Ron Paul's Urgent Warning

page: 10
146
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Seems this time around, the MSM isn't ignoring or marginalizing Ron Paul as much. He's been on Anderson Cooper several times in the past couple weeks, and he isn't condescended from what I've seen. Hope with all this BS we're seeing about the debt ceiling, more people will see the light...
edit on 29-7-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Fun facts for Democrats: if Obama gets re-elected next year and we were to follow his budget as he proposed it, he would leave us with $18.6 trillion of debt by Jan '17. Here's how the accumulation of debt would then break down by President:
$ 4.2 - all presidents prior to Clinton
$ 1.5 - Clinton
$ 4.9 - Bush
$ 8.0 - Obama

But I would argue it goes beyond who happens to be President. If you add up the same $18.6 trillion of projected debt by Jan '17 by which party controlled 2 of the 3 bodies (president, House, Senate) at any given time, our national debt would be:
65% accumulated under Democrats
35% accumulated under Republicans

Those are what we call 'inconvenient facts'.

That's not to say I'm happy with the Republicans, just tired of so many being pissed off at the wrong people.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
fantastic clip but its not actually a recent clip that guy who uploaded it makes it seem recent but it was from way back in feb of this year:



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Ron Paul is knowledgeable and I predict he (or someone like him) will gain the traction necessary to assume the presidency... hopefully in the upcoming election, but I am not certain. It may be another four with Oh-bama.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 




You do understand that creating tariffs and taxes on imports usually create a condition where the opposing country does the same to our exported goods?
It ends up being a tit for tat.
Not saying it is bad, good, right or wrong, just that it happens.


Yes I am well aware of that. I consider it one of the ADVANTAGES.

The mega Corporations are manipulating the situation. Without tariffs countries have no weapons against the manipulation.

A quick Example:
1. The 1995 World Trade Agreement is written by Cargill VP Dan Amstuz. It gave us open borders and no tariffs.

2. The 1996 "Freedom to Farm" Act is written in 1996 by Amstutz. It got rid of the US gov't buying and storing surplus grain and "allotments" controlling the amount of grain planted. Grain production surged and prices for grain plummeted. The grain traders (Cargill) cleaned up.( Amstuz was also pres. of the grain trader Assoc.)

3. The super cheap grain bought up by the Ag cartel was exported to third world countries where it was sold at below production costs. This bankrupted third world farmers and lead to worldwide factory farms like the one in Mexico of Swine flu fame.

Enter stage right, Goldman Sachs:
Before joining government, Amstutz was a general partner of Goldman, Sachs and Company, the New York investment bank, where he initiated the firm’s commodities trading and futures brokerage businesses.


Gramm, head of the CFTC, helped firms such as Goldman Sachs gain influence over the commodity markets. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly. Wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent.


...Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof....” www.independent.co.uk...



...Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices.... www.globalissues.org...



AND children starved to death....




I think I can pay more for luxury goods or make due with American made goods if it means it stops exploitation of third world innocents.

I may be a "Capitalist" but that does not mean I support the Mega-Corporations raping third word people and using MY tax dollar to do it! It means I support their right to own their own property and not have mega-corporations in collusion with governments steal it out from under them.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by crimvelvet
 

A trade war with China would be a horrible idea and it would probably lead to WW3. On top of that I've never understood why so many people are hell bent on not receiving all this free stuff from China anyways. Historically protectionism [fascism] only impoverishes.

From what I understand from your [the protectionist] argument, the Chinese are lowering the value of their currency. Meaning, for every dollar that goes to China, the Chinese govt is giving us 2 times as we should be receiving. Meaning, all Chinese goods cost half as much as they should.

You [the protectionist] see this as bad, because you see cheap prices as bad -- In fact, those cheap prices are the main reason the U.S economy is suffering. If only U.S consumers had to pay more for everything, we would all be rich.


OK Mr. Economist, tell me HOW Americans are supposed to keep Buying those so called cheap Chinese goods without competing with the Chinese in WAGES??? If you are not competitive wage wise in a world without tariff protection aka Free Trade, you do not get hired. (Business 101) Companies will move off-shore as they have in droves since the "Free Trade Agreements" were passed. Heck if I was a manufacturer I would too, Low wages, Low utilities, no environmental regs... such a deal!

We went from 24% of the labor force producing WEALTH (products) in 1970 to less then 9%. Our ACTUAL unemployment is 20% or there abouts. Kelly temps (cheap office help) Walmart and McDonald's are the USA's biggest employers.


Basic factory salary in China leaves workers hurting India Times

...works at Foxconn's facility in the southern city of Foshan, makes just 2,000 yuan (295 dollars) a month --

...China's central government has expressed sympathy with the workers during the strikes, but at the same time has also tried to ensure that wages do not rise too fast and endanger export industries, a key driver of the economy.

While the minimum wage in some parts of China can be as low as 660 yuan a month, in Guangdong's Pearl River Delta, it has increased this year to around 1,000 yuan -- about 150 dollars....


So Mr. Economist, How are Americans supposed to pay for our huge Federal debt while working for $150 bucks a month, the wage necessary for competing with a Chinese factory worker.

Oh by the way do not trot out that old pony about US workers competing at the "High End" of the market, That pony died 4 decades ago. We no longer qualify for anything but menial jobs!



"For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa."
:Source


Is it any wonder Corporations now import workers from other countries?



... Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”

SOURCE


This is how Companies now cope with the Dumbing Down of America


An H-1B visa allows an employer to hire a nonimmigrant foreign worker to temporarily work in the U.S. in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability. The job offered to an H-1B worker must be a professional position that requires at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, and the application of specialized knowledge. Many high-tech companies, such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Pfizer, as well as academic institutions, have utilized this program to bring in talented foreign professionals under H-1B status to help maintain their leadership in technology, science and business.

An H1B worker is authorized to work for the sponsoring employer for three years, with an option to extend for another three years...

Certain aliens working for the Department of Defense (DOD) are allowed to remain in H1B status for 10 years.



In a population of 307 million we can not find QUALIFIED individuals to work in the Department of Defense???? We have to IMPORT THEM???

Ok Mr. Economist what is YOUR solution to the mass exodus of American business and jobs????



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



OK Mr. Economist, tell me HOW Americans are supposed to keep Buying those so called cheap Chinese goods without competing with the Chinese in WAGES???

The U.S doesn't compete with Chinese wages now and we still manufacture some things. The problem is we do not manufacture enough. If you consider free trade between nations with imaginary boarders as harmful then you must also consider free trade between states, cities, individuals and groups of individuals equally as harmful, right?



If you are not competitive wage wise in a world without tariff protection aka Free Trade, you do not get hired.

That isn't true. If that was true then why are U.S wage rates much higher than Taiwanese wage rates? Wage rates are high in the U.S. because U.S employers have bid wage rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up.



(Business 101) Companies will move off-shore as they have in droves since the "Free Trade Agreements" were passed. Heck if I was a manufacturer I would too, Low wages, Low utilities, no environmental regs... such a deal!

First off,``Free Trade Agreements`` aren't free trade, in my opinion. Second, sure many companies outsource jobs, but many companies from other nations also outsource a lot of jobs the U.S -- it's funny how the protectionist don't like to mention that. In fact, if it wasn't for free trade the U.S would have never become a rich nation in the first place.



Basic factory salary in China leaves workers hurting.

That isn't the fault of free trade though, the PBC is 100% to blame for this. The PBC prints, prints, prints! Diminishing the purchasing power of Chinese citizens keeping them trapped in poverty. This makes Chinese products cheaper on the international market, thus making their GDP number larger and for some reason everyone thinks GDP is important.

Also, as I understand it, China only allows economic freedom in special economic zones, if China allowed all of its citizens to have equal economic freedom, I'm sure that their wage rates would rise much faster.



So Mr. Economist, How are Americans supposed to pay for our huge Federal debt while working for $150 bucks a month, the wage necessary for competing with a Chinese factory worker.

Why should Americans pay off the debt? We shouldn't in my opinion, we should default on all debt being held by sovereigns immediately, including the Fed, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Barclays, etc -- then liquidate government assets to satisfy the claims of the remaining bondholders.

/Problem solved.



Is it any wonder Corporations now import workers from other countries?

I can not blame companies for not wanting to hire stupid people.



Ok Mr. Economist what is YOUR solution to the mass exodus of American business and jobs????

Well, government intervention, caused the problems -- it only makes sense to cease all govt interventionism, not request more of it.

1st: The Federal Reserve promotes unsustainable consumption by keeping interest rates low, which has helped U.S citizens borrow in order to buy foreign goods.

2nd: This excessive money creation has also prevented prices from dropping relative to Chinese prices, which has prevented the Chinese from having greater purchasing power in order to buy U.S goods.

3rd: Foreign central banks have kept their currencies at artificially low exchange rates to the USD by buying U.S Treasury Bonds, basically weakening their currency, keeping their citizens purchasing power artificially low.

Trade quotas, tariffs, domestic tax policies, etc all have zero effect on trade. Trade is determined by monetary flows, but because monetary flows have been distorted because of these government interventions trade is unbalanced.

Even if the U.S had high tariffs, trade quotas, lax business taxes and regulations, while the rest of the world practiced free trade, but had extremely high business taxes and a ton of regulations, the trade balance would stay the same, due to government intervention in monetary flows.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
@4:15 Ron says "Leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve, legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies.." how could this be done?? I mean.. Yeah it sounds nice on paper (Or in a speech) but how? I mean, lets imagine he gets elected, in the "Short" span of time he is on charge (IIRC it was 4 years on the USA?) could he change what has been the norm for around 200 or so years?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by perrolococz
@4:15 Ron says "Leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve, legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies.." how could this be done?? I mean.. Yeah it sounds nice on paper (Or in a speech) but how? I mean, lets imagine he gets elected, in the "Short" span of time he is on charge (IIRC it was 4 years on the USA?) could he change what has been the norm for around 200 or so years?


How? You simply abolish it and revert back to gold and silver. Its almost as simple as walking right out of these wars that are bankrupting our country the same way we walked right in. The Federal Reserve was introduced to the American people in 1913. Its actually only been 100 years that we have had to deal with fake monopoly money.

The Federal Reserve need to be abolished. Interesting fact actually that JFK was killed only after he attempted to reintroduce a silver backed us dollar.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
billionaires get together and pay this # off



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I love Ron Paul, and will support him all the way to 2012. He stands for true liberty which is what this country was founded on. If his views seem radical to you, see that as evidence of how far gone the current system is from what it should be. After watching the OP's video I was moved to donate a few bucks to his campaign.

Ron Paul is the REAL change we want for the United States. I hope everyone posts the video to their facebook and shares it with their friends and family. Get informed and educated and inform your fellow citizens. Paul can't do it by himself!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
After seven years of membership in the Free Republic . com forum, I got booted out as I asked a few questions about 9-11 that didn't support the company line.
Even the owner of the site, Jim Robinson, came on the thread and called me a 'truther' and a Ron Paul supporter.
So I guess it's true, Free Republic is a bunch of free trade and Wall Street shills.

BTW, there were no Aircraft involved in 9-11, just holograms.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
As others have said, anybody who wants Ron Paul to win, needs to temporarily register as a Republican and vote him in the primaries. Otherwise, hopefully he can be convinced to run as an independent or libertarian...



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Kro32, you are on every single subject, posting nonsense and mean spirited comments. I haven't read where you have said anything at all positive about anything ever. WHAT A TROLL!!!!!!
edit on 31-7-2011 by patternfinder because: quoted wrong post



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

That isn't true. If that was true then why are U.S wage rates much higher than Taiwanese wage rates? Wage rates are high in the U.S. because U.S employers have bid wage rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up.


This isn't true either, the wages go up so that the dollar can loose its value. when someone makes $10 per hour and the minimum wage goes up from $6 to $7, the person making $10 is effectively making $9 now due to prices having to go up to absorb the minimum wage increase.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder


That isn't true. If that was true then why are U.S wage rates much higher than Taiwanese wage rates? Wage rates are high in the U.S. because U.S employers have bid wage rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up.

This isn't true either, the wages go up so that the dollar can loose its value. when someone makes $10 per hour and the minimum wage goes up from $6 to $7, the person making $10 is effectively making $9 now due to prices having to go up to absorb the minimum wage increase.

You're speaking gibberish, I never said anything about minimum wage laws. Also, wages aren't the only factor that comes into play when determining the price of products.

Employers care about the marginal value of an employee, none-skilled workers cost less, but they produce less too. What matters is the labor cost per unit produced. Employees receive higher wages because their productivity is such that they are worth more.

For example, lets say a U.S worker earns 30 dollars per hour while a Canadian worker earns 5 dollars per hour, this alone is not enough to prove that investing in Canada is the best thing for a company to do. If the American worker can produce 120 units of output in an hour while the Canadian worker can only produce two, then producing products in the U.S is actually cheaper, much cheaper.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Ron Paul is so likeable he could be the damned anti-christ. You will like him right up till he beheads you for not taking his mark. I was being fascitious there, but who knows? The one thing that keeps coming to the surface in my mind is that old joke about politicians "how can you tell when a politician is lying? (answer) when his lips are moving!".

Some of them are slick enough to have you thinking theyre youre friend, right up till the cops come banging in your doors demanding your firearms and then imprisoning you for being a terrorist combatant when you ring off that old NRA battle cry "you can have my guns, when you can pry them from my cold dead hands".



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
"loss of freedom"

that get tossed around a lot

please elaborate, and be a specific as possible



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Fun facts for Democrats: if Obama gets re-elected next year and we were to follow his budget as he proposed it, he would leave us with $18.6 trillion of debt by Jan '17. Here's how the accumulation of debt would then break down by President:
$ 4.2 - all presidents prior to Clinton
$ 1.5 - Clinton
$ 4.9 - Bush
$ 8.0 - Obama

But I would argue it goes beyond who happens to be President. If you add up the same $18.6 trillion of projected debt by Jan '17 by which party controlled 2 of the 3 bodies (president, House, Senate) at any given time, our national debt would be:
65% accumulated under Democrats
35% accumulated under Republicans

Those are what we call 'inconvenient facts'.

That's not to say I'm happy with the Republicans, just tired of so many being pissed off at the wrong people.


bush has to get credit for obama's stimulus bill, because it wouldn't have been needed if bush was even remotely competent, and I've seen vastly different estimates of obamacare's cost, and it always falls on the party affiliation of whoever is doing the math.

both parties deserve the credit, and that's what gets me, instead of solving the problem for the good of the people, both parties do what is in the parties interest



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff
Oh really? Did you consider the 16th Amendment to our Constitution?

The constitution amendment only empowers the Congress to impose federal income tax, it doesn't impose the tax. The Congress still needs to pass an act which details which organ of the federal government shall collect the so imposed federal income tax and exactly what the obligations of the citizens/residents are, which it never did.

I am a Ron Paul supporter but the way I understand law (I am not a lawyer), he would have to Amend the U.S. Constitution regarding federal income tax.

A constitution amendment is needed only to prevent a future executive/legislature from reintroducing federal income tax, not to do away the existing one.

Yes, he wants to take our country back from the Fed. Because we are still in a "state of emergency" as declared in 1933, I believe he has the power to do that.

So he would use the same extra-consttuional mechanisms to deliver on his promises as did alll his predecessors and yet calls himself a constituionalist? Exactly what I meant by him being full of hot air.





top topics
 
146
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join