28 Dec 2011, 1:59 pm
28 Dec 2011, 2:04 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Wow. What a great point. A rise in support under the margin of error of the polls.
28 Dec 2011, 2:06 pm
28 Dec 2011, 2:13 pm
28 Dec 2011, 2:38 pm
1000Knives wrote:
However, at this point, I think it will likely, barring Polonium/radium/other nuclear or biological agents to kill him being added to his food, or a random arrest or something crazy like that, be Ron Paul vs Obama. All the rest of the GOP candidates can't really be taken seriously anymore. Eventually, unless the people die in the process, they realize doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is insanity. If Paul doesn't win, it could even be that Paul will start a real libertarian party, that's actually cohesive, and the two party system will be less so.
The problem I see is, Ron Paul, as unpopular as the stuff he's proposing is, it really does have to get done to not have the government plain out collapse. So it's more that Ron Paul is the bearer of bad news, really. I think most people deep down think he's right, however they don't wanna admit it.
If it's not Ron Paul, it'll be some other candidate doing the exact same things, pulling out of wars, cutting SSI, legalizing drugs, simply under emergency measures. If that doesn't happen, we'll have Zimbabwe dollars and Cuban doctor style "Medicare" so unless we want a Wiemar Republic, there simply must be DRASTIC spending cuts like Paul is proposing.
Most politicians, to quote this line from Futarama think of things this way.
The problem I see is, Ron Paul, as unpopular as the stuff he's proposing is, it really does have to get done to not have the government plain out collapse. So it's more that Ron Paul is the bearer of bad news, really. I think most people deep down think he's right, however they don't wanna admit it.
If it's not Ron Paul, it'll be some other candidate doing the exact same things, pulling out of wars, cutting SSI, legalizing drugs, simply under emergency measures. If that doesn't happen, we'll have Zimbabwe dollars and Cuban doctor style "Medicare" so unless we want a Wiemar Republic, there simply must be DRASTIC spending cuts like Paul is proposing.
Most politicians, to quote this line from Futarama think of things this way.
Quote:
The future, what's that ever done for me?
"In your heart, you know he's right..."
Regardless, I really doubt that most people who know much about economics take Ron Paul's hyperinflationist fear-mongering seriously.
Dean Baker wrote:
Is that big? Well, the debt to GDP ratio was over 110% after the second world war. The United Kingdom had debt to GDP ratios of more than 100% for much of the 19th century, as it was establishing itself as the world's pre-eminent industrial power. Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of more than 220% of GDP and can still borrow in financial markets long-term at interest rates of less than 1.5%.
So, what's the problem? The politicians who want to cut social security and Medicare obviously want the public to believe that there is a huge problem and – due to the incompetence of the media – they have managed to instill fear throughout the nation about this massive non-problem.
So, what's the problem? The politicians who want to cut social security and Medicare obviously want the public to believe that there is a huge problem and – due to the incompetence of the media – they have managed to instill fear throughout the nation about this massive non-problem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ling-talks
Michael Wisbrot wrote:
Since the U.S. “Debt Crisis” has been a big international story for the last few weeks, it is worth clarifying what is real and what is not. First, the U.S. government does not have a “debt crisis.” The U.S. government is paying net interest of just 1.4 percent of GDP on its public debt – this is not much by any historical or international comparison. The relatively large annual deficit at present (9.3 percent of GDP) is overwhelmingly the result of the recession and weak recovery. The long-term deficit projections are driven by health care costs in the private sector. These spill over into public spending because the U.S. government pays for almost half of health care spending, at a rate that is twice as high as other developed countries – and rising fast.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&- ... -in-the-us
Dean Baker wrote:
This difference is central to the budget debate. People can argue that the $198 billion deficit projected for 2008 was too large. But it would be absurd to claim it was out of control or represented any remotely serious threat to the nation's solvency. In fact, over the five years 2003-2007 the country's debt to GDP ratio was virtually unchanged, meaning that the country could run deficits of the same size (relative to the economy) literally forever.
This changed with the recession caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. It was the recession, and the response to it, that pushed the deficit in 2009 from the $198 billion projected by CBO to the over $1 trillion noted by President Obama in his speech.
No one can justify wasting money on wars that should not have been fought, giving away tax breaks to people who don't need them, or deliberately designing a prescription drug benefit so that it needlessly hands hundreds of billions of dollars to drug companies and insurers. But even with all of this waste, the deficit was still not out of control.
This is a central point that needs to be made 300,000 times in the current debate over the budget. The deficits were very much containable until the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. It was the economic collapse that gave us large deficits.
This should mean that our politicians focus on getting the economy back to normal levels of output. If the unemployment rate was back at the 4.7 percent rate of 2007 the bulk of the deficit would disappear.
This changed with the recession caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. It was the recession, and the response to it, that pushed the deficit in 2009 from the $198 billion projected by CBO to the over $1 trillion noted by President Obama in his speech.
No one can justify wasting money on wars that should not have been fought, giving away tax breaks to people who don't need them, or deliberately designing a prescription drug benefit so that it needlessly hands hundreds of billions of dollars to drug companies and insurers. But even with all of this waste, the deficit was still not out of control.
This is a central point that needs to be made 300,000 times in the current debate over the budget. The deficits were very much containable until the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. It was the economic collapse that gave us large deficits.
This should mean that our politicians focus on getting the economy back to normal levels of output. If the unemployment rate was back at the 4.7 percent rate of 2007 the bulk of the deficit would disappear.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-bake ... 11342.html
Unfortunately, it looks like the deficit/inflation panic that Austerians have been peddling is damaging any serious policy to address the lack of demand.
28 Dec 2011, 3:00 pm
28 Dec 2011, 3:39 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Wow. What a great point. A rise in support under the margin of error of the polls.
After a full on media assault. The media tried to sink his candidacy and they failed.
28 Dec 2011, 4:35 pm
28 Dec 2011, 4:57 pm
Well... now I feel stupid for taking what he said seriously 
28 Dec 2011, 5:26 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Wow. What a great point. A rise in support under the margin of error of the polls.
After a full on media assault. The media tried to sink his candidacy and they failed.
Case in point, the media attacks are more towards the actual presidential race. Republicans being alergic to reality are unlikely to change their poll opinions on Ron Paul after having him get called out as the racist f**k he is. But it harms his image as a potential presidential candidate. After all this information, the independents and the democrats that were likely to stop supporting Obama will think it twice before going with Ron Paul.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
28 Dec 2011, 5:35 pm
@ 1000Knives,
Starting a 3rd party is a great idea! I think you guys should do it for the good of the country! 
28 Dec 2011, 5:46 pm
Vexcalibur wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Wow. What a great point. A rise in support under the margin of error of the polls.
After a full on media assault. The media tried to sink his candidacy and they failed.
Case in point, the media attacks are more towards the actual presidential race. Republicans being alergic to reality are unlikely to change their poll opinions on Ron Paul after having him get called out as the racist f**k he is. But it harms his image as a potential presidential candidate. After all this information, the independents and the democrats that were likely to stop supporting Obama will think it twice before going with Ron Paul.
He's not a racist and you know he isn't. Nobody believes that, the only people that are parroting this garbage were people desperately trying to find anything to discredit Ron Paul and they weren't voting for him anyways. Don't be blinded by your hate. If you really think what he stands for is so terrible and unpopular, then maybe they should make that case to the voters instead of engaging in a shameless smear campaign.
28 Dec 2011, 6:01 pm
28 Dec 2011, 6:53 pm
28 Dec 2011, 9:06 pm
28 Dec 2011, 9:13 pm
