Tweet
Ron Paul is popular with people who know without getting the Federal Reserve under the control of the government and opening it up to public scrutiny, nothing is going to change. Whoever controls the money controls everything else and we have an out of control central bank tied to overseas banks. Much of our bailout money went overseas. If you want to talk regulation, Ron Paul wants to regulate the FED. He just doesn't want the government meddling in the free market system to the point of where it ruins the dynamic of it.
-
No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar! -
<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/ci3L40EL3Cc?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/ci3L40EL3Cc?version=3&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>Comment
-
Kind of a red herring statement. Cunt bank executives were not "gambling" because they thought taxpayers would 'bail them out.' They were 'gambling because they saw it as high reward "risk" and a party that would never get shutdown. And the gov't may have stepped in to shore up some banks, but we had record bank failures IIRC. The ones that were "too-big-to-fail" were shored up.
It was deregulation, beginning in the late 1970s under Carter, and ratcheted up in the 80s under Reagan and Bush, that fucked us to begin with...
What do you mean? Define "safety net."There are a lot of companies that aren't highly regulated AND don't have that safety net that are successful (and a lot that fail).
Don't worry, your owners will become fat and complacent. They always do...My own company's vertical recently became more heavily regulated. It cost us a fair amount of money to become and stay compliant, and a lot of decisions we make now are based in part on how the government has worded/ruled on certain standards.
The interesting part is that it hurt our competition much, much worse, and ultimately drove many of them out of business. Now we don't have much competition... if you want services like ours, you're going to have to pay whatever we want to charge, and no one can really get into the market because it's just too difficult anymore unless you're entrenched, like we are.
But then again, what you advocate here will result in oligarchy and monopolies, so what is the fricking difference?
Seems a rather nebulous philosophy lacking specifics and actual stated policy directives. Without regulation, there aren't really any laws to break, are there? Remember Robber-Baron capitalism? Anyone up for a cannibal-lard sandwich? Yum motherfuckers!I don't think that Ron Paul would say every regulation should be rescinded, but I do think he would say that regulations should be just and smart. Liberty is about being able to do whatever you want AS LONG AS it doesn't harm anyone else. What the banks did in 2007/2008 was very harmful to a lot of people, and they should be held responsible for any criminal actions which they committed, and there should be laws against harmful and deceptive practices. Those that break the law should be tried and sent to jail.
Well, they wouldn't need to influence a gov't that largely doesn't exist, would they? Ever hear of Robber-Baron capitalism?Once the government cracks down on Wall Street and shows them that they will let them go bankrupt, and they will send CEOs and other employees to jail, and that NO ONE is above the law, then they will change their ways. But as long as we allow the banks to lobby and influence the officials that then write the regulations on them, or worse, let them write the regulations themselves, nothing will change. Remove government control/influence, you remove the motivation for people to corrupt the government to control that influence.
Or completely socially Darwinist...There should be laws, but they should be targeted, and be intelligent, and be limited.
The funny thing is if we actually adopted the retro-cunt Robber Baron, social Darwinism economic model you actually advocated, we'd probably not have this internet to correspond on, as it was actually gov't research devoid of the gnarly, myopic profit-motive that allow it to come to fruition...Last edited by Nickdfresh; 02-10-2012, 06:14 PM.Comment
-
mmmm... I am not sure I was clear -- I was saying that too much regulation has a tendency to stifle competition which is bad. There should of course be some -- we don't believe in an anarchistic system. But those regulations should prevent harm, not only limit freedom.
Also, I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that those on wall street did not believe the party would go on forever and actually bet against their own systems once they knew the party was over, but before everyone else did. And by safety net, I meant promoting or allowing the idea that some entities are "too big to fail" and that the government will step in and save banks/other entities if they mess up too badly.Comment
-
Has Santorum quit yet?
Originally posted by KristyOriginally posted by cadaverdogComment
-
at this point I'm hoping both he and newt stay in for the long haul and soak up some of those delegates!
I just don't enjoy all the santorum that spews from his faceholeComment
-
That's what I said in my post. The Federal Reserve is a private bank that creates our money and nobody is auditing it. Gee, how much money goes out of that through the back door into various accounts around the world? There is no accountability and it puts too much power in a few unaccountable hands. The creation of money needs to be an open public utility. If you can create money from nothing and it costs you nothing then what you want to do is get everyone in debt to you and that way you control everything and that is exactly what they are doing. They are passing money around a few big banks just collecting interest while none of that money goes to the public. Try getting a loan and oh yeah, don't you love the interests rates now. That's not a free market, it's collusion and secrecy. It used to be the US Treasury Department issued money and it was backed by public traded commodities (silver and gold). The last president to issue US Treasury Notes was John F. Kennedy. Technically it's not even the US Dollar anymore, it's Federal Reserve Notes. The US Mint under the treasury department just prints them and then the Fed issues them and charges us interest on each one.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
-
and that's how you get fired from FOX in only 5 minutes.Comment
-
Ron Paul campaign staffer explains why they think they have/will have more delegates than anyone else from the Caucus states regardless of the vote totalsComment
-
Comment