A vote for Ron Paul is really a vote for Obama.
Posted on 10/19/2008 6:15:49 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Not with 100% reserve banking.
I’m willing to try.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep my options open for whatever may be required of me as circumstances dictate.
Right because if you write in Ron Paul they count it as Obama. /sarc
thank you. We needed him right about now!
And everybody would look forward to their annual salary reduction.
Irrelevant.
Free Libertarian Pepublic
A K and R for you
More goods would be produced because of the population growth thus increasing the value of money further and lowering prices thus negating the lower salary. The quantity of money doesn’t matter so long as there’s enough, but not too much, which is why gold and silver have been so often selected as media of exchange. They don’t need to be manipulated yet the population has grown exponentially since the days when they were first established as reliable media of exchange. If either were to become too scarce or abundant, the market would find another good to use as exchange.
The poster means that McCain won’t last his term.
Name one economy on the planet still on a Gold standard.
"I will gladly pay you Thursday for a hamburger today..." -Wimpy
Hint: Thursday never comes.
>Another Paultard who is voting for Obama.
>
>A vote for anyone but McCain/Palin is a vote for socialism and Obama’s thugs.
Oh, well then All Knowing One, how do our Electoral Colleges work?
About the only two similarities-in-stance that Ron Paul has with Obama is the War in Iraq/on terror (which Ron Paul has steadfastly been against) AND possibly the legalization of marijuana (I read about this somewhere, but I’m not sure how reliable the source is, hence ‘possibly’.)
I don’t think Ron Paul is absolutely right in his stance on the war-on-terror/war-in-Iraq,in fact I think he’s a bit wrong there, HOWEVER, I do like that he has looked into/suggested alternatives, such as letters-of-marque.
And as for the possible legalization of marijuana, I’m not sure that I care all that much... it’s certainly a LOT lower on my list of concerns than things like government-ignoring-the-constitution, abortion & human cloning, this funny idea our politicos have about SPENDING MONEY THEY DON’T HAVE (or doesn’t exist), illegal immigration.
>Name one economy on the planet still on a Gold standard.
Chinese Proverb: A foolish idea held by thousands, is still a foolish idea.
Fiat money is not the problem. The problem is that they allowed banks to engage in risky behaviors and take on more leverage and market exposure than they should have by repealing Glass-Stegall. And they lowered the bank reserve rates to historic lows and made exceptions for all kinds of deposits, and that also raised the leverage of banks.
We had liquidity crises and the resulting depressions approximately every 20 years when we were on the gold standard. Gold standard would do absolutely nothing to prevent the current crisis. Except possibly keep us at a third world economic level so that we wouldn’t have as far to fall.
We have had far fewer liquidity crises since we abandoned the gold standard.
Besides the gold standard was always a myth. As long as banks make loans, most of the money supply doesn’t really exist in the way you want it to. You deposit 1000 gold coins in the bank, and the bank turns around and loans it out. Now you have 1000 gold coins and borrower#1 has 1000 gold coins. Borrower#1 deposits the 1000 gold coins in his bank and that bank loans it to Borrower#2. That’s now 3000 gold coins recorded at banks, and yet only 1000 gold coins are in existence.
Money was never backed by an equivalent amount of gold even when we were on the gold standard. Even then most money was created through the bank loan process and was vastly greater than the real gold backing it. Unless you shut down all borrowing and lending, money will never be backed by gold. And if you do that, we will certainly become a third world country.
The only thing a gold standard would do is instead of the FED managing the money supply and determining how much inflation we will have, gold inflation is determined by how much is dug out of the ground. Most years during the gold standard we had deflation because not enough is dug up. But during the California gold bloom we had sever inflation, because the money supply kept growing. At least fiat we can control. You might want to give control of our money supply growth to Chinese and African gold mines, but I don’t.
Name one economy on the planet that isn’t affected by this financial crisis.
Notice I said IF ALLOWED, the market will establish gold and silver. Gold and silver aren’t legal tender. That is the state says we can’t use it as exchange (it’s true value anyway). Ultimately what the state says with regards to money is irrelevant because if they were to hyper-inflate or seriously devalue the dollar people wouldn’t use it as the medium of exchange.
I would wager the number of PhD.s in the hard sciences and Math have increased least, and the inflation in doctorates is in Social and Political 'sciences'. Not to mention Education degrees.
Paul is against the federal war on drugs because of Constitutionality, but I also think he doesn’t care much if marijuana is legal in states.
Enjoy venting your spleen, because that type of crap isn't going to convince a fish to vote for water.
Were Sarah Palin not on the ticket, I would be voting differently. I am voting to position someone who is the most Conservative final candidate in the POTUS races in a long time for the #2 spot in hopes that she gets a crack at it in/by 2012, and that she can help get the groundswell rolling back against the Marxists.
By all accounts (the oil patch is a small world and I know a few people all over) she is a great person, and has been good for Alaska (80% approval, vs Congress' 9%?).
Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, and painfully aware that it will be McCain wielding the pen that makes the stroke that makes a law or vetoes a Bill, I could not vote in good concience for Mc Cain, and would only vote (bitterly, in view of the options) against Obama.
I have young (grand)childeren in my care I have much to teach before they march me off to the camps or stand me against a wall, and I could use another 4 years to do it in.
With Palin there, however, I have someone in the pipeline, so to speak, whom I can support.
That said, much of what Ron Paul has said on Domestic Policy is spot-on, his views on foreign policy are concordant with those of the Founders, and it is a d@mned shame so many here and elsewhere were so willing to listen to the MSM's fast and hard derision (if not sing along) and throw him under the bus.
I guess no one considered that the greatest threats are most heavily bombarded first, and if you drank the koolaid about 'troofers' and the rest, well, more's the pity.
More hell was raised about one white supremacist handing RP a check for $500 than all of Hamas' donations to Obama which were many multiples of that. Think about that.
Funny, now that the same sort of derision is being thrown at Palin (from a different angle--this one is the 'hick from the sticks' play) and even at a plumber from the Midwest, people rush to defend them. (--as it should be!)
Perhaps if they had actually read the Constitution or things Ron Paul has written, they would know what Ron Paul is talking about, but it is far easier to play the 'sound byte smear game' and chuck another person under the bus who simply cannot provide answers to complex problems which will fit on a bumper sticker, which is about all the attention span of much of the electorate can handle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.