Wolf/Paul Economy Interview

[Tyguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSRJRxV_WU&eurl=http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/126594/detail/

Just more of the same logic from Ron Paul. He's right when he implies the long term effects of bailing out major financial institutions grossly overshadows his idea of limiting government supporting programs.

Thoughts?

 

[Kadayi]

Paul is completely right, but unfortunately his message isn't one people are prepared to swallow (buckle up it's going to be a tough year). Even 700 million probably isn't enough to to bail out the mess the financial markets are in. They might well still collapse, but it's the American tax payers whose going to end up footing the bill. A house or cards build on another house of cards.

 

[Moto]

I voted for Paul in the California primary. It's beyond me how the majority of the American people haven't paid hardly any attention to him and what he has to say. Seriously, he's served up a thorough owning of everybody since day one. He's been warning everybody about our current situation forever. He actually knows what he's talking about. And he even has integrity! Wow.

People don't like reality I guess. They'd rather have someone telling them everything is fine.

 

[Vigilante]

Paul is completely right, but unfortunately his message isn't one people are prepared to swallow (buckle up it's going to be a tough year). Even 700 million probably isn't enough to to bail out the mess the financial markets are in. They might well still collapse, but it's the American tax payers whose going to end up footing the bill. A house or cards build on another house of cards.

700 billion *

How the hell is this country going to afford that?

 

[Ubik]

meh ron paul.

i forgot he existed after the primaries ended.

 

[Kadayi]

700 billion *

Heh my bad (late night)

How the hell is this country going to afford that?

Probably by getting the federal reserve to print even more paper money.

meh ron paul. I forgot he existed after the primaries ended.

Which completely means anything he says is to be outright dismissed yes? Straight fact of the matter is George bush just lumbered everyone man, woman and child in the US with a $2500 tax bill, that of course is on top of the $38500 they each owe for the War in Iraq. :dozey:

Who was the only candidate saying the US couldn't afford this madness?

 

[The Monkey]

Ron Paul certainly brought some interesting dimensions to his party, but I'm against small government, so I disagreed with most of his opinions. Plus he's a radical Christian who's against abortion and gay marriage and doesn't believe in evolution.

 

[Kadayi]

Ron Paul certainly brought some interesting dimensions to his party, but I'm for for small government, so I disagreed with most of his opinions. Plus he's a radical Christian who's against abortion and gay marriage and doesn't believe in evolution.

Smoke much crack lately? :dozey:

 

[clarky003]

I think he overdosed.

Watch the money masters documentary, and you'll understand exactley why we are heading towards another enconomic depression, yet again.

 

[Kadayi]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

Very good article by Ron Paul about it all from CNN I found via Digg.

 

[The Monkey]

Smoke much crack lately? :dozey:

No, have you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

 

[No Limit]

Everyone seems to agree that this financial crisis is a result of market deregulation. Ron Paul is one of the biggest champions of deregulation. So tell me, why in the world would he be the right person to deal with this?

 

[Kadayi]

No, have you?

You post up a clearly edited Youtube video as proof? Jesus, maybe if you spent less time masturbating over tentacle porn you'd have the eye sight to see the breaks. As for Paul and his personal beliefs, if you'd done your research, you'd of realised that firstly he's all for small government, and secondly he is all for governance at a state level based on peoples choice rather than what is degreed from Washington. He's not about imposing his personal opinions on abortion (as an example) onto people as policy ala, Sarah Palin. :dozey:

 

[The Monkey]

You post up a clearly edited Youtube video as proof? Jesus, maybe if you spent less time masturbating over tentacle porn you'd have the eye sight to see the breaks. As for Paul and his personal beliefs, if you'd done your research, you'd of realised that firstly he's all for small government, and secondly he is all for governance at a state level based on peoples choice rather than what is degreed from Washington. He's not about imposing his personal opinions on abortion (as an example) onto people as policy ala, Sarah Palin. :dozey:

No need to be a cunt.

I meant to say I was against small government, not for it. And what breaks are you talking about? Looks like you have been taking crack after all.

 

[Kadayi]

No need to be a cunt.

Sadly covered in hairs unlike the pre-pubescent ones you prefer

I meant to say I was against small government, not for it.

Given there is no small government at all, what's the problem? What's the big issue? Local states running themselves and their governances? Where people get to decide whether abortion is legal/illegal, etc etc .It's not like any one else is proposing those ideas?

And what breaks are you talking about? Looks like you have been taking crack after all.

About 31-32 seconds in the film cuts between one answer and another, there is a definitive shift in stance. However the whole issue is moot because Paul isn't interested in promoting personal beliefs as policy, his entire platform was about giving power back to the states themselves and taking it away from the central government.

 

[The Monkey]

Sadly covered in hairs unlike the pre-pubescent ones you prefer

What the hell is your problem? Did I offend you somehow or do you just enjoy being a dick?

Given there is no small government at all, what's the problem? What's the big issue? Local states running themselves and their governances? Where people get to decide whether abortion is legal/illegal, etc etc .It's not like any one else is proposing those ideas?

The policy of both American parties for the last 50 years has been small government, and that hasn't done shit to reduce poverty, it only makes it worse. The government is the only institution in society that isn't controlled by the market, and thus not dependant on the client's ability to pay. Corporations will always put the interest of profit above the interest in the well-being of the individual, which is why they aren't fit to take care of certain sectors or society, such as education, health care and social security.

About 31-32 seconds in the film cuts between one answer and another, there is a definitive shift in stance. However the whole issue is moot because Paul isn't interested in promoting personal beliefs as policy, his entire platform was about giving power back to the states themselves and taking it away from the central government.

Whatever, he already denied believing in evolution before the 31 second mark. And it's relevant because it indicates he won't listen to reason. Just the fact that he says "it's just a theory" proves how little he ignorant he is

 

[unozero]

yes he makes good points but he's still a little cooky imo...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Making aspersions about people's personal sexual habits. Great job. Good political debating technique.

Next one who tries it gets a week's ban.

Kadayi is right about Ron Paul's policy on abortion etc.

 

[unozero]

yeah that's what I ment..... ^___^

 

[Kadayi]

That the hell is your problem? Did I offend you somehow or do you just enjoy being a dick?

No need to be a cunt.

:dozey:

The policy of both American parties for the last 50 years has been small government.

Are you for real? You think what Bush is doing is small government in action? What Reagan did was small government? Do you realise how little control states have as to their own governance these days?

Whatever, he already denied believing in evolution before the 31 second mark. And it's relevant because it indicates he won't listen to reason. Just the fact that he says "it's just a theory" proves how little he ignorant he is

You do realise it's known as the theory of Evolution? Plain truth of the matter it's a very good theory, but it's still just a theory. However to imply that by not whole heartedly supporting it unconditionally Paul is somehow ignorant, or advocating creationism is a leap of bold imagination on your behalf. Plenty of people believe in a God, but don't necessarily subscribe to the idea the earth is 4000 years old, and their God went around burying dinosaur bones to test their faith.

Did you not watch the neat Video Operational posted in this thread:-

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=146892

I could of sworn you must of, given you commented on it? But here you are wittering on as if you'd never watched it? :dozey:

 

[ThunderDawg]

People don't like reality I guess. They'd rather have someone telling them everything is fine.

The Truth will set you free, but first, it will piss you off. :afro:

Ron Paul...'s a radical Christian who's against abortion and gay marriage and doesn't believe in evolution.

Actually, DOCTOR Paul is a Gynecologist, and has performed many abortions.

 

[Top Secret]

Ron Paul certainly brought some interesting dimensions to his party, but I'm against small government, so I disagreed with most of his opinions. Plus he's a radical Christian who's against abortion and gay marriage and doesn't believe in evolution.

All very true. However, the thing about Ron Paul is, he would never pass LEGISLATION on any of that. He has made it very clear that he is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and doesn't believe in evolution. But he would never make it illegal to have an abortion, illegal for gay couples to marry, or outlaw evolutionary teachings.

Which is why he is awesome. He realizes that his opinion is just that, his opinion. And just because its an opinion, doesn't mean that laws should be passed just because he doesn't like something.

 

[Polaris]

Ron Paul was really scary lunatic, I'm glad he failed.

 

[Kadayi]

Ron Paul was really scary lunatic, I'm glad he failed.

Care to provide a rationale to your conclusions or are you another soundbyte merchant? What exactly is scary about Ron Paul? The only candidate who wants to get out of Iran Vs McCain who wants to stay there for 100 years? Ron Paul who doesn't want to impose his personal beliefs on every American Citizen, Vs Sarah Palin who does? Oh and let's not forget she's well up for going to war with Rusia. I'm fascinated to hear how he's a scary lunatic vs those 2?

 

[Kase]

War with Russia good idea they need to sorted out

 

[Polaris]

What scared me was his absolutely naive isolationism (get out of UN, NATO, WTO etc.) and some of his "conservative" political positions. Politician who doesn't want to impose his personal beliefs? Don't be naive.
But I agree, Palin is even more scary.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Everyone seems to agree that this financial crisis is a result of market deregulation. Ron Paul is one of the biggest champions of deregulation. So tell me, why in the world would he be the right person to deal with this?

Actually the reason for the recession was the boom and bust system the federal reserve causes when it floods extra credit into the market. Recessions are inevitable, when the government fiddles with the money supply to stimuate the economey. Clinton started the bubble.

If fiscal conservatism had been followed then the amount of credit would be significantly less, so there would be less risk taking and the banks that invest badly wouldn't be bailed out, thus not rewarding recklesness.

 

[The Monkey]

:dozey:

Yeah, that was after you claimed that I was "masturbating over tentacle porn"

Are you for real? You think what Bush is doing is small government in action? What Reagan did was small government? Do you realise how little control states have as to their own governance these days?

Yes, but the goal at which they claimed to strive was always small government and low taxes, as if that was the solution to all our problems. I'm well aware that Bush and Reagan are/were a bunch lying pigs, but that's another matter. Besides, the American government's intervention in social and private economic matters is very small compared to the rest of the western world.

You do realise it's known as the theory of Evolution? Plain truth of the matter it's a very good theory, but it's still just a theory.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

However to imply that by not whole heartedly supporting it unconditionally Paul is somehow ignorant, or advocating creationism is a leap of bold imagination on your behalf. Plenty of people believe in a God, but don't necessarily subscribe to the idea the earth is 4000 years old, and their God went around burying dinosaur bones to test their faith.

Did you not watch the neat Video Operational posted in this thread:-

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=146892

I could of sworn you must of, given you commented on it? But here you are wittering on as if you'd never watched it? :dozey:

I'm very aware that many religious people believe in evolution, but Paul clearly rejects it, which means that (as far as I can see, with him being a Christian) the only options left are Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism. (ID-supporters claim to believe in evolution too.)

 

[Tyguy]

Actually the reason for the recession was the boom and bust system the federal reserve causes when it floods extra credit into the market. Recessions are inevitable, when the government fiddles with the money supply to stimuate the economey. Clinton started the bubble.

Not to mention the federal reserve loans the US money which we can only pay back with more loans. ****ing Rockefeller.

 

[Kadayi]

What scared me was his absolutely naive isolationism (get out of UN, NATO, WTO etc.) and some of his "conservative" political positions.

Paul would rather the US didn't spend it's time and money interfering in the management of other countries and trying to police the world, but instead dealt with other nations through trade. There is nothing naive about it, it's a pretty sensible approach to take (that's all most other countries do) given present overseas commitments are costing the US government 3 trillion dollars a year. What would you have the US do? Stay in Iraq and continue to support Israel at an increasingly unsustainable cost to the the US taxpayer, and ultimately the world economy as a consequence?

Politician who doesn't want to impose his personal beliefs? Don't be naive.

If the best you can come up with as a counter argument is personal cynicism you need to stick to the games forum tbh.

Yeah, that was after you claimed that I was "masturbating over tentacle porn"

Clearly a touchy subject it seems

Yes, but the goal at which they claimed to strive was always small government and low taxes, as if that was the solution to all our problems. I'm well aware that Bush and Reagan are/were a bunch lying pigs, but that's another matter. Besides, the American government's intervention in social and private economic matters is very small compared to the rest of the western world.

So basically although they've never yet manifestly instigated small government at all you're deeply opposed it on principal? Any particular reason why you as a Swede object to the people of Maryland having more of a say in how they live their lives?

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

You really should really pay attention to what you link to. :dozey:

I'm very aware that many religious people believe in evolution, but Paul clearly rejects it, which means that (as far as I can see, with him being a Christian) the only options left are Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism. (ID-supporters claim to believe in evolution too.)

Actually the option is to believe whatever the **** he likes, it's only you who are trying to box him into some irrelevant category as an excuse to sideline. Ultimately as has been stated by myself and others his entire campaign is not based around promoting his personal take on whether there's a God, whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether it's ok to jack off to tentacle porn, but on the US government facing up to it's financial responsibilities. :dozey:

 

[No Limit]

Actually the reason for the recession was the boom and bust system the federal reserve causes when it floods extra credit into the market. Recessions are inevitable, when the government fiddles with the money supply to stimuate the economey. Clinton started the bubble.

If fiscal conservatism had been followed then the amount of credit would be significantly less, so there would be less risk taking and the banks that invest badly wouldn't be bailed out, thus not rewarding recklesness.

The us goverment flooding extra credit in the market is the cause of this? Do you have anything to back this up? It was not the US government that gave out all these subprime mortgages. The idiots in all these powerful banks did that because they weren't being regulated properly. The only reason the government gave out more credit during this time was because these banks were requesting it to fund these subprime loads. With some proper regulation this would have never happened. Clinton does share blame for this. But not because the government gave out credit under his administration, it's because he went along with the republican push to deregulate the market (as most democrats did).

I'm by no means an economist but what you are suggesting doesn't in any way explain how Ron Paul would prevent these banks from giving out idiotic loans they should have never given out.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Aye, let's keep this on the subject of the economy and not on what Paul's failed presidential campaign was all about.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm by no means an economist but what you are suggesting doesn't in any way explain how Ron Paul would prevent these banks from giving out idiotic loans they should have never given out.

The US government and the Federal reserve are different entities. Paul proposed tighter regulation of the the Federal reserve (which is a private bank) which would in turn put a cap on the amount of available currency. Banks can't make loans without a line of credit. It's not about regulating the banks, it's about regulating the currency. As it presently stands when the government needs money the fed basically creates it out of thin air (they say it exists and it exists). This $700 billion that is being talked to bail out the banks would be a loan by the fed, effectively adding that much more currency into circulation and further diminishing the dollars value in the long term.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The us goverment flooding extra credit in the market is the cause of this? Do you have anything to back this up? It was not the US government that gave out all these subprime mortgages. The idiots in all these powerful banks did that because they weren't being regulated properly. The only reason the government gave out more credit during this time was because these banks were requesting it to fund these subprime loads. With some proper regulation this would have never happened. Clinton does share blame for this. But not because the government gave out credit under his administration, it's because he went along with the republican push to deregulate the market (as most democrats did).

I'm by no means an economist but what you are suggesting doesn't in any way explain how Ron Paul would prevent these banks from giving out idiotic loans they should have never given out.

The only growing market at the time was the Housing market so that is where the money went, so that's where sub prime mortgages came from. The large supply of credit in the housing market. The real casue of the problem is the idiots who pumped to much credit into the system, the federal reserve.

America certainly needs proper regulation of it's money supply, many economic problems are caused by unstable money. Had sub prime mortages been illegal, we would still have a recession, those mortages are the result of bad fiscal policy.

This would not occur with Ron Paul because his monetary policy would be centred on controlling inflation, so there would never be credit surges into the market, so the boom and bust effect would be far less common and less severe. Basically he is sensible enough not to give milions to complusive gamblers at the roulet table.