Jon Stewart Exposes the Media Bias Against Ron Paul

[Cyclone Ranger]

Yep.

[86Dùde]

LOL, wow, I wouldn't admit to that but I give you an A for honesty.

[jwreck]

BS. Manufacturers produce more than they can sell all the time, especially when they're trying to maximize their profits.

[garyd]

They do no such thing. You can't maximize profit in the current regulatory climate by manufacturing more than you can sell. there exist now more than a dozen different progams to help companies minimize inventory especially finsihed goods inventory because large inventories of finished goods cost you money. They take up space which costs money, they require staffing to go and get which costs money. No nodern manufacturing facility keeps more than a months worth of stock of any given item on hand these days and they tend to lowball that figure in order to save money. Your knowledge of modern manufacturing process and inventory control proceedures is all but nil. Are you familiar with the following acronyms and terminology JIT, 5s, 6s, kanban, lean manufacturing. If not go educate yourself because right now you look to anyone who knows anything about modern manufacturing processes like a complete idiot.

[hadit]

No, we didn't. Some form of government spending intervention always occurred, most commonly a war.

Evidence?

One, there is no "Obama depression," given that GDP growth has been sustained continously since the stimuli.

Right, it's the Obama Recession, followed by the Obama Malaise, followed by the second Obama Recession, soon to become the Obama Depression, aka, the worst economic situation of all time. Is that better?

Two, the cause of the Great Depression was ultimately the destruction of the global markets by WWI. In fact, the slow-down in global production was noted years before the stock market crash in '29.

Therefore the Fed's policies did not cause it, although in some cases, they didn't help.

You're admitting that the Fed's intervention made a natural downturn worse, which agrees with what I said. Good.

Yep.

Nope.

There's no alternative since the money needed to increase spending during a recession can't just materialize out of nowhere.

Printing new money provides a momentary lift, usually just long enough to get legislators and the president to the next election, then causes more trouble than it solves. Allowing the business cycle to work itself out results in shorter, less severe downturns, followed by a return to robust growth. Printing new money just results in ever increasing drags on any potential growth.

It's immaterial where you think it belongs. During a recession or slowdown. all that matters is that the money is spent and not saved, so a depression isn't created.

And left alone, savvy investors take advantage of that saved money and spend it, which they don't do when the government interferes.

Except that's never happened once in the history of capitalism, never will happen, and never could happen - because it just violates the laws of economics and simple logic.

Evidence?

Truly, and - given we haven't had a return to 10% unemployment since 2008 - it's been sustained.

False. We had a peak, followed by a slight downturn, followed by no further reduction. The reduction was not sustained, which was my point.

Of course I would. Communism was never a threat to my lifestyle.

If you really think the US being the world's lone superpower has not enhanced your life, I have a bridge to sell you. You've probably seen it a hundred times. It's been around for a hundred years or so, in great condition.

It's only true in your imagination

And in the real world, etc.

[katsung47]

Ron Paul wins New Hampshire straw poll, raises 1.5 million in a day!

Byron York
GOP Operatives Fear Lasting Ron Paul Problem
8/23/2011

"Ron Paul is going to destroy this party if they keep him in there," said Rush Limbaugh the day after the Aug. 11 Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Ames. "This is nuts on parade."

http://townhall.com/columnists/byron...n_paul_problem

[Cyclone Ranger]

Evidence?

Name any economic recovery, and I'll show you how the government spent vast amounts of money previous to it, often on a war.

Right, it's the Obama Recession, followed by the Obama Malaise, followed by the second Obama Recession, soon to become the Obama Depression, aka, the worst economic situation of all time. Is that better?

No, it was the Bush recession which came to an end under Obama. GDP growth has been positive for two plus years.

You're admitting that the Fed's intervention made a natural downturn worse, which agrees with what I said. Good.

The Great Depression was in no way "natural." It was almost certainly caused by the rather non-natural destruction of the world's first globalized economy by WWI

The Fed's response came during waves of unprecedented bank and securities runs in an era prior to the charter of either the SEC or FDIC. While it probably didn't make things worse, it couldn't make things better in the midst of all that chaos and hysteria.

Nope.

Yep.

Allowing the business cycle to work itself out results in shorter, less severe downturns, followed by a return to robust growth. Printing new money just results in ever increasing drags on any potential growth.

The business cycle simply does not and cannot get better by itself

As the economy shrinks, more people are laid off, leaving them with little money to spend.....which causes more business to fail.....shrinking the economy more....causing more to be laid off....causing the economy to shrink.....forcing more people out of work....causing the economy to shrink....forcing more people out of work....etc etc etc.

And left alone, savvy investors take advantage of that saved money and spend it, which they don't do when the government interferes.

No, they save it, because they know what the government gives today, it takes back tomorrow.

Evidence?

I've already explained why: as the economy shrinks, demand shrinks too, because people lose their jobs and their source of income, and are forced to spend less.

That creates a downward spiral that can only be reversed if a giant injection of cash is made into the economy, so total spending can be increased.

False. We had a peak, followed by a slight downturn, followed by no further reduction. The reduction was not sustained, which was my point.

BS. 10.4% to 8.8% is not a slight decrease. Moreover, it will only get lower as we get towards Christmas. And we'll eventually have another stimulus which will decrease it even more.

If you really think the US being the world's lone superpower has not enhanced your life, I have a bridge to sell you. You've probably seen it a hundred times. It's been around for a hundred years or so, in great condition.

No, it hasn't improved anyone's lifestyle, and it made the Russians' lives a lot worse.

And in the real world, etc.

The "real world" in your imagination.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Shut the fuck up, idiot. The grown-ups are talking.

[jwreck]

Shut the fuck up, idiot. The grown-ups are talking.

[hadit]

Name any economic recovery, and I'll show you how the government spent vast amounts of money previous to it, often on a war.

1807.

No, it was the Bush recession which came to an end under Obama. GDP growth has been positive for two plus years.

technicalities won't help TLFO get re-elected.

The Great Depression was in no way "natural." It was almost certainly caused by the rather non-natural destruction of the world's first globalized economy by WWI

Which was then exacerbated by government intervention.

The Fed's response came during waves of unprecedented bank and securities runs in an era prior to the charter of either the SEC or FDIC. While it probably didn't make things worse, it couldn't make things better in the midst of all that chaos and hysteria.

It made things worse.

Yep.

Nope.

The business cycle simply does not and cannot get better by itself

As the economy shrinks, more people are laid off, leaving them with little money to spend.....which causes more business to fail.....shrinking the economy more....causing more to be laid off....causing the economy to shrink.....forcing more people out of work....causing the economy to shrink....forcing more people out of work....etc etc etc.

of course it does. As demand contracts, weaker companies fail, and stronger ones take their place.

No, they save it, because they know what the government gives today, it takes back tomorrow.

Glad you understand the negative results of government power. If it didn't have the power, there wouldn't be the fear. No fear, less volatility. Less volatility, shorter, less severe downturns.

I've already explained why: as the economy shrinks, demand shrinks too, because people lose their jobs and their source of income, and are forced to spend less.

That creates a downward spiral that can only be reversed if a giant injection of cash is made into the economy, so total spending can be increased.

We've made it before.

BS. 10.4% to 8.8% is not a slight decrease. Moreover, it will only get lower as we get towards Christmas. And we'll eventually have another stimulus which will decrease it even more.

It was a totally insufficient blip that was in no way sustained, as was Reagan's. Christmas is another temporary blip that won't last, as you know. And with any luck, Congress will grow a pair and prevent TLFO from making it worse.

No, it hasn't improved anyone's lifestyle, and it made the Russians' lives a lot worse.

Massive eye roll. Evidence?

The "real world" in your imagination.

And everywhere else.

[fat mike]

As demand contracts, weaker companies fail, and stronger ones take their place.

not ALWAYS-and even in the pristine free market environment you long for there can be price fixing and other dirty tricks t end run the "rules"
surprising though that a man like yourself wouldn't want a strong legal underpinning t prevent abuses=if law enforcement isnt stronger than the bodies its called to control there is no control..

[garyd]

Pick out any one from the nineteenth century CR. Their were about a dozen of them.

And the reason for the diminshed trade following WWI was the treaty of Versaille. Followed by dozens of Tarriffs Smoot-Hawley being only the best known.

Mike no one is saying there shouldn't be some regulation. What we are saying is that currently there is vastly more than is necessary. Almost all of which accomplish little or nothing other than empowering bureaucrats at the expense of every one else.

[fat mike]

Mike no one is saying there shouldn't be some regulation. What we are saying is that currently there is vastly more than is necessary. Almost all of which accomplish little or nothing other than empowering bureaucrats at the expense of every one else.

there is too much but still a lot of stuff that should be watched isnt and youre right it empowers the bureaucrats but there still isnt the intended protection that should come with oversight

[Cyclone Ranger]

1807.

The War of 1812, obviously. Note that the economic problems of that era weren't a true recession, just a function of the idiotic protectionist Port Act.

technicalities won't help TLFO get re-elected.

It's not a technicality, and the voters know it.

Which was then exacerbated by government intervention.

Evidence?

It made things worse.

Evidence?

Nope.

Yep.

of course it does. As demand contracts, weaker companies fail, and stronger ones take their place.

That's not how supply and demand works, amigo. When consumer have less money to spend, businesses can't sell their products, and ultimately lay off their labor forces to compensate

New and stronger businesses only arrive when the economy is expanding and investor expectation of ROI is high, not when it's contracting.

Glad you understand the negative results of government power. If it didn't have the power, there wouldn't be the fear. No fear, less volatility. Less volatility, shorter, less severe downturns.

If the government doesn't interfere by injecting cash into the economy during recessions like Reagan did, the economy collapses. What people fear is the government not interfering. They don't put leaders in power to do nothing.

We've made it before.

Not even once.

It was a totally insufficient blip that was in no way sustained, as was Reagan's. Christmas is another temporary blip that won't last, as you know. And with any luck, Congress will grow a pair and prevent TLFO from making it worse.

Nope, two full points is not insignificant nor a blip. And, the only thing that will make it better is spending trillion in stimulus, which the debt ceiling has now been raised to accommodate.

Massive eye roll. Evidence?

Read any currents events book about Russia, which was devastated by the fall of Communism.

And everywhere else.

ie, anywhere else in your imagination.

[Cyclone Ranger]

And the reason for the diminshed trade following WWI was the treaty of Versaille. Followed by dozens of Tarriffs Smoot-Hawley being only the best known.

The whole regulated system of international markets was destroyed by the Great War. The Versailles Treaty was only one tiny part of it.

Mike no one is saying there shouldn't be some regulation. What we are saying is that currently there is vastly more than is necessary. Almost all of which accomplish little or nothing other than empowering bureaucrats at the expense of every one else.

Bullshit. There is nowhere near enough regulation.

Fail to regulate lending, the derivatives market, investment banking, securities trades and so on much more tightly, for example, and you'll get another massive global economic melt-down like the Bush subprime mortgage debacle and more catastrophes like Madoff, Enron, and S&L collapse.

Federal regulators have been asleep at the switch far too long and way too many protections have eroded.

[garyd]

First it wasn't Bush's debacle, what little deregualtion actually oiccured occurred under Clinton (See Glass Steagal which was really little more than a second layering on of anti trust legislation specific to the banking industry) 2nd Bush in fact was trying to do something a runaway derivatives market that was being flooded by bad home loans which were in turn being driven by FAnnie and Freddie. It was the Democrats that stone walled the reform issue while pocketing millions in campaign funds from FAnnie and Freddie.

Enron's down fall was primarily a product of the Lawsuit California vs enron.

We already have rules covering what Madoff did the problem was getting the regulators to do their freaking jobs as it seems they were to busy chasing porn on company to time bother with curtailng Ponzi Artist lke Madoff. I don't care how many rule you've got if the powers that be won't enfoce thm it won't matter.

If the half wits in charge won't enforce the regs already on the books what the hell point is there to passing still more ordinances that the tards won't enforce?

[katsung47]

Not everyone knows that it's a covert totalitarian country. Paul has no chance even if he is the most popular candidate. The election machine is controlled and manipulated.

Everyone Thinks Ron Paul is Right

Former CIA specialist and contributor to The American Conservative Philip Giraldi had some interesting insights today into just how much headway Ron Paul and his message is making with a broad spectrum of Americans:

“I had two interesting experiences over the weekend, totally unrelated to the non-event of Hurricane Irene, which only dropped an inch of rain on northern Virginia. On Friday I went to dinner with a mixed group consisting of the women who are in my wife’s quilting group together with their husbands. All of the men were in their late fifties-early sixties and everyone but me and my wife was an evangelical Christian… Two of the men have been prominent in local Democratic Party circles and the remainder vote Republican. All agreed, to my surprise, that the US economy is broken and that it is the result of the wars and globalism that have marched together hand in hand over the past ten years. They also all agreed, even when they do not support specific policies, that Ron Paul is the only honest man running for the presidency. Which is not to say they all would vote for him, but the approval rating was 100%.”

Mr. Giraldi then moves on to day two of his weekend:

“On Saturday we had a reunion lunch with the CIA Rome Station class of 1980. The last time the whole group was together was shortly before the 2008 election, when everyone but me and my wife indicated that they would be voting for McCain-Palin. This time around it was different… I was kidded about my Ron Paul bumper sticker but everyone was quick to add seriously that Paul was the only honest man running, that he had predicted the economic collapse, and that his message has been consistent. They even agreed emphatically when I quoted Paul’s pledge to bring the troops home from overseas on the day after he is elected. This is coming from Cold Warriors, mind you, men and women who spent careers doing without question whatever their government asked them to do. Again, no one said they would vote for Ron Paul but nor did anyone say they would not.”

Giraldi concludes:

“Which is all to suggest that maybe something is actually going on in the body politic, that people are willing to listen to Ron Paul even though four years ago they would have thought such an idea ridiculous. And he has a passionate base of supporters. Do you remember the scene in the Godfather where Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) sees a Cuban rebel die for his cause and realizes that the insurgents just might win? Recent opinion polls seem to be saying the same thing. Whether or not Dr. Paul can actually win the presidency, his ideas about the state of the US economy and Washington’s catastrophic foreign policy have reached the mainstream and are resonating.”

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/2...paul-is-right/

[Dick Tator]

I think even if Ron Paul doesn't get nominated this year, it does wonders in setting up his son Rand Paul for a 2016 or 2020 run.

[katsung47]

Ron Paul wins New Hampshire straw poll, raises 1.5 million in a day!

Ron Paul wins California Republican straw poll

LA Times
Sept 18, 2011
Below find the results:
Congressman Ron Paul (374, 44.9%)
Governor Rick Perry (244, 29.3%)?
Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%)
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul...traw-poll.html

[katsung47]

Media are busy reporting Romney, Palin, Perry, like sheep walking the way the shepherd wants they go. This is a covert totalitarian country. The election is only a puppet show. The campaign is a stage show to prove it is "democracy". The men for the chair are fixed by the inside group already. Different voices would be suppressed.


Quote:

Just look at how 'successful' Ron Paul was against John McCain and Mitt Romney in his bid for the 2008 nomination. He led all kinds of gallup and straw polls, he even led the way in raising funds via internet campaigning...yet how much success did he have in securing the nomination?

You will have a president obedient to the rulers such like idiot Bush. Or an incompetent one like Obama. None will work for the people.