I was waiting for you to say "Joe Scarborough."
That would be an insult to Joe Scarborough.
Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5076 Posts
May 11 2012 17:24 GMT
#1961
I was waiting for you to say "Joe Scarborough." That would be an insult to Joe Scarborough. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
May 11 2012 21:36 GMT
#1962
On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2012 01:51 Gorsameth wrote: On May 12 2012 01:39 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 My favorite quote and one that I use frequently. The response to it is defening silence. Realise that the situation is everything. Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept. The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell. The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time. Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today. You should really read more literature outside of Ron Paul newsletters when it comes to economics. In 2006, reckless fiscal policy would be running a large deficit with Fed interest rates above 0%. There was really no reason for the U.S. to borrow more money with taxes at an all time low and a mishandling of U.S. longterm social commitments. In 2011, Fed interest rates had been at least 0% for at least 2 years and state and local governments couldn't finance their required projects due to reduced revenue and an increase in social aid. While government spending seemed to increase over that same period, what we actually saw was an increase of people in poverty needing government assistance and the economic output shrink dramatically. Not only that, but the U.S. is able to refinance its current debt at levels below inflation, meaning investors (which are largely American now) are taking a loss to put their money into U.S. bonds. Along with incredibly high unemployment, this is the perfect situation in which the government needs to spend money, allowing people to earn more income and pay off their own debt. When investors look to private industry and consumers as more appealing to invest in and unemployment is at acceptable levels, then you start looking at ways to cut back and increase revenue. | ||
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
May 12 2012 01:37 GMT
#1963
On May 12 2012 06:36 aksfjh wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:51 Gorsameth wrote: On May 12 2012 01:39 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 My favorite quote and one that I use frequently. The response to it is defening silence. Realise that the situation is everything. Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept. The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell. The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time. Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today. You should really read more literature outside of Ron Paul newsletters when it comes to economics. In 2006, reckless fiscal policy would be running a large deficit with Fed interest rates above 0%. There was really no reason for the U.S. to borrow more money with taxes at an all time low and a mishandling of U.S. longterm social commitments. In 2011, Fed interest rates had been at least 0% for at least 2 years and state and local governments couldn't finance their required projects due to reduced revenue and an increase in social aid. While government spending seemed to increase over that same period, what we actually saw was an increase of people in poverty needing government assistance and the economic output shrink dramatically. Not only that, but the U.S. is able to refinance its current debt at levels below inflation, meaning investors (which are largely American now) are taking a loss to put their money into U.S. bonds. Along with incredibly high unemployment, this is the perfect situation in which the government needs to spend money, allowing people to earn more income and pay off their own debt. When investors look to private industry and consumers as more appealing to invest in and unemployment is at acceptable levels, then you start looking at ways to cut back and increase revenue. My economic thought regarding economics were totally developed before I knew who Ron Paul was. You are a total tool for trying to pigeon hole me like that. Now, with regard to your post. It's terribly painful and wrong in so many fashions that I don't want to get into it , but I will point a couple of things out. You seem to totally miss the point of the government not running on deficits, what it takes to keep such low interest rates, and how the very same mechanisms involved with each lead to economic collapses/recession that result in lowered tax revenue and increased pull on social services provided by the government and how the subsequent "cure" isn't to keep taking the same medicine, just at a higher dose. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
May 12 2012 02:13 GMT
#1964
On May 12 2012 10:37 AcuWill wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2012 06:36 aksfjh wrote: On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:51 Gorsameth wrote: On May 12 2012 01:39 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 My favorite quote and one that I use frequently. The response to it is defening silence. Realise that the situation is everything. Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept. The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell. The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time. Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today. You should really read more literature outside of Ron Paul newsletters when it comes to economics. In 2006, reckless fiscal policy would be running a large deficit with Fed interest rates above 0%. There was really no reason for the U.S. to borrow more money with taxes at an all time low and a mishandling of U.S. longterm social commitments. In 2011, Fed interest rates had been at least 0% for at least 2 years and state and local governments couldn't finance their required projects due to reduced revenue and an increase in social aid. While government spending seemed to increase over that same period, what we actually saw was an increase of people in poverty needing government assistance and the economic output shrink dramatically. Not only that, but the U.S. is able to refinance its current debt at levels below inflation, meaning investors (which are largely American now) are taking a loss to put their money into U.S. bonds. Along with incredibly high unemployment, this is the perfect situation in which the government needs to spend money, allowing people to earn more income and pay off their own debt. When investors look to private industry and consumers as more appealing to invest in and unemployment is at acceptable levels, then you start looking at ways to cut back and increase revenue. My economic thought regarding economics were totally developed before I knew who Ron Paul was. You are a total tool for trying to pigeon hole me like that. Now, with regard to your post. It's terribly painful and wrong in so many fashions that I don't want to get into it , but I will point a couple of things out. You seem to totally miss the point of the government not running on deficits, what it takes to keep such low interest rates, and how the very same mechanisms involved with each lead to economic collapses/recession that result in lowered tax revenue and increased pull on social services provided by the government and how the subsequent "cure" isn't to keep taking the same medicine, just at a higher dose. I agree. The way out of this recession isn't to keep deregulating banks and high risk industries. But I have a feeling you think the real way to recover the economy is to pull out the floor on the base of the economy, consumers, by drastically cutting back on welfare and healthcare. I'm sure reducing the purchasing power of 100 million Americans will certainly provide a boost to the economy. | ||
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
May 12 2012 11:16 GMT
#1965
On May 12 2012 11:13 aksfjh wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2012 10:37 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 06:36 aksfjh wrote: On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:51 Gorsameth wrote: On May 12 2012 01:39 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 My favorite quote and one that I use frequently. The response to it is defening silence. Realise that the situation is everything. Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept. The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell. The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time. Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today. You should really read more literature outside of Ron Paul newsletters when it comes to economics. In 2006, reckless fiscal policy would be running a large deficit with Fed interest rates above 0%. There was really no reason for the U.S. to borrow more money with taxes at an all time low and a mishandling of U.S. longterm social commitments. In 2011, Fed interest rates had been at least 0% for at least 2 years and state and local governments couldn't finance their required projects due to reduced revenue and an increase in social aid. While government spending seemed to increase over that same period, what we actually saw was an increase of people in poverty needing government assistance and the economic output shrink dramatically. Not only that, but the U.S. is able to refinance its current debt at levels below inflation, meaning investors (which are largely American now) are taking a loss to put their money into U.S. bonds. Along with incredibly high unemployment, this is the perfect situation in which the government needs to spend money, allowing people to earn more income and pay off their own debt. When investors look to private industry and consumers as more appealing to invest in and unemployment is at acceptable levels, then you start looking at ways to cut back and increase revenue. My economic thought regarding economics were totally developed before I knew who Ron Paul was. You are a total tool for trying to pigeon hole me like that. Now, with regard to your post. It's terribly painful and wrong in so many fashions that I don't want to get into it , but I will point a couple of things out. You seem to totally miss the point of the government not running on deficits, what it takes to keep such low interest rates, and how the very same mechanisms involved with each lead to economic collapses/recession that result in lowered tax revenue and increased pull on social services provided by the government and how the subsequent "cure" isn't to keep taking the same medicine, just at a higher dose. I agree. The way out of this recession isn't to keep deregulating banks and high risk industries. But I have a feeling you think the real way to recover the economy is to pull out the floor on the base of the economy, consumers, by drastically cutting back on welfare and healthcare. I'm sure reducing the purchasing power of 100 million Americans will certainly provide a boost to the economy. Way to continue to pigeon hole me like a tool. Once again, your assumption is totally wrong, and therefore the rest of your post, which you argue your flawed assumption, is totally wrong as well. Please read what you wrote and then explain how QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and the Fed purchasing 50% of Federal Debt issuance isn't doing EXACTLY what you describe, except instead of reducing the purchasing power of 100 million, it punishes and reduces the purchasing power of EVERYONE that has produced something and SAVED capital therefore punishing them, while rewarding those that have put all us of in this situation in the first place. Also, of course if you pull all the legs off the chair at once you will have terrible consequences. At this stage, pragmatic Austrians know that rebuilding is step-wise process, which begins with unhindering the economy first. This should be done with a separation of Economy and State, which should be totally like the separating of Church and State. Tbh, based on what you have written, you don't express to even understand how Austrians, like Ron Paul, advocate to do such things. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
May 12 2012 12:23 GMT
#1966
On May 12 2012 20:16 AcuWill wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2012 11:13 aksfjh wrote: On May 12 2012 10:37 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 06:36 aksfjh wrote: On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:51 Gorsameth wrote: On May 12 2012 01:39 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 My favorite quote and one that I use frequently. The response to it is defening silence. Realise that the situation is everything. Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept. The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell. The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time. Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today. You should really read more literature outside of Ron Paul newsletters when it comes to economics. In 2006, reckless fiscal policy would be running a large deficit with Fed interest rates above 0%. There was really no reason for the U.S. to borrow more money with taxes at an all time low and a mishandling of U.S. longterm social commitments. In 2011, Fed interest rates had been at least 0% for at least 2 years and state and local governments couldn't finance their required projects due to reduced revenue and an increase in social aid. While government spending seemed to increase over that same period, what we actually saw was an increase of people in poverty needing government assistance and the economic output shrink dramatically. Not only that, but the U.S. is able to refinance its current debt at levels below inflation, meaning investors (which are largely American now) are taking a loss to put their money into U.S. bonds. Along with incredibly high unemployment, this is the perfect situation in which the government needs to spend money, allowing people to earn more income and pay off their own debt. When investors look to private industry and consumers as more appealing to invest in and unemployment is at acceptable levels, then you start looking at ways to cut back and increase revenue. My economic thought regarding economics were totally developed before I knew who Ron Paul was. You are a total tool for trying to pigeon hole me like that. Now, with regard to your post. It's terribly painful and wrong in so many fashions that I don't want to get into it , but I will point a couple of things out. You seem to totally miss the point of the government not running on deficits, what it takes to keep such low interest rates, and how the very same mechanisms involved with each lead to economic collapses/recession that result in lowered tax revenue and increased pull on social services provided by the government and how the subsequent "cure" isn't to keep taking the same medicine, just at a higher dose. I agree. The way out of this recession isn't to keep deregulating banks and high risk industries. But I have a feeling you think the real way to recover the economy is to pull out the floor on the base of the economy, consumers, by drastically cutting back on welfare and healthcare. I'm sure reducing the purchasing power of 100 million Americans will certainly provide a boost to the economy. Way to continue to pigeon hole me like a tool. Once again, your assumption is totally wrong, and therefore the rest of your post, which you argue your flawed assumption, is totally wrong as well. Please read what you wrote and then explain how QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and the Fed purchasing 50% of Federal Debt issuance isn't doing EXACTLY what you describe, except instead of reducing the purchasing power of 100 million, it punishes and reduces the purchasing power of EVERYONE that has produced something and SAVED capital therefore punishing them, while rewarding those that have put all us of in this situation in the first place. Also, of course if you pull all the legs off the chair at once you will have terrible consequences. At this stage, pragmatic Austrians know that rebuilding is step-wise process, which begins with unhindering the economy first. This should be done with a separation of Economy and State, which should be totally like the separating of Church and State. Tbh, based on what you have written, you don't express to even understand how Austrians, like Ron Paul, advocate to do such things. Ah, so we all suffer for the "wrongs" of certain actors. We must atone for our sins to the invisible hands of the markets, and only then will we find economic salvation! Quantitative easing is the Fed attempting to boost inflation and investment, both in the private and public sector. The government isn't acting rationally though because politicians of a certain party have backed themselves into a corner. Now we have a death spiral in public sector jobs, forcing a lack of demand in the private sector, which forces investors to the only consumer who can spend: government. Despite your misguided theories, though, this Fed injection of money isn't even causing inflation. The money they are lending to banks (and the U.S. government) isn't being used, so it's not entering circulation. At the end of the day, they still have to pay back everything that is loaned by the Fed. In the end, all we have is a measly 2 to 3% inflation, which keeps consumers buying durable goods. I guarantee you, if we didn't have inflation, demand would have fallen flat as banks, consumers, and business hoarded money. | ||
kwizach
3658 Posts
May 12 2012 17:34 GMT
#1967
On May 11 2012 13:45 TheToast wrote: Show nested quote + On May 11 2012 12:40 Velocirapture wrote: On May 11 2012 12:36 TheToast wrote: On May 11 2012 12:27 D10 wrote: On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney. the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad. Naw, it just represents a difference between the American political spectrum and others. By European standards, Democrats are right wing and Republicans and crazy fringe right. Not that it matters since Americans determine American politics but it is silly to imply that its largely based on misinformation. Interestingly, I wrote a term paper on this for my comparative political culture course in college. If the term "right wing" is what's throwing the Europeans and other off, allow me to explain. Outside of the US and the UK, "right wing" usually refers to nationalists or sometimes ultra nationalists. In Japan, an individual arguing for the rearming of the Japanese state might be considered right wing. The subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo was said to have been carried out by right wing nationalists, for example. In central Europe the term sometimes refers to individuates who oppose immigration and are against what they perceive as the homogenization of the continent. I've even seem the Norwegian bomber referred to as an extreme right winger. But here in the US (and to a lesser extent in the UK) "right wing" usually refers to libertarian principles, sometimes bordering on social Darwinism amongst the most extreme. Often, traditional "family values" are included in this as well. A typical "right-wing" conservative in the US believes in lower government spending; lower taxation; smaller government with less regulation of businesses, corporations, and individuals; and are most often support a pro-life stance on abortion. "Reagan conservatives", which most modern right wing conservatives would probably identify themselves as, also tend to support a strong US military; often this includes a belief in a robust nuclear deterrent as well. I know someone already answered but I couldn't find the post so I'm going to reply to this one: in Europe, right-wing certainly doesn't only refer to nationalism. It also refers to (in no order) attachment to family values, lower taxation, less welfare state, etc. - just like in the US. It can therefore clearly be said that the two main US parties have positions that are respectively to the right of the equivalent average positions of right-wing and left-wing parties in Europe. | ||
GT3
Iraq100 Posts
May 12 2012 17:49 GMT
#1968
| ||
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
May 12 2012 17:54 GMT
#1969
On May 13 2012 02:49 GT3 wrote: I don't understand why you had to only list Obama and Romney, I think you're subliminally wanting one of them to win so you're giving them the spotlight, I know that Ron Paul is leading over Obama and Romney in some states, and Ron Paul is the only one who isn't a puppet for the illuminati. i probably shouldn't do this but i can't resist: Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination. If he does not get the Republican nomination, he will not win the election. this is not a prediction. this is a fact of life. people need to accept this and move on. | ||
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
May 12 2012 18:29 GMT
#1970
On May 12 2012 21:23 aksfjh wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2012 20:16 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 11:13 aksfjh wrote: On May 12 2012 10:37 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 06:36 aksfjh wrote: On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:51 Gorsameth wrote: On May 12 2012 01:39 AcuWill wrote: On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 My favorite quote and one that I use frequently. The response to it is defening silence. Realise that the situation is everything. Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept. The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell. The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time. Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today. You should really read more literature outside of Ron Paul newsletters when it comes to economics. In 2006, reckless fiscal policy would be running a large deficit with Fed interest rates above 0%. There was really no reason for the U.S. to borrow more money with taxes at an all time low and a mishandling of U.S. longterm social commitments. In 2011, Fed interest rates had been at least 0% for at least 2 years and state and local governments couldn't finance their required projects due to reduced revenue and an increase in social aid. While government spending seemed to increase over that same period, what we actually saw was an increase of people in poverty needing government assistance and the economic output shrink dramatically. Not only that, but the U.S. is able to refinance its current debt at levels below inflation, meaning investors (which are largely American now) are taking a loss to put their money into U.S. bonds. Along with incredibly high unemployment, this is the perfect situation in which the government needs to spend money, allowing people to earn more income and pay off their own debt. When investors look to private industry and consumers as more appealing to invest in and unemployment is at acceptable levels, then you start looking at ways to cut back and increase revenue. My economic thought regarding economics were totally developed before I knew who Ron Paul was. You are a total tool for trying to pigeon hole me like that. Now, with regard to your post. It's terribly painful and wrong in so many fashions that I don't want to get into it , but I will point a couple of things out. You seem to totally miss the point of the government not running on deficits, what it takes to keep such low interest rates, and how the very same mechanisms involved with each lead to economic collapses/recession that result in lowered tax revenue and increased pull on social services provided by the government and how the subsequent "cure" isn't to keep taking the same medicine, just at a higher dose. I agree. The way out of this recession isn't to keep deregulating banks and high risk industries. But I have a feeling you think the real way to recover the economy is to pull out the floor on the base of the economy, consumers, by drastically cutting back on welfare and healthcare. I'm sure reducing the purchasing power of 100 million Americans will certainly provide a boost to the economy. Way to continue to pigeon hole me like a tool. Once again, your assumption is totally wrong, and therefore the rest of your post, which you argue your flawed assumption, is totally wrong as well. Please read what you wrote and then explain how QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and the Fed purchasing 50% of Federal Debt issuance isn't doing EXACTLY what you describe, except instead of reducing the purchasing power of 100 million, it punishes and reduces the purchasing power of EVERYONE that has produced something and SAVED capital therefore punishing them, while rewarding those that have put all us of in this situation in the first place. Also, of course if you pull all the legs off the chair at once you will have terrible consequences. At this stage, pragmatic Austrians know that rebuilding is step-wise process, which begins with unhindering the economy first. This should be done with a separation of Economy and State, which should be totally like the separating of Church and State. Tbh, based on what you have written, you don't express to even understand how Austrians, like Ron Paul, advocate to do such things. Ah, so we all suffer for the "wrongs" of certain actors. We must atone for our sins to the invisible hands of the markets, and only then will we find economic salvation! Quantitative easing is the Fed attempting to boost inflation and investment, both in the private and public sector. The government isn't acting rationally though because politicians of a certain party have backed themselves into a corner. Now we have a death spiral in public sector jobs, forcing a lack of demand in the private sector, which forces investors to the only consumer who can spend: government. Despite your misguided theories, though, this Fed injection of money isn't even causing inflation. The money they are lending to banks (and the U.S. government) isn't being used, so it's not entering circulation. At the end of the day, they still have to pay back everything that is loaned by the Fed. In the end, all we have is a measly 2 to 3% inflation, which keeps consumers buying durable goods. I guarantee you, if we didn't have inflation, demand would have fallen flat as banks, consumers, and business hoarded money. Explain to me how when the Fed is purchasing 50% of US debt issuance the money isn't getting out into the economy? Or when you see the following graphics with regard to QE1, QE2, and operation Twist. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/how-fed-quietly-bought-1150-sp-points Also, do you really have no idea about the current recession and how it was caused by Fed intervention starting in 2001, which as you say were to "boost inflation and investment, both in the private and public sector," which is what you currently advocate as if it won't have any effect? I feel like it am talking to a regurgitating gnome reading talking points from some "Brainwashed Economics 101". With regard to inflation: Perhaps you should look at earnings reports for McDonalds, Nestle, etc. and see how they are shrinking contents in packages to do exploding costs of basic supplies. Inflation will not be uniform in the economy as resource scarcity varies dramatically, that is why after a very moderate winter energy prices are keeping net inflation numbers down, but if you look across the spectrum, it is there. It just hasn't hit sharply yet as there is a lag between money supply increase and full inflationary effects. Finally, savers are still being destroyed even with the "measly" inflation as "safe" investments right now are at negative yields once inflation is taken into account, even at the "measly" amounts. That is, the "measly" amounts before the money supply expansion effects have even taken effect. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
May 12 2012 22:00 GMT
#1971
Snippet: In Europe, where more than 200,000 people thronged a Berlin rally in 2008 to hear Barack Obama speak, there's disappointment that he hasn't kept his promise to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and perceptions that he's shunting blame for the financial crisis across the Atlantic. In Mogadishu, a former teacher wishes he had sent more economic assistance and fewer armed drones to fix Somalia's problems. And many in the Middle East wonder what became of Obama's vow, in a landmark 2009 speech at the University of Cairo, to forge a closer relationship with the Muslim world. In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations that surrounded his 2008 election and Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were also taken aback by his support for gay marriage, a taboo subject among religious conservatives. Goes on to draw the comparison between Romney and Obama, and then the memories of G.W.B. Maybe still has his base & lingering world support because of the more stark contrasts between what he stands for vs. what his opponent stands for, compared to the still-numerous contrasts between what he promised to do if elected and what he actually did. The thread's poll is also in line with continued preference for Obama from the world scene. If re-elected, can only wonder how long that will last, though. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42257 Posts
May 12 2012 22:03 GMT
#1972
On May 13 2012 02:49 GT3 wrote: I don't understand why you had to only list Obama and Romney, I think you're subliminally wanting one of them to win so you're giving them the spotlight, I know that Ron Paul is leading over Obama and Romney in some states, and Ron Paul is the only one who isn't a puppet for the illuminati. Except Ron Paul isn't going to be the Democratic or Republican nominee, and even if he runs as a third party candidate there's no realistic shot of him winning. That may or may not be unfortunate, but only Obama and Romney are listed because they're the only two candidates who could become our next president (unless something terrible happens to one of them, god forbid). There's really no reason to talk about anyone else. | ||
Mango Chicken
55 Posts
May 12 2012 22:07 GMT
#1973
On May 13 2012 02:49 GT3 wrote: I don't understand why you had to only list Obama and Romney, I think you're subliminally wanting one of them to win so you're giving them the spotlight, I know that Ron Paul is leading over Obama and Romney in some states, and Ron Paul is the only one who isn't a puppet for the illuminati. You don't understand because you're a deluded Ron Paul fan who has no appreciation for reality. Libertarians go on and on about how the free market is perfect, how Paul predicted the financial crash, how much more intelligent they are in knowing how the economy will work in the future - yet aren't able to comprehend something as simple as polling numbers. If Libertarians like you used the same level of delusion in the share markets as they do with believing that Paul has a chance, you'd be bankrupt in no time. | ||
BioNova
United States598 Posts
May 12 2012 22:20 GMT
#1974
The chair took a quick motion and second to adjourn the convention. He took a voice vote and the NAYS were over-powering. He adjourned the convention among yelling and shouting and told the delegates they could finish their convention in the parking lot. Results: Single, GOP formulated slate adopted with no ROLL CALL vote as required by Oklahoma state republican party rules. Delegate slate is invalid as rules prohibiting the election of national delegates without a ROLL CALL vote were ignored by the chair. Video @ 25 min in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/22541812 Echo convention of St Charles Co, Mo. Romney calling on Santorum supporters as proxy forces were still outnumbered and called the convention. A large group of delegates is now reconducting buisness in the parking lot, per the chair's suggestion(sarcasm). Wow terribad. I'm getting quite the laugh. | ||
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
May 13 2012 02:07 GMT
#1975
On May 13 2012 07:20 BioNova wrote: The OK GOP convention just went up in flames. Obama wins. Romney vs Paul is shredding the GOP. Show nested quote + The chair took a quick motion and second to adjourn the convention. He took a voice vote and the NAYS were over-powering. He adjourned the convention among yelling and shouting and told the delegates they could finish their convention in the parking lot. Results: Single, GOP formulated slate adopted with no ROLL CALL vote as required by Oklahoma state republican party rules. Delegate slate is invalid as rules prohibiting the election of national delegates without a ROLL CALL vote were ignored by the chair. Video @ 25 min in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/22541812 Echo convention of St Charles Co, Mo. Romney calling on Santorum supporters as proxy forces were still outnumbered and called the convention. A large group of delegates is now reconducting buisness in the parking lot, per the chair's suggestion(sarcasm). Wow terribad. I'm getting quite the laugh. damn, what an epic time for my soundcard to shit out. i wanted to hear this =[ | ||
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
May 13 2012 02:40 GMT
#1976
On May 13 2012 07:20 BioNova wrote: The OK GOP convention just went up in flames. Obama wins. Romney vs Paul is shredding the GOP. Show nested quote + The chair took a quick motion and second to adjourn the convention. He took a voice vote and the NAYS were over-powering. He adjourned the convention among yelling and shouting and told the delegates they could finish their convention in the parking lot. Results: Single, GOP formulated slate adopted with no ROLL CALL vote as required by Oklahoma state republican party rules. Delegate slate is invalid as rules prohibiting the election of national delegates without a ROLL CALL vote were ignored by the chair. Video @ 25 min in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/22541812 Echo convention of St Charles Co, Mo. Romney calling on Santorum supporters as proxy forces were still outnumbered and called the convention. A large group of delegates is now reconducting buisness in the parking lot, per the chair's suggestion(sarcasm). Wow terribad. I'm getting quite the laugh. Interesting, but pointless. Electing the representatives via voice vote instead of a roll call vote is frankly a minor infraction, and there's no legal standards preventing them from doing so. And any way you slice it, it really doesn't matter. All the Ron Paul supporters are doing now is hurting the Republican party. This is stupid and pointless. Ron Paul is not going to win the election, anything they're doing at this point that isn't helping Romney is helping Obama. And lol @ the chair's comment about the parking lot, if I were in his shoes I wouldn't even have been that polite to the Ron Paul devotees. | ||
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
May 13 2012 03:13 GMT
#1977
On May 13 2012 11:40 TheToast wrote: How about the cheating liars hurting the Republican Party?Show nested quote + On May 13 2012 07:20 BioNova wrote: The OK GOP convention just went up in flames. Obama wins. Romney vs Paul is shredding the GOP. The chair took a quick motion and second to adjourn the convention. He took a voice vote and the NAYS were over-powering. He adjourned the convention among yelling and shouting and told the delegates they could finish their convention in the parking lot. Results: Single, GOP formulated slate adopted with no ROLL CALL vote as required by Oklahoma state republican party rules. Delegate slate is invalid as rules prohibiting the election of national delegates without a ROLL CALL vote were ignored by the chair. Video @ 25 min in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/22541812 Echo convention of St Charles Co, Mo. Romney calling on Santorum supporters as proxy forces were still outnumbered and called the convention. A large group of delegates is now reconducting buisness in the parking lot, per the chair's suggestion(sarcasm). Wow terribad. I'm getting quite the laugh. Interesting, but pointless. Electing the representatives via voice vote instead of a roll call vote is frankly a minor infraction, and there's no legal standards preventing them from doing so. And any way you slice it, it really doesn't matter. All the Ron Paul supporters are doing now is hurting the Republican party. This is stupid and pointless. Ron Paul is not going to win the election, anything they're doing at this point that isn't helping Romney is helping Obama. And lol @ the chair's comment about the parking lot, if I were in his shoes I wouldn't even have been that polite to the Ron Paul devotees. As in the ones that don't follow the established rules. Good thing that absolutely EVERYTHING is on video and you can watch to your heart's content and try to deny what I am saying. | ||
Lixler
United States265 Posts
May 13 2012 03:15 GMT
#1978
On May 13 2012 12:13 AcuWill wrote: Show nested quote + How about the cheating liars hurting the Republican Party?On May 13 2012 11:40 TheToast wrote: On May 13 2012 07:20 BioNova wrote: The OK GOP convention just went up in flames. Obama wins. Romney vs Paul is shredding the GOP. The chair took a quick motion and second to adjourn the convention. He took a voice vote and the NAYS were over-powering. He adjourned the convention among yelling and shouting and told the delegates they could finish their convention in the parking lot. Results: Single, GOP formulated slate adopted with no ROLL CALL vote as required by Oklahoma state republican party rules. Delegate slate is invalid as rules prohibiting the election of national delegates without a ROLL CALL vote were ignored by the chair. Video @ 25 min in http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/22541812 Echo convention of St Charles Co, Mo. Romney calling on Santorum supporters as proxy forces were still outnumbered and called the convention. A large group of delegates is now reconducting buisness in the parking lot, per the chair's suggestion(sarcasm). Wow terribad. I'm getting quite the laugh. Interesting, but pointless. Electing the representatives via voice vote instead of a roll call vote is frankly a minor infraction, and there's no legal standards preventing them from doing so. And any way you slice it, it really doesn't matter. All the Ron Paul supporters are doing now is hurting the Republican party. This is stupid and pointless. Ron Paul is not going to win the election, anything they're doing at this point that isn't helping Romney is helping Obama. And lol @ the chair's comment about the parking lot, if I were in his shoes I wouldn't even have been that polite to the Ron Paul devotees. As in the ones that don't follow the established rules. Good thing that absolutely EVERYTHING is on video and you can watch to your heart's content and try to deny what I am saying. Being a cheating liar is good for the Republic Party. If you don't cheat and lie, then the establishment is threatened. If you don't allow people to cheat and lie, you're just helping Obama win. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15090 Posts
May 13 2012 03:23 GMT
#1979
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/12/mitt-romney-liberty-university-speech_n_1511621.html Why are you guys discussing Ron Paul I'm sorry for backseat moderating, but Ron Paul is really off-topic here and I wish people would focus on the election. | ||
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
May 13 2012 03:35 GMT
#1980
On May 13 2012 12:23 Mohdoo wrote: Mitt Romney recently spoke at a Christian university and used his stance on gay marriage to try to win their support. Thought it was interesting that this is indeed becoming an issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/12/mitt-romney-liberty-university-speech_n_1511621.html Why are you guys discussing Ron Paul I'm sorry for backseat moderating, but Ron Paul is really off-topic here and I wish people would focus on the election. We are focusing on the election in progress, the Republican Primary. | ||
| ||
Next event in 16h 53m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games gofns3787 Liquid`RaSZi3101 hiko1646 Fuzer 728 ceh9598 B2W.Neo509 Lowko412 ArmadaUGS298 TKL 213 NuckleDu160 Grubby128 Trikslyr119 nookyyy 71 Organizations Dota 2 StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • MindelVK 39 StarCraft: Brood War• iHatsuTV 9 • Dystopia_ 7 • IndyKCrew • intothetv • Kozan • Gussbus • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel • LaughNgamez Trovo • aXEnki • AfreecaTV YouTube • Poblha Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
WardiTV Korean Royale
OSC
OSC
StarsWar
Maru vs Spirit
ShoWTimE vs GuMiho
Firefly vs herO
Oliveira vs SKillous
Chat StarLeague
H.4.0.S
Chat StarLeague
Afreeca Global
Cure vs Stats
Creator vs Solar
StarsWar
Chat StarLeague
[ Show More ] BSL
Dewalt vs Zhanhun
ForJumy Cup
Chat StarLeague
H.4.0.S
GSL Code S
|
|