2012 Republicans

[Anarchist420]

Always funny when people bash Paul but offer no evidence Paul does not offer something new.

Paul will eliminate the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, and all executive departments except the original four.

Paul will eliminate the income tax, capital gains tax, and corporate taxes.

Paul will close nearly every US base on foreign soil.

Paul will abolish abortion, as it is an invasion of personal rights (no one has the right to take the life of another).

Now, explain to me how Paul is not offering something a little different.

Thank you And he'd eliminate SS and medicare, or at least find someway to take the burden of them off of everyone.

Considering the fact that Romney would do none of which you listed makes him very close to Obama.

 

[sandorski]

Thank you And he'd eliminate SS and medicare, or at least find someway to take the burden of them off of everyone.

Considering the fact that Romney would do none of which you listed makes him very close to Obama.

There's a difference between "New" and "Good".

 

[Craig234]

Always funny when people bash Paul but offer no evidence Paul does not offer something new.

Paul will eliminate the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, and the Dept of Education.

Paul will eliminate the income tax, capital gains tax, and corporate taxes.

Paul will close nearly every US base on foreign soil.

Paul will abolish abortion, as it is an invasion of personal rights (no one has the right to take the life of another).

Now, explain to me how Paul is not offering something a little different.

I don't waste a lot of time on Paul'd bad policies, but to clarify, he doesn't support 'getting rid of abortion' as President. He supports no role for the federal government, and states can decide.

 

[First]

Fractional reserve lending caused the Great Depression. Fractional reserve lending is responsible for the boom-bust cycles. Link:http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/12/11/ron_pauls_hour_of_power

Your statements and link don't actually provide any evidence for any of that. What's amazing is that your contentions here by extension show that you really believe there weren't any booms or busts before the 20th century. Reality disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States

During the Free-banking era, prices were stable, no inflation, and banks only failed if they were shady, because of state-regulations, or if they practiced fractional reserve lending.

You better cite and/or link garbage arguments like this. I'll tell you right now you're not going to be able to. Fact is there were more banking panics and deposit runs on banks in the 19th century than in any other period of U.S. history, and it's not even close.

 

[First]

Always funny when people bash Paul but offer no evidence Paul does not offer something new.

Paul will eliminate the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, and the Dept of Education.

Paul will eliminate the income tax, capital gains tax, and corporate taxes.

Paul will close nearly every US base on foreign soil.

Paul will abolish abortion, as it is an invasion of personal rights (no one has the right to take the life of another).

Now, explain to me how Paul is not offering something a little different.

He offers things that are different (i.e. nuts), 90% of which wouldn't actually be accomplished in his administration because two other branches would get in his way. Unless you truly think Congress would sign off on abolishing the Fed or CIA, or that the Supreme Court would actually hold up the ridiculous notion that income tax is unconstitutional. lmao.

 

[JMapleton]

He offers things that are different (i.e. nuts), 90% of which wouldn't actually be accomplished in his administration because two other branches would get in his way. Unless you truly think Congress would sign off on abolishing the Fed or CIA, or that the Supreme Court would actually hold up the ridiculous notion that income tax is unconstitutional. lmao.

The Supreme Court would probably not rule income tax was unconstitutional because they too cannot see objectively that it should not have been upheld in the first place.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, but read a little about how the income tax was ratified and especially how the Fed was created. It was beyond devious and actually makes you angry to read.

 

[Anarchist420]

Your statements and link don't actually provide any evidence for any of that. What's amazing is that your contentions here by extension show that you really believe there weren't any booms or busts before the 20th century. Reality disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States



You better cite and/or link garbage arguments like this. I'll tell you right now you're not going to be able to. Fact is there were more banking panics and deposit runs on banks in the 19th century than in any other period of U.S. history, and it's not even close.

Almost all of those panics were during the 2nd B.U.S. and National Banking System. There was only two panics (1837 and 57) during the 25 years of free-banking and the panic of 1837 was recovered from quite quickly and was the 2nd BUS's fault. See "How Capitalism Saved America."

Like I said, whenever a bank practices fractional reserve lending and isn't insured, of course they'll fail.

He offers things that are different (i.e. nuts), 90% of which wouldn't actually be accomplished in his administration because two other branches would get in his way. Unless you truly think Congress would sign off on abolishing the Fed or CIA, or that the Supreme Court would actually hold up the ridiculous notion that income tax is unconstitutional. lmao.

The income tax IS Unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks; it was NOT ratified by 3/4 of the states. Tarriffs were way too popular in too much of the country for the income tax to have largely replaced them.

And I also suggest reading how the Fed was created. Read Rothbard's works, or the Creature from Jekyll Island. The guy who legislated the Fed (Sen. Aldrich of RI) was the father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller II.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Is the Obama-Reid health reform plan unconstitutional?

The answer to that should be obvious: the Reid-Obama plan may be unwise, unsound, and unaffordable ... but it is unquestionably constitutional.

The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That's what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.

I don’t hear anyone in Congress suggesting that Medicare violates the Constitution. So how can the new plan be unconstitutional if the old plan is OK?

Since the challenges to Social Security were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1937, the courts have consistently held that the general welfare clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to create social welfare plans based on compulsory contribution. (Helvering v. Davis is the most relevant case.)

I'd be a bit cautious in drawing a direct parallel between OK'ing compulsory inclusion in broad government programs and outright requiring people to purchase a product from private businesses. Particularly when segments of the population are required to participate, not necessarily because it's their own best interest, but because it's necessary to fund a benefit for others. I'm thinking of young healthy people here.

If that precedent is allowed, where does it stop? Should we be required to buy autos (for transportation), homes (for shelter), life insurance (unpaid bills at death) etc.?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Who is your pick from likely candidates (if you're a Republican)?
-snip-

I think it depends too much on what issues are most important in 2012. Had economics been at the forefront during the primaries I think Romney likely would have won both the Repub primary and the gen election. That only became very important after McCain was nominated and fairly late into the campaign season. I recall McCain running very close with Obama until the economy exploded. McCain had already declared himself unfamiliar with economics.

I don't see a military person having much of a chance unless a big terrorists attack ocurrs and the economy is OK.

But too soon to tell what will be most important to the almighty swing/independant voters right now.

Fern

 

[Nitemare]

If the nomination goes to Palin, Huckabee, or Romney, I forecast the current GOP piss&pity party to continue another 4 years.

The Repub party needs to remold itself first, then worry about representation. Otherwise they're just going to continue to circle the drain as the population of conservative old people dwindles.

So the GOP learned absolutely nothing from 2008?

Why not pick a non-partisan person who is not just another party-whore with no voice of their on?

Palin - Yes she's a MILF, but her voice is like a fork on chalkboard, she has too many skeletons in the closet and no DC experience

Huckabee - a former minister who pardons felons and then they go out and show they aren't reformed

Romney - a Mormon who would say the sky is red if he knew it would win your vote

 

[First]

Almost all of those panics were during the 2nd B.U.S. and National Banking System. There was only two panics (1837 and 57) during the 25 years of free-banking and the panic of 1837 was recovered from quite quickly and was the 2nd BUS's fault. See "How Capitalism Saved America."

The panic of 37 was not recovered from quickly, take that BS nonsense out of here. It wiped out people's savings entirely and there was no insurance or guarantees to recoup losses. It was devastating. Fact is there were serious panics every 10-15 years during the 19th century. Not recessions, but panics, where runs on banks were common and it had absolutely nothing to do with this ridiculous nonsense about fractional reserve banking, and obviously not the Fed until 1913. A very small fraction of the American public had any confidence to save their money in banks at all until fractional reserve lending and deposit insurance decades later. I would ask you to show why that is the case, but I'm not sure you actually understand the dynamics of what's being dictated to you.

Like I said, whenever a bank practices fractional reserve lending and isn't insured, of course they'll fail.

Fractional reserve lending is common sense, it's how banks stay in business to make money. It's a natural outgrowth of the free market and it's why 99% of the planet practices it. Without fractional reserve banking you can't have the same sort of small business growth (which accounts for 90% of all businesses) in the United States because they can't get loans from banks who adhere to your widely debunked principle of 100% reserves. This is common sense in both finance and economics.

The income tax IS Unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks; it was NOT ratified by 3/4 of the states. Tarriffs were way too popular in too much of the country for the income tax to have largely replaced them.

Hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has the final say and multiple different courts with non-layman opinions (unlike yours) quite clearly showed it was constitutional.

And I also suggest reading how the Fed was created. Read Rothbard's works, or the Creature from Jekyll Island. The guy who legislated the Fed (Sen. Aldrich of RI) was the father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller II.

Rothbard is a known quack and closet bigot. No one in academic circles that isn't laughed at takes him seriously.

 

[First]

The Supreme Court would probably not rule income tax was unconstitutional because they too cannot see objectively that it should not have been upheld in the first place.

Why should it not have been upheld? Fact is constitutional scholars overwhelmingly agree the income tax is constitutional.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, but read a little about how the income tax was ratified and especially how the Fed was created. It was beyond devious and actually makes you angry to read.

You'll have to come to terms someday with why you actually have to qualify your statement with "I'm not a conspiracy theorist". It's going to be a painful realization when/if it does happen.

 

[Anarchist420]

The panic of 37 was not recovered from quickly, take that BS nonsense out of here. It wiped out people's savings entirely and there was no insurance or guarantees to recoup losses. It was devastating. Fact is there were serious panics every 10-15 years during the 19th century. Not recessions, but panics, where runs on banks were common and it had absolutely nothing to do with this ridiculous nonsense about fractional reserve banking, and obviously not the Fed until 1913. A very small fraction of the American public had any confidence to save their money in banks at all until fractional reserve lending and deposit insurance decades later. I would ask you to show why that is the case, but I'm not sure you actually understand the dynamics of what's being dictated to you.



Fractional reserve lending is common sense, it's how banks stay in business to make money. It's a natural outgrowth of the free market and it's why 99% of the planet practices it. Without fractional reserve banking you can't have the same sort of small business growth (which accounts for 90% of all businesses) in the United States because they can't get loans from banks who adhere to your widely debunked principle of 100% reserves. This is common sense in both finance and economics.



Rothbard is a known quack and closet bigot. No one in academic circles that isn't laughed at takes him seriously.

The panic of 37 was 3 years, so I admit you're right on that. There was only one other panic during the free-banking era. And there were a lot of bank runs during the Free Banking era, but guess why there aren't many now--FDIC. It keeps dead banks walking.

I do understand. With fractional reserve lending, artificial credit is created, and it was what caused the GD; see my link to Ron Paul's Hour of Power earlier in this thread.

With fractional reserve banking, you get inflation. a 10% reserve requirement ratio is ridiculous. Banks shouldn't be loaning out money they don't really have.

And no, Rothbard isn't a quack or a "closet bigot". I'd like to know how people know whether other people are closet bigots.

 

[First]

The panic of 37 was 3 years, so I admit you're right on that. There was only one other panic during the free-banking era. And there were a lot of bank runs during the Free Banking era, but guess why there aren't many now--FDIC. It keeps dead banks walking.

Then by this same notion all insurance institutions that reduce risk by insuring securities are keeping dead investments walking, right? Except it doesn't make any sense to claim insurance creates malinvestment since the alternative of having no insurance means people have little to no reason to be confident that, in a worst case scenario, they won't be wiped out. There's a whole field dedicated to this and it's called risk management. People logically conclude that they'd rather have deposit insurance than not, because the alternative is a run on banks and no consumer confidence in the whole process. No industrialized nation has figured out a way to ensure confidence in financial institutions without some significant forms of insurance, and until that day your theories that institutions like the FDIC keep dead banks walking is nothing but layman nonsense.

I do understand. With fractional reserve lending, artificial credit is created, and it was what caused the GD; see my link to Ron Paul's Hour of Power earlier in this thread.

A severe contraction in the money supply allowed by the same ideologues that follow Ron Paul is precisely what created the Great Depression, actually, and no respected academician claims otherwise. Doing nothing was precisely what "caused" the GD.

With fractional reserve banking, you get inflation. a 10% reserve requirement ratio is ridiculous. Banks shouldn't be loaning out money they don't really have.

How do banks make money and how do loans get made without banks being allowed to practice fractional reserve banking? Please delineate a scenario where economic growth isn't severely contracted in a 100% reserve banking economy. You will fall flat on your face because such a system does not exist and never has successfully.

And no, Rothbard isn't a quack or a "closet bigot". I'd like to know how people know whether other people are closet bigots.

He's a well known quack because his theories are laughed at. But the closet bigot comment was aimed at Lew Rockwell, whom I often confuse with Rothbard for obvious reasons:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm

http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, Scotland, Hong Kong, and Amsterdamn did fine while they were free-banking economies. Keep in mind your money is worth a lot more with full-reserve banking, so you'll have to borrow less with full-reserve banking. It's not necessary to buy everything on credit either, like most people do. You only have to borrow to start a small business once.

The only reason why there are Central Banks is so that countries can borrow money, a, and b, so that the bankers can make more money.

Bernanke is not to be trusted; he makes double-barreled statements disguised as the truth, he loses his temper when being questioned, he refuses to be audited, and he collected and ran off with a ton of specie from Fort Knox.

 

[First]

Well, Scotland, Hong Kong, and Amsterdamn did fine while they were free-banking economies.

Explain how they did well and tell me what system of banking they use now. I don't think you realize that both assertions can't be true.

Keep in mind your money is worth a lot more with full-reserve banking, so you'll have to borrow less with full-reserve banking. It's not necessary to buy everything on credit either, like most people do. You only have to borrow to start a small business once.

Except this isn't true. We had deflation up the wazoo before the Fed and before fractional reserve banking. And that was with a far simpler and less populous economy.

The only reason why there are Central Banks is so that countries can borrow money, a, and b, so that the bankers can make more money.

No actually, fractional reserve banking serves the very real and necessary purpose of not just fattening banker's pockets but allowing small businesses to receive credit. It's the lifeblood of any economy and it's why 19th century economics failed miserably without fractional reserve banking, insurance, or a central bank.

Bernanke is not to be trusted; he makes double-barreled statements disguised as the truth, he loses his temper when being questioned, he refuses to be audited, and he collected and ran off with a ton of specie from Fort Knox.

OK conspiracy kook.

 

[Athadeus]

No mention at all of Pawlenty? I just wonder what some other (non-MN) know and think about him, since I suspect he will be playing more of a role in the GOP party in the future.

 

[Anarchist420]

Explain how they did well and tell me what system of banking they use now. I don't think you realize that both assertions can't be true.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-3.html

No actually, fractional reserve banking serves the very real and necessary purpose of not just fattening banker's pockets but allowing small businesses to receive credit. It's the lifeblood of any economy and it's why 19th century economics failed miserably without fractional reserve banking, insurance, or a central bank.

In the 19th Century, there was fractional reserve banking. Small businesses can get loans perfectly fine with full reserve banking.

OK conspiracy kook.

I've seen the videos.

 

[Wreckem]

Rick is a really decent stand up guy. Not at all what you would expect by what you see in the press.

Stand up guy who it appears didn't bother to review the final appeal by a likely innocent man who was then executed. He then proceeds to politically sandbag the Texas Forensic Commission, that would likely rule that there were serious flaws in that case. The person he used to politically sandbag the commission recently tried to violate Texas Open meeting laws, and completely hijacked the meeting.

Then there is the whole gardisal ordel.

Then there is the TTC.

Then there is the 2001-2004 budget fiascos

Then there is his penchent for alway slashing education/higher ed. Deregulation + cuts to higher ed have caused tuition to SKYROCKET in the state of Texas.

Then there is a recent 5% across the board budget cut for state agencies which while there needed to be a cut it didnt need to be as deep.

Perry supporters seem to think Perry is why Texas' economy isnt in shambles. He isn't. Its in spite of him. He isn't as fiscally responsible as he claims to be. Taxes have gone up, public debt(bonds) have gone up, he attacks Hutchinson on the stimulus, when he himself accepted $16billion, out of $16.5billion allocated to Texas. Etc etc. Hes earned the nicknames, Slick Rick, Pretty Boy Perry, and Governor Goodhair. He also happens to be the worst when it comes to pandering to his corporate donors.

If Perry gets re-elected the 2011 Legislative session will end up killing any chances of higher office.

 

[Carmen813]

Always funny when people bash Paul but offer no evidence Paul does not offer something new.

Paul will eliminate the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, and the Dept of Education.

Paul will eliminate the income tax, capital gains tax, and corporate taxes.

Paul will close nearly every US base on foreign soil.

Paul will abolish abortion, as it is an invasion of personal rights (no one has the right to take the life of another).

Now, explain to me how Paul is not offering something a little different.

I'm not sure any President, Paul or otherwise, could do any of this without Congress behind him.

 

[JMapleton]

I'm not sure any President, Paul or otherwise, could do any of this without Congress behind him.

But he as President could be a voice to the citizens to convince them of these policies and take their seriously, which would start a change of opinion and voters would then elect politicians who agreed with this view.

Furthermore, he would at least make large strides in saving money, lowering taxes and making our dollar stronger.

 

[Anarchist420]

But he as President could be a voice to the citizens to convince them of these policies and take their seriously, which would start a change of opinion and voters would then elect politicians who agreed with this view.

Furthermore, he would at least make large strides in saving money, lowering taxes and making our dollar stronger.

Exactly

 

[cKGunslinger]

Rick is a really decent stand up guy. Not at all what you would expect by what you see in the press.

Based on what, then?

From everything I've seen in the last 10 years, he's almost exactly like GWB - only a little more sly and a little less intelligent.

His NPR debate was cringe-worthy (not that KBH was much better.)

 

[First]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-3.html

Nice, an actual published paper, kudos. Too bad its sources are sparse and its examples (like 30 years of unregulated HK economic policy) are just false and misguided since its definition of "regulation" seems to be entirely too vague. Of course, bottom line is that any study from a partisan ideological organization like the Libertarian Cato Institute is just begging to be discredited.

In the 19th Century, there was fractional reserve banking. Small businesses can get loans perfectly fine with full reserve banking.

Both these statements don't make any sense. It's a fact that small business growth in the 19th century was constrained by limited credit relative to GDP. It's not even close and it's (one) of the reasons fractional banking was used.

I've seen the videos.

I'm sure they convinced you thoroughly.

 

[First]

But he as President could be a voice to the citizens to convince them of these policies and take their seriously, which would start a change of opinion and voters would then elect politicians who agreed with this view.

Furthermore, he would at least make large strides in saving money, lowering taxes and making our dollar stronger.

So Paul wants to do these things but in fact wouldn't get any of them done. Seems like another excuse for one's favorite politician.