President Obama Re-Elected - Page 99

I was waiting for you to say "Joe Scarborough."

On May 12 2012 01:58 AcuWill wrote:

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.

On May 12 2012 06:36 aksfjh wrote:

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.

On May 12 2012 10:37 AcuWill wrote:

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.

On May 12 2012 11:13 aksfjh wrote:

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.

On May 12 2012 20:16 AcuWill wrote:

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.

On May 11 2012 13:45 TheToast wrote:


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.

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.

On May 12 2012 21:23 aksfjh wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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.



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.

On May 13 2012 11:40 TheToast wrote:


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.

On May 13 2012 12:13 AcuWill wrote:
How about the cheating liars hurting the Republican Party?

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.

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.