North American Union

1timepu

Well-Known Member
I cant vote in the primaries as I am registered as an Independant, Ron Paul is a Libertarian and they tend not to do good, the best is %6 of the vote, that doesnt mean I wouldnt vote for him, but I wouldnt split the conservative vote. And of the money Ron Paul is raising you dont think I know where it is comming from, the Anti War crowd. Yes I know about the Patriot Act, even with that atrocious Act in place we are still free'r than anybody else in the world. Believe it or not like I said I think it would be good for the country to have Hillary win, maybe it would wake up all of these sheep out there. I am not saying more goverment but less, but I do think that our goverment should protect our business interest abroad( Tarrifs). In fact that is their job under our constitution( Foriegn Trade). Again I would think that with a level playing field, A consumption tax, no taxes for corporations( Fair Tax) companies that left would run back, our economy is expected to grow by %10 in the first year.The Surpreme Court is suppose to make rulings based on our constitution, but that is not happening. As a registered Democrat, why do you support Ron Paul, he is everything a Democrat doesnt want. And as far as eating at a truck stop buffet, nope, bring my own, and nap. If Ron Paul gets the Nod as the Republican canidate of course I would vote for him.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
That's the problem with politicians, I don't even think Ron Paul will give up the power that the previous administration has given him *IF* he wins. I certainly DO NOT think any other potential future president will at all.

BINGO! That's the whole problem with all these programs the gov't creates in that they never really solve the problem thus ending the need for gov't intervention. They gain the power and create the bureaucracy which in turn feeds a system of constituent services in the form of entitlement givebacks (individual, special interests and Corp.) which is nothing but welfare and also the earmarks program which is used to buy voting district loyality thus ensuring re-election term after term.

I'm all for solving problems for folks and helping people out by whatever means within moral reason of course but the meaning of utter stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a better outcome!

Let's say Ron does get elected and let's say he holds true to his word, how does he do it? His most effective means is by the use of revoking past Executive Orders which would do a lot but let's be realist here. Who built the system as we know it today? Both the democrat and republican parties. Who are fighting tooth and nail to preserve it? Both again. Who ran in 1994' on changing things and bringing in the proper role of gov't? Republican revolution. Who ran and won in 06' on near similar principles of ending abuse and even condemed earmarks? Democrats. What do we really have after all of this? Same ole' Same ole'! Who will fight Ron tooth and nail if he does hold to his word? You want to see strong bi-partisanship and democrats and republicans working together as happy campers? Elect Ron Paul and I'll take that one to the bank!
:happy-very:

1timepu,

You're headed in the right (no political pun or suggestion intended)direction but not there yet. Keep working though and if you're willing to dig, the answers will come forth.

As to globalization having been around for a while. Since the time we went from being hunter gatherers to being farmer, settlement types about 6k ot 8k years ago. Man becomes most dangerous when he gathers in groups ie communalizes, learns to lead and manipulate others, believes he has all the answers contary to what another individual thinks. realizes the power of majority rule we call democracy and then set himself/herself apart by becoming gov't!

Jim Jones only to had to force a minority to drink the poison as the others (majority) did so willingly and voluntarily. They had been conditioned to the terms of their society and if you acted according to your individual beliefs outside the confines of the majority belief, you were penaltized, force and if need be killed to keep from infecting the rest of society. Look across the picture of time and man's efforts to societize themselves and there are vastly more Jim Jones than there are Jesus of Nazereth's or Gandi's or whoever.

We are no different today but with a vastly larger population base we just have tons and tons of Jim Jones and Adolp Hitlers among us but they just take a different approach of instituting their will and power.


BTW Fredless: You can blame Vay Vincent and Bud Selig for GW being President. I heard an interview Bob Costas did with Fay and he told Bob that back in the early 90's he got a phone call from GW about being Baseball Commissioner. GW told Vincent that he had Selig's backing but Fay told GW he wasn't so sure. Over several days they talked about the commiss. job and it was coming down to baseball commissioner or run for Texas governor. Momma Bush wanted son to take baseball job because she thought Ma Richards was unbeatable. Vincent finally told GW that Selig wasn't behind him and that he should not think the commis. job was his. He choose politics and the rest as they say as history. So tonight when you pray for God's judgement on the evil, add Vincent and Selig to that list!
:wink2:

It was an interesting interview from a historical POV to say the least.
 

1timepu

Well-Known Member
And as for a conspiracy, any economist will tel you that rates are supposed to be RAISED in a bad economy, to stop spending and force people to save. Therefore why would Bernanski keep cutting the rates?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
And as for a conspiracy, any economist will tel you that rates are supposed to be RAISED in a bad economy, to stop spending and force people to save. Therefore why would Bernanski keep cutting the rates?

Why would "Bernanski" keep cutting rates?

Maybe it's because Greenspan and the Bush-eyts (BC censor evasion efforts) dealt the economic cards and he's playing the only hand he's got! The problem is a lot bigger than just the US itself so unless you think "Bernanski" controls that too, I'd say Jones question to you is a valid one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north591.html

For the record, I hate the Federal Reserve, think it should be leveled to the ground via political process obviously so appreciate your Fed concerns but "Bernanski" as you call him doesn't control the world like you think.
 

1timepu

Well-Known Member
Why would "Bernanski" keep cutting rates?

Maybe it's because Greenspan and the Bush-eyts (BC censor evasion efforts) dealt the economic cards and he's playing the only hand he's got! The problem is a lot bigger than just the US itself so unless you think "Bernanski" controls that too, I'd say Jones question to you is a valid one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north591.html

For the record, I hate the Federal Reserve, think it should be leveled to the ground via political process obviously so appreciate your Fed concerns but "Bernanski" as you call him doesn't control the world like you think.

Did I say the fed was soley responsible? Ask any economist he should be raising rates not lowering them
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Did I say the fed was soley responsible?

I think you did! Post #12 of this thread you stated the following:

The dollar is being deflated by the Fed, in a recession which we are in, he is suppose to raise interest rates, not cut them which deflates the dollar even more,

If he, meaning Bernanke and the Federal Reserve is the sole authority to raise and lower interest rates and that alone deflates or inflates the dollar, then yes IMO that is what you said. Now if that wasn't the point or I misunderstand I stand corrected! My Bad.


Ask any economist he should be raising rates not lowering them

Any economist you say? OK, I'll throw out Jim Glassman, senior economist with J.P. Morgan Chase who said the following regarding lowering interest rates,

"It's not about the economic news now. It's all about the danger that lies ahead of us with a credit system that's far tighter," Glassman said. "The message the Fed needs to send is that it will do what it takes. If the economy slows down as most economists think, the Fed will want to get ahead of that."

source: http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/07/news/economy/fed_preview/

Now granted, I've seen a lot of economist say exactly what you are saying and on principle you are correct about the rates but economics like global warming is not as pure a science as we'd like to think it is so opinions differ. I saw this morning where the economy grew by over 4% in the 3Q (best in 4 years) so this gives more fuel to your point of at least not lowering interest rates but I think to say "any economist" is going a bit far. Does make you wonder if even Glassman is rethinking his position this morning.
:happy-very:

Many economist or I'd even give you "any thinking economist" (although a bit over the top) would be more applicable that saying any economist because there are some right now bucking the traditional trend and what some saw as past practice!
 

1timepu

Well-Known Member
I blamed the Fed for lowering rates and not raising them as he should in a recession, just stating what he should be doing, not blaming him for the recession
 

Fredless

APWA Hater
1 time, Globalization is here...now. Going to be stronger than it was in the 1800's...

Get used to the cosmopolitan future. It is here to stay.
 
Top