First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Upcoming American Presidential Election
33884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/18/12
I don't even care any more.
It seems like whatever politicians say are just lies to get elected, so how can I trust them?
I guess I just want a candidate that won't fuck up the country.
Obama hasn't been too horrible, though he certainly didn't live up to my expectations.
I guess I'd like him the most seeing as he isn't a total homophobe/bigot/religious freak.
33380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/19/12 , edited 1/19/12
As long as we don't have the Food Stamp President anymore (went from about 32 million people on food stamps in January 2009 to 46 million now, i.e. almost 1 in 6 Americans), I'll be happy. Only a little happy if Mitt Romney is nominated as the Republican Presidential candidate and wins, but still happier than if Obama is elected again. Ron Paul would be a good choice if not for his policy on the border and 18th century-style foreign policy. I really like Rick Santorum. If the economy were not such an overarching issue, he'd be my favorite since he's conservative and has a very sound foreign policy.

I'm going with Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich has a great record of creating economic growth serving under Ronald Reagan and then as Speaker of the House during the Clinton years. He knows that the welfare state doesn't lead to prosperity, has a very sound foreign policy, and knows all the ins and outs of Washington politics (i.e. he knows how to cut deals in order to move agenda forward even if that requires help from some Democrats). With him as president, I think that our country has the best chance for at least stabilizing our economy before we end up going the way of Greece.
52 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/19/12

Canute wrote:

As long as we don't have the Food Stamp President anymore (went from about 32 million people on food stamps in January 2009 to 46 million now, i.e. almost 1 in 6 Americans), I'll be happy. Only a little happy if Mitt Romney is nominated as the Republican Presidential candidate and wins, but still happier than if Obama is elected again. Ron Paul would be a good choice if not for his policy on the border and 18th century-style foreign policy. I really like Rick Santorum. If the economy were not such an overarching issue, he'd be my favorite since he's conservative and has a very sound foreign policy.

I'm going with Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich has a great record of creating economic growth serving under Ronald Reagan and then as Speaker of the House during the Clinton years. He knows that the welfare state doesn't lead to prosperity, has a very sound foreign policy, and knows all the ins and outs of Washington politics (i.e. he knows how to cut deals in order to move agenda forward even if that requires help from some Democrats). With him as president, I think that our country has the best chance for at least stabilizing our economy before we end up going the way of Greece.


Plz elaborate on Newts "sound" foreign policy. He wants to start war in Iran, didn't agree with the Iraq pullout (we didn't pull out all our troops and we still have a large embassy). When it was newt term to serve in Vietnam he got two deferments but yet he is quick to send other peoples miss to die in endless wars. Damn that sounds like a "sound" foreign policy to me. Shoot first and ask questions later right?

Economic stability? He lobbied for fannie and Freddie in 2008 which in that year the biggest bailout to the banks for bad behavior in history took place. Tax payers had to cough up $700 billion dollars in which gringrich has gotten millions of that money. Looking out for the best interests of the banks I would say. Does endless wars, borrowing money from foreign countries, printing money from the federal reserve which is a private bank that the country has to pay back interest, while all at the same time trying to maintain ss, Medicare and Medicaid and all these oust government assistance programs, how in anyway is this a good economic plan. In fact instead of cutting useless wars, aid to foreign countries and dictators, we instead should cut Americans entitlement system instead.

Aren't u tired of the same old policies recycled over and over again?
Posted 1/19/12 , edited 1/20/12

Trunks19 wrote:


Canute wrote:



Plz elaborate on Newts "sound" foreign policy. He wants to start war in Iran, didn't agree with the Iraq pullout (we didn't pull out all our troops and we still have a large embassy). When it was newt term to serve in Vietnam he got two deferments but yet he is quick to send other peoples miss to die in endless wars. Damn that sounds like a "sound" foreign policy to me. Shoot first and ask questions later right?

Economic stability? He lobbied for fannie and Freddie in 2008 which in that year the biggest bailout to the banks for bad behavior in history took place. Tax payers had to cough up $700 billion dollars in which gringrich has gotten millions of that money. Looking out for the best interests of the banks I would say. Does endless wars, borrowing money from foreign countries, printing money from the federal reserve which is a private bank that the country has to pay back interest, while all at the same time trying to maintain ss, Medicare and Medicaid and all these oust government assistance programs, how in anyway is this a good economic plan. In fact instead of cutting useless wars, aid to foreign countries and dictators, we instead should cut Americans entitlement system instead.

Aren't u tired of the same old policies recycled over and over again?
If I may, I would like to propose two social psychological theories that could explain how and why such resistance for real social change.
1)System Justification Theory:

Historical and Intellectual Origins of System Justification Theory

System justification theory stems partly from the concept of false consciousness, which is rooted in the work of Karl Marx. In The German Ideology. Marx and Engels (1846/1970) asserted that because the dominant groups of society control the cultural and institutional means through which ideas and beliefs are spread, such dominant ideas prevail throughout society, resulting in the systematic inversion and distortion of social and political realities through the ideological schemes of the elites. Although Marx believed that the oppressed working classes would ultimately see through the ideological illusions of the ruling class and endeavor to overthrow the capitalist system, historically, revolutions against oppressive and exploitative systems have been relatively rare. Bringing together various socialist and feminist approaches, Jost (1995) defined false consciousness as “the holding of false or inaccurate beliefs that are contrary to one’s own social interest and which thereby contribute to the maintenance of the disadvantaged position of the self or the group,” and identified at least six different types of false consciousness beliefs: (1) denial of injustice or exploitation, (2) fatalism about prospects for social change, (3) rationalization of social roles, (4) false attribution of blame, (5) identification with the oppressor, and (6) resistance to social change.

Another intellectual precursor to system justification theory was Lerner’s (1980) theory of “belief in a just world,” which posits that people tend to believe that their social world is predictable, orderly, and just. The theory of belief in a just world holds that people have a “justice motive” that leads them to fight injustice and only engage in rationalization, denial, and victim-blaming to maintain belief in a just world when they are prevented from seeking justice. In contrast, system justification theory maintains that people will defend and bolster the status quo even when potential opportunities to fight injustice are available.

System justification theory was also influenced by psychological research on stereotyping, prejudice, and the internalization of inferiority, including Gordon Allport’s (1954/1979) assertion that stereotyping serves a “rationalizing and justifying function.” System justification theory was developed in part as an effort to explain why people of considerably different statuses in society generally tend to support and justify the often unequal and discriminatory status quo.(citation)
2)Terror Management Theory

Definition

Terror management theory (TMT), first proposed by Sheldon Solomon, Tom Pyszczynski, and Jeff Greenberg, suggests that people adhere to cultural worldviews and beliefs in order to suppress death and mortality-related thoughts (Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski & Lyon, 1989). TMT is based on the work of anthropologist Ernest Becker. Becker (1973) proposed that individuals would be restricted by the fear of their inevitable death if they could not develop a system to overcome their terror of mortality. TMT suggests that people combat the terror of their mortality with the same cognitive abilities that cause this terror to arise, by developing “death-denying cultural belief systems” (Goldenberg, Pyszczynski, Greenberg & Solomon, 2000). Additionally, TMT suggests that individuals must feel that they are significant contributors to this worldview and derive their sense of self-esteem according to whether or not they meet culturally determined standards (Pyszczynski, Solomon & Greenberg, 2003).


Methodology

TMT was originally tested on municipal court judges who were asked to set bond for an alleged prostitute (Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski & Lyon, 1989). Prostitution was chosen because it contradicts the morals of many individuals. Before receiving information about the case, half of the judges experienced mortality salience by being asked to answer questions regarding their own death. As expected, the judges who were reminded of their mortality set higher bonds for the accused prostitute. Rosenblatt et al. (1989) explained this by stating, “Moral principles are part of the cultural anxiety-buffer that protects individuals from anxiety concerning their vulnerability and mortality” (Rosenblatt et al., 1989).Thus, acts which go against these moral principles, cause individuals to react more harshly to these “moral transgressors” when mortality is made salient. The theory was further tested to combat arguments against the original experiment and to further refine the theory (Rosenblatt et al., 1989). In the second experiment, judges’ attitudes towards prostitution were measured in advance. Next, the original experiment was repeated with the addition of having the judges express their attitudes toward the experimenter as well. Results showed that those individuals with negative attitudes towards prostitution set higher bonds when mortality was made salient than those for whom it was not made salient. Furthermore, it showed that there was no effect of mortality salience for those individuals who had relatively positive attitudes toward prostitution. Additionally, mortality salience did not lead to a more negative evaluation of the experimenter, thus reducing the likelihood that mood was an alternative explanation to the terror management theory. In addition to increasing individuals’ negative attitudes toward moral transgressors, terror management theory predicts that mortality salience should also increase individuals’ positive attitudes toward others who uphold valued moral principles. In the third experiment (Rosenblatt et al., 1989), individuals were asked again to set bond for an alleged prostitute, and also to set the reward for a woman who had helped police apprehend a criminal, whose victims had sustained injuries. Again, those individuals reminded of their mortality set higher bonds for the prostitute, and in this new case, also set higher rewards for the hero. The fourth and fifth experiments sought to test the link between TMT and self awareness, and the link between mortality salience and physiological arousal, respectively. The findings showed that self awareness did not increase the effects of TMT and that mortality salience did not lead to differences in physiological measures (Rosenblatt, 1989).


Findings

As a result of these experiments, TMT has evolved into a theory that suggests that “a wide range of superficially distinct forms of human behavior are oriented toward the pursuit of self-esteem and faith in a cultural worldview” (Pyszczynski & Greenberg & Solomon, 1999) in order to combat the anxiety that mortality salience invokes. Furthermore, humans have developed a “dual-component cultural anxiety buffer” (Pyszczynski et al., 1999), which consists of a cultural worldview and self esteem. The cultural worldview exists as a “conception of reality that imbues life with order, permanence, and stability…through which individuals can attain a sense of personal value” (Pyszczynski et al., 1999); while self esteem exists as belief that one is meeting the standards within one’s cultural worldview. Additionally, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, and Solomon explain that nonconscious thoughts of death invoke terror management defenses (1999). This is consistent with the proposition that it is not direct and experienced fear or terror of death, but rather the accessibility of death-related thoughts that drive the terror management defenses.(citation)

Now those may sound quite a mouthful at first, but when we consider the facts that we humans are just another variation of cultured apes, with genetically superficial differences from other great apes, then the motive and desire for obtaining and managing our self-righteousness by the conquest of warfare, and the individual quest for short-term socioeconomic dominance over others becomes quite clear. Through our symbolic interaction with our host cultures, we were quite falsely indoctrinated into believing that we're somehow a superior beings, because that's how we gain our individual self-esteem from our collective identity, within our cultural narrative. And when that false sense of belief system came under threat, either in the form of skepticism and scientific investigation, or the encountering of another different belief system, that's when we proactively get into system justification behavior pattern. In other words, for some if not most of us, we just want the feeling of security through ourselves practicing what's familiar to us, even if that turns out to be a "security mirage" created by our cultural narrative.

Bruce Schneier: The security mirage
The feeling of security and the reality of security don't always match, says computer-security expert Bruce Schneier. At TEDxPSU, he explains why we spend billions addressing news story risks, like the "security theater" now playing at your local airport, while neglecting more probable risks -- and how we can break this pattern.
Furthermore, this can also explain our self-expression of vain and narcissistic behaviors(case in point, USA! USA! USA!), all the way to our pursuit of happiness(the late George Carlin's "American Dream" and illusion of freedom through meaningless choices come to mind), and just about whatever that's defined by our host culture and belief system to be meaningful and of valued(ie. my stuff, mine), thus desirable to obtain through various socioeconomic transactions. Not to mention is the fact that our dopamine-infused brain can just get addicted through all this empty promises of a rewarding and meaningful behaviors.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/20/12 , edited 1/20/12

Canute wrote:
I really like Rick Santorum. If the economy were not such an overarching issue, he'd be my favorite since he's conservative and has a very sound foreign policy.


Rick Santorum? Oh yeah, that's the guy who wants to ban pornography, who blame society for the catholic priest molestations, who thinks that having a father or mother in jail is better than having gay parents, who rejects the notion that people die from lack of health insurance, and who think that homosexuality only exists in certain states...
Sounds like a really smart guy, huh? Certainly fit to be the leader of the USA.

And as for Newt... Well not only is he war- hungry mongoloid, like stated earlier here, but he is also the scumbag who cheated on, and then divorced his wife while she had cancer. And THEN, he has his daughter lie about it and say it was the other way around.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/20/12

Trunks19 wrote:

The funny thing is the candidates dont even have to put ads out to attack Ron Paul. Every American media news outlet attacks Ron Paul on outrages things and put words in his mouth. I think the biggest reason why the corporations and lobbiest which choose american presidents not the brain dead American people is 1. No aid to Israel, part of Ron Pauls problem in the eyes of corporations is that he wont defend the poor little jewish nation if it was attack by Iran (Iran would be stupid to even try to nuke Israel). I guess putting Israel first and fighting and dieing for a foreign country which holds no interest to us Americans at all is just above the USA itself? 2. He wants to end all wars and bring the US troops back home. You know it is astonishing how stupid many Americans are. They sit there and believe that people hate them because they do ABSOUTELY NOTHING!!! Lmao they ignore the governments who overthrew and the brutal dictators we install. They ignore the civilians being killed either by drone strikes or bombing their country. They ignore they resources we steal and the privatization of it. They ignore that tax payers fund brutal dictators only because they are obedient to America.

Ron Paul also wants to end the FED. The ignorant American people dont even know what the hell the fed is. The private bank WITH NO REGULATIONS that prints American dollars out of thin air. The more they print the lower our dollar value comes. They sent interests very low to encourage risky lending. They bailout anyone anywhere with no scrutiny.

I can go on and on but if you cannot see how every candidate says the exact same thing accept for a little difference in Domestic policy you are dumb. Nothing dumber then an undecided mainstream media filled voter. The people are confused, lost, dont know why we are in the situation we are in and vote for people based on their looks, race, religion, age nothing to do with policies. Ask people why they support other candidates then Ron Paul and their answers has nothing to do with the issues. It is becausse, "O he can beat OBama"!! Really beating Obama is all that matters to you?


The Part in Red should be the reason why you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul, his economic policies are idiotic. First off, we have a fiat system wherein the value of currency is ensured by government, with no intrinsic value of its own. You may not like this, but, consider this, prior to the '70s we had a system where 30 American dollars can be converted into 1 troy ounce of Gold. Sounds good? Now, the price of Gold increase so much that to do this would be economic suicide, our dollar would deflat so much that our export will cease to be competitive- well, less competative than it already is. Thus is born the Fiat system, whereby the Fed is given the power to control the money supply. It doesn't just mean that they can print money, which increases inflation but also increase the amount of money in circulation, which gives people more purchasing power, they may also buy Treasury Security, which decreases the amount of money in circulation and, thereby, creates deflation. You obviously are mistaken on that point. You have no idea what the Fed does, and you should do well to do more research. But you seem to think that this Ron Paul is the enemy of corporation, and they don't support him because he won't defend Israel- is there really a connexion between the two? Oh, I get it, because the owners of Corporations are greedy and covetous Hebrews and Shylocks, therefore they don't like any candidate that doesn't support the nation of Hebrews and Shylocks who sacrifice Gentile Babies on Passover. I get it. Nevermind what he advocates is basically Laissez Faire economics, which is why the corporations are actually seeking. So, please go on, I would love to hear why he should be given the Saviour treatment and everyone else is so terrible.

But, before you do that, consider this, Ron Paul is a devout follower of the Austrian School of Economics. That alone should disqualify him.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/20/12 , edited 1/20/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Canute wrote:
I really like Rick Santorum. If the economy were not such an overarching issue, he'd be my favorite since he's conservative and has a very sound foreign policy.


Rick Santorum? Oh yeah, that's the guy who wants to ban pornography, who blame society for the catholic priest molestations, who thinks that having a father or mother in jail is better than having gay parents, who rejects the notion that people die from lack of health insurance, and who think that homosexuality only exists in certain states...
Sounds like a really smart guy, huh? Certainly fit to be the leader of the USA.

And as for Newt... Well not only is he war- hungry mongoloid, like stated earlier here, but he is also the scumbag who cheated on, and then divorced his wife while she had cancer. And THEN, he has his daughter lie about it and say it was the other way around.



Behold the Yellow Peril, the Heathenish race of the lowest Mongoliods, incapable of human feelings, cold and bloodthristy, ready to destroy all form of freedom.


He is their leader. Though he may look like he is of the purest Caucasian breed, he is infact in disguise, a Heathen Chinee.
Posted 1/20/12
Let's get the misery over with and elect Newt Gingrich. Who could possibly ever be worse than him?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/21/12 , edited 1/21/12

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Canute wrote:
I really like Rick Santorum. If the economy were not such an overarching issue, he'd be my favorite since he's conservative and has a very sound foreign policy.


Rick Santorum? Oh yeah, that's the guy who wants to ban pornography, who blame society for the catholic priest molestations, who thinks that having a father or mother in jail is better than having gay parents, who rejects the notion that people die from lack of health insurance, and who think that homosexuality only exists in certain states...
Sounds like a really smart guy, huh? Certainly fit to be the leader of the USA.

And as for Newt... Well not only is he war- hungry mongoloid, like stated earlier here, but he is also the scumbag who cheated on, and then divorced his wife while she had cancer. And THEN, he has his daughter lie about it and say it was the other way around.



Behold the Yellow Peril, the Heathenish race of the lowest Mongoliods, incapable of human feelings, cold and bloodthristy, ready to destroy all form of freedom.


He is their leader. Though he may look like he is of the purest Caucasian breed, he is infact in disguise, a Heathen Chinee.


Fuck!
Sorry about that. The term mongoloid means something entirely different in my language.
I should've googled it beforehand...



DeusExMachine wrote:

Let's get the misery over with and elect Newt Gingrich. Who could possibly ever be worse than him?


Rick Santorum?
52 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/21/12

longfenglim wrote:


Trunks19 wrote:

The funny thing is the candidates dont even have to put ads out to attack Ron Paul. Every American media news outlet attacks Ron Paul on outrages things and put words in his mouth. I think the biggest reason why the corporations and lobbiest which choose american presidents not the brain dead American people is 1. No aid to Israel, part of Ron Pauls problem in the eyes of corporations is that he wont defend the poor little jewish nation if it was attack by Iran (Iran would be stupid to even try to nuke Israel). I guess putting Israel first and fighting and dieing for a foreign country which holds no interest to us Americans at all is just above the USA itself? 2. He wants to end all wars and bring the US troops back home. You know it is astonishing how stupid many Americans are. They sit there and believe that people hate them because they do ABSOUTELY NOTHING!!! Lmao they ignore the governments who overthrew and the brutal dictators we install. They ignore the civilians being killed either by drone strikes or bombing their country. They ignore they resources we steal and the privatization of it. They ignore that tax payers fund brutal dictators only because they are obedient to America.

Ron Paul also wants to end the FED. The ignorant American people dont even know what the hell the fed is. The private bank WITH NO REGULATIONS that prints American dollars out of thin air. The more they print the lower our dollar value comes. They sent interests very low to encourage risky lending. They bailout anyone anywhere with no scrutiny.

I can go on and on but if you cannot see how every candidate says the exact same thing accept for a little difference in Domestic policy you are dumb. Nothing dumber then an undecided mainstream media filled voter. The people are confused, lost, dont know why we are in the situation we are in and vote for people based on their looks, race, religion, age nothing to do with policies. Ask people why they support other candidates then Ron Paul and their answers has nothing to do with the issues. It is becausse, "O he can beat OBama"!! Really beating Obama is all that matters to you?


The Part in Red should be the reason why you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul, his economic policies are idiotic. First off, we have a fiat system wherein the value of currency is ensured by government, with no intrinsic value of its own. You may not like this, but, consider this, prior to the '70s we had a system where 30 American dollars can be converted into 1 troy ounce of Gold. Sounds good? Now, the price of Gold increase so much that to do this would be economic suicide, our dollar would deflat so much that our export will cease to be competitive- well, less competative than it already is. Thus is born the Fiat system, whereby the Fed is given the power to control the money supply. It doesn't just mean that they can print money, which increases inflation but also increase the amount of money in circulation, which gives people more purchasing power, they may also buy Treasury Security, which decreases the amount of money in circulation and, thereby, creates deflation. You obviously are mistaken on that point. You have no idea what the Fed does, and you should do well to do more research. But you seem to think that this Ron Paul is the enemy of corporation, and they don't support him because he won't defend Israel- is there really a connexion between the two? Oh, I get it, because the owners of Corporations are greedy and covetous Hebrews and Shylocks, therefore they don't like any candidate that doesn't support the nation of Hebrews and Shylocks who sacrifice Gentile Babies on Passover. I get it. Nevermind what he advocates is basically Laissez Faire economics, which is why the corporations are actually seeking. So, please go on, I would love to hear why he should be given the Saviour treatment and everyone else is so terrible.

But, before you do that, consider this, Ron Paul is a devout follower of the Austrian School of Economics. That alone should disqualify him.


No I think you need to do more research cause you are obviously the one who is lost here. For you to be ignorant of how the dollar is decreasing in value due to the fed printing money out of thin air. I mean dude where have you been do you realize the dollar has lost much of its purchusing power due to inflation. In fact you need to read this just for starts http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-10000-in-19xx-equal-today.html. Lol you would be laughed out of the USA for saying the dollar has a very strong purchasing power when it is steadily decreasing every year. The reason why RP wants to put us back on the gold standard is to bring up its purchasing power and also it doesnt cause our government to spend like crazy as it is now. When the government doesnt have money well they can just turn to the FED and they will magically print money out of nothing in which we have to pay back in interest. You need to do your own research buddy. Now lets get into that ignorant foreign policy statement you made about Hebrew nonsense. Your putting words in my mouth I didnt say anything bad about Hebrews or Jews at all. I just feel in the USA we need to put America first, there is no foreign country or interests we should be serving equally. RP gets attacked on foreign policy because he wont support an attack on Iran. Iran being Israels enemy who has done nothing to the USA at all, but yet we are so readily able to send our boys to fight and die for Israel against a third world who would commit suicide if they would nuke Israel. Israel has over 200-300 nukes in their arsenal how the hell is Iran a threat to them?

RP was not invited to the Republican Jewish forum which was held last just, "because he was far out of the mainstream with Israel." So I guess to be in the mainstream we Americans must support endless military aid to Israel AS OUR OWN COUNTRY IS SUFFERING FROM A BAD ECONOMY. All Ron Paul is saying is end all economic Aid to all countries and save that money back here at home. He is being called a radical, racist, anti-semite just for saying that. I am not saying Jews control anything but what I am saying is it seems like it is politically incorrect to put American interests first when it comes to Israel. God I cant stand brain dead people when it comes to Israel like their brains just cease to exist or something.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/21/12 , edited 1/21/12

Trunks19 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Trunks19 wrote:

The funny thing is the candidates dont even have to put ads out to attack Ron Paul. Every American media news outlet attacks Ron Paul on outrages things and put words in his mouth. I think the biggest reason why the corporations and lobbiest which choose american presidents not the brain dead American people is 1. No aid to Israel, part of Ron Pauls problem in the eyes of corporations is that he wont defend the poor little jewish nation if it was attack by Iran (Iran would be stupid to even try to nuke Israel). I guess putting Israel first and fighting and dieing for a foreign country which holds no interest to us Americans at all is just above the USA itself? 2. He wants to end all wars and bring the US troops back home. You know it is astonishing how stupid many Americans are. They sit there and believe that people hate them because they do ABSOUTELY NOTHING!!! Lmao they ignore the governments who overthrew and the brutal dictators we install. They ignore the civilians being killed either by drone strikes or bombing their country. They ignore they resources we steal and the privatization of it. They ignore that tax payers fund brutal dictators only because they are obedient to America.

Ron Paul also wants to end the FED. The ignorant American people dont even know what the hell the fed is. The private bank WITH NO REGULATIONS that prints American dollars out of thin air. The more they print the lower our dollar value comes. They sent interests very low to encourage risky lending. They bailout anyone anywhere with no scrutiny.

I can go on and on but if you cannot see how every candidate says the exact same thing accept for a little difference in Domestic policy you are dumb. Nothing dumber then an undecided mainstream media filled voter. The people are confused, lost, dont know why we are in the situation we are in and vote for people based on their looks, race, religion, age nothing to do with policies. Ask people why they support other candidates then Ron Paul and their answers has nothing to do with the issues. It is becausse, "O he can beat OBama"!! Really beating Obama is all that matters to you?


The Part in Red should be the reason why you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul, his economic policies are idiotic. First off, we have a fiat system wherein the value of currency is ensured by government, with no intrinsic value of its own. You may not like this, but, consider this, prior to the '70s we had a system where 30 American dollars can be converted into 1 troy ounce of Gold. Sounds good? Now, the price of Gold increase so much that to do this would be economic suicide, our dollar would deflat so much that our export will cease to be competitive- well, less competative than it already is. Thus is born the Fiat system, whereby the Fed is given the power to control the money supply. It doesn't just mean that they can print money, which increases inflation but also increase the amount of money in circulation, which gives people more purchasing power, they may also buy Treasury Security, which decreases the amount of money in circulation and, thereby, creates deflation. You obviously are mistaken on that point. You have no idea what the Fed does, and you should do well to do more research. But you seem to think that this Ron Paul is the enemy of corporation, and they don't support him because he won't defend Israel- is there really a connexion between the two? Oh, I get it, because the owners of Corporations are greedy and covetous Hebrews and Shylocks, therefore they don't like any candidate that doesn't support the nation of Hebrews and Shylocks who sacrifice Gentile Babies on Passover. I get it. Nevermind what he advocates is basically Laissez Faire economics, which is why the corporations are actually seeking. So, please go on, I would love to hear why he should be given the Saviour treatment and everyone else is so terrible.

But, before you do that, consider this, Ron Paul is a devout follower of the Austrian School of Economics. That alone should disqualify him.


No I think you need to do more research cause you are obviously the one who is lost here. For you to be ignorant of how the dollar is decreasing in value due to the fed printing money out of thin air. I mean dude where have you been do you realize the dollar has lost much of its purchusing power due to inflation. In fact you need to read this just for starts http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-10000-in-19xx-equal-today.html. Lol you would be laughed out of the USA for saying the dollar has a very strong purchasing power when it is steadily decreasing every year. The reason why RP wants to put us back on the gold standard is to bring up its purchasing power and also it doesnt cause our government to spend like crazy as it is now. When the government doesnt have money well they can just turn to the FED and they will magically print money out of nothing in which we have to pay back in interest. You need to do your own research buddy. Now lets get into that ignorant foreign policy statement you made about Hebrew nonsense. Your putting words in my mouth I didnt say anything bad about Hebrews or Jews at all. I just feel in the USA we need to put America first, there is no foreign country or interests we should be serving equally. RP gets attacked on foreign policy because he wont support an attack on Iran. Iran being Israels enemy who has done nothing to the USA at all, but yet we are so readily able to send our boys to fight and die for Israel against a third world who would commit suicide if they would nuke Israel. Israel has over 200-300 nukes in their arsenal how the hell is Iran a threat to them?

RP was not invited to the Republican Jewish forum which was held last just, "because he was far out of the mainstream with Israel." So I guess to be in the mainstream we Americans must support endless military aid to Israel AS OUR OWN COUNTRY IS SUFFERING FROM A BAD ECONOMY. All Ron Paul is saying is end all economic Aid to all countries and save that money back here at home. He is being called a radical, racist, anti-semite just for saying that. I am not saying Jews control anything but what I am saying is it seems like it is politically incorrect to put American interests first when it comes to Israel. God I cant stand brain dead people when it comes to Israel like their brains just cease to exist or something.


A Blog is not a source of Economic knowledge. The Federal Reserve is a central bank that controls the money supply by printing money, selling government bonds, or buying government bonds. First, if it wants to increase hte amount of money, it simply prints money and buy government bonds with it, adding money into the general circulation, which, while increasing inflation, also increase the purchasing power of the people in the short term, which would allow people to purchase more and increase demand, in turn creating jobs to supply that demand, etc., etc. In addition to creating demand within the country, it also lowers the price of our product, making it more competative with other nations- that is why China keeps on artificially keep their money weak. The weakening of the power of the Dollar is beneficial to the Nation in a time of an Economic Crisis for this reason. On the otherhand, the Federal Reserve can decrease the supply of money, which deflats the value of the dollar by selling Government bonds, taking out of circulation and putting it back in the bank. This is basic oeconomics. There is no magic in it, and you obviously don't understand the OEconomy enough to speak of it. Now, we once had a currency that was linked to the value of Gold, after WWII, we made thrity Dollars tradable to one troy ounce of Gold, under the condition that Europe and Japan like their money to our Dollar. Got that? This became untenable after the stagflation in the 70s, when the price of Gold skyrocketed in comparison to our Dollar, so we had to get out of it before our exports become uncompetative, which would have been disaterous for our nation. So what you are advocating is basically 'let's kill our exporting power to destroy the American Economy, high five'. About your statement on not meaning to offend Jews, you obviously are missing the point of my statement, but that is to be expected of the dull. You made mention that the corporations do not support Ron Paul because of his stance on Israel- what is the connexion, pray tell? Unless you want to say that all owners of corporations are Zionists (that is the modern word for Greedy Thieving Jews), then you have to explain, otherwise we are going to take it as you implying that Jews control the corporation and Ron Paul is the only man to stand up against these Heebs- a fairly standard accusation against the Jews in antisemetic literature.

You then provide you argument against Israel- I am going to ignore that because I never inquired for your position on Israel, and I doubt there is any more sense in it, if your argument considering the FED is anything to go by. Brain dead people repeat mantras without inquiry, you have yet to inquire into anything you speak of, that is why you write more than I have asked for, to repeat party line.
Posted 1/22/12

NeOnCoOl wrote:

4 years all ready shit time gose fast Mind you don't live in America


I know right...

I'm in Florida so hopefully we don't embarrass ourselves again
Posted 1/23/12 , edited 1/25/12

longfenglim wrote:


Trunks19 wrote:



A Blog is not a source of Economic knowledge. The Federal Reserve is a central bank that controls the money supply by printing money, selling government bonds, or buying government bonds. First, if it wants to increase hte amount of money, it simply prints money and buy government bonds with it, adding money into the general circulation, which, while increasing inflation, also increase the purchasing power of the people in the short term, which would allow people to purchase more and increase demand, in turn creating jobs to supply that demand, etc., etc. In addition to creating demand within the country, it also lowers the price of our product, making it more competative with other nations- that is why China keeps on artificially keep their money weak. The weakening of the power of the Dollar is beneficial to the Nation in a time of an Economic Crisis for this reason. On the otherhand, the Federal Reserve can decrease the supply of money, which deflats the value of the dollar by selling Government bonds, taking out of circulation and putting it back in the bank. This is basic oeconomics. There is no magic in it, and you obviously don't understand the OEconomy enough to speak of it. Now, we once had a currency that was linked to the value of Gold, after WWII, we made thrity Dollars tradable to one troy ounce of Gold, under the condition that Europe and Japan like their money to our Dollar. Got that? This became untenable after the stagflation in the 70s, when the price of Gold skyrocketed in comparison to our Dollar, so we had to get out of it before our exports become uncompetative, which would have been disaterous for our nation. So what you are advocating is basically 'let's kill our exporting power to destroy the American Economy, high five'. About your statement on not meaning to offend Jews, you obviously are missing the point of my statement, but that is to be expected of the dull. You made mention that the corporations do not support Ron Paul because of his stance on Israel- what is the connexion, pray tell? Unless you want to say that all owners of corporations are Zionists (that is the modern word for Greedy Thieving Jews), then you have to explain, otherwise we are going to take it as you implying that Jews control the corporation and Ron Paul is the only man to stand up against these Heebs- a fairly standard accusation against the Jews in antisemetic literature.

You then provide you argument against Israel- I am going to ignore that because I never inquired for your position on Israel, and I doubt there is any more sense in it, if your argument considering the FED is anything to go by. Brain dead people repeat mantras without inquiry, you have yet to inquire into anything you speak of, that is why you write more than I have asked for, to repeat party line.
Then what about a real credible economic source material, as in the "Debt Supercycle" by Financial Sense.

Where the Debt Supercycle Begins

I spent my first decade in the business as a broker before transforming my business to a fee-based money management firm. All I sold in the 1980’s was fixed income. Who wanted to invest in stocks when you could get double digit returns in guaranteed deposits at a bank or by investing in government debt? I still remember one of my first trades—a 10-year treasury note paying a 15% interest rate.

What I did not realize at the time was the U.S., and the western world in general, was about to embark on what we now refer to as the “Debt Supercycle”—a theory articulated by the investment strategists at Bank Credit Analyst out of Canada. The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance sheet liquidity and the rise in indebtedness during the WWII period. Economic expansions in the post WWII world were associated with the buildup in debt as western governments introduced automatic stabilizers through entitlements such as unemployment benefits, Social Security, Medicare, and deposit insurance at financial institutions. During the early stages of debt buildup, government policies were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy. Western economies would experience periodic corrections during recessions, but these recessions did not reverse the long-term trend of debt buildup that continued to grow with each successive decade.

These trends would lead to growing illiquidity making our financial markets more fragile and susceptible to the threat of a deflationary event like we experienced recently in the great credit crisis of 2008-2009. These periodic recessions were fought by governments with more deficit spending and credit creation. Thus, the bigger balance sheet excesses became, the more painful the eventual corrective process would be. The financial stakes became higher in each new economic cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on governments to reflate demand, by whatever means were available.

According to the Bank Credit Analyst the Debt Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic meltdown of 2008-2009. Authorities reached the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more credit. The result is that it forced governments to leverage up instead. This is where we are today as authorities spend, borrow and print money to fight off the deflationary impact of private sector deleveraging. Welcome to the final chapter of the Debt Supercycle—a period of trillion dollar deficits that are being monetized by trillion dollar expansions of central bank balance sheets, otherwise known as money printing. Once fiscal policy is pushed to the limits of sustainability, the Debt Supercycle will come to a violent end. This is exactly what is happening to Europe now.

A graphic depiction of this Debt Supercycle can be seen below. As of this writing, outstanding U.S. federal debt is close to $15.3 trillion dollars. For the first time in my lifetime US federal debt now exceeds U.S. GDP. In personal terms each U.S. citizen now owes $180,559.


Our politicians have been acting irresponsibly, paying only lip service to the nation’s rapidly growing debt burden. It has been argued that our debt is not as bad as it appears and we have plenty of options and time to resolve this issue. Some argue for higher taxes, others for dramatic spending cuts. The truth is that neither will work alone. There aren’t enough taxpayers to pay the bill, even if we raise tax rates to 100% on the rich. Spending cuts will also not solve our problems unless we eliminate all forms of entitlements and drastically reduce the size of our military. In the end, our only option will be to pursue a combination of tax increases, entitlement and spending reductions, and a steady dose of inflation. This is the policy we pursued after WWII and it is now the official policy of the U.S. government, a term referred to as financial repression.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments."

~Friedrich August von Hayek


I would like to address the unusual phenomenon of the Debt Supercycle and why it has gone on for well over three decades without a major crisis until recently. Politicians, and the Keynesian economists who support them, have long argued that debt imbalances don’t matter. What matters is the economy’s ability to grow and it is government's job to make sure it grows through whatever means necessary. On the surface this argument seems plausible. The two graphs below illustrate the popularity of this view.


From 1978 to today, the U.S was able to grow its total debt from $719 billion to $56 trillion, an annualized growth rate of 13.7%. While U.S. debt was growing during this period of time the interest rate paid on that debt steadily declined. This confounded experts who would have predicted higher rates of inflation and certainly higher rates of interest. This can be explained. At the end of the 1970’s inflation rates were hovering over 14%, bond yields on U.S. treasuries had risen to over 15%. The US. Government had been financing its growing deficits by urging the Fed to monetize its debt by printing money to buy U.S. treasuries. This is what led to the rising inflation rates during the 1970’s. This philosophy came to an end with President Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker to head up the Federal Reserve.

From Printing Presses to the Bond Market

Volcker and other central bankers convinced their respective governments that they could tame the inflation monster by financing deficits through the bond market rather than the current practice of monetizing (printing money to pay off) the debt. Stung by a wave of rising inflation, governments turned to their central banks for advice. The advice given had three components: one, raise short-term interest rates in order to restrain bank borrowing by individuals and businesses; two, cut government borrowing; and three, use the bond market to finance budget deficits by selling bonds to domestic and overseas investors.

It was argued, and rightly so, that when a government taps the bond market it is drawing from the existing stock of savings—no new money is created. Large institutions such as insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, and individual investors would supply the necessary capital to finance government deficits. The inducement to supply this capital was high real interest rates, an interest rate that was well above the inflation rate. It worked. The migration of credit expansion from within the monetary sector to outside it was the single biggest reason why OECD government inflation fell below five percent throughout the 80’s, 90’s, and the 2000’s. As shown in the graphs above, it led to rising debt levels and falling interest rates.

Another process that occurred during this period that facilitated government debt financing was the revolution that was occurring in the capital markets. Peter Warburton described this process in his seminal work “Debt and Delusion,” from which I now quote:

The capital markets' revolution of the late 1980’s and the 1990’s was facilitated by several parallel developments, of which five stand out. First, the incapacity of the banks, due to non-performing loans; second, the adoption of liberal credit policies by governments; third, the displacement of discretionary consumer borrowing by obligatory government borrowing (to finance budget deficits); fourth, the concentration of management of private wealth in the hands of large funds; and fifth, the increased use and acceptance of financial derivatives….

If this powerful shift from traditional bank borrowing towards the capital markets in North America and Western Europe had not taken place, it is most probable that there would have been a much longer period of recession and consolidation in the aftermath of the late 1980’s property bust….

Deprived of the easy option of selling bonds to investment funds and individuals, the government would probably have resorted to greater monetization of their borrowing….

If this traditional course of action had been followed, then there is little doubt that inflationary fires would have been rekindled in the western economies during the 1990’s by pressing additional liquidity (cash and bank deposits) into the hands of consumers and firms, the demand for goods, services and assets would have increased relative to their available supplies. After a couple of years or so, the outcome of excessive money creation would have been a resurgence of consumer price inflation, following the pattern of the 1970’s and early 1980’s.
This process worked for an extended period of time with occasional hiccups and financial failures: the bankruptcy of Orange County, the Mexican peso crisis in late 1994, the collapse of Barings Bank in 1995, the Asian currency crisis in 1997, and the Russian debt default and the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital Management in 1998.

The Rise of Derivatives

Overtime, a new pattern was beginning to emerge by the 1990’s and continues on to this day: an increasing frequency of rogue waves or black swan events. With the increasing role of large financial institutions as intermediaries within the financial system a large important part of capital transfers were being done in secret through the derivatives market. Transactions between investment banks and mega funds such as hedge funds were increasingly being transacted in secret in the OTC derivatives market far from the public gaze.

Derivatives were the ultimate leverage tool used by hedge funds and the proprietary trading desks of large banks in gearing up the financial system. The use of derivatives enabled these financial entities the ability to gain control of a larger asset portfolio with a smaller commitment of capital. Derivatives in effect gave artificial support to both the bond and equity markets. It also facilitated the massive leveraging of the financial system with debt-to-asset ratios rising from 12-1 to 40-1 by the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Most importantly, the synthetic support given the bond and equity markets by these leveraged instruments were critically dependent on the downward progression of interest rates and the shape of the yield curve. A small tremor in the structure of interest rates would undermine the profitability of these leveraged trades leading to forced selling in the bond, equity, and commodity markets, which explains much of what happened during 2007-2009.

Risk On/Risk Off and the "Paranormal" Market

The fact remains that our financial system still remains highly leveraged. As Bill Gross recently wrote in his 2012 investment outlook, “most developed economies have not, in fact, delevered since 2008…credit as a whole remains resilient or at least static because of a multitude of quantitative easings (QE) in the U.S., U.K., and Japan...and now Euroland countries.”

Because interest rates are now zero bound, according to Gross, it raises the possibility of a fat left-tailed possibility of unforeseen delevering or the fat right-tailed possibility of central bank inflationary expansion. The result is we face a number of years in the future where economies will exhibit different aspects of the New Normal which Gross describes as “Sub,” ”Ab,” or “Paranormal" (to be explained below).

The global financial system is still leveraging up. However, this time it is governments that are doing the leveraging. Today, sovereign debt is being issued in copious quantities. The vast majority of this debt is being used to finance non-productive consumption. All of the world’s major governments are spending and living well beyond their means leaving central banks to return once again towards aggressive debt monetization to desperately ensure interest rates remain subdued and the financial system abundantly liquid. As Grant Williams explained with the following image below, "currently the central banks of the top three developed world entities: the Eurozone, the US and Japan have balance sheets that amount to roughly $8 trillion...What does this mean? It means that nearly $8 trillion in world economic growth is artificial and exists only courtesy of central bank intervention...It also means that central banks will never unwind their 'assets'...It also means that in this age of ongoing consumer and corporate deleveraging, central banks will have no choice but to continue monetizing."

Source: Grant Williams, "Things That Make You Go Hmmm..."

This creates an unstable dynamic whereby market participants focus their attention on divining opaque and unpredictabie moves by "the powers that be" rather than the real and economic value of various assets. This anticipation by highly leveraged financial players of policy reflation is what underpins the highly speculative nature of our current global marketplace. When reflationary policies are delayed or not forthcoming, the markets deleverage and go into “risk off” mode. This drives the dollar higher and treasury yields lower. When the monetary bazookas are unleashed the “risk on” trade is executed and stocks and commodities rise universally. This “risk on/risk off “ trade is now part of the new Paranormal that Gross describes in his 2012 investment outlook.

When Markets Rebel

The question as to which fat tail risk (left or right) the markets experience boils down to a game of confidence that governments and their respective central banks are playing with the bond markets. The risk to government is that because of zero bound interest rates, governments have been financing a good portion of their debt short-term. The rate of interest is low which helps to reduce deficits. The danger is that since a good majority of debt is short-term it will have to be rolled over. As long as confidence is maintained debt will continue to roll over at existing low interest rates. The real danger is when the markets lose confidence in policymakers. That is, if the markets rebel and demand higher rates of return. It is a rise in interest rates which now directly threatens the solvency of many governments. Record debt levels are not a burden to government as long as interest rates remain low. It is when confidence is lost and rates rise that the solvency issue comes into question. This is the nightmare scenario that keeps central bankers up at night; a warning Sidney Homer wrote in his “A History of Interest Rates”:

Many besides the government have been encouraged to borrow at short who in an earlier age would have borrowed at long term just to be sure the funds would be available if needed. The dangers of this procedure became sadly evident in the 1970’s, when certain borrowers, such as Penn Central and New York City, suddenly found the refunding market closed to them.


Summary

We now live in a new era of uncertainty—Pimco’s new “paranormal,” if you will. Our financial system continues to leverage up as governments replace the private sector in gearing up their balance sheets. Central banks are now embarked on a policy of reflation, monetizing a major portion of rising government deficits. The ECB’s balance sheet expanded by $947B (euro 727B), or 36% last year, to a record $3.5T. The Fed expanded its balance sheet by $513B to $2.92T, an increase of 21%.

We are now at a state where the sovereign bond market has grown to become the largest financial bubble in history; a bubble that could succumb to three potential market shocks. The first type of shock would come from a spike in commodity prices triggered by additional rounds of quantitative easing. It could be as simple as an "act of God" such as an earthquake, tsunami, or the failure of an important agricultural crop. The bond market would react in fear that higher commodity prices would be absorbed in the price of goods and services via loose monetary policy.

A second shock could be triggered as a result of political instability and loss of confidence in government policy. An example is what is occurring right now in Europe regarding an attempt toward a fiscal union or the debt ceiling debate in the U.S. The bond market would view negatively a failure by governments to rein in spending and control their deficits.

The third shock would emanate from a potential default or restructuring of a sovereign debt that would lead to a domino effect in the banking system. A large international bank or group of banks might not be able to meet their obligations which would lead to a rise in fear of uninsurable losses among the banks or their counterparties.

As the bond market continues to expand through sovereign debt expansion and central bank monetization, it is moving further away from reality as a result of speculative activity. This makes sovereign debt extremely sensitive to any unanticipated event. The probability of another black swan or rogue wave is beginning to multiply; from a failed bond auction, to larger than expected deficits, to political rancor over spending cuts. Sovereign debt can no longer be looked upon as a risk free asset. For the reasons cited above I continue to avoid U.S. treasury debt as the rates of return bear no resemblance to reality or are commensurate with the risk they entail. Caveat emptor!
In other words, the bond market and its subsequent debt supercycle will only become another global financial economic crisis, simply due to the fact that it's behaving like a speculative asset bubble economy.

Chapter 15 (Bubbles): Throughout the long sweep of history, the bursting of asset bubbles has nearly always been traumatic. Social, political and economic upheavals have a bad habit of following asset bubbles, while wealth destruction is a guaranteed feature. Four characteristics of bubbles are observed: that they are self-reinforcing on the way up (higher prices become the justification for higher prices); once they pop, the game is suddenly and permanently over; they are roughly symmetrical in time they take to peak and fall; and they are roughly symmetrical in price, returning to their pre-bubble status. Dr. Martenson concludes that the housing bubble is itself just a symptom of a credit bubble, leaving a final catastrophe of the currency as our most likely outcome.
Therefore what you just described wasn't a stable nor sustainable economy, but rather it's a crisis that's waiting to happen. Which is also why the World Bank itself had sounded its alarm on a bleak future outlook for one of the US's biggest bond holder, China.

Happy Chinese New Year, everybody! If all things went to business as usual, we'll see China demanding US to make good on its promise, the US will raise its debt ceiling or face default, and every US citizens shall shoulder-up more debts as a result. Thanks to capitalism, consumerism, and the corporations, we've got the 1% shareholders, and the 99% stakeholders worldwide. Go team greed.[/sarcasm]
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/25/12
'Last time I voted Ron Paul.. This time I am voting Ron Paul..'

Because I will never vote for a lesser of two evils.. and Obama and every other person running are dumb asses or out to fuck over the people for their own agenda.

I am tired of all the bullshit being slung around by the Major Mnetworks.. Its time their put on the stand for tampering with the allections.



1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 1/26/12
Yeah, Ron Paul is cut of the same cloth as many of the other republican candidates.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.