On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
The FED is not a privately owned bank. End of story, we don't care for conspiracy theories here. Stick to facts. BTW, the U.S. is currently in a liquidity trap, nothing the FED does will help. We need congress to fix things with fiscal policy, monetary policy (which is what all this inflation talk is about) won't do anything to help. For the record, short of voluntarily ruining itself forever, it can't really hurt the situation either.
Can you explain what you mean by a liquidity trap? To me it seems like the biggest issue in the US is confidence, not lack of cash. Companies are not hiring, and consumers are not consuming. Debt worries, government grid-lock and a housing market obliterated mean people are just plain scared to take a risk. Companies are hoarding cash because debt is seen to be especially toxic right now. Thus employment is down, and nothing seems to be getting business moving. There is credit available, interest rates are almost non-existent. So I don't see liquidity as a problem.
What the US needs is growth, debt is only a problem if you can't pay it off and the US is a long way from that. The problem is that monetary policy has been tried and failed. Another round of quantitive easing does nothing as there is a lack of demand for debt. As mentioned credit is freely available. So the real question is, how do you create consumer and business confidence? How do you get business hiring? Easy cash isn't doing it so what will
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
Nope, Obama would actually win by the biggest margin(or close) if his opponent was Ron Paul. You would be surprised how little average American voter (especially the undecided one) cares about Ron Paul's program. Even most Republicans do not really like him, he has his uses for them but that is it. He does not appeal to fundamentalists too much, the corporatists would do anything to keep him away from doing what he wants and hawkish wing also has no reason to really like him Frankly any politician that would advocate abolishing Social Security or Medicare will lose undecided voters. I think the fact that so many Republican candidates are hinting at it is the only saving grace for Obama. If he presents that fact correctly he has the election in the bag. Of course seeing how he was unable to do that with all the stuff Republicans handed him during last 3 years, he might actually throw it away.
The individual Federal Reserve Banks "are the operating arms of the central banking system, and they combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization."[36] Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen—three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors--"to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."[37] These regional banks are in turn controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States.
What part about "appointed by the President of the United States" do you not understand?
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
The FED is not a privately owned bank. End of story, we don't care for conspiracy theories here. Stick to facts. BTW, the U.S. is currently in a liquidity trap, nothing the FED does will help. We need congress to fix things with fiscal policy, monetary policy (which is what all this inflation talk is about) won't do anything to help. For the record, short of voluntarily ruining itself forever, it can't really hurt the situation either.
Can you explain what you mean by a liquidity trap? To me it seems like the biggest issue in the US is confidence, not lack of cash. Companies are not hiring, and consumers are not consuming. Debt worries, government grid-lock and a housing market obliterated mean people are just plain scared to take a risk. Companies are hoarding cash because debt is seen to be especially toxic right now. Thus employment is down, and nothing seems to be getting business moving. There is credit available, interest rates are almost non-existent. So I don't see liquidity as a problem.
What the US needs is growth, debt is only a problem if you can't pay it off and the US is a long way from that. The problem is that monetary policy has been tried and failed. Another round of quantitive easing does nothing as there is a lack of demand for debt. As mentioned credit is freely available. So the real question is, how do you create consumer and business confidence? How do you get business hiring? Easy cash isn't doing it so what will
It basically means that no matter what policies the FED tries to enact, it won't work. Monetary policy is useless. Typically they are caused when expectations cause people to lose interest in investing (such as an ongoing war or various other disasters) but in this case, it's caused by a significant unemployment rate and as a result, a low consumption demand, meaning that investing doesn't do much good because there's nothing to invest in that would increase the economy. People aren't buying, so people aren't making goods to sell.
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
The individual Federal Reserve Banks "are the operating arms of the central banking system, and they combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization."[36] Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen—three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors--"to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."[37] These regional banks are in turn controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States.
What part about "appointed by the President of the United States" do you not understand?
Nice putting that out of context. If you read it you would see, how only 3 of the 9 directors of the regional banks are elected by the members of the federal reserve board, which is in turn elected by the president. The other 6 are chosen by privately owned banks.
And you also managed to ignore all other parts of my post. Please, I like a good discussion, but respond to all content and don't ignore parts of the content when you see fit. If I am incorrect I will gladly admit it, but to be honest I really don't think I am. You're not doing a good job of convincing me.
The individual Federal Reserve Banks "are the operating arms of the central banking system, and they combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization."[36] Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen—three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors--"to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."[37] These regional banks are in turn controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States.
What part about "appointed by the President of the United States" do you not understand?
Nice putting that out of context. If you read it you would see, how only 3 of the 9 directors are elected by the members of the federal reserve board, which is in turn elected by the president. The other 6 are chosen by privately owned banks.
And you also managed to ignore all other parts of my post. Please, I like a good discussion, but respond to all content and don't ignore parts of the content when you see fit. If I am incorrect I will gladly admit it, but to be honest I really don't think I am. You're not doing a good job of convincing me.
To be a privately owned bank, someone has to be the owner of it. The FED has no owner, it merely has a large group of representatives running it, some of which happen to come from privately owned firms. Since nobody can claim ownership of the FED, it is not privately owned, by definition of being privately owned. What's so complicated about this?
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
So who is this Huntsman?
Seems he is the only person who takes evolution serious in the republican camp.
I will admit fault if I think I am wrong which I am not.
What? Commercial banks elect the board, but thye in no way do they own the bank itself. The private banks form a conglomeration, but not at all to the extent implied.
Seems to be exactly what is happening. So what is the solution? It really comes down to, how to you make people believe that things are getting better?
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
...and who my good sir would be the owners of this private bank?
You can plead as much as you want but this does come off as a conspiracy theory. The fed is an semi-independent banking authority. The board of governors and chairman are nominated by the president but the policies are not subject to congressional approval. The idea being that money policy is above every-day poltics.
As has been mentioned, what the US needs now is inflation. Printing money is one way to try and up that rate. No big brother here.
I think most people that bother to read have a fairly good understanding of what caused the GFC. The real question is what you do to solve the problem. Letting the banks collapse, and sending them all to jail may make you feel good but it won't solve the problem.
We can argue about it being privately owned, partially privately owned or whatever the entire day. I will gladly make a post with more supporting arguments tomorrow, but it's almost bed time for me now. Just a short post here.
The individual Federal Reserve Banks "are the operating arms of the central banking system, and they combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization."[36] Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen—three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors--"to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."[37] These regional banks are in turn controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States.
Controversy about the Federal Reserve Act and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System has existed since prior to its passage. Some of the questions raised include: whether Congress has the Constitutional power to delegate its power to coin money or issue paper money, why it was passed on December 23 while most of Congress was away for Christmas, whether the Federal Reserve is a public cartel of private banks (also called a banking cartel) established to protect powerful financial interests, and whether the Federal Reserve's actions increased the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s (and/or the severity or frequency of other boom-bust economic cycles, such as the Late-2000s recession).
The earliest debates on central banking in the United States centered on its constitutionality, private ownership, and the degree to which an economy should be centrally planned. Some of the most prominent early critics were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson, although Madison ultimately renounced his earlier objections. As the effects of central banking, and the Federal Reserve System in particular, became more apparent, new criticisms began to emerge.
Accuse me of conspiracy theories all you want, at least I'm coming up with some facts instead of saying the devil used to illuminati to do it, or something like that. And wikipedia is a way more reliable source than some kind of badly designed frames website. It is also interesting to note how various videos are available where congressmen are asking questions to FED "people", with them dodging the questions or giving really really bad answers. I will provide one of those in this post.
(please ignore some of the crazy comments on the video, they are not mine)
About the solutions part, first of all in my opinion end central banks. But, you should know that banks still are allowed to do what they did which caused the 2008 collapse in the first place. Another crisis is happening already. And really, absolutely nothing was done to prevent banks from doing this again! Isn't that outrageous?
Good night.
Just because the individual banks are privately owned doesn't mean the central bank is. As Whitewing pointed out, the board of governors are chosen by the president. Your point however about not preventing the same thing happening again is prudent though. Obama has tried to pass an aggressive reform package but was blocked. Even his choice of the head of the Consumer Protection Agency was controversial. This agency was setup to combat these exact practices but it couldn't get bipartisan support. Tough break
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
1. Oh, definitely. Japan doesn't deploy troops. Sorry if that was confusing. I'm just talking about us falling as a nation. I don't think our foreign policy is going to be the reason why we're getting owned in the face. Our foreign obligations (believe it or not) are winding down and we don't pay as much as we used to...say under Bush or Clinton. I was just referring to the banking.
2. I think that our foreign policy is kinda messed up, but not totally. We have the right mindset at times and we're doing the best with what we've got. I think the president has changed a good portion of our foreign policy for the better, while keeping some unfavorable things the same because of national security concerns.
In terms of the Fed, I generally don't think eliminating the central bank is a good idea, nor do I think that the Fed has been the reason why we're getting owned. I do have a few quarries about the Fed bailing out companies, but let's remember that the money was originally supposed to come back to us. I'm interested to know why it didn't, but I'm assured that it's not because the Fed is withholding it from us.
3. Again. I don't think Ron Paul has a big shot at winning. He might have a good libertarian base and base amongst college students, but I don't think he'd come close to winning the Republican primary. In an independent election, he'd just siphon off votes. In a one on one with President Obama, I also have my doubts, since I don't know how the general populace would react to his domestic policy.
Paul has the unfortunate traits of not being able to convey his words simply and clearly. That needs to change, in my opinion, if he wants to snatch an election.
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
So who is this Huntsman?
Seems he is the only person who takes evolution serious in the republican camp.
Honestly, I have no idea, and he probably won't win.
On August 25 2011 10:20 Probulous wrote: ^^ Excellent
Seems to be exactly what is happening. So what is the solution? It really comes down to, how to you make people believe that things are getting better?
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
...and who my good sir would be the owners of this private bank?
You can plead as much as you want but this does come off as a conspiracy theory. The fed is an semi-independent banking authority. The board of governors and chairman are nominated by the president but the policies are not subject to congressional approval. The idea being that money policy is above every-day poltics.
As has been mentioned, what the US needs now is inflation. Printing money is one way to try and up that rate. No big brother here.
I think most people that bother to read have a fairly good understanding of what caused the GFC. The real question is what you do to solve the problem. Letting the banks collapse, and sending them all to jail may make you feel good but it won't solve the problem.
We can argue about it being privately owned, partially privately owned or whatever the entire day. I will gladly make a post with more supporting arguments tomorrow, but it's almost bed time for me now. Just a short post here.
The individual Federal Reserve Banks "are the operating arms of the central banking system, and they combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization."[36] Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen—three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors--"to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."[37] These regional banks are in turn controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States.
Controversy about the Federal Reserve Act and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System has existed since prior to its passage. Some of the questions raised include: whether Congress has the Constitutional power to delegate its power to coin money or issue paper money, why it was passed on December 23 while most of Congress was away for Christmas, whether the Federal Reserve is a public cartel of private banks (also called a banking cartel) established to protect powerful financial interests, and whether the Federal Reserve's actions increased the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s (and/or the severity or frequency of other boom-bust economic cycles, such as the Late-2000s recession).
The earliest debates on central banking in the United States centered on its constitutionality, private ownership, and the degree to which an economy should be centrally planned. Some of the most prominent early critics were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson, although Madison ultimately renounced his earlier objections. As the effects of central banking, and the Federal Reserve System in particular, became more apparent, new criticisms began to emerge.
Accuse me of conspiracy theories all you want, at least I'm coming up with some facts instead of saying the devil used to illuminati to do it, or something like that. And wikipedia is a way more reliable source than some kind of badly designed frames website. It is also interesting to note how various videos are available where congressmen are asking questions to FED "people", with them dodging the questions or giving really really bad answers. I will provide one of those in this post.
(please ignore some of the crazy comments on the video, they are not mine)
About the solutions part, first of all in my opinion end central banks. But, you should know that banks still are allowed to do what they did which caused the 2008 collapse in the first place. Another crisis is happening already. And really, absolutely nothing was done to prevent banks from doing this again! Isn't that outrageous?
Good night.
Just because the individual banks are privately owned doesn't mean the central bank is. As Whitewing pointed out, the board of governors are chosen by the president. Your point however about not preventing the same thing happening again is prudent though. Obama has tried to pass an aggressive reform package but was blocked. Even his choice of the head of the Consumer Protection Agency was controversial. This agency was setup to combat these exact practices but it couldn't get bipartisan support. Tough break
Yeah, it's kind of hilarious. Whenever Obama tries to do something that would actually be good, it gets blocked (almost always by the republicans) who just say no to say no, then later, they blame him for not doing it and make it seem like they wanted it the whole time but it's Obama's fault.
Commercial banks elect the individual federal banks 6 out of 9, which have the right to print money. This gives the right to print money into private hands. While the board of governors of the federal reserve bank "union" are elected by the president, still the power to print money is in private hands, isn't it? And I must say, these governors are shady persons, just read a bit about them or look at for example that youtube video I linked. 9 trillion dollars missing and they do not even have to explain why and how to congress?
It shows how 16 trillion was given by the fed, without telling this to the government or the people. How is this acceptable and not a reason to end the fed?
Is this a thread about the federal reserve?!? Please make your own thread because this has no longer anything to do with the candidates from the republican party.
On August 25 2011 10:34 Doppelganger wrote: Is this a thread about the federal reserve?!? Please make your own thread because this has no longer anything to do with the candidates from the republican party.
Except that at least one of them wants to end the FED. How is this not relevant? The FED is the most important institution when it comes to monetary policy and some candidates want to end its existence. I would say that it is very much on topic.
On August 25 2011 10:34 Doppelganger wrote: Is this a thread about the federal reserve?!? Please make your own thread because this has no longer anything to do with the candidates from the republican party.
Except that at least one of them wants to end the FED. How is this not relevant? The FED is the most important institution when it comes to monetary policy and some candidates want to end its existence. I would say that it is very much on topic.
So let me guess: It is Ron Paul?
It may be that it is a relevant point but I think the discussion has gone way beyond that.
The last couple of posts were in no way connected to ANY candidate but debated about the FED.
Anyway: on Topic: I just looked around about Huntsmen:
1. He served as governor of Utah from 2005 - 2009 2. He served as ambassador to China from 2009 -2011 3. He actually has a bachelor degree in international-politics 4. He accepts climate change and evolution 5. He is a believer about that:
Although still Mormon, Huntsman has said that he and his wife draw from an array of sources for inspiration, stating: "I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have an adopted daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together."[72]
- wikipedia
6. He is a fiscal conservative 7. He is at least pro civil unions
on those:
Huntsman is a Republican, with conservative fiscal credentials and a mixture of positions on social issues. He has been described as "a conservative technocrat-optimist with moderate positions who was willing to work substantively with President Barack Obama."[49]
- wikipedia
he seems a good choice for a republican candidate
perhaps the only person that is not ridiculously right in his/her positions so that they spook the majority of americans.
Even if the FED is not private, which we are still debating, it is clear the fed is doing a lot of things that really are not in favor of the american citizens...
While I sort of disagree with some of ron pauls ideas, his ideas to end the fed, end the wars, and end the war on drugs are good ideas in my opinion. Also his opinion on wikileaks and related matters is great, see video below.
Thanks for that information about Huntsman, Doppelganger! As someone who's more liberal, I don't think that Huntsman looks nearly as bad as some of the other Republicans. That being said, he doesn't look as marketable to conservatives as other Republicans.
EPT
Frankly any politician that would advocate abolishing Social Security or Medicare will lose undecided voters. I think the fact that so many Republican candidates are hinting at it is the only saving grace for Obama. If he presents that fact correctly he has the election in the bag. Of course seeing how he was unable to do that with all the stuff Republicans handed him during last 3 years, he might actually throw it away.
