Ron Paul Says 1.3 Trillion Dollar Debt Owed To Federal Reserve Is Not Real! Amazing Plan To Save A T

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by memarf1

 

If I have a big bucket of water, and you have a glass, you drink it and want more but I won't give it to you. I drink a few glasses and still have a huge bucket remaining. Why not force me(essentially at gunpoint, hehe) to give you 2-3 more glasses so you are not thirsty, since I will not even notice the change anyway?

You lost me there. If I have one glass of water, and I drink it all and expect a handout from your bucket, then I am a loser, a victim of poor planning, gluttonous, selfish, irresponsible fool depending on someone else's good will.

If you have a bucket of water, you obviously earned or obtained it in some way, and you have to make sure you will continue to have water for yourself, your family, your descendants. The last thing in the world you should do is waste your water on some irresponsible fool.

Exactly!! I'm not sure where this attitude comes from that says the person with the bucket of water is a lazy slob that is undeserving of a whole bucket, and therefore needs to give part or all of it away for no compensation at all. Do we really expect that person to keep going out and earning another bucket and another, when it's all just being taken away? At some point that person says "forget it, I'd rather get glasses of water for free than kill myself earning a bucket that is just going to be taken away from me anyway". High risk and low reward is poor incentive indeed. Eventually everyone is sitting around staring at empty glasses because there are no bucket-holders to dole the water out anymore.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I don't know what has angered you in such a way to cause your name calling, but let me clarify something in a friendly way, since I am neither angry with you nor arrogant. I don't doubt that you wish you could invest all of that money, but the reality is that if every millionaire invested $3million into business every single year to create new businesses, there would be a lot of failed businesses out there. There is only so much money to go around and what you advocate is a perfectly perpetual, closed system, where every dollar is spent from consumer to firm and back to the consumer where the consumer owns the firm. Virtually every start-up business fails, and economics models, while excellent guides, are inevitably incorrect on the whole.

As for your claim about Rupert Murdoch, yes, he did start FOX successfully. To do it he hired morons like Glenn Beck, who brought an audience of sheeple, and the network reports almost no news. FOX is successful because it provides people like you the illusion of news through unmitigated opinion. Its really astounding to source FOX when it clearly has a different business model than the previously existing news stations like CNN who have since followed the FOX model and lost the majority of their viewers. FOX didn't fill an unfilled nitch market, it didn't create anything new, it stole viewers from existing companies by offering, arguably, a better product with a different spin. It would be like the pet rock succeeding and then someone invents the pet stone, which is clearly not the same as the rock, but for some reason 2/3 of the existing pet rock customers change loyalty to the pet stone.

No, you won't. I will. As to your bogus assertion that the market can only support so many businesses, it certainly can support far more than most modern economists will claim, even ones pretending to be "Smithonian economists". Where people are fed a line of crap with terminology like "Reganomics", and "Voodoo economics", supply side economics is demonstrably an effective method of doing business. Rupert Murdoch showed that with his upstart FOX Network when too many economists were insisting there was no market for a fourth network. Ironically, these "experts" were making this assertion while cable television was growing at an exponential rate.

Just for the record, the "Reganomics" is supply side economics, and yes it worked in the 1980's. Trickle down doesn't work as intended now, however. Just like the perceived solutions to the Great Depression didn't work for the most recent recession. I have seen these models and they look great on paper, just like almost every other economics model, but when they are implemented problems are observed that were never predicted b/c economics models cannot account for every variable. Also, it is not "demonstrably an effective method", as shown by the trickle down policy of every failed stimulus since 2008.

Every model has problems and every model has strengths. Furthermore, every model has its day when it will probably work, just like "Reganomics" worked for a short time and the study of Supply Side economics began and has recently been found to be not so good. You can argue just about every model, some economists like Smith, some like Keynes, some like the Austrian school, and others are still Mercantilist. The heart of the subject is that there is no silver bullet and every model must be supplemented by some other model.

So, before you go spouting off about me being arrogant, please do your homework, and please refrain from name calling.

reply to post by SavedOne


You can only buy so many yachts and mansions before you don't even want more of them. To get rid of the IRS workers we need to close loopholes. Thats why I agree with GetReadyAlready on the implementation of the tax. There should be loopholes for children and adults such that no person pays taxes on $75,000 or less. Those people feel a few thousand dollars of taxes a lot more than any wealthy person. My wife and I make a combined income of about $63,000 and with the retirement and medicare taxes, if they took another 10%, let alone 15%, we would go to prison for tax evasion b/c we simply could not afford it. Not because we go on vacations and buy lots of stuff, but b/c we simply live. Living is expensive these days. Most families are like that, hence the $75,000 limit. From there it should be graduated to 25% up to a million and 35% flat after that. No loopholes, just a straight forward this is what you pay system. Thats the same as a flat tax except that the wealthy pay a little more.

I have less to guard and can do it myself and I don't want to pay for the military to guard all the krap that wealthy people acquire. Let them pay extra taxes for that. Why should I pay state taxes for extra state police officers to guard a house that a rich guy owns and never even uses? Let him pay 35% and be happy. He won't find a better deal in the world and we can still fire, as you advocate, the extra IRS agents.

I'm disconnecting until tomorrow, don't think I have admitted defeat by my lack of responses, my apparent arrogance would never allow that. HAHAHA. J/K of course.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

I actually hate Ron Paul. I may vote for him because I hate every other candidate even more. I disagree with about 75% of what he says, but disgree with everyone else about 90% of the time. It's like the old contest. 1st place wins 1 day in Detroit, 2nd place wins 3 days, and 3rd place wins a week in Detroit. You lose even if you win.

Why do I get the feeling this predicament of yours isn't just confined to your views of politicians?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Pretty sure if you return to gold standard that wont do any good what so ever the same thing that happened in the past will happen again all gold will be bought out of the country then what do you do a currency to?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Where people are fed a line of crap with terminology like "Reganomics", and "Voodoo economics", supply side economics is demonstrably an effective method of doing business.

Supply-side economics is just a different look at Keynesian economics. It's surprising to me that people still believe in that supply-side laffer curve nonsense. I thought you supported the free market?

reply to post by defcon5


Well, I agree with that statement too. That argument about fairness was probably why it didn't happen and why we are still in recession. The other claim was that if they did nothing then every sector would fall since every sector is essentially connected to housing in some way. Houses include builders, electricians, plumbers, parts makers, and so on. Those people buy food, clothes, cars, and so on. If the houses fall then the workers fall. If those workers fall then they stop buying stuff and then other sectors start to fall. Its a big house of cards that stands on top of a line of dominoes.

I don't know, but most likely, since I believe that solution would have been best, they were probably concerned about fairness and how the rest of the public would react by such a transfer of wealth. So, instead of transferring wealth to the middle class, they did it to the wealthy because if they had sent it to the middle class, the poor would have complained that they didn't get any, even though they get their fat checks every month already.

Okay, I really am disconnecting now.

That last paragraph is mostly opinion based on nothing though. The first paragraph is unprovable since there was a bailout, but that was the claim.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by gorgi

 

I certainly am not qualified in economics, but when I hear Mr Paul speak on the issue, he seems to have a better understanding of it than ANY other "expert" who opens their mouth. However if you can "school" us please do. I am here to learn.

Well crazy people are usually great at talking and convincing. His idea of killing the fed is a disaster. They regulate the money supply, interest rates, sell and buy bonds to help control the money supply. ect....

Killing the IRS and other government agencies will take us back 100+ years. This will kill jobs so fast.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Great video, S&F

I always agree with Ron Paul & couldnt agree more with everything he says about the Fed Rev making up money to buy more debt in the name of the American people. We never signed up for this non sense & I agree with Dr. Paul, F em & boot them to curb! I'd actually like to see some actual white collar prosecution ASAP!

I enjoy Fox. I love it watching the reporters regurgitate what's being spoon fed to them.

Go Ron Paul!

Also, its amazing how fast a president ages during his office. I don't think obama had any gray hair when he took office, definitely not like he is now! Patches and patches of gray hair

reply to post by memarf1


Ha! This is funny, first you said

I don't know what has angered you in such a way to cause your name calling, but let me clarify something in a friendly way, since I am neither angry with you nor arrogant.

And in the same breath

To do it he hired morons like Glenn Beck, who brought an audience of sheeple, and the network reports almost no news. FOX is successful because it provides people like you the illusion of news through unmitigated opinion.

reply to post by memarf1

I don't know what has angered you in such a way to cause your name calling, but let me clarify something in a friendly way, since I am neither angry with you nor arrogant.

Do not mistake a firm rebuke of nonsensical predictions as anger. Let me put this to you in a friendly way, you have no idea what I, or others will do with their money. Your presumptions are based upon the notion that their money is your business. My parents taught me such presumptions are extremely rude.

I don't doubt that you wish you could invest all of that money, but the reality is that if every millionaire invested $3million into business every single year to create new businesses, there would be a lot of failed businesses out there.

Do you have any idea how much a modest feature film costs these days? You have no idea of what you are talking about, and it is past rude the attitude you are taking. If you want to speak of economic factors in a third person way, feel free to, but as long as you keep talking to me as if it is perfectly fine to tell me what I will do with my money, your rudeness will be responded to the way rude people should be responded to. Don't like it? Stop telling me what I will do with my money. It is not up to you.

There is only so much money to go around and what you advocate is a perfectly perpetual, closed system, where every dollar is spent from consumer to firm and back to the consumer where the consumer owns the firm.

You very clearly have no idea what you are saying. I do not - by any stretch of the imagination advocate a closed system. There are members in this site who are past sick and tired of me constantly pointing out that all closed systems tend towards entropy. I, in fact, advocate a free and open market, you know, that market system you were dismissing in an earlier post?

Virtually every start-up business fails, and economics models, while excellent guides, are inevitably incorrect on the whole.

First of all, define "virtually". Secondly, the oppressive closed market system the United States functions under today is created by local, state, and federal governments, all colluding to regulate the market beyond belief. Agreeing to the licensing schemes, and regulatory schemes imposed by local, state, and federal government is just plain stupid and begs for failure. The good news is that a recent Supreme Court ruling in Bond v United States is a major game changer and if people are smart, they will use this ruling to tell government to get off their backs and start up businesses without all this intrusive regulation. There is a reason the black market appeals to many, and that is because it is the closest example of a free and unregulated market there is.

As for your claim about Rupert Murdoch, yes, he did start FOX successfully. To do it he hired morons like Glenn Beck, who brought an audience of sheeple, and the network reports almost no news.

This is what I mean by you have no idea what you are talking about, and part of the reason you have no idea is you don't even bother to read the posts you're responding to. I didn't mention FOX News, I spoke of the FOX Network which is not a cable network, of which my post made clear, but is a part of the standard broadcast system. Glen Beck has nothing to do with it. You are merely deflecting.

Just for the record, the "Reganomics" is supply side economics, and yes it worked in the 1980's.

Just for the record, this is what I said. Pejoratives used such as "Reganomics" and "Voodoo economics" were terms invented by economists to turn the public away from embracing supply side economics. You are the one advocating a closed system, not I. Supply side economics works in any era, not just a single era.

Here's the deal. I made a simple two line response to your question of what a person could do with $10 million that they couldn't do with $6.5 million. In reply to that you wrote several paragraphs attempting to argue that economics is far more complex than simple math and presumed to tell me what I would do with my money. This puts you firmly in the priest class sect with your mystical incantations that you believe will astound and astonish the laity. However, even the simple minded understand simplicity, and know when they are being conned.

Trickle down doesn't work as intended now, however.

Trickle down is not supply side economics, and that is precisely the mystical incantation crap I am talking about. This was the bogus sleight of hand economist pulled when Regan made the trickle down claim, and economists used that claim to link to supply side economics to discredit that which works. Just goes to show the value of economists.

I have seen these models and they look great on paper, just like almost every other economics model, but when they are implemented problems are observed that were never predicted b/c economics models cannot account for every variable. Also, it is not "demonstrably an effective method", as shown by the trickle down policy of every failed stimulus since 2008.

There's that sleight of hand I am talking about, but like an even worse Doug Henning, you're not that good of a magician. It is demonstrably an effective method, because "trickle down" has nothing to do with it.

Every model has problems and every model has strengths. Furthermore, every model has its day when it will probably work, just like "Reganomics" worked for a short time and the study of Supply Side economics began and has recently been found to be not so good.

"Recently been found to be not so good" has it? Found by whom? Economists? For anyone else reading that actually might be dazzled by your bad magic tricks, let me say this: Supply Side Economics means precisely what the name implies. It counters the standard belief that supply should match demand and not be in excess of demand. To make that clearer, I will stay with the FOX broadcasting network.

When the NFL, a few years back raised their leasing rates, CBS was the primary carrier of the NFL, and had been for years and years. However, when the NFL wanted more, Larry Tisch was then President of CBS, and his bean counters, (accountants who tend to think much like economists do), told Tisch that they are not justifying the cost of the NFL at that time. The advertising revenue generated from the NFL games on Sunday was not really profitable, and Tisch's accountants told him that if he paid the raise in fees he would lose money on the gambit.

So, Tisch passed on the NFL and Murdoch snatched it up. Of course, all the economic talking heads thought Murdoch was insane. The question was, if CBS couldn't afford the price of the NFL, what made Murdoch who generated far less in advertising revenue than CBS did, think he could afford to pay that price. Murdoch finally responded to this question and explained that he had what he believed were two really good television shows that were airing on Sundays that nobody was watching. He gambled that if he bought the NFL contract that this would bring new viewers to his new upstart network that everyone else kept insisting would fail. What he predicted was that if these new viewers did come, they would stay with the network after the games and watch the two shows he was talking about.

Those two shows were The Simpsons, and The X-Files. Murdoch was right, and while there was demonstrably no demand for those shows, he created a demand for them. That is supply side economics. Creating a demand for a product not in demand.

So, before you go spouting off about me being arrogant, please do your homework, and please refrain from name calling.

You're as arrogant as they come, my friend. Your biggest arrogance is your belief that you can dazzle people with bull puckey. Some can, you aren't doing so well with that.

reply to post by watcher3339


I can't imagine a scenerio where they would just happily tear up our debt to them....& it's not as if the Fed Reserve Banks do not have any power...in fact I'd imagine pissing off those guys would probably be a suicide mission if America decided to do so. They'd use all of their power to turn the world against us (which probably wouldn't even be that hard, all things considered)....and of course they'd cut us off from any further borrowing from them. I think something like this would eventually cause a World War sort of scenario.....

I suppose if thats what you are going for....though I'd warn that events like that tend to cause major shifts in World Power after they are all said and done. Shifts that would likely be unpredictable for the most part....we might come out ahead....we might come out of it closer to a 3rd World Nation......it's hard to know for sure.

reply to post by defcon5


Your correct on the TARP dilemma. TARP added a 800 billion revolving credit line adding to our national debt. Except much of that money is unspent, or being paid back at interest. The one misconception about TARP that has been put into place by the media is that it was a one time purchase. In fact, TARP was a revolving credit line in which 800 billion was allocated at any given time to take care of troubled mortgages. This means it is always on the balance sheet as debt even when not used. As money came back to repay TARP loans, it sat unused against the debt.

Repealing TARP's ability to be used as a cyclical bailout device would eliminate 800 billion from the debt instantly. Let it be used once and that is all. The more I think about this the more I think this economic crisis is generated, or in the hands of really agenda driven people that fail to see the root cause of the debt crisis.

If a person takes out a loan but never spends the money they owe interest on it and are technically in debt. However, if they return the money then that person is no longer in debt.

Common sense is not so common. - Voltaire.

Is it really that hard to use your common sense when attempting to solve the debt problem. You don't have to be an economist to understand that the fed and wars is whats killing America

reply to post by memarf1

Yes, I can guard your bucket while you go earn more, or what you mean to say is hire a military. My water example does seem like a handout, but in reality its just a reallocation that I was advocating. You can hire a military to guard your water, or since we have a government they can. Since they are established and reliable(we can agree the US military is reliable, and if not them then Blackwater, hahaha, j/k) you can pay them a tax to do so. Since I am poor and require fewer guards, I pay less in taxes than you do.

I didn't say "guard" I said "watch," and I suppose I meant "tend."

You are admitting you are a socialist? If the government is the most efficient at the job, then why not use them when the bucket of water needs repair? Why ever employ a private person? Let the government take 1/2 my water, but they guarantee to keep my bucket in good repair, safe, clean, filtered, and they will even guarantee that it is always half full.

The rub is that it will never be more than half full. No matter how hard I work, I will only attain slightly above the average, because my extra works and deeds will be redistributed.

And, I didn't even touch upon the fact that there has never been, and never will be, any government run agency that is more efficient than a privately run agency. Everything is done by committee, and committee's are slow and cumbersome. Sure, the need to make a profit is gone, but so is the quick and decisive responsiveness that makes a sole proprietorship so effective. No government agency can ever perform more efficiently than a strong private industry. Plus, I happen to know, that you know, that the USSR was particularly bad about having an economy within an economy. There was the Communist/Socialist government run economy, with no incentive whatsoever to work, and then there was the bartering economy that made the wheels in the cogs move, and slowly pushed the public economy along on its tracks. It would never have worked without the seedy underbelly, so it is proof of concept failure!

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Pretty sure if you return to gold standard that wont do any good what so ever the same thing that happened in the past will happen again all gold will be bought out of the country then what do you do a currency to?

The gold standard is a bad idea. It worked ages ago but the wold has changed and we no longer need it. Infact bringing it back would harm our economy

Why We Left The Gold Standard

reply to post by defcon5


Here is a little story about the housing debacle. The housing crisis was the fault of easy credit and poor decision making by individuals. Once upon a time.........

Housing prices skyrocketed, because banks began giving 100% and 103% and 120% mortgage loans. The people were just happy to be buying a house, they didn't look at the long-term costs. A $80,000 house was sold and financed for $96,000, and then that drove the next door neighbor's price up to $96k, but the bank loaned $115 on it, and so on and so on. People were shopping for "payments" instead of house prices. The banks capitalized on that and gave 3 year balloon notes. Most people move every 3 years anyway, so it was a dream. By this $80k house for $115k, but we will keep your payments at $500 per month, anyone can afford it!

Then one day, gas prices hit $4 per gallon because of a few hurricanes. People charged up their credit cards to buy gas, and they didn't stop their lavish lifestyle. Balances got too high to maintain, so they missed a couple of payments here and there. No big worry, except some analyst decided to look deeper and realize how exposed the banks and their investors were, so they started ratcheting down the lending requirements to protect their interests. BIG MISTAKE! Now the bank could only loan $72k on the $80k house, but your mortgage is $115, so you can't sell it, and that balloon payment is coming up quick!!

Then everyone scrambled to get out of the markets and protect their assets, without realizing they were destroying the very assets they were trying to protect.
*
*
*
For the record, I gave up my house 3 years ago. It still sits there empty, still in my name on the tax rolls. I filed bankruptcy, but the bank never foreclosed. In fact the bank also filed bankruptcy and was absorbed by another bank, which quickly filed bankruptcy as well and was absorbed by some bank trustee corporation. Since then, the actual mortgage paperwork has been reassigned several times to different mortgage management companies, and I occasionally get a letter. As best as I can tell, it will never be foreclosed upon, because nobody knows who has the right to foreclose, and I am seriously considering renting the dam thing out and letting it make my current house payment.

reply to post by gorgi


I will say this...we cannot have a gold standard with this current corruption. When all the money filters to the top, guess who will own all the gold. Although with a gold standard you could shield yourself from inflation by holding onto the gold in your own safe. That is about the only thing gold can do. Provide instant security from inflation of currency.