US presidential election

[Lacius]

Yes. They went down, then up, then down, then up, etc. Until like mid-late last year when they went down and slowly continued to go down. That's when the presidential race basically got going.

The overall trend is that unemployment numbers are going down. I'm not saying things won't get worse, especially with our lack of stimulus spending, but that's the overall trend between the first stimulus package and today.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes. They went down, then up, then down, then up, etc. Until like mid-late last year when they went down and slowly continued to go down. That's when the presidential race basically got going.

The overall trend is that unemployment numbers are going down. I'm not saying things won't get worse, especially with our lack of stimulus spending, but that's the overall trend between the first stimulus package and today.

That's pure science fiction though, and you have to realize that there are several factors contributing to the decline in unemployment rates - it doesn't necessarily mean that people found jobs.

By not including:

1. People who leave the workforce, forfeit searching for jobs and retire
2. People who chose to enhance their qualifications and start studying again
3. People who emigrated out of the U.S in search for jobs elsewhere (applies mostly to "recent" legal immigrants who do not have family ties in the U.S yet)
4. People who chose to take "time off" to take care of the family and become housewives/husbands instead of being a part of the workforce

...you can "lower the unemployment rate" without even giving one job to a single person.

And just to prove that it's not my "imagination", it is estimated that in November 2011, the U.S economy generated 120,000 new jobs, however at the exact same time 315,000 chose to leave the workforce. I'm not even adding emigration issues into the equation and you can already see that Obama didn't touch the U.S with a magic wand, it's just that the U.S got sick and tired of waiting for the new jobs and simply stopped looking, waiting for the better days to come.

Here, some articles for you. The sudden decrease of unemployment rates, although influenced by stimulating the economy and laying the foundations for "creating new jobs" is most notably influenced by shrinking of the workforce itself.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1125180.html
http://articles.lati...w-jobs-20111203
http://www.usatoday....ootstraps_N.htm
http://www.politifac...-gains-are-act/

 

[Libertarian94]

The middle class is almost wiped out and Ron Paul has had nothing to do with it.

Ron Paul says he stands for the middle class, but Ron Paul focuses primarily on dismantling regulations that are in place to protect the middle class. The kind of privatization Ron Paul wants to do to make the government smaller only benefits the rich. Things the government does becomes for-profit, and that difference comes out of the pockets of the middle class.

The idea that his policies would be any worse for the middle class is ridiculous.

The fact that his major cuts to the federal government would definitely cause a significant decrease in GDP is enough to say that his policies would be worse for the middle class.

The devaluation of the dollar, over retulation, and debt of failed banks and corporations is getting transfered to the taxpayer, and is sucking the wealth of the middle class dry.

Not to say inflation isn't an issue, but the idea that we should move to gold and silver because their prices are constant is insane. They are hardly the model for price stability.

All because of government increasing, and spending like hell.

It is my opinion that there are some things that the federal government should be in charge of. For example, the private insurance industry is a farce. A public option would be much better for people. Before the Patient Protection Act, people died all the time because of profit motive in the health insurance industry. There are some things a government spends money on. That's what a government is for. And we pay taxes. That's how a government works. Government spending isn't inherently bad. I agree that the deficit is a problem; that's how spending is bad. But it's not just a spending issue. Ron Paul would balance the budget by slashing spending and slashing taxes. It would suck. All you need for a balanced budget is to cut a little bit of wasteful spending, such as decreasing military spending, and getting rid of the tax cuts for the filthy rich that have been proven to have close to no effect on the economy. None of the Republican candidates have a practical plan for deficit reduction, including Ron Paul.

1:
The problem with the regulations that the federal government puts in place, gets destroyed by the medicinal industry and the FDA.
Both have given the green light, allowing dangerous drugs to be put in medicine and food, only so the large companies can get profit.
Take for instance Aspartame, a sugar substitute in all diet products and even in regular sugar gum.
The Military developed it back in 65'.
And what aspartame actually is, is a mutated bacterias ''crap'', and its highly toxic and addictive.
Now the FDA of course, have made studies that dismisses the dangers of aspartame, but what at the same time is ironic, is that they have studies the contradict their own studies.
They got studies that says its good, and studies that says its bad.
Of course they are trying to suppress those studies.
And whats funny is that the pro-aspartame studies is studies by Monsanto, and if you know Monsanto, you would find it very easy to find the agenda here.
And if you go back to like... 77 or something like that, they couldn't get it approved due to the fact, that they tested it on 11 monkeys, of which 7 died, and the rest got brain and/or organ failure.

2:
Thats where the states come in!
If a state find that a department is neccesary, they are allowed to set up a state ''counterpart'' i believe its called.

3:
Gold and Silver can't be printed so the government can't create departments it won't be able to finance, and thus destroying debt.
And its a much more solid alternative, compared to the fed.
The FED operates in total secrecy. No one is allowed to see the FED's document.
Not the congress, not the president, not the C.I.A, not the F.B.I, not even the Supreme Court!

4:
I live in denmark, and where one of the countries in the world, that pays most taxes, and trust me, it destroys the market.
People prefer drive all the way to germany, due to taxes on our food and so on.
A glass of jam in germany cost only the quarter of what it does in denmark.
And a lot of families drive in extremely polluting cars from the 80's due to modern and more envirionment friendly cars are skyhigh in prices due to registration taxes.
Im all for punishing wall st.
But i don't mind people making a buck for being innovative and leading a good buisness.
You must remember that moneymasters at the top of the pyramid won't get what they deserve if you increase their taxes.
Because they will just order the politicians who are bought and sold, to pass more laws, that will involve more regulation, and thus more debt, printing more money, devaluing the currency.


PS: Sorry for the late response

 

[Lacius]

That's pure science fiction though, and you have to realize that there are several factors contributing to the decline in unemployment rates - it doesn't necessarily mean that people found jobs.

By not including:

1. People who leave the workforce, forfeit searching for jobs and retire
2. People who chose to enhance their qualifications and start studying again
3. People who emigrated out of the U.S in search for jobs elsewhere (applies mostly to "recent" legal immigrants who do not have family ties in the U.S yet)
4. People who chose to take "time off" to take care of the family and become housewives/husbands instead of being a part of the workforce

...you can "lower the unemployment rate" without even giving one job to a single person.

You are correct in that there are many factors involved in calculating unemployment. But you need to consider the following:

1. Jobs are being created by the hundreds of thousands every month. The only room for misinterpretation there is that as we go back and look at previous months, it is coming to our attention that more jobs were created than previously thought.

2. Yes, the unemployment numbers are not perfect. But keep in mind that some of the people no longer actively seeking work should not be counted (retirement, full-time students, etc). The numbers are not as skewed as you might think. To say that it is possible that these numbers could exist without a single job having been created is what's "science fiction."

3. Also keep in mind that a lot of adjustments are done to these numbers. Many of the people who allegedly dropped off the radar are the result of population adjustments. The BLS has been consistent in how it analyzes unemployment. Not only are you right that the unemployment numbers are likely higher than outlined by the data, but unemployment numbers are likely always higher than outlined by the data. Every independent economic analysis of jobs and the economy in this country shows improving conditions. To argue that things are just as bad as before Obama shows me that you believe what you want despite the evidence all around you.​

I do not mean to say that the economy is no longer an issue. There's still a long way to go. It will be years before we are back to where we were pre-recession. People are still struggling. But things are better. And the evidence shows that things will continue to get better if Obama stays in office and is able to implement more of his economic recovery policies. Overall, the Republicans' plan would merely increase tax cuts to the rich, which most economists say would have no effect on the economy, and in an effort to reduce the deficit, make cuts that would actually hurt the economy. As you can see below, the best ways to help the economy are things Obama wants to do. The most insignificant ways to help the economy are Republican priorities:​

 

[Thanatos Telos]

Yes. They went down, then up, then down, then up, etc. Until like mid-late last year when they went down and slowly continued to go down. That's when the presidential race basically got going.

The overall trend is that unemployment numbers are going down. I'm not saying things won't get worse, especially with our lack of stimulus spending, but that's the overall trend between the first stimulus package and today.

That's pure science fiction though, and you have to realize that there are several factors contributing to the decline in unemployment rates - it doesn't necessarily mean that people found jobs.

By not including:

1. People who leave the workforce, forfeit searching for jobs and retire
2. People who chose to enhance their qualifications and start studying again
3. People who emigrated out of the U.S in search for jobs elsewhere (applies mostly to "recent" legal immigrants who do not have family ties in the U.S yet)
4. People who chose to take "time off" to take care of the family and become housewives/husbands instead of being a part of the workforce

...you can "lower the unemployment rate" without even giving one job to a single person.

And just to prove that it's not my "imagination", it is estimated that in November 2011, the U.S economy generated 120,000 new jobs, however at the exact same time 315,000 chose to leave the workforce. I'm not even adding emigration issues into the equation and you can already see that Obama didn't touch the U.S with a magic wand, it's just that the U.S got sick and tired of waiting for the new jobs and simply stopped looking, waiting for the better days to come.

Here, some articles for you. The sudden decrease of unemployment rates, although influenced by stimulating the economy and laying the foundations for "creating new jobs" is most notably influenced by shrinking of the workforce itself.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1125180.html
http://articles.lati...w-jobs-20111203
http://www.usatoday....ootstraps_N.htm
http://www.politifac...-gains-are-act/

People could've died too, just saying.
EDIT:NVM

 

[Foxi4]

2. Yes, the unemployment numbers are not perfect. But keep in mind that some of the people no longer actively seeking work should not be counted (retirement, full-time students, etc). The numbers are not as skewed as you might think. To say that it is possible that these numbers could exist without a single job having been created is what's "science fiction."

I've skim-read your post, however this part just stands out to me. I'll give you a pleasant mathematical equation to prove that you are in fact wrong - "435000 * 0,4 / 315000 = 0,28 (...)". In the example I gave earlier, unemployment dropped from 9 to 8,6% within a month due to the fact that 120,000 new "jobs" were created and 315,000 people left the workforce. Altogether, these 435,000 people affected the state of matters by 0,4 per cent. Provided that NO new jobs would have been created, zero, zilch, nil and 315,000 people would choose to retire, study, emigrate or leave the workforce in any other fashion, we would see a 0,28% decrease of unemployment rates while not a single soul would actually get a job. It's not science fiction, it's what's going on.

The great majority of your so-called "improvements" as far as employment is concerned are virtually non-existant. I'll comment on your post in more detail later today, right now I could only skim-read.

 

[Lacius]

1:
The problem with the regulations that the federal government puts in place, gets destroyed by the medicinal industry and the FDA.
Both have given the green light, allowing dangerous drugs to be put in medicine and food, only so the large companies can get profit.
Take for instance Aspartame, a sugar substitute in all diet products and even in regular sugar gum.
The Military developed it back in 65'.
And what aspartame actually is, is a mutated bacterias ''crap'', and its highly toxic and addictive.
Now the FDA of course, have made studies that dismisses the dangers of aspartame, but what at the same time is ironic, is that they have studies the contradict their own studies.
They got studies that says its good, and studies that says its bad.
Of course they are trying to suppress those studies.
And whats funny is that the pro-aspartame studies is studies by Monsanto, and if you know Monsanto, you would find it very easy to find the agenda here.
And if you go back to like... 77 or something like that, they couldn't get it approved due to the fact, that they tested it on 11 monkeys, of which 7 died, and the rest got brain and/or organ failure.

What Ron Paul argues is that things like the FDA should be destroyed or made powerless, allowing the large companies to decide what's acceptable to put on the market. By your logic, Ron Paul is wrong.

2:
Thats where the states come in!
If a state find that a department is neccesary, they are allowed to set up a state ''counterpart'' i believe its called.

Imagine a world where states created their own FDA systems (except not federal obviously). Let's say my home state of Missouri sets one up. Businesses might see that and decide to go to Iowa, which hypothetically doesn't have a state FDA system in place. In order to bring back business, Missouri gets rid of its FDA lookalike. The end result is that no states have FDA lookalike systems, and businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, despite the consequences to peoples' health, the environment, etc. There are just some things that the federal government should be in charge of. You wouldn't make military a state thing, would you?

3:
Gold and Silver can't be printed so the government can't create departments it won't be able to finance, and thus destroying debt.
And its a much more solid alternative, compared to the fed.
The FED operates in total secrecy. No one is allowed to see the FED's document.
Not the congress, not the president, not the C.I.A, not the F.B.I, not even the Supreme Court!

I agree that inflation is an issue, but it is a lot less of an issue that Ron Paul makes it out to be. Likewise, there is no evidence one way or the other that switching to the gold standard and abolishing the FED would have any effect on the economy.

4:
I live in denmark, and where one of the countries in the world, that pays most taxes, and trust me, it destroys the market.
People prefer drive all the way to germany, due to taxes on our food and so on.
A glass of jam in germany cost only the quarter of what it does in denmark.
And a lot of families drive in extremely polluting cars from the 80's due to modern and more envirionment friendly cars are skyhigh in prices due to registration taxes.

Obama doesn't want to increase taxes on the middle class. If anything, Republicans do. They threatened to let the payroll tax cut for the middle class expire. Some of them want to create a national sales tax that disproportionately hurts the middle class more than it hurts the rich.

Im all for punishing wall st.
But i don't mind people making a buck for being innovative and leading a good buisness.
You must remember that moneymasters at the top of the pyramid won't get what they deserve if you increase their taxes.
Because they will just order the politicians who are bought and sold, to pass more laws, that will involve more regulation, and thus more debt, printing more money, devaluing the currency.

Regulations exist because there is nothing else to stop corporations from, say, destroying the environment. Obama wants people to be innovative. He's not punishing that. But the United States is about paying one's fair share. Just one's fair share. That's all. Unfortunately, the Republicans, Ron Paul included, pander to the rich and worry more about decreasing the taxes of the rich than decreasing the taxes of the middle class. Likewise, the Republicans threaten to allow taxes on the middle class to go up in an effort to get what they want. The rich should pay their fair share. Data has shown time and time again that tax benefits to the rich do not help the economy. Trickle-down economics does not work.

PS: Sorry for the late response

It's all good, bro.

It should be worth noting here that Ron Paul has virtually no chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president. It will likely be Obama vs. Romney, with there being a slim chance of it being Obama vs. Santorum.

I've skim-read your post, however this part just stands out to me. I'll give you a pleasant mathematical equation to prove that you are in fact wrong - "435000 * 0,4 / 315000 = 0,28 (...)". In the example I gave earlier, unemployment dropped from 9 to 8,6% within a month due to the fact that 120,000 new "jobs" were created and 315,000 people left the workforce. Altogether, these 435,000 people affected the state of matters by 0,4 per cent. Provided that NO new jobs would have been created, zero, zilch, nil and 315,000 people would choose to retire, study, emigrate or leave the workforce in any other fashion, we would see a 0,28% decrease of unemployment rates while not a single soul would actually get a job. It's not science fiction, it's what's going on.

The great majority of your so-called "improvements" as far as employment is concerned are virtually non-existant. I'll comment on your post in more detail later today, right now I could only skim-read.

I understand what you're trying to say. However, your logic is flawed:

1. The private sector has added 2.3 million new jobs since March 2010. Upon further reflection, that number has very likely been amended to be slightly higher, but I don't have that data in front of me.

2. In one year, Obama created more private sector jobs than Bush did in eight years. These aren't relative numbers that could have been skewed because people are retiring or what-have-you. These are actual numbers reported by the actual private sector.

3. There are fewer net jobs available now than there were when Obama took office. But the stimulus has caused there to be consistent increases in private sector jobs. That's a fact. Despite the flaws you might see in how unemployment data was collected, what we know as fact about private sector job additions coincides with the improving unemployment numbers collected by the BLS.

4. Many of the jobs having still been lost after the stimulus were public sector jobs. Roughly 600,000, actually. And this is much in part due to the cuts caused by the Republicans and their poor attempts at deficit reduction. Simply put, Obama has a good record when it comes to jobs and the economy; the only thing Republicans have really done of the jobs and the economy, even recently, is hammer away at it.

5. Considering what we know about economics, the numbers collected by the BLS, the auto industry bailout, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the HIRE Act, the Education Jobs Act and Medicaid Assistance Act, and the Small Business Jobs Act, to say that Obama has not helped improve the economy and jobs is, well, foolish. No offense, but I'm trying to figure out why you're not looking it this from an objective point-of-view. I live in Missouri, so many of the conservatives I know fail at defending conservative economic positions (which aren't really worthy of defending). Most of the time, they've made up their minds about social issues and then just live in a bubble where conservatism and Fox News are right about the economy, and Obama is wrong despite the facts.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm looking at the situation from a very objective point of view precisely because I am remote from the United States, as much as it's humanly possible. I look at the situation from afar, and trust me, when you distance yourself from a given situation, you get to fit more its aspects within your horizon. You beautifuly sugar-coat what you believe in by simply adding "since March", magically multiplying the numbers sky high while I specifically chose one month to show you a trend. People didn't make a nation-wide agreement that they're going to quit on November - they're quitting monthly.

I honestly think that our two perspectives are vastly different and it's impossible for us to find a common ground since what you acknowledge as Obama's influence on the economy I call coincidence. What you call dragging the nation out of depression I call the natural order of things and the consequence of the market stabilizing itself like it did after every single crash in history, with or without stimulus.

 

[Lacius]

I'm looking at the situation from a very objective point of view precisely because I am remote from the United States, as much as it's humanly possible. I look at the situation from afar, and trust me, when you distance yourself from a given situation, you get to fit more its aspects within your horizon. You beautifuly sugar-coat what you believe in by simply adding "since March", magically multiplying the numbers sky high while I specifically chose one month to show you a trend. People didn't make a nation-wide agreement that they're going to quit on November - they're quitting monthly.

I honestly think that our two perspectives are vastly different and it's impossible for us to find a common ground since what you acknowledge as Obama's influence on the economy I call coincidence. What you call dragging the nation out of depression I call the natural order of things and the consequence of the market stabilizing itself like it did after every single crash in history, with or without stimulus.

I understand what you mean. However, if you look at the data, statistically, it is highly improbable that the stimulus and other Obama factors had little or no influence on the economic improvements. It's like global warming. Sure, there is a chance that the climate change we are witnessing is natural. But based on what we know about carbon dioxide and its effect on global temperature, the historical amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its correlation with global temperatures, it is statistically significant that one had that effect on the other. Science, whether it's climate science or even economics, is all about variables, correlation, causal relationships, and statistical significance. Based on the data, it is highly improbable that what we have seen with the United States economy is coincidence; to say "Obama's policies had a positive influence on the economy" is a factually correct statement.

 

[sputnix]

if I where an american citizen I would probably vote for obama for president and ron paul for the republican nominee.
Why, well Gingrich is just a dispicable person [left his first wife who payed for his university tuition on her deathbed when she had cancer for example]
Romney is a liar who says he fights for the middle class but is really in it to save the upper class [who fund him BTW] millions of tax dollars [his tax plan saves him $4 million]
Santorum is just a batshit insane right wing christian fundamentalist who changed his character and sold himself out as a lobbyist to become the ultimate right wing republican and surprisingly it's working [though his horrendous views on contraception will most likely be his downfall]
Ron Paul has the least negatives about him but is so far out he isn't going to win
Obama is good but is too much of a pussy in office, the reason he isn't passing laws he promised and raising taxes on the rich isn't because Bush fucked up America so much or the amount of Republicans in the senate it's just he has no balls he spends more time making bills that he thinks the Republicans would be O.K. with but they always and will always fight them as that's all they want to do even if they would have created the same bill it's all about making Obama look bad. All of this was proven when leaked Obama memos where released here's a video explaining them [kinda long but worth it if you actually care about politics]
[yt]BJDfzoh9-rA[/yt]

 

[Clydefrosch]

honestly, I'd rather have you all vote for obama once more. considering the situation he started with and the sticks that republicans threw in his way, he did more than good.

not to say everything he ever did was the right thing, but things would probably be much worse if he hadnt been president.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm looking at the situation from a very objective point of view precisely because I am remote from the United States, as much as it's humanly possible. I look at the situation from afar, and trust me, when you distance yourself from a given situation, you get to fit more its aspects within your horizon. You beautifuly sugar-coat what you believe in by simply adding "since March", magically multiplying the numbers sky high while I specifically chose one month to show you a trend. People didn't make a nation-wide agreement that they're going to quit on November - they're quitting monthly.

I honestly think that our two perspectives are vastly different and it's impossible for us to find a common ground since what you acknowledge as Obama's influence on the economy I call coincidence. What you call dragging the nation out of depression I call the natural order of things and the consequence of the market stabilizing itself like it did after every single crash in history, with or without stimulus.

I understand what you mean. However, if you look at the data, statistically, it is highly improbable that the stimulus and other Obama factors had little or no influence on the economic improvements. It's like global warming. Sure, there is a chance that the climate change we are witnessing is natural. But based on what we know about carbon dioxide and its effect on global temperature, the historical amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its correlation with global temperatures, it is statistically significant that one had that effect on the other. Science, whether it's climate science or even economics, is all about variables, correlation, causal relationships, and statistical significance. Based on the data, it is highly improbable that what we have seen with the United States economy is coincidence; to say "Obama's policies had a positive influence on the economy" is a factually correct statement.

I never said that Obama did not influence the state of matters, what I said was that this influence is sluggish. So sluggish in fact that the market adjusts itself naturally at a higher rate then Obama's administration is capable to stimulate it. I can see certain merits of his presidency but from the perspective of a foreigner I really don't think that enough was done in order to pull the U.S out of the depression, not to mention that I disagree that the debt "was fully inherited" from Bush's administration - Obama's new legislature generated it for the most part. After all, economical stimulus does not come cheap.

I can see the merits of extending his presidency however I would much rather see someone else on his seat. Obama is a typical "People's President" - he doesn't really "do" much, but he looks pretty on photos and people love him to bits.

 

[Lacius]

I never said that Obama did not influence the state of matters, what I said was that this influence is sluggish. So sluggish in fact that the market adjusts itself naturally at a higher rate then Obama's administration is capable to stimulate it.

So basically, you're saying that the Obama presidency had little or no effect on the economy, which is absolutely not true. All leading economists agree that we would be in a lot worse of a situation if it hadn't been for Obama's policies. In fact, as I've already mentioned, more should have been done, but Obama had to appease the Republican moderates in order to get it through.

I can see certain merits of his presidency but from the perspective of a foreigner I really don't think that enough was done in order to pull the U.S out of the depression, not to mention that I disagree that the debt "was fully inherited" from Bush's administration - Obama's new legislature generated it for the most part. After all, economical stimulus does not come cheap.

What's your opinion about Obama's impact on the debt and what is fact are two entirely different things. Numbers don't lie in this case. ~43% of the current United States debt was the direct result of George W. Bush. ~17% of the current debt was Obama, and roughly 80% of that was economic recovery. You can't choose to ignore those numbers. Likewise, you can't say that Obama has racked up too much debt yet argue that not enough was done to stimulate the economy. They contradict each other.

 

[Libertarian94]

1:
The problem with the regulations that the federal government puts in place, gets destroyed by the medicinal industry and the FDA.
Both have given the green light, allowing dangerous drugs to be put in medicine and food, only so the large companies can get profit.
Take for instance Aspartame, a sugar substitute in all diet products and even in regular sugar gum.
The Military developed it back in 65'.
And what aspartame actually is, is a mutated bacterias ''crap'', and its highly toxic and addictive.
Now the FDA of course, have made studies that dismisses the dangers of aspartame, but what at the same time is ironic, is that they have studies the contradict their own studies.
They got studies that says its good, and studies that says its bad.
Of course they are trying to suppress those studies.
And whats funny is that the pro-aspartame studies is studies by Monsanto, and if you know Monsanto, you would find it very easy to find the agenda here.
And if you go back to like... 77 or something like that, they couldn't get it approved due to the fact, that they tested it on 11 monkeys, of which 7 died, and the rest got brain and/or organ failure.

What Ron Paul argues is that things like the FDA should be destroyed or made powerless, allowing the large companies to decide what's acceptable to put on the market. By your logic, Ron Paul is wrong.

2:
Thats where the states come in!
If a state find that a department is neccesary, they are allowed to set up a state ''counterpart'' i believe its called.

Imagine a world where states created their own FDA systems (except not federal obviously). Let's say my home state of Missouri sets one up. Businesses might see that and decide to go to Iowa, which hypothetically doesn't have a state FDA system in place. In order to bring back business, Missouri gets rid of its FDA lookalike. The end result is that no states have FDA lookalike systems, and businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, despite the consequences to peoples' health, the environment, etc. There are just some things that the federal government should be in charge of. You wouldn't make military a state thing, would you?

3:
Gold and Silver can't be printed so the government can't create departments it won't be able to finance, and thus destroying debt.
And its a much more solid alternative, compared to the fed.
The FED operates in total secrecy. No one is allowed to see the FED's document.
Not the congress, not the president, not the C.I.A, not the F.B.I, not even the Supreme Court!

I agree that inflation is an issue, but it is a lot less of an issue that Ron Paul makes it out to be. Likewise, there is no evidence one way or the other that switching to the gold standard and abolishing the FED would have any effect on the economy.

4:
I live in denmark, and where one of the countries in the world, that pays most taxes, and trust me, it destroys the market.
People prefer drive all the way to germany, due to taxes on our food and so on.
A glass of jam in germany cost only the quarter of what it does in denmark.
And a lot of families drive in extremely polluting cars from the 80's due to modern and more envirionment friendly cars are skyhigh in prices due to registration taxes.

Obama doesn't want to increase taxes on the middle class. If anything, Republicans do. They threatened to let the payroll tax cut for the middle class expire. Some of them want to create a national sales tax that disproportionately hurts the middle class more than it hurts the rich.

Im all for punishing wall st.
But i don't mind people making a buck for being innovative and leading a good buisness.
You must remember that moneymasters at the top of the pyramid won't get what they deserve if you increase their taxes.
Because they will just order the politicians who are bought and sold, to pass more laws, that will involve more regulation, and thus more debt, printing more money, devaluing the currency.

Regulations exist because there is nothing else to stop corporations from, say, destroying the environment. Obama wants people to be innovative. He's not punishing that. But the United States is about paying one's fair share. Just one's fair share. That's all. Unfortunately, the Republicans, Ron Paul included, pander to the rich and worry more about decreasing the taxes of the rich than decreasing the taxes of the middle class. Likewise, the Republicans threaten to allow taxes on the middle class to go up in an effort to get what they want. The rich should pay their fair share. Data has shown time and time again that tax benefits to the rich do not help the economy. Trickle-down economics does not work.

PS: Sorry for the late response

It's all good, bro.

It should be worth noting here that Ron Paul has virtually no chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president. It will likely be Obama vs. Romney, with there being a slim chance of it being Obama vs. Santorum.

1. Actually, No.
Science would get taken care of by the free market, making it impossible for government to lobby the food and drug industry, since the government no longer took care of scientific decisions.
But yes, it would allow the market to push their products out legally, no matter what they contain.
And if a corporation decided to put, for instance, Mercury in their soft drinks, people wouldn't buy it, and then the company would collapse.
Compare that to what there is now, where large corporations gets different dangourus chemicals approved as being safe, due to lobbying.

- http://www.alternet.org/story/137551/how_big_pharma_distorts_science_to_get_fda_approval_for_dangerous_drugs/
- http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does-not-protect-your-best-interests

2. Thats how the free market functions.
If i have a desire to tax some people because of their buisness or how much income they get, i can't ignore the fact that people will try to work around it.
My country for instance has lost a lot of jobs to neighboor-countries, due to our taxation.
If i make a dime more than 68.917.41 USD a year, i have to pay 60% in taxes.
Its only natural that it would want me to move to another country, from a logical perspective.

3. Watch this short 30-minute documentary and tell me that the Fed isn't a large issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

4. When you start going down the taxation road, you will eventually hurt the middle class.
And lets not forget that the Fed's prints money like it were toilet paper, and that means that the middle class gets poorer, and the thus, gets punished.
And when you start taxing all corporations that make a lot of money to finance your public sector (whether its health care, military etc.) some of the people will move their buisness to another country,
And thats when you'll end up at crossroads, because, you can then either A: Tax the buisness owners further, B: Tax both the middle class, the poor, and the rich trough taxes on food etc. or
C: you can start cutting spending to get the corporations back (And JOBS!).

5.. But the regulations don't work when the people that are supposed to regulate is bought and paid for, by lobbyists and corporations.


But yeah, i know, Paul ain't got a big chance, which saddens someone, and makes others cheer.
But you americans could at least try to find someone with his foreign policy then, because a lot of countries around don't want the U.S policing their very move .

 

[nando]

obama. hope he stops bending over for the reps

 

[NeoSupaMario]

" It should be worth noting here that Ron Paul has virtually no chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president. It will likely be Obama vs. Romney, with there being a slim chance of it being Obama vs. Santorum."
Or Obama vs. Gingrich lol

 

[Lacius]

1. Actually, No.
Science would get taken care of by the free market, making it impossible for government to lobby the food and drug industry, since the government no longer took care of scientific decisions.
But yes, it would allow the market to push their products out legally, no matter what they contain.
And if a corporation decided to put, for instance, Mercury in their soft drinks, people wouldn't buy it, and then the company would collapse.
Compare that to what there is now, where large corporations gets different dangourus chemicals approved as being safe, due to lobbying.

The FDA prevents companies from selling you harmful things. Without the FDA, they could put whatever they want into your products. You argue that the free market would take care of that, but even with the FDA, you argue that harmful things are getting through, and yet the free market does not do anything about it either. By your logic, the free market system does not work when it comes to protecting the consumer. Here in Missouri, we had a ballot issue about banning puppy mills. Many conservatives argued that the free market would get rid of puppy mills. If people don't like what puppy mills do, they can just not buy from them and they would go out of business. However, without the government stepping in and putting restrictions on puppy mills, the free market wasn't doing anything about it. Time and time again, we have seen that the free market often times does not work when it comes to protecting the interests of those without lobbyists (middle class citizens, the environment, puppies, etc).

2. Thats how the free market functions.
If i have a desire to tax some people because of their buisness or how much income they get, i can't ignore the fact that people will try to work around it.
My country for instance has lost a lot of jobs to neighboor-countries, due to our taxation.
If i make a dime more than 68.917.41 USD a year, i have to pay 60% in taxes.
Its only natural that it would want me to move to another country, from a logical perspective.

When it comes to taxing the rich, the United States taxes are some of the lowest in the world. One of the things Obama wants to do is make it so people making more than $250,000 a year pay a little more in taxes. It's definitely not unreasonable. It's pretty much the same tax rate they paid during the Clinton administration. The Republicans, however, want to drop taxes without paying for them. However, while they want to cut middle class taxes a wee bit, they want to cut the taxes of the super rich substantially. Ron Paul wants to get rid of middle class taxes completely and have the super rich pay very little, which is highly impractical, unless you have a powerless government that doesn't do anything.

That state of taxes in your country and the state of taxes if Obama and the Democrats got their way are two completely different things. The system proposed by Obama is extremely fair. In fact, when polled, roughly 60-70% of citizens think the rich should pay slightly higher taxes.

3. Watch this short 30-minute documentary and tell me that the Fed isn't a large issue:
[*snip*]

Sorry, that's too long. I'll pass.

4. When you start going down the taxation road, you will eventually hurt the middle class.
And lets not forget that the Fed's prints money like it were toilet paper, and that means that the middle class gets poorer, and the thus, gets punished.

I agree that inflation is an issue, but not so much an issue that we need to switch over to gold. We've got more pressing issues. Besides, the value of gold is more unstable than one might think. Likewise, Ron Paul exaggerates the percent inflation of the US dollar and flat-out lies.

And when you start taxing all corporations that make a lot of money to finance your public sector (whether its health care, military etc.) some of the people will move their buisness to another country,
And thats when you'll end up at crossroads, because, you can then either A: Tax the buisness owners further, B: Tax both the middle class, the poor, and the rich trough taxes on food etc. or
C: you can start cutting spending to get the corporations back (And JOBS!).

Corporations benefit from being in the United States. They use the roads to transport goods. They benefit from living in a society where crooks aren't allowed to just walk in and steal from them, using the protection of the police and whatnot. Suffice it to say, corporations benefit greatly from the federal government and are allowed to be prosperous. It is only fair that they pay taxes. Corporate taxes are extremely low in the United States. The latest proposal from the Obama administration actually lowers that rate even further while also getting rid of a few loopholes. Tax cuts have also been proposed as an inventive to keep corporations hiring workers in the United States. It's not like the federal government wants to take all of the profits from corporations. Just a fair amount. They will still make record profits like they have been. No one really has the right to complain.

Or Obama vs. Gingrich lol

Gringrich's chances are so low that it is fair to say that he will not get the nomination. Santorum's chances are also low, but not so low that I can say that he won't get it. The only thing Gingrich is causing by staying in the race is that he's causing more delegates to go to Mitt Romney. If Gingrich were to drop out of the race, more delegates would go to Santorum.

And Ron Paul has no chance. I've heard that he's manipulating the potential brokered convention system in order to get delegates, but no one really thinks it's going to work out.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

I think Gingrich still has a chance. If he wins the next primary, he has a shot.

 

[Gahars]

I think Gingrich still has a chance. If he wins the next primary, he has a shot.

He'd need to win the next 5 primaries to be seriously considered. That's not going to happen.

 

[Lacius]

I think Gingrich still has a chance. If he wins the next primary, he has a shot.

Gingrich is wildly unpopular. He got one state during his last popularity surge and his home state; that's not very much. Sure, it's still possible for Gingrich to win the nomination, but he would have to win a lot more states in the future, and he's not expected to, especially the ones with big potential delegate gains. Pretty much everything that counts is expected to go either Romney's way or Santorum's way. It'll still likely be Romney though.

You might as well count Gingrich out.