Keep Housing and Monetary Policy in the National Debates: Donate to Dr. Ron Paul
$1.4, $1.87, $2.1, $2.5, $2.8, $3 $3.87 million and counting. The mainstream media is having a hard time ignoring such growing momentum. In fact, how can a politician with a supposedly 1 percent rating be receiving so much money? They argue that Dr. Paul is on the fringe while they give the podium to fear mongers and those that laugh at economic policy. The media is now on the fringe and are having a hard time competing with an alternative source of information, you. That is right, now all you need is time, a love of knowledge and you have a podium to voice your opinion. In the last few debates, Fox news has tried to characterize Dr. Paul as a fringe candidate with only a small amount of supporters. They are wrong just like they were wrong with the housing market, oil, and other economic issues. In fact, this morning one of the top morning news programs stated this, “housing continues downward because of the subprime market.†How idiotic is this? Housing is going down because it is in a massive bubble fueled by an easy monetary policy sponsored by the Fed and a housing complex that is hungry on churning commissions. Subprime is only a sympton of the underlying cause. Why would you trust a media that missed this colossal credit bubble with who to vote for?
I am not telling you who to vote for. As many readers know, I haven’t endorsed any politician on this blog. But I am telling you to seriously consider donating to Dr. Ron Paul because he is the only one that is using the podium to talk about monetary policy and the actual root causes of the credit debacle. This is a very important issue to me. Every other candidate is either fear mongering or trying to keep their large money donors happy. Both sides are largely bought by special interests. My point is this. I’m sure many of you are interested in hearing about monetary policy, issues that will impact housing, and other circumstances that will have an impact on national economics and ultimately the bottom line of your finances. If anything, this is probably a major reason you come to this site. If you want to hear someone talking about issues that matter to the health of our long-term economy, you should consider donating and letting your voice be heard that you want a 3rd voice reflecting the issues you care about. If Dr. Paul drops out of the race right now, I can assure you that all we are going to hear about is war, healthcare, and immigration. Very important issues but I will also argue that monetary policy is a very important issue and I like having someone in the entire field of candidates having a public venue to talk about this.
But let me provide you some further evidence on how wrong the mainstream media is. First, let us assume that you invested $10,000 into the following 3 items; gold, oil, and the overall stock market followed by the Dow Jones Industrial Average. First, let us take a look at the DJIA:
If you invested $10,000 in 2000 in the DJIA, you will now have a grand total of $11,200. A modest 12 percent increase. This is also factoring the bear market.
Next, let us take a look at gold prices over the same time horizon:
During this same time, gold went from $290 an ounce to $800 an ounce. A $10,000 investment in gold over the same timeframe would now be worth approximately $27,500.
Let us now take a look at the cost of a barrel of oil over this same time horizon:
Let us now assume that you simply let the $10,000 money sit idle. You still have $10,000 but is it worth the same?
Measured by the U.S. Dollar Index, the dollar has dropped from a high of 109 to 76.4. Meaning that $10,000 is now worth $7,000.
And we all know about the historic housing bubble and we can quote absurd prices but the fact of the matter is, it was built on pure debt and speculation and is declining fast and hard. Take a look at the mortgage debt over the years:
And wages have been stagnant over this timeframe. We are told that there is no inflation and the massive trade deficits are healthy for this country. The fact that the housing market is collapsing is a symptom, of the massive credit markets and horrible monetary policy that has occurred over the past decade. The mainstream media was cheerleading housing for so long and all of a sudden they have no choice but to report the downturn. It is like eating McDonalds and not working out for 10 years straight, getting a heart attack and blaming the heart attack as the main cause of illness. No, the main cause of illness was a lack of health prevention over a very long time that exploded with a watershed event. No matter how you vote next year, it is crucial to have someone in the debate that actually cares and understands these issues in the public eye. Fox News laughs at when a dissenting voice mentions the above issues. Do they think they are Comedy Central? Fair and Balanced? No way. With the money that is flooding into Dr. Paul right now, they will be forced to acknowledge his point of view and give him an opportunity to speak. If not them, another media outlet since let us be realistic, they are interested in ratings since ratings bring in money. Seeing that Dr. Paul has a large audience, they will be forced at least to give him a chance and some airtime to speak (like last week CNN gave Dr. Paul an interview).
Why do you think online blogs are so popular? It gives ordinary citizens a place to voice their opinion. Whether it is right or wrong it is our fundamental constitutional right of freedom of speech. So if you want someone to talk about these issues and bring them to the attention of the overall nation, I encourage you to go to www.ronpaul2008.com and make any kind of donation.
Did You Enjoy The Post? Subscribe to Dr. Housing Bubble’s Blog to get updated housing commentary, analysis, and information
Subscribe to feed
38 Responses to “Keep Housing and Monetary Policy in the National Debates: Donate to Dr. Ron Paul”
I have donated to Ron Paul and believe he may be our last and best hope.
Unfortunately his views on abortion render him a fringe candidate, and for both tens of millions of women and most of your “undecided-middle” voter category, this is enough to make him a not just a no-go but NFW.
As a woman, I hope that other women will not let the false issue of abortion cloud their good judgement.
This country is in big trouble, let’s elect someone who is not a corporate sell-out, if not, abortion rights will be the least of our problems.
I have been donating to Dr. Ron Paul’s campaign since he announced his candidacy and I donated again today.
You know, I’m pretty much a staunch Democrat and I don’t agree with about half of Ron Paul’s agenda. But today I made a donation to his campaign. Because we need his decent, courageous and honest voice. And on the issues of the constitution and States rights, and the war, and monetary policy – damn if he ain’t right on the money. I am so sick to death with politics as usual. The Democrats have no spine and the Republicans are all posturing idiot fake macho-men. I love the idea of this money bomb for the good doctor. Let the corrupted MSM and national parties hear the grassroots. Thanks for letting me vent. And thank you Dr. Housing Bubble for giving me the heads up on some things that really matter.
I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but he is the only candidate who I trust. I honestly believe that everything he says is the truth and that he will work hard to try to accomplish his goals. He doesn’t try to make promises that he knows won’t work, but instead states where he wants to go and how he wants to try and get there while acknowledging that he will need the support of congress and others to accomplish his goals. He is the first presidential candidate that I have ever had respect for. I gave him a donation today because I believe the country would be a much better place if more people like him were running our government and because I hope he will make the other candidates address the topics and issues I really care about.
My understanding of Dr. Paul’s stance on abortion is that the government should not restrict it, nor pay for it, but should leave it to the states to decide whether they want it legal or not. He has stated that he is personally opposed to abortion, but that’s his personal stance (as an obstetrician) which is totally understandable. That doesn’t mean he will seek to ban it. I’ve also contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, and see him as our last best chance to keep our Republic and our freedom. To me, this trumps all other issues.
I love Ron Paul.
Let’s build him a White House!
Of all the republican candidates, he is the only one I like. He voted against the war consistently. He wants to abolish the IRS. He wants to get rid of homeland security. He follows the Constitution. I must say, he is the only Republican who seems trustworthy. I know that is an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.
Great post Dr HB. I appreciate the great analysis.
Cheers!
The man is honest. I’m willing to put up with some of his eccentric views and stick him in the White House.
Could we do more wrong than what has gone wrong now under the “BOY EMPEROR.”
pl
Well this blog just went ff my list of ‘must-read.’
Ron Paul is a raving lunatic – he makes Attilla like far left.
He has zero grasp of the economic realities for the average household.
His idea of ensring access to healthcare is very simple: Can’t pay for it out of pocket? Drop Dead Then. (He refused to accept insurance coverage when in practice.)
And he HATES women regarding them as nothing more than breeding machines who should be controlled by men.
Obviously if you are looney on your politics, then I have to question your judgemet about anything at all.
I am so excited that a fellow student of Austrian economics is actually making a run for the White House! The privately owned Federal Reserve is the reason we have these credit bubbles, including the housing bubble, and Paul wants to abolish it with the stroke of a pen! Imagine the fear in the hearts of the money makers? No wonder they demonize Paul at every turn.
AnnS, that is just the sort of hyperbole that renders productive discussion impossible. “Nothing more than breeding machines who should be controlled by men”? Got some support for such a powerful accusation? Don’t think so – perhaps you’re just hoping that the accusation itself is so strong that it sticks even in the almost complete absence of truth?
There is certainly a “looney” here, but I don’t think the good Doctor is it… and BTW, when you use phrases like “ensring [sic] access to healthcare [sic]” you make your own politics, and the reason you oppose Ron Paul and every other non-socialist politician, very obvious.
@JimAtLaw,
You know, sadly these emotionally charged issues are what drown out any thoughtful analysis of the major issues facing our country. Who else is talking about monetary policy? For me, the donations are more to keep someone on the stage that reflects my views on limited government. I have written numerous essays on why the government shouldn’t bailout corporations that to be honest, should fail for their corruption and greed. In addition, what he is saying is right and you don’t have to take my word for it, just take a look at the US Dollar, gold, and oil. Economics has an impact on your bottom line.
@Debbie. Good for you. It is all about fear mongering. The thing that brings me fear, is the amount of money that is bringing on the collapse of the dollar and the credit debacle. No one really wants to talk about this and they rather scare everyone and make this a focal point. Are you kidding? We can talk about monetary policy, foreign policy, and national policy all at once. I think most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. The politicians in the lead have this carefully tailored stump speech that means nothing because when you follow the money, it leads to the usual suspects.
@All,
I’m noticing a common theme in donations for Dr. Ron Paul. Everyone has their reason for donating and that is why he is on pace for a record day of donations. The media has already chosen its winners and bread and butter topics. Hillary and Rudy. Healthcare and the war. Isn’t there anything else? The election is 1 year away and we should have a healthy debate amongst the top tiered candidates. If the field narrows, and we have Thompson, McCain, Rudy, Mitt, and Paul it’ll be a more balanced debate. Thompson and McCain are going after the same voters. Mitt and Rudy are liberal-conservatives. At least Paul will offer a differing view on the stage. For myself, I don’t want to allow the media to dictate who I should vote for and if Paul is gone, rest assured that is it for any further talk about monetary policy, the Fed, or anything that has a direct impact on the credit bubble. I guarantee that many of these donations are out of frustration out of the current system and seeing someone talk some common sense with intelligence. Plus, he makes damn sense when he talks about Economics! I love the hush of the audience when he schools people on all things financial.
Hobson’s choice? Lesser of (two, ten, thirty) evils? Could be. AnnS perhaps refers to Paul’s website page http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/ where he vehemently opposes Roe vs. Wade. Of special note is the paragraph in which he opposes the federal ability to “interfere with state legislation to protect life”, and describes never having even considered performing an abortion.
The inherent support of states rights over federal rights harkens back to the beginning of the federalist system. Does anyone remember why Alexander Hamilton is on the $10 bill? The Federalist Papers? Supporters would agree that what Paul proposes is a radical restructuring of the fundamental principles upon which the economic system is founded. The accompanying, indeed lynchpin concept underlying this change – the dismantling of the federal system – is essential to the Libertarian party platform (his previous run for president was as a Libertarian.)
But as we seek to remedy the horrible circumstances that unbridled federalism has wrought on our economic system, supporters may also want to examine some corollary effects of removing federalism as the primary moving force in US law.
Bear in mind that most “civil liberties” currently entrenched in federal and state law are based on the federal government’s intervention – “intrusion” – on state’s rights. Where Paul would lead us after dismantling the Fed Reserve is an open question, considering the stances he evinces on his website.
Not just reproductive rights, but also minorities’ rights (especially African Americans) benefited from Federal intervention. The National Guard was in Alabama, the FBI prosecuted lynchings when the local and state attorneys would not. A natural consequence of minimizing Federal authority is the rise of state’s rights – and Paul champions state’s rights.
At issue for AnnS and others, then might be, does removing the paternalistic hand of the feds also remove the protections to adult members of this society? What if a state moved to secede? Look up secession.net and others for confirmation that that thought process is alive and well.
Perhaps we can ask, at what point does the “united” part of the US of A give way to the “states” part?
We know the economic system is broken. What is the cost of repairing it? Are we willing to pay it?
Thanks Dr,
For supporting Ron Paul. I love real opinions written by real people with out regard to consequences. You can only get that in a few places.
The issue here was simple. No one else is discussing monetary policy on a national scale; at least a presidential candidate. This is my primary reason for donating to Dr. Paul. I want to keep someone on the national stage that will openly provide a differing view regarding our economic policies. I’ve also donated to Barack Obama and supported his then housing plan in August of this year:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/pride-and-prejudice-examining-the-psychology-of-those-in-the-housing-industry/
I’m surprised how many people have already decided it is already going to be Hillary and Rudy in 2008. Wouldn’t you like to see a healthier debate of the issues? In economic terms, we are in the mess we are in because no one wanted to listen to a dissenting voice as we barreled into this credit mess. It helps to have various voices debating issues. When it comes to politics, as an entire nation we can rest assured that no one is going to agree 100 percent with each and every single one of our beliefs.
Remember, remember the 5th of November!
sorry but if you had 10,000 $ in 2000, you dont sit idle with it, but you put in money market funds, or buy a 7y bond, which would have yielded probably 4% to 5% at least… compounded over 7y thats probably a 30% to 40% return.
doesnt beat oil or gold during that period, but it beated the stock market.
or yen deposits for example.
but this period is very skewed… there are periods where gold or oil did very bad. past performance is not future performance. gold & oil could prove terrible from here, and USD a very good choice
Very interesting post and quite timely. I actually saw a blurb on MSM am news show stating that Ron Paul had raised a record amount of $ in 24 hours. I too applaud the fact that he is raising issues about credit and fiscal policy. After all, everything in the secular world is tied to money.
Blogging is one of the best ways I know to open discussions. Discourse is positive. Listening to contrarian opinions is a way to learn and expand one’s viewpoint. However, it is NOT productive to attack,slander or write malicious posts. I think a few people need to be reminded of this.
Considering where Ron Paul’s support is coming from, he will be another Ralph Nader – that is he will draw off support from democrats. He’s unlikely to pick up many republican votes, so his masquerading as a republican (he was formerly a democrat) will not affect the republican field much.
More troubling is the people who have very recently aligned themselves with Paul – the white supremacists and 9/11 “Truthers”. He has yet to repudiate these folks. The rabid anti-war folks are bad enough, but at least he could make a case for them.
“He’s unlikely to pick up many republican votes,”
Ron Paul is the ultimate Republican. Back before the party was overtaken by Christian extremists, the Republican party was basically the party of rich old people. What do rich people want? Lower income taxes (so that get to keep more of their riches), lower corporate taxes (so that their businesses are profitable), cuts in social programs and welfare (if someone does not have a good job, it’s his own fault, and government should not be trying to support him with rich people’s money).
Today the Republican party is mostly associated with right-to-lifers and avid Christians, but rich people are still very much there, and you don’t even have to be religious to be rich.
Ron Paul is unlikely to draw off much support from democrats, because his economic policies are anti-Democratic. The greatest Democratic achievement of 20th century is The New Deal (Social Security, etc.). Ron Paul is the most likely presidential candidate to kill it.
“Back before the party was overtaken by Christian extremists, the Republican party was basically the party of rich old people.”
.
You’re relying a little to heavily on stereotypes and wishful thinking. The religious groups have much, much less influence on the republican party than the extremists on the left (environmental, anti-war, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, etc). Don’t believe me? Look at all the hearings the democrats hold for these nutty groups. Do you see the anything equivalent on the republican side, particularly in regards to religious groups?
.
Rich old people? Most of the cars I see with Bush stickers are old beaters. And look a the current demonization of the republican voter – some poor white southern nascar fan.
.
“The greatest Democratic achievement of 20th century is The New Deal (Social Security, etc.).”
.
Well this blog is about a Ponzi scheme, so you picked a good example …
.
“Ron Paul is unlikely to draw off much support from democrats, because his economic policies are anti-Democratic.”
.
Humor me. Start asking your fellow Paul supporters who they voted for in the last three elections. Or ask how long they’ve been a registered republican. I think you know the answer. Or will you be like the housing bulls and deny reality?
.
blah blah blah, hey, for, well, about ever, men have had no choice over whether they can chose to support or not support a child a woman has decided to keep. Get over yourself. Man up (isn’t that what feminism is about) and either deal with being forced to have a child you don’t want (like a man) or man up and take full responsibility for a child you decide to keep or abort.
Totally bogus baseless argument for voting for or not voting for someone. None of these people even mention letting any guy off the hook, and yet a guy can man up (because he’s a guy) and make his voting decisions based on more important issues seeing as how that one is not and option. How about we take away the abortion option, just like it is for men, now who sounds like the most reasonable candidate. Abortion or not, Ron Paul is the man, period.
“The religious groups have much, much less influence on the republican party than the extremists on the left ”
The religious groups do their job by encouraging poor and middle-class Christians to vote Republican even though it’s against their financial interests. In exchange people are guaranteed that the party line will agree with their “values”. As far as non-economical issues go, there’s no need for any debates or any hearings. Abortion is murder, gays are disgusting, God created Earth in six days, it is America’s God-given right to wage wars in any point on the planet, and that’s all there is to it. Nothing to discuss here. Instead let’s discuss which tax cuts will benefit our rich voters and industry lobby most. And then we need to decide what to do with the hole in the budget. Should we cut funding of poor children’s health insurance? Or should we “borrow” some money from the Social Security fund? Or perhaps we should print a truckload of treasury bonds and sell them to cover the hole.
The difference between modern Republicans and old-school Republicans (of which Ron Paul is an excellent example) is that old-school “classical” Republicans were at least in favor of fiscal responsibility _as well as_ tax cuts. Today our government does not know what fiscal responsibility is.
I suggest a great book on the subject: “The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman. Krugman is ten times the economist and the thinker Ron Paul could ever be.
“Start asking your fellow Paul supporters who they voted for in the last three elections. ”
Ron Paul is an Internet phenomenon and Internet users are generally liberal. No surprise that currently most Paul supporters are democrats. But the target demographic that Ron Paul can and must win if he is to stand any chance is rich Republicans.
“Rich old people? Most of the cars I see with Bush stickers are old beaters.”
Look at breakdown of Bush/Kerry votes by area in any major city (except in South). You’ll see that poor and middle-class citizens are more inclined to vote Democratic and well-off neighborhoods are Republican.
“Well this blog is about a Ponzi scheme, so you picked a good example”
So, the idea of a retirement safety net for all citizens = a Ponzi scheme?
Some quotes.
“In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the people’s welfare depends on individual self reliance rather than on state paternalism, Congress annually deliberates over whether the increase in government welfarism should be small or large.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the federal government spends too much, Congress annually deliberates over whether to raise the federal budget by a few billion dollars or by many billion.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that individual liberty depends on decentralized government, Congress annually deliberates over whether vigorous or halting steps should be taken to bring state government into line with federal policy.”
“Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development.”
“The founding fathers had a reason for endorsing the principle of limited government; and this reason recommends defense of the constitutional scheme even to those who take their citizenship obligations lightly. The reason is simple, and it lies at the heart of the Conservative philosophy.
Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men. And power, as Lord Acton said, corrupts men, “Absolute power,” he added, “corrupts absolutely.””
“Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me. We can be conquered by bombs or by subversion; but we can also be conquered by neglect-by ignoring the Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government.”
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
“T]oday neither of our two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of States’ Rights. Thus, the cornerstone of the Republic, our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom by Big Government, is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism.”
“By reducing taxes and spending we will not only return to the individual the means with which he can assert his freedom and dignity, but also guarantee to the nation the economic strength that will always be its ultimate defense against foreign foes.”
Was this said by Ron Paul? Or by some other unknown libertarian? Far from it. These quotes belong to Barry Goldwater, a 1964 Republican presidential candidate. (He lost.)
I see I tapped a deep vein. Let’s just look at your first statement: “The religious groups do their job by encouraging poor and middle-class Christians to vote Republican…”
.
Now the most famous and recent case is All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena and the sermon where Jesus had to choose between John Kerry and George Bush. The upshot: Jesus would not vote for Bush. This is by no means an isolated case – my contact with more mainstream Protestants and Catholics have found them far more on the liberal side and not necessarily aligned with team Bush / Republican. Got to the websites for these groups and you’ll see what I mean.
.
“No surprise that currently most Paul supporters are democrats. But the target demographic that Ron Paul can and must win if he is to stand any chance is rich Republicans.â€
.
So you concede the point – Paul’s backers are democrats. But you’re wrong on how to win. The key is to win the middle, as evidenced by Hillary’s more “moderate†tack. The electorate is pretty evenly divided, so a few votes either way make the difference – just look at the last 2 elections.
.
“Look at breakdown of Bush/Kerry votes by area in any major city (except in South). You’ll see that poor and middle-class citizens are more inclined to vote Democratic and well-off neighborhoods are Republican. “
.
You’ve got that exactly backwards. Look at the map for California. The coastal regions with the more expensive real estate and wealthier individuals are overwhelmingly blue (democrat). Lower income areas, like the Inland Empire are much redder:
.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
.
Think the housing bubble denial is bad? It appears peak oil has come and gone and no one has even said a word. Sure the price keeps going up, but they blame it on the president of Iran sneezing or the like. The real issue is everyone is pumping everything they can, but production is falling. Look it up for yourself every major oil company, and almost every major oil field is seeing a multiple percent year over year production drop. I don’t go for the end of the world as we know it crap, between conservation, large scale solar and electric cars/tractors civilization can keep on going. The only question is how long politicians wait until they acknowledge whats going on.
I just went out of business because of the damn insurance companies, so next venture will be insurance only, and for AnnS, drop dead (just kidding) 😆
For those that question Paul’s economic views (Austrian economics or “Responsible economics”), I tell you just to wait. You have a full year to the election. Sit back and wait. Your views may change dramatically within the year. Its not going to get better. Economically, our country is crumbling and the rest of the world is becoming aware of it. Our “Ponzi” economic policy, can only be covered up so long and the housing debacle has exposed it for what it really is. And the Fed… is officially out of bullets. Lowering interest rates will not solve the problem and further erode the dollar. Raising interest rates will speed up the collapse and lead to a deep credit crunch and recession The American “paycheck to paycheck” consumer is out of money, the Fed-created ATM is closed, and their assets (homes) are being devalued at an unprecedented rate. The downside of American economic policy has been discussed for years but not since Paul Volcker’s Fed, has anyone had the guts to stand up to the politicians and do anything about it. We are about to be taught a very, very, painful lesson. Forget Clinton’s service economy unless you like flipping burgers. The last bastion of manufacturing (housing), is crashing and the end-game for our country’s economic policy is in sight. It will take a Ron Paul or someone of similar views to begin the long process of getting the country back on track. If you believe in a welfare or socialist system, he is clearly not the man for you. If you are entrepreneurial and want the benefits (and stability) of the democratic and economic system carved out by our founders, make yourself heard now.
keeping housing and monetary oolicy in our national debates shouldn’t be any more a question than whether it’s appropriate to discuss the weather
which is part of why blogs such as this one are so popular, because they are necessary as an updated old fashioned community square gathering and outlet
adan
An important issue is always one that affects you. Economic issues are neither more important nor less than abortion, etc. It depends on where you are in your life, etc. So I would not deride people who consider that issue paramount.
Myself, I supported Paul as a Libertarian candidate years ago, despite his abortion stand. I’m afraid, however, that his opponents, especially the media, will try to distract the debate from economic issues, by bringing up, commenting on, questioning him on the abortion issue instead. That only works if we, the public, allows it to. We in the pro-choice side need to remain firm that abortion is not the issue in this particular election.
Socialism works in some countries (it works very well for Europe and Canada), so it’s not really socialism that’s the problem, it’s the particularly American ponzi scheme economy, that’s the problem.
I mean cash only (no damn insurance).
Unfortunately if you try to invest in Oil or Gold or Euros trying to just break even, you will be taxed out of your gain.
The U.S. Government is attempting its best to bankrupt the American citizen, and doing overwhelmingly well at it while being lauded by the media. This is the start of the worst of times.
What is the MATTER with all you ex-patriotic “conservatives” in this country? Don’t you remember WHY we’ve been voting Republican for that last 40 years? It’s to get even with “those people” and the liberals that ruined this great nation. Now, when we are almost at the END – when the plan is almost COMPLETE – you are abandoning the only political philosophy that has ANY chance of success, which is “survival of the fittest”. And we know WHO the fittest are, right?
Our great leader STILL has 30% approval ratings from the TRUE patriotic peasant class. And, all I hear on this site – a site of nobility – is this defeatist talk. You sound like a bunch of Democrats on here. Keep your eye on the goal, the Party knows WHAT is best for America !
Remember: Help Jesus get EVEN, KEEP voting for REAL Republicans! Not some Democrat pretender like Ron Paul!
You need to re-read, or just read, natural selection. The “fittest” does not mean the toughest nor most ruthless, not to Darwin nor to modern biologists. Altruism, sacrificing for offspring, cooperation are also adaptive traits.They have survival value in particular environments. The US is the most compassionate country is history, because it can afford to be. And we have been successful because of it. Republicanism has never been shortsighted, brutal, or reflexively militaristic. So it would be inaccurate to characterize a “true” Republican as such…unless one is an “authentic” Democrat for whom accuracy is subjective.
“You’ve got that exactly backwards. Look at the map for California. ”
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Vote by Income
Under $15,000: 36% Bush 63% Kerry
$15-30,000: 42% Bush 57% Kerry
…
$200,000 or More: 63% Bush 35% Kerry
Vote by Religion
Protestant: 59% Bush 40% Kerry
Jewish/Other/None: 27% Bush 72% Kerry
Vote by Church Attendance
More than Weekly: 64% Bush 35% Kerry
Never: 36% Bush 62% Kerry
Ron Paul is a freak and a liberal. He needs to quit calling himself a Republican.
@John
That’s “Libertarian”, not “Liberal”. Wikipedia has decent definitions, should you care to extend yourself to look those terms up. Paul is against abortion, against gun control, for smaller government, none of which are typical “Liberal” talking points last I checked. You can look it up on his website. He also happens to be the sole “Conservative” candidate (you can look up that definition, too) who opposes the war.
Freak? Sure, why not. Maybe not of the Rick James variety. Anyone who deviates from the norm, or at least is willing to speak up for his or her beliefs against a rising tide of conformity, fits that moniker. I personally vastly disagree with Paul’s social viewpoints – but I respect his willingness to speak to them, and along with so many others, admire his candor in pulling back the curtain on the financial wizards who have led us into ruin.
What does “Republican” mean to you, John? Reflexive posturing? Or an examination of (some of) the tenets that (at least in name) underpin what Ronald Reagan was about, including smaller government? Or does it mean simply parroting what our current president espouses – the largest buildup of government spending in the history of the US, and attacking anyone who dares to call a spade, a spade?
Leave a Reply