I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney

[iguanaman]

I knew you would fail. It was a very simple exercise. Still, I knew you would not be up to completing a simple task requiring comprehension.

I didn't fail, I agreed with you. Gun owners obviously have a higher % of mentally unstable people because simply owning a gun could never influence someone to kill themselves. Isn't that what you said?

 

[Henrin]

Depends what part of history you're talking about. In the late 19th and early 20th century we had a boom and bust economy that produced catastrophic recessions/depressions on a regular basis.

All of the early recessions of the country were started from either war or bad policy. The time period you are talking about one was by caused from bank practices and another from failures of British banks while all the rest were usual downturns in markets all of which were short lived.

 

[iguanaman]

All of the early recessions of the country were started from either war or bad policy. The time period you are talking about one was caused from bank practices and another from failures of British banks while all the rest were usual downturns in markets all of which were short lived.

Bad policy like the gold standard. You do know that there isn't enough gold in the world to cover all the currency don't you?

 

[Misterveritis]

I didn't fail, I agreed with you. Gun owners obviously have a higher % of mentally unstable people because simply owning a gun could never influence someone to kill themselves. Isn't that what you said?

No. You failed. And you will continue to do so.

I think I see your problem.

 

[Henrin]

What a RESPONSIBLE Govt. must do is prevent the few from overpowering the many. Encouraging the few to amass more and more wealth they do not spend is self defeating in a consumer economy. Spending = Growth. But you think the unlucky should die? What kind of religion is that?

He never said he supported the unlucky dieing, but that its simply not Darwinian to hold them up. Second, the rich do spend their money. The whole argument of hording money is not based on reality.

 

[AdamT]

All of the early recessions of the country were started from either war or bad policy. The time period you are talking about one was by caused from bank practices and another from failures of British banks while all the rest were usual downturns in markets all of which were short lived.

Yes, the failure of monetary policy and bank regulation had a lot to do with it, but that is also the case all of the recent recessions. The gold standard doesn't explain it. It's just more Paul lunacy.

 

[Henrin]

Bad policy like the gold standard. You do know that there isn't enough gold in the world to cover all the currency don't you?

I realize this. What is your point? Currency shouldn't be plenty, but scarce.

 

[iguanaman]

No. You failed. And you will continue to do so.

I think I see your problem.

Now you are at least at your level....kindergarden. Ta Ta

 

[Misterveritis]

No. You failed. And you will continue to do so.

I think I see your problem.

Now you are at least at your level....kindergarden. Ta Ta

Oh, don't go away mad. Just go away. On the other hand, go away mad if you want to.

 

[iguanaman]

He never said he supported the unlucky dieing, but that its simply not Darwinian to hold them up. Second, the rich do spend their money. The whole argument of hording money is not based on reality.

So you believe the Walton family spend as much every year as the 160 million Americans that they have as much net worth as? You have a strange sense of reality.

 

[Henrin]

Yes, the failure of monetary policy and bank regulation had a lot to do with it, but that is also the case all of the recent recessions. The gold standard doesn't explain it. It's just more Paul lunacy.

Actually its not monetary failures that recessions happen in general and has nothing to do with recession in the past, Also, the problems with the banks in the past was that they didn't treat banks under the laws of fraud and theft which would not happen again under Paul as I understand it.

 

[Henrin]

So you believe the Walton family spend as much every year as the 160 million Americans that they have as much net worth as? You have a strange sense of reality.

That first sentence I can't read for some reason, but I think you are saying they don't spend the same in net worth as 160 million other people. Well that isn't an argument for them hording wealth, just not spending the same amount in terms of net worth.

 

[iguanaman]

That first sentence I can't read for some reason, but I think you are saying they don't spend the same in net worth as 160 million other people. Well that isn't an argument for them hording wealth, just not spending the same amount in terms of net worth.

It is not about hoarding, it is physically impossible for the Waltons to spend as much to live as 160 million people. In a consumer economy, spending = growth so the higher the % of money in the hands of those who can't spend it the slower our economy grows. It is simple math and it is happening right now.

 

[AdamT]

Actually its not monetary failures that recessions happen in general and has nothing to do with recession in the past, Also, the problems with the banks in the past was that they didn't treat banks under the laws of fraud and theft which would not happen again under Paul as I understand it.

Clearly as a Paul disciple you have to have faith that monetary policy has no effect on the economy -- all facts to the contrary. Good luck with that, and with reinstituting the gold standard.

 

[Henrin]

Clearly as a Paul disciple you have to have faith that monetary policy has no effect on the economy -- all facts to the contrary. Good luck with that, and with reinstituting the gold standard.

I never said that. What I said was it is not the reason they exist or the causes of the time frame you are referencing. I also made it a point to say that bad monetary policy makes them worse.

 

[Henrin]

It is not about hoarding, it is physically impossible for the Waltons to spend as much to live as 160 million people. In a consumer economy, spending = growth so the higher the % of money in the hands of those who can't spend it the slower our economy grows. It is simple math and it is happening right now.

Not sure that argument works. The rich spend more and any persons needs naturally grow as they earn more requiring them to spend more to upkeep their living standards. In terms of percentages I would imagine that is true but again the collection of income that we are seeing is largely the result of policies of government, not usual market forces.

 

[AdamT]

Not sure that argument works. The rich spend more and any persons needs naturally grow as they earn more requiring them to spend more to upkeep their living standards. In terms of percentages I would imagine that is true but again the collection of income that we are seeing is largely the result of policies of government, not usual market forces.

Of course history proves you quite wrong. In the absence of government regulation and taxation, free market economies always tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. Paul simply wants to go back to the good old days of the Robber Barons: the days that brought about the Great Depression.

 

[Henrin]

Of course history proves you quite wrong. In the absence of government regulation and taxation, free market economies always tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. Paul simply wants to go back to the good old days of the Robber Barons: the days that brought about the Great Depression.

The more successful ways to look at it and surely less the attacking method is to say wealth disparity is worse today than it ever was under the gold standard. It should be noted though that there will always be rich individuals but with stable conditions of the past and the lack of protections of business you surely saw less disparity than today with massive regulation and taxation. If indeed you are saying taxation and regulation solves this issue I would with much confidence say you are in fact wrong. Saying that though, I think he calls for less protections than those time periods and so do I, which should only help more on the issue.

 

[AdamT]

The more successful ways to look at it and surely less the attacking method is to say wealth disparity is worse today than it ever was under the gold standard. It should be noted though that there will always be rich individuals but with stable conditions of the past and the lack of protections of business you surely saw less disparity than today with massive regulation and taxation. If indeed you are saying taxation and regulation solves this issue I would with much confidence say you are in fact wrong. Saying that though, I think he calls for less protections than those time periods and so do I, which should only help more on the issue.

Again, simply wrong on the facts. Wealth disparity is now approaching the level that it was prior to the Great Depression, when we were under the gold standard. Otherwise, yes, regulation and taxation certainly reduce wealth disparity. Regulation in the form of consumer protection laws, labor laws, anti-monopoly laws, securities regulation, etc. Taxation via a prgoressive tax code.

 

[jasonxe]

Just to correct a few things with Paul that was said on here.

EPA will return back to 2006 level budget, not abolish it.
A lot of depts will return back to 2006 budget levels.
Majority of the budget will be cutting our overseas empire and military industrial complex spending.
Social programs will go through a transition. Still solvent from transferring funding oversea to keep our commitment to people who paid into them. Those who opt out will keep more of their paycheck. They can make their own retirement or health savings account.
Federal agencies will go through attrition, not immediately laid off.
Paul does not wish to go directly to the gold standard. He is in favor of just obeying the constitution and allow gold and silver as legal tender. It will allow for a free market currency to be implenmented. He wrote a bill that will probably describe what it is about:

"Free Competition in Currency Act" (HR 1098), has three parts . . .

• The Honest Money portion would repeal the legal tender law, which gives the Federal Reserve a monopoly over the money supply.
• The Competitive Currency section would repeal the words of Title 18 Section 489 of the U.S. Code, which gives the United States government a monopoly over the creation of coins for use as currency.
• The Tax-Free Gold component of the bill would prohibit federal and state taxes, such as capital gains, on precious metal coins and bullion.

It purpose is:

• Help end both inflation and recessions.
• Help to End the Fed, by creating a free-market alternative to the Federal Reserve money monopoly.

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/honest-money/

Don't worry, your ipads and macs won't magically disappear.
A better explanation:
Thought Controllers Call Ron Paul "Extreme" - YouTube!

Ok, back to conversation.

 

[AdamT]

Just to correct a few things with Paul that was said on here.

EPA will return back to 2006 level budget, not abolish it.

Hmm, so Ron Paul is lying when he says in his website that he would, "* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."

Energy | Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Or is that something else written under his name that he has no knowledge of?

 

[Henrin]

Again, simply wrong on the facts. Wealth disparity is now approaching the level that it was prior to the Great Depression, when we were under the gold standard.

I never said wealth disparity wasn't bad during that time simply that calling it due to the gold standard is dishonest. However, I will need proof that it isn't worse today, thank you.

Otherwise, yes, regulation and taxation certainly reduce wealth disparity. Regulation in the form of consumer protection laws, labor laws, anti-monopoly laws, securities regulation, etc. Taxation via a prgoressive tax code.

Taxes with the goal of simply balancing the game is legalized robbery so surely it can equalize the equation since they will take whatever you wish and give it to you, but that is only in theory, not in practice. In practice, it has been shown to always go back to them regardless of how the government deals with the matter. If they just give to whoever asks for benefit they will see a return directly, but if they give to you they will still win in the end more than you. Its not actually a workable solution.

The three examples are not that workable. Anti-monopoly laws are needed because of government protections in the market but that has nothing to do with free market practices. Labor laws try to equalize the equation by force on the businessman, but it in essence just drives more people to be poor and jobless. Consumer protections I really don't understand where that is coming from and will you to expand on that a bit. While securities regulations of the time didn't really deal with the matter.

 

[Henrin]

Hmm, so Ron Paul is lying when he says in his website that he would, "* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."

Energy*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Or is that something else written under his name that he has no knowledge of?

Why do you disagree that they should answer directly to the people in court?

 

[presluc]

He was a low life womanizer whose primary claim to fame was being murdered in office.

Take another look at history Mister.
The only president I know of to stand up to a private organization the Steel companies.
The Cuban missle chrises perhaps you've heard of it.
The only president to hold a press conferance taking responsibilty and admitting he was wrong after the disaster of the Bay Of Pigs.

I'd rather have a president that chases skirts on his time , than to have a president that chases oil companies on my time.eace

 

[iguanaman]

I never said wealth disparity wasn't bad during that time simply that calling it due to the gold standard is dishonest. However, I will need proof that it isn't worse today, thank you.



Taxes with the goal of simply balancing the game is legalized robbery so surely it can equalize the equation since they will take whatever you wish and give it to you, but that is only in theory, not in practice. In practice, it has been shown to always go back to them regardless of how the government deals with the matter. If they just give to whoever asks for benefit they will see a return directly, but if they give to you they will still win in the end more than you. Its not actually a workable solution.

The three examples are not that workable. Anti-monopoly laws are needed because of government protections in the market but that has nothing to do with free market practices. Labor laws try to equalize the equation by force on the businessman, but it in essence just drives more people to be poor and jobless. Consumer protections I really don't understand where that is coming from and will you to expand on that a bit. While securities regulations of the time didn't really deal with the matter.

Everything you say has been disproved by history and you still cling to the false God of Reaganomics? Progressive taxation is not a balancing act, it is simply good economics. Taking money from people that will spend it in the economy is self-defeating but taxing income that will not be spent grows the economy and creates jobs. The fact is that the lower we have taxed the upper brackets the slower the economy has grown. A growing economy is good for all income groups so there is no "punishment" involved involved in progressive taxation. Warren Buffet knows this which is why he has asked for his taxes to be raised.
The last 30 years have been ample to "test" the trickle down theory and the data is in. Reaganomics is nothing but a lie meant to destroy the middle class and create a new aristocracy of the rich. Something that must make our founders roll in their graves in disgust.