Ron Paul Money Bomb 6/5/11

lol @ the people who thinks he can't get the nomination.
He started last election around this time polling less than a percent, then ended around 8-9%. His followers are so die hard he definitely doesn't lose voters. He's starting off this time around 12%. If he gains another 8% like last time he'll easily win with a 20% majority.
The difference this time around is, his followers are already prepared and organized so it won't be any time wasted. He's got better funding. And the Kuccinich and Gravel supporters aren't there to split his vote (they took about 6% collectively last time). Granted a few tards will go over to Gary Johnson, but those people can't be recruited, they just like to sound like they're better than everyone by voting for the biggest underdog they can find.

The big question this time will be whether or not Ron Paul will organize an actual legit national campaign. I understand why he couldn't last time as he didn't really have any money until around November, but still he's not one of those well organized people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think underfunding was the issue. I remember him not spending all he raised last time.

I think the issue is that he doesn't speak in sound bites and for some reason Fox News hasn't supported him enough. If they did he'd clinch it easily. If they gave him half the time they've been giving Herman Caine or Mitt Romney he'd get the nomination.
 


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think underfunding was the issue. I remember him not spending all he raised last time.

I think the issue is that he doesn't speak in sound bites and for some reason Fox News hasn't supported him enough. If they did he'd clinch it easily. If they gave him half the time they've been giving Herman Caine or Mitt Romney he'd get the nomination.
You're exactly right on all of that. Kinda ridiculous.
On the fox news note at least this year we have a big advantage in their huge ratings drop in the recent year. They still managed to throw 8% to Cain pretty much overnight showing the true power of their influence. Hopefully though, this time their influence won't be as much. Once they pick a candidate if its not Ron Paul he's got a pretty big uphill battle.
 
I beg to differ. Poor people would've been in a worse conditions if it wasn't for welfare and minimum wage. Try talking to poor people from countries where there wasn't welfare or minimum wage laws.

They get milked like cows.

Did you even bother watching the video I posted?
 
^^^

Welfare mentality. The problem with 9/10 'poor people'. Victim this, I deserve that, STFU and do something with your life, no one ever handed me shit and I know what being broke as fuck feels like.

What do you want, a fuckin cookie?

The simple facts are that social mobility in the US is among worst in the western world. Which in turn suggests getting "out da ghetto" isn't as simple as "durrr, just work hardz."

Government isn't just about welfare payments.

The bottom line is that Ron Paul is 25-1 becoming Republican Candidate and 100-1 to become President. That's the odds bookmakers give so the chances are even slimmer than that.
 
What do you want, a fuckin cookie?

The simple facts are that social mobility in the US is among worst in the western world. Which in turn suggests getting "out da ghetto" isn't as simple as "durrr, just work hardz."

Keep on trollin'. Government is still the cause of why it's hard to get out of the ghetto. Who to trust - Dr. Milton Friedman (Nobel prize in economics winner, National Medal of Science winner, John Bates Clark Medal winner), or Internet Troll Scococo.
 
Did you even bother watching the video I posted?

I didn't watch it but I know the economics behind that argument. Yes in theory that is correct but the logic behind the minimum wage is reducing the income disparity between rich and poor coupled with better worker rights/leverage.

Most importantly it ensures the average employed household is above the poverty line. In the UK kids under 18 get paid about 2/3 of the adult minimum wage which works like a good compromise. I'm not sure about the US but many countries have a welfare income which is around 1/3rd of the average minimum wage. Hypothetically, they can be paid that wage if there isn't a national minimum wage. Are you telling me being fully employed and working for such a figure would benefit the individual considering they well be WELL below the poverty line? I think not.
 
I didn't watch it but I know the economics behind that argument. Yes in theory that is correct but the logic behind the minimum wage is reducing the income disparity between rich and poor coupled with better worker rights/leverage.

Most importantly it ensures the average employed household is above the poverty line. In the UK kids under 18 get paid about 2/3 of the adult minimum wage which works like a good compromise. I'm not sure about the US but many countries have a welfare income which is around 1/3rd of the average minimum wage. Hypothetically, they can be paid that wage if there isn't a national minimum wage. Are you telling me being fully employed and working for such a figure would benefit the individual considering they well be WELL below the poverty line? I think not.

The theory that the minimum wage keeps people out of poverty would be right if it didn't create more unemployment and act as a protectionist tactic for unions.
 
Who to trust - Dr. Milton Friedman (Nobel prize in economics winner, National Medal of Science winner, John Bates Clark Medal winner), or Internet Troll Scococo.

No offense man but that's no argument. Awards don't mean anything - Obama? - and Milton Friedman was a stooge of Rockefeller and the Chicago School of Economic Rapists.
 
No offense man but that's no argument. Awards don't mean anything - Obama? - and Milton Friedman was a stooge of Rockefeller and the Chicago School of Economic Rapists.

I'll concede nobel prizes really mean nothing now - after all, Obama, Krugman, and Kissinger won them. A stooge of Rockefeller? Explain. And how about Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek? Austrian and Chicago economics has been proven correct time and time again, especially when it comes to monetary policy.
 
Keep on trollin'. Government is still the cause of why it's hard to get out of the ghetto. Who to trust - Dr. Milton Friedman (Nobel prize in economics winner, National Medal of Science winner, John Bates Clark Medal winner), or Internet Troll Scococo.

"Government is still the cause of why it's hard to get out of the ghetto"

Eh, no.

Under Ron Paul's world of liberty, where will these poorer kids get educated? It sure as hell isn't a state school. Seriously libertarians, how is privatisation of schools on impoverished areas going to help social mobility? Great start in life, they'll get out the ghetto fo sho!

If you think there will be a greater chance of anyone climbing the social ladder under a Libertarian "government" you're deluded.
 
"Government is still the cause of why it's hard to get out of the ghetto"

Eh, no.

Under Ron Paul's world of liberty, where will these poorer kids get educated? It sure as hell isn't a state school. Seriously libertarians, how is privatisation of schools on impoverished areas going to help social mobility? Great start in life, they'll get out the ghetto fo sho!

If you think there will be a greater chance of anyone climbing the social ladder under a Libertarian "government" you're deluded.

You don't know what you're talking about. Ron Paul doesn't mind state-funded education...as long as it's just that. State funded. The Feds have no constitutional basis for interfering with education. Privatization of schools isn't a bad thing as well - Catholic schools historically aided the poor quite significantly, and also ranked much higher than public schools in terms of educational quality.
 
The minimum wage doesn't create unemployment. Wall Street creates unemployment.

Oh please. The minimum wage is a price floor on labor. Any time a price floor is created, a rift between supply and demand is created - in this case, unemployment. Why should I hire more people to do a job worthy of 3.625, when I can't, so I'll just hire one at 7.25 and overwork him. Labor is like any other market, supply and demand.

How on earth does Wall Street itself create unemployment? Are you talking about this recent bubble and bust? If so, once again, that was government created. Government made laws forcing banks to lend to unqualified borrowers just to artificially increase the rate of home ownership. Banks were not happy with this, and as such, default swaps and other scary securities were created to monetize the forced bullshit. A fervor was created in the housing market due to anyone being able to borrow (super cheap debt), driving up the price of houses (artificially), and a mentality that "real estate ALWAYS increases in value!". Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - government institutions - caused this. Of all people, even GW Bush pointed this out in 2003:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...d-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Barney Frank was quoted as saying:


''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

LOL
 
And how about Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek? Austrian and Chicago economics has been proven correct time and time again, especially when it comes to monetary policy.

Tempting but I can't go there :D gonna hafta pull a Jake Stratham here and commit myself to not get pulled in. Too much work to do & not in a RP thread :banana_sml:

Ah fuck, forget I said anything, backing out of thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStratham
You don't know what you're talking about. Ron Paul doesn't mind state-funded education...as long as it's just that. State funded. The Feds have no constitutional basis for interfering with education. Privatization of schools isn't a bad thing as well - Catholic schools historically aided the poor quite significantly, and also ranked much higher than public schools in terms of educational quality.

State funded schools?

Doesn't sound libertarian to me.

Pick and choose I guess.

This is a pointless conversation going no where. I have a masters degree in Economics and no amount of logic is going to dissuade any brainwashed ron paul supporter.

Good luck guys with your campaign, elections need their characters!
 
State funded schools?

Doesn't sound libertarian to me.

Pick and choose I guess.

This is a pointless conversation going no where. I have a masters degree in Economics and no amount of logic is going to dissuade any brainwashed ron paul supporter.

What party is Ron Paul running as, remind me? Is it libertarian? I didn't say what I supported, I said what he supported. Plus even if he disagrees with state funded EDU, it wouldn't be his place as President to mandate what states do with their money - 10th Amendment.
 
How on earth does Wall Street itself create unemployment?

Example 1: Right now you're paying approximately one dollar directly to Goldman, Morgan, Citi, and a handful of other banks & hedge funds for every gallon of gas. One dollar right off the top. This is pure speculation feeding the deregulated derivatives market. Paper based on paper based on paper. It has nothing at all to do with productive economic worth, nor does it relate in any meaningful way to supply or demand. It is pure fictitious speculation.

Higher fuel prices = fewer jobs afforded to employers in a logistical across entire economic strata, not to mention less social mobility in a literal sense afforded to employees.

Example 2:

AIG and the few other largest insurance companies are now more or less investment banks of their own. Paper based on paper based on paper. No correlation to physical, tangible, productive assets. Ask the average small to medium sized business owner what kind of burden current insurance rates put on them. Ask the same of a large industrial production company. And yes, corrupt labor unions don't help this much either.

Example 3: Wall Street's fanaticism with the bottom line compels companies to source production overseas to increase profit margins. Many companies do not or did not outsource until they being bought by an asset stripping hedge fund or investment fund on Wall Street.

Lower production costs = higher margins = increased growth = higher stocks = more derivatives. Ask the average blue collar machine tool operator or production line supervisor whose family earned living wages for three generations what he thinks of outsourcing.

Example 4: The 'bailout'. Over two trillion to Wall Street, a healthy portion of which was shipped overseas to stuff the pockets of Eurogarch douchebags in London, Paris, Zurich. Written by ceos and ex ceos of Wall Street investment banks. No explanation needed for how and why this destroys long term job prospects in a general sense.

I could go on and on: insourcing, the petrodollar, food price manipulation destroying family farming, our country's first worldwide claim to fame before the industrial revolution.

The long and short of it is that Wall Street has well over a quadrillion dollars of toxic speculative paper ballooning out into the atmosphere and they need to feed it whatever they can to keep the illusion alive. Thus the crap mortgages, the bailout, etc.

What you won't see our Wall Street controlled government do is issue zero percent credit for industrial production, research and development, infrastructure, etc. which would actually create jobs. It all goes to financial services, the most useless and parasitic economic sector in existence.

fuck i said i wasn't going to reply.

I heard that Ron Paul recently said he supports a Tobin Tax. This is #WINNING and he'll get my vote for this alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onigen