-
-
Great idea! That's what Ron Paul suggests, too.
WTF, Doc. How could that even be possible? The collapse of the Dollar would be severe and swift. Other countries would demand that oil stop being traded in dollars......the trillions of dollars in bonds that the Chinese and other countries have, they would demand payment immediately. Total economic collapse.
You're comparing apples to oranges....oil IS traded in dollars and NOT gold, period. Your chart is useless based on that fact. Gold has always been and will always be more stable by it's very nature and I have never said we shouldn't go back to a Gold Standard it's just how we do it is the massive problem.
Guess we'll find out.
In the short term, but the longer term problem is the devaluation of our currency. See here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesk...the-dollar-33/I understand that 90% of all consumer goods are trucked to the point of purchase....I've started several threads here over the years on that very subject. Here again, oil speculators are the cause of the problem. Having better rail systems would go a long way in helping get goods to market and the cost to move a ton of product verse the amount of fuel is way in favor of rail than trucking.
The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.
An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.
It wouldn't, as in the video I posted above. Also, why do you think we have more dollars than we have gold for? What do you think that does to the value of the dollar? What do you think happens every time the Fed magically creates more money?It's a fairy tale, bro......at least right now it is.
I'd love to see a Gold type Standard but it can't happen over night. It'd take a decade at least and the biggest problem is WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GOLD IN THE RESERVE TO BACK THE DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE
The last President who actually seen our gold reserves was Ronald Reagan and IIRC, the room that houses our gold reserves is something like 20 x 60!
Why on earth would you want to let that continue?Comment
-
-
-
-
Poll: Ron Paul Strongest Against Obama In Head To Head Matchup
Also named most truthful GOP candidate in separate study
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is leading the incumbent president in a hypothetical matchup, according to a newly released poll from respected pollster Rasmussen.
Paul scores 43% over 41% for Obama in the poll, with 10% saying they would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.
Paul also picks up 15% of the vote from self-identified liberals, according to Rasmussen.
Mitt Romney is the only other candidate to lead Obama in the poll, scoring 45% to Obama’s 43%. Paul polls the strongest, however, given that he drives the president’s numbers down further than Romney.
A hypothetical Paul nomination also drives the undecided voters up significantly.
Senator Rick Santorum trails the president nationally by two percentage points, 45% to 43%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich trails even further behind when pitted against Obama, with a ten point deficit, 49% to 39%.
Paul has regularly emerged as the strongest contender in other polls when matched head to head with Obama. This is the first time, however, that he has done so in a Rasmussen poll.
The poll shows a significant drop in approval ratings for Obama, who has seen a recent bounce in the polls throughout the first two months of the year.
Forty-two percent (42%) now Strongly Disapprove of the way that Obama is performing as president. His overall approval rating is down six points since mid February, according to Rasmussen.
In a separate study by The Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul was named the most truthful of the GOP contenders.
Ron Paul “had 58 percent accuracy from 33 statements that were evaluated on their honesty and truth.” The Chronicle’s ‘Texas on the Potomac’ blog explained. “Paul’s true and mostly true categories were the most plentiful, tied with seven statements in each.” the report continued.
The Chronicle used fact checking site PolitiFact to analyze statements from each of the candidates and assign accuracy values.
Ron Paul was also found to have had the lowest percentage of ‘half truths’, according to the study, with 18 percent. Newt Gingrich was found to be the most untruthful candidate, with just 42 accuracy points.Comment
-
It's getting weird. All the republican assholes on the radio were claiming that Ron Paul was going to drop out and be Romney's running mate. Rand Paul was being interviewed and said that wasn't even discussed ever. I just think these unprofessional idiots in the media embellish the shit out of stuff just to have something to blab about. It all started with Santorum saying Paul and Mitt were having a love fest and then the dumb ass political commentators blew it all out of fucking proportion.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
Why Does the Military Love Ron Paul?
Servicemembers are giving way more cash to the anti-war GOP candidate than any other—but not for the reason you might think.
—By Adam Weinstein | Fri Feb. 24, 2012 3:00 AM PST
Conventional wisdom on politics in the military can feel almost as age-old as the Constitution itself: Conservative Republicans are strong on defense, and the military skews conservative and Republican. Foreign wars? Bring 'em on! Unwavering ally of Israel? You betcha. More dollars for defense? If not, you must be with the terrorists.
The 2012 presidential race tells a different story: The lion's share of political contributions by servicemembers and defense industry workers is going to anti-war, "soft on Israel," also-ran candidate Ron Paul. In fact, the battle for their dollars isn't even close: Paul has raised at least $282,868 from individual active-duty servicemembers and Pentagon employees—more than four times what the other three Republican presidential candidates have raised, combined. (President Obama has fared slightly better, drawing $123,644 from that group, but still less than half of Paul's total. For more, jump to the charts below with the numbers by candidate and branch of the armed services.)
"Clearly there's something about Paul that appeals to some members of the military," says Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics, which provided Mother Jones with the most recent tally of military contributions. "Whether it's that he speaks his mind, wants to end foreign engagements, has a libertarian's view of the world—we can't say."
One easy explanation has been that Americans in the service have grown tired of a decade of war and identify with Paul's anti-interventionist rhetoric. But if the military men and women with whom I spoke this week are any indication, it's hardly that simple.
Paul's anti-war stance is certainly part of the draw. Last weekend, the group Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 organized an anti-war President's Day march on the White House. That organization's leadership includes notable Iraq Veterans Against the War member Adam Kokesh, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress as a libertarian Republican candidate in 2010, and Jake Diliberto, a former Marine who's previously worked on Rethink Afghanistan, an anti-war project funded by the left-leaning Brave New Foundation. "I have always been a conservative, and I recognize that I am the kind of conservative that doesn't exist anymore," Diliberto told me. As for what unites servicemembers behind Paul, he said, "It is fair to say, we all do not like the current trajectory of US foreign policy, and we are cynical about US national security policy." He added that he's personally concerned about Obama's "targeted killing campaign" against alleged terrorists.
"Ron Paul is not opposed to the defense of this country," says one active-duty soldier. "He's not opposed to fighting wars that are declared."
One of the speakers at last weekend's rally was retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, a former Pentagon analyst and key figure in revealing how the Bush administration sold the Iraq war based on bogus intelligence. "I'm 95% in harmony with Ron Paul's candidacy and his philosophy," Kwiatkowski—who's running for Congress in Virginia as a Republican—told me in an email. "I hold the DoD as a federal bureaucracy in a bit more contempt than he does because I spent way more time in it, and I saw close up the actual conscientious, direct political lying to promote war, invasions and occupations—none of which were sanctioned or even reviewed in accordance with the Constitution."
But Paul's supporters say the candidate's "anti-militarism" shouldn't be confused with being anti-defense. "He's not opposed to the defense of this country. He's not opposed to fighting wars that are declared," a 27-year-old active-duty enlisted soldier in the Army said. (He spoke on condition of anonymity; after a uniformed soldier spoke out at a Paul rally in Iowa, the military warned soldiers about politicking publicly.)
There's a certain irony in supporting a small-government candidate while working for the largest federal bureaucracy. The politics of it are, well, complicated. "I do wrestle with this conflict of being a Paul supporter while also being a government employee," the active-duty soldier said. "Ultimately, in my support for Paul, I care more for the restoration of the ideals this country was founded upon than my current well-being." At the same time, he added that the military saved him from student debt, while many of his friends are struggling to make it "as baristas and waiters" in the civilian world. "I didn't join the Army to be some hero that defends the Constitution," he said.
Soldiers tend to see Paul as understanding the pressures they face better than the other candidates because he's the only one in the group who served in uniform, as a flight surgeon in the Air Force and Air National Guard during the Vietnam era. The libertarian's service gives him "street cred," Kwiatkowski noted. "We often in the military have no idea what the foreign policy or the military policy is. All we know is we get told to do things, and often these things are costly, dangerous, and unproductive, and create more insecurity for us and for the country."
Meanwhile, Paul's support from defense contractor employees—who donated more than $177,000 to him in 2011—has outpaced that of his competitors, according to Defense News. (Obama leads in that category overall, having pulled in about $348,000.) That may seem downright counterintuitive: Why would workers for companies that profit from war back an anti-pork candidate (self-proclaimed, anyway) who opposes, as Kwiatkowski puts it, "fraud, waste, abuse, warmongering, idiotic leadership, political correctness, and a host of other things"? It's a matter of ideology, military analyst Loren Thompson explained to Defense News. "There's a strong libertarian streak among many in the sector," he said. "Just because people work in the defense industry doesn't mean that they always vote their economic interests." (Interestingly, in the 2008 election cycle, Obama and Paul were for a time beating out that other vet in the presidential race, John McCain, for military contributions.)
Campaign contributions aren't necessarily a great indicator of a candidate's chances. The figures can't predict how, or how many service members will actually vote, and even if all of them did, they'd represent a tiny fraction of the US electorate. And these donation figures are a drop in the bucket when it comes to overall campaign spending: Even excluding super-PAC money, Obama's reelection campaign pulled down $29.1 million in January alone; Paul got $4.5 million in that time, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Still, military voting jumped 21 percent in the 2010 election cycle, according to federal statistics, and it rose fastest—33 percent—among 18- to 24-year-olds, a demographic that heavily favors Paul (and Obama) over traditional conservatives. In an era in which presidential elections turn on a few battleground states, which can turn on a few thousand votes, the military's love affair with Ron Paul could play a role in determining the eventual GOP nominee.
"We veterans know about the mistakes that previous presidents have made, and we don't want to repeat them," Diliberto said of young vets who are loyal to Paul. "We need to change what we do."
Comment
-
Dear Dr. Love.......
Really?
Sincerely,
All of us.Originally posted by KristyOriginally posted by cadaverdogComment
-
I prefer Ron Paul out of all the Republican candidates, because he does not appear to be interested in shrieking that the "sky is falling", or that Satan is taking over, or that Jebus is coming back.......900-foot-tall or otherwise....
He states his case, his arguments and methods for solving the problems of life in today's fucked up world appear (for the most part) to be sound....though like any candidate, I do not agree with everything he is in favor of....
But out of all the Republicans, to me he has more common sense than all the Republican presidential candidates from the past 50 years combined.Comment
-
4k people at a rally in MichiganComment
-
-
Tweet
Comment