Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? RON PAUL SAYS YES!

[quote name='mykevermin']Or, alternately, convince low-to-no-risk persons to sign up for insurance policies they have zero need for. Man-oh-man, if you think the ridiculous right is throwing a shitfit over mandatory health insurance as a violation of the commerce clause, wait until you try to mandate flood insurance to thrustbucket and his dry, deep, dry, dry (did I say dry?) Arizona compadres.

Privatizing flood insurance will (1) omit the high-risk pool that needs it, (2) force the purchase on households that do not need it (indeed violating the commerce clause) in order to spread risk sufficient for companies to remain profitable, or (3) drive the companies who offer flood insurance right the fuck out of business the moment we experience Katrina (or (3a), turn an entire region of citizens into a militia who will rise up against the insurance companies who would deny coverage).

I like ya, nasum, but I don't see how anyone can think that flood insurance can be successfully privatized. There's a reason we have NFIP, and it ain't because us liberals love to fuck the free market in the ass.[/QUOTE]

Wait, so you're living in Philly and you still haven't bought volcano insurance yet? LOSER, don't come bitching when the inevitable happens!
 
No offense, but Ron Paul is legit crazy, and has no clue what he's talking about. But it sounds like it makes sense.

For example, His whole gold standard, fiat money rants are crazy. I mean certifiably insane. And the more he talks, the more he shows he doesn't know what he's talkign about. The government cannot physically go back to the gold standard. There isn't enough of it for the size of our economy. And Gold was price fixed. By the government. So in fact there would be more, not less goverment fisical intervention. The Gold Standard helped directly lead to the Great Depression. There were terrible booms and busts on the gold standrd prior to the 1930's. But because people don't understand that economics includes confidence and trust, and they think gold of a physicial thing, they think it's safer. The fact is, even with the recent gold boom of the past few years, gold is a bad investment.

Ron paul talks about reducing regulations. Yet, he either voted and often co-sponsored a lot of the legislation that directly lead to the financial crisis. Stuff Like HR 685, the Bankruptcy Bill. Or take the American Dream Downpayment Act. "Dec 8, 2003: This bill passed in the House of Representatives without objection. A record of each representative’s position was not kept." Why wasn't he standing up then yelling about how the government shouldn't be getting involved with helping people buy homes?

He talks about how the government shouldn't be making decisions for people. If the government makes you put a CFL in a lamp, that's a huge government overreach. If you wanna smoke a little weed, or shoot up heroin, that's fine. But have an abortion, the government needs to slap chains on your wrist.

The facts are, Ron Paul is a poser, who sounds good but doesn't know what he's saying. And anyone who really watches congress knows it. Like in this famous clip a couple months ago when Bernanke was in congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y

Watch it. He rambles like a crazy man for the first two minutes. He claims inflation is 10%. That's insane. 10% inflation means that in 8 years the cost of everything you buy doubles! And then he''s wrong on the facts of his question, which Bernanke corrects.

Then he mentions gold. He states that the value of the dollar has decreased 50% in the past three years. That's bullshit right there. See this five year chart.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DXY:IND

You can argue that the dollar has dropped from it's high by 17%. But look at it over 5 years. It's a double spike. the first spike is the financial crisis. The Second Spike is the Euro Crisis. (And another reason why the Fed did QE2.) And techniclaly, the dollar is stronger than it was during the financial crisis. Which in normal times would make little sense, because the United States economy is much much weaker than it was in 2006. So, technically, the dollar should be even weaker than it is now. The sound economic measure is to make the dollar even weaker.

But I digress, listen to Ron Pauls gold question. Ron paul thinks he's one upped the Fed Chairman. But everything Bernanke said is right. Gold is a precious metal. It is no more money than sheep or tulips. The Dutch economy once ran on tulips. You wouldn't call tulips money, would you? All money is a vehicle backed by a government entitiy. It has always historically been that way. Even back to the middle ages. Yes, kingdoms used gold and silver coins, but it was stamped out and given an exchange rate set by the government. China used paper money centuries ago. We no longer use gold as money. It's not a big deal. We're better off for it The Fed reserve does not use it as money. They use it as an asset. And he says it's by tradition. And he's right. When soverign countries were on the gold standard they used it as a system of soverign debt transfer. Once the system broke down, they could no longer use it to transfer debt, but they also couldn't flood the market with it. So they hold it by tradition as an asset of last resort. But that's it.

Yet Ron Paul is convinced he's got it all figured out. See Minute 3:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S08QB85d7Ic
 
[quote name='mykevermin']oh, no doubt. if you haven't read Pierson and Hacker's "Winner Take All Politics," that's they're basic thesis in a nutshell.

And it's a solid book.[/QUOTE]

Thx, I'm busy saving the 4 spiderman universes but I put it in my cart. It looks way interesting and I plan to read it through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top