve a trial.
This is one of the reason i will not be voting for BO in november....... he had a shot at my vote until this act and the NDAA.
Yeah, I'm still not sure which side I come down on, either.
My point in bringing his assassination up was that he hasn't really shown that he's worried about what his voter base thinks... An act like that showed some guts, knowing that he was going to catch shit for it, mostly from his own side, but he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do.
When he sent the message that "American or not, if you are openly working to attack us, we're going to take you out," it was quite a bold message. Don't think you can say he hasn't shown guts.
Yeah, I know how that goes. There is a tipping point where coffee goes from being helpful to a hinderance
I think I tend to agree with WaveRyder on the point he brought up on this and the NDAA. The question I have is, did Anwar actually even attack us? I thought this was another preemptive strike.
I mean, there is already a process in place for people who do attack us. Why must we further circumvent that? We are at the point that we circumvent the process so much so that we are becoming a real life version of Minority Report.
Although would the world be a better place if we'd assassinated hitler in 1936?
the real answer to that question is who knows...it isn't like Stalin was a safe haven, or Hitler invented anti-sematism...it is interesting to think about though...I do think the world would be a better place without the invention of gun powder...
Obama has shown guts. I cannot say he hasn't. But the times he has shown them vs the times he should have but didn't are strange. I really wanted him to be the one that changed America's damaging foreign policy nightmare...but he hasn't. I think it showed guts to assassinate an american citizen without due process...but that really isn't the kind of guts I am looking for...
Paul does have guts to tell people what they need to hear. Not what they want to hear. To stand in front of a group of Hispanic voters and talk about how he won't support the dream act in Nevada isn't exactly political smart...
If bubbles were easy to see and easy to fix we wouldn't have them. To all those claiming that everyone knew what was going to happen in the housing market are being a little disingenuous...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
An interesting question. I think there may be better questions to ask such as: Would Hitler have even been able to rise to power had the powers that be not punished Germany so much for World War I?
Or to ask an even better question: Would Hitler have been able to rise to power had the U.S. not helped to fund European countries during World War I? A war fought over land disputes and entangling alliances that escalated out of control because the politicians had access to easy money. If Europe was left on it's own to fund its battles it certainly would've been a war on a much smaller scale because it would have been unsustainable. Eventually those countries would've went bankrupt much sooner. The citizens of those countries would start to worry more about food instead of which group in power was right about who owned what land. A truce amongst the European countries would've been quicker in coming and more realized to be in everyone's best interest.
Here's and article from Krugman predicting the bust in 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html
And here's one from business week in 2004:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_29/b3892064_mz011.htm
Both missed on the fallout after the bust, though. But the point is, people saw it coming. Me personally, I made 55% on a house I owned for 5 years. You know when something like shelter costs are unsustainable, then something's going to give.
Whether one blames the private sector or the government about the bust only reveals that individuals bias. You seem to blame the government. I think it's interesting how Fannie/Freddie blame has crept into conservative dialogue. It seems like that was generated in order to put more fault for the recession on the Democrats.
You are right in that I blame the government for these bubbles. It is because ever since the government better got a hold of things in 1913, and continues to distort the natural workings of the market, that our economy has been far more rocky than it was in previous times. This is especially true in modern times.
The last part of your comment I find interesting in that Ron Paul, a Republican, was putting fault on Fannie/Freddie before the recession. As a Republican, it didn't matter if it was conservatives or liberals who listened to him and supported his position on this. What mattered was that it should have been supported before things escalated the way they did. As you said yourself, there were plenty of signs showing that the housing market was on an unsustainable path of growth. Unfortunately, Congress decided that this wasn't something worth debating even though Ron Paul was attempting to warn the rest of them about it.
If, as you say, the conservative dialoge is now using this to solely blame the Democrats, I do not defend that. I say get them a mirror so they can see where the other half of the problem came from, but to keep in mind that Ron Paul was trying to do something about this before it happened and that he blames all of Congress regardless of party affiliation. To discredit him for this is disingenuine and only points out ones own individual bias.
it's pretty easy to tell when people toe the party line.....am i right sludge factory?
Haha, yeah. It is especially easy for me to pick up on it sometimes because I used to be one who was guilty of doing so myself from time to time before I had the power of the internet to get my news that way. Now I don't give a fuck what party you are from. I'm skeptical until you have actually proven yourself to not be a charlatan.
this was the worse. just about threw up in my mouth
#27 and #32
That actually made me sad because, while I don't agree with gimme on everything he says, I have enjoyed reading some of his more well thought out posts as he does sometimes have good points that can be thought provoking from time to time. I'm hoping he was just trying to be facetious here and that this isn't exactly representative of his true feelings.
I mean, technically, in 32 he would end up voting for whoever is more concerned with freedom because being concerned with freedom vs tyranny IS doing the right thing.
Typical generalization by conservatives of liberals.
P.S. What's a Republican revolution anyway?
typical generalization of the economy.
and yeah, i could have went without the Republican Revolution thing. I view Dems and Repubs as exactly the same. Neither give a damn about actual liberty.
And viewing them the same is a problem I have with Ron Paul supporters/libertarians. They act as though they are outside the system, but their views only exists in theory. Therefore this leads to the aloof, condescending tone that often comes through. You'll actually find dems and repubs valuing liberty, but going about it differently.
i guess we have different ideas of what liberty is then.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp ... 2725_n.jpg
did he end up winning in maine??
oh yeah......
sorry....
:oops:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
we don't know yet
http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-02-12/ron-p ... blishment/
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ ... s-results/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
yeah, it is pretty disgusting. before you take a pot shot at Paul, get your facts right.
i hate to be the guy to burst anybody's bubble, but here is a fact for you.
ron paul will never ever be president of the united states.
i know it hurts, but it is the truth.
let's not delude ourselves here, ok?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Very appropriate for your comments.