EPTRepublican nominations - Page 153
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
Are you really from Somalia? | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:29 DeepElemBlues wrote: I return the bold charge back to you. As anyone who has a clue to the numbers knows, you could end all military spending tomorrow and barely make a dent in the projected future obligations laid out by Social Security and Medicare. An extra ~trillion dollars a year is not enough. Your video is a good example of a politician selling snake oil. Yes we can assume that if 100% of desired objectives are accomplished that they will all produce the predicted results and the grand objective is obtained. It doesn't work that way in the real world... Toe-may-toe, tuh-mah-toe, I've heard this before. "Non-interventionists" like to play up the "economic differences" between the two, when the main focus and purpose of both is identical, and political in nature. Namely, the removal of the United States from the international institutions that we gave life and strength to like the UN. I am not in favor of reneging on the ideals we laid out in 1917 and promised to uphold in 1945. And we did not lay out those ideals to the governments of the world, or make the promise to them. We made the promises and laid out the ideals to the peoples of the world. You adopt Soviet agitprop reasoning and dress it up as a principled stance in regards to American foreign policy, you distort Washington's words, and what you advocate would result in a return to the world of the 19th century in matters of relations between states and in monetary policy. No thanks. Our former president and founding father Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Are you saying our founding fathers were wrong here? Because the soviets have nothing to with this sort of Foreign Policy. Only the neo-conservatives are the ones out of step with the party starting unnecessary wars. We should look at Switzerland and learn from them. A country that hasn't had terrorist attacks like we have. Why? because we're all over the world occupying 3rd world countries and bombing them. When that happens, we create something called Blow-back. Which comes-back and bites us in the ass. So, that being said here is an interesting article on Switzerland: http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker32.html | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:24 Kiarip wrote: Well if mainstream economists would understand what was going then we probably wouldn't be in this mess would we? If politicians followed the advice of probably any of those schools of economic thought, we probably wouldn't be in this mess. It's not like the Harvard Economics Department has been running the country/world for the last 40 years. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:44 acker wrote: I realize this is kind of off-topic, but it's around 7 AM in Somalia. Your post history appears to reflect a posting history of between midnight and 8 am Somalia Time...though I might very well be mistaken, I haven't looked through all of them for time stamps. Are you really from Somalia? No. I'm in the US. Why? @koreasilver You have yet to post of anything of substance. No idea why your even complaining. o.O | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:47 Signet wrote: If politicians followed the advice of probably any of those schools of economic thought, we probably wouldn't be in this mess. It's not like the Harvard Economics Department has been running the country/world for the last 40 years. I don't think this is the case. Precious few economists predicted the housing bubble, let alone a result like this. Nouriel Roubini and Dean Baker and maybe two dozen more... ...and, ironically, Ron Paul. If for definitely contentious reasons. For further irony, Gregory Mankiw teaches the only introductory economics course at Harvard (I think it's called ECON 10 or something, I'm not familiar with the naming system over there), was part of Bush's CEA, and is now advising Romney on economic matters. I've heard somewhat amusing stuff about that class, even if it's supposed to be quite biased. On November 23 2011 12:49 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: No. I'm in the US. Why? That makes more sense than the Somalia thing. | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
That being said I still don't understand why anyone would agree with his economic policies. I think it's a primal reaction to the crisis. People just want something different, anything. But if Paul had it his way more US major banks would've died and things would be 10 times worse right now. If anything now is the time we should dismiss his ideas for good. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
You have no idea what implications we're causing by bailing out these people. Instead of bailing out homeowners I guess you think banks are better? Which is why I don't understand where some of these people like yourself come off saying," Oh he's going to make it worse!". No, he's not because it's already worse than it was before. It will keep getting worse until we actually try and solve the problem. Anyways, All of Ron Paul's answers in tonights debate: | ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
all sorts of shit like that that makes republicans look so stooopid... User was warned for this post | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:02 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: Republicans are retarded: planet is not warming, creationism, afghanistan/irak... all sorts of shit like that that makes republicans look so stooopid... Is that really necessary? Your spelling and grammar don't exactly paint you as the smartest member of the human race so calling professional politicians stooopid is a bit rich. If you have nothing to add to the thread why post here? There is plenty of evidence over the course of this discussion that some of these guys know what they are talking about. Disagree if you must but your post was a waste of space. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:02 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: Republicans are retarded: planet is not warming, creationism, afghanistan/irak... all sorts of shit like that that makes republicans look so stooopid... Be reasonable; not all Republicans believe in that shit. Yes, a significantly (well, dramatically) larger fraction of the Republican base does think that creationism is real, global warming isn't happening, and Saddam had unauthorized WMDs compared to say, independents or Democrats and yes, this fraction elects people who make even Congress look bad, but they aren't all brickheaded. Like Bruce Bartlett, Bernanke or Frum. They're reasonably sane. Simpson-Bowles was half-Republican (I'm not talking about the commission) and Wyden-Brown was half-half, too, and most people think that both of those were fair policies. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:56 MilesTeg wrote: Ron Paul certainly looks more genuine and convincing than any other candidate. Looking at Perry/Bachman/Cain's eyes it looks like they're desperately trying to remember what their campaign advisors told them... That being said I still don't understand why anyone would agree with his economic policies. I think it's a primal reaction to the crisis. People just want something different, anything. But if Paul had it his way more US major banks would've died and things would be 10 times worse right now. If anything now is the time we should dismiss his ideas for good. this would make sense if this was a recent revelation of his. But he's been saying the same thing for 20 years now, and the farther America got away from what he preaches, the worse things have gotten. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:50 acker wrote: I don't think this is the case. Precious few economists predicted the housing bubble, let alone a result like this. Nouriel Roubini and Dean Baker and maybe two dozen more... Hence, "last 40 years" instead of "last 4 years"  By the time the housing bubble developed and our economy had already become so highly fiscalized, it was too late to prevent the crash. Also didn't help that we had almost a full decade of deficit spending during economic expansion, something no Kenyesian or neoliberal or monetarist would recommend, leaving us already facing a growing debt problem before the recession hit (now even a relatively modest fiscal stimulus comes with serious long-term consequences). We might have had a recession or a stock market crash, sure, but I doubt we would have had this perfect shitstorm situation leaving us in our current state.Not only that but most economists would tell you that the EU's idea of monetary union without fiscal union was a poorly designed system. Especially the post-Keynesian/MMT guys. So we wouldn't have to worry about their economic woes potentially causing a double-dip over here. http://pragcap.com/mmt-the-euro-the-greatest-prediction-of-the-last-20-years (I'd bet that the guy who called post-Keynesianism "mainstream" was probably thinking of "New Keynesianism." In fairness it is confusing/annoying the way economic schools tend to recycle the same few words in their names.) Although perhaps saying "any" of them was going too far on my part. | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:59 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @MilesTeg You have no idea what implications we're causing by bailing out these people. Instead of bailing out homeowners I guess you think banks are better? Which is why I don't understand where some of these people like yourself come off saying," Oh he's going to make it worse!". No, he's not because it's already worse than it was before. It will keep getting worse until we actually try and solve the problem. I do have some idea, I know for certain I wouldn't have a job for instance. The entire financial system would've collapsed. Letting Lehman fail was already arguably the biggest mistake they made, but they had to do it because of political reasons. People want payback, and they don't understand why the government is helping these firms after they screwed up, even though it makes every economic sense. It's this sentiment that Paul is (smartly) exploiting, but I don't see how anyone can argue that it's a good idea. On November 23 2011 13:15 Kiarip wrote: this would make sense if this was a recent revelation of his. But he's been saying the same thing for 20 years now, and the farther America got away from what he preaches, the worse things have gotten. I completely agree, and I think it's something everyone admires in him, his consistency. What I'm saying is that his recent popularity surge is a reaction to the crisis from the voters. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:36 koreasilver wrote: Some serious anti-intellectualism going on over here. Keep it going, guys. It's always good to be reassured about the public mentality of my birth-country. Yeah, the recent surge in anti-intellectualism is truly worrisome. The long term solution to the economy is to embrace intellectualism, teach our kids to embrace it, or slowly fall behind to the countries that do. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15286 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:59 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @MilesTeg You have no idea what implications we're causing by bailing out these people. Instead of bailing out homeowners I guess you think banks are better? Which is why I don't understand where some of these people like yourself come off saying," Oh he's going to make it worse!". No, he's not because it's already worse than it was before. It will keep getting worse until we actually try and solve the problem. Anyways, All of Ron Paul's answers in tonights debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAW2spbZys&feature=youtu.be Wow. I would not vote for Ron Paul as I lean a lot more socialist than he does, but he is like the ideal republican. I can't believe that he's not the frontrunner right now. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 23 2011 14:25 Klogon wrote: Yeah, the recent surge in anti-intellectualism is truly worrisome. The long term solution to the economy is to embrace intellectualism, teach our kids to embrace it, or slowly fall behind to the countries that do. Meh, I don't think it's getting worse. We're just noticing it more. That being said, your solution holds water. As for Ron Paul, his gold standard stuff and "fairtax" is nothing short of crazy, so if that's the best you've got, you're in for a fun ride. | ||
|
Glam
United States325 Posts
On November 23 2011 14:39 Djzapz wrote: Meh, I don't think it's getting worse. We're just noticing it more. That being said, your solution holds water. As for Ron Paul, his gold standard stuff and "fairtax" is nothing short of crazy, so if that's the best you've got, you're in for a fun ride. IMO, the reason he's the best they have is that he's ideologically consistent and has some integrity. I might not like his ideas either, but I don't think he's the type to sell out to the highest bidder, which is something that every single other candidate on that stage will do if they are elected. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
@Mohdoo Yeah. I don't exactly agree with everything he says such as universal health care but, he's one of the last few remaining politicians that says it the way it is. Not only that but, I have yet to see an anti-war president since Kucinich and Nader. Those same people have said good things about him which says a lot about his character. We need to remove money from politics if anything. @Djzapz You know nothing about his policies by just saying "fair tax" and "gold standard". | ||
| ||
