I Might Vote For Obama

[snarky]

The thing that turned me off the most is that he made the claim that the Federal Reserve causes economic cycles. If you look at the economy in the 1800s, that is a patently false statement.

I think when you are talking about something as drastic as eliminating the fed, you better have your facts in line.

[AzStillers1989]

Ron Paul has garnered support from many different races across this country... these newsletters are a thing of the past and should stay there. I am not racist and nor do I believe Ron is a racist... The real question should be why is the MSM all of a sudden making a huge deal about this? When Ron himself has stated he did not write these letters... If you don't believe that many races endorse Ron Paul for president than do a quick google or youtube search for this subject... here I will get us started with a good rant from a black man concerning the issue [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rsXoeSm2X0[/url]

While i am no economist, I did a little research and found a good explaination and example concerning the buissness cycles pre Federal Reserve...

"A central bank isn't required for there to be business cycles according to the Austrian theory. The crucial ingredient to a business cycle, central bank or no, is inflation of the money supply (i.e. the printing of paper money that isn't backed by gold or silver). The way to do this with or without the help of a central bank is through fractional reserve banking. Under a fractional reserve system, a bank will loan out gold that was deposited in the bank as demand deposits. The problem with this system is that because the original depositors have claims to their deposited gold on demand, as do the receivers of the loans, there is an increase in the money supply, though no increase in the gold specie.

The reason central banks came into existence is because inflation of the money supply by a single bank is self-limiting. As Rothbard explains in "What Has the Government Done to Our Money", the money loaned out in the form of paper money will make its way into the hands of people who have accounts in separate banks, and they will deposit the paper money into their banks. Their banks will quickly call on the original bank to redeem gold, and the original bank will quickly find its vaults running out of gold.

A good example of this happening is the Panic of 1819. In order to fund the War of 1812, the US government turned to banks to lend them money, but unfortunately the New England banks, which were normally the government's go-to banks for loans, were against the war and refused to loan to the government. Therefore the government got loans from less established banks from out of the region, and these smaller banks heavily inflated the money supply way beyond what they could back in gold. Soon the bank money made its way to New England to pay for military equipment, and just as in the previous example, the money was deposited into the more well-established New England banks, and just as expected, they called on the smaller banks to redeem their gold. Had it not been for government intervention in the form of suspension of specie payment, these banks would have gone under in a second, but they were allowed to continue business though they were entirely bankrupt. It is this shaky foundation, aggravated by government intervention, that is responsible for the Panic of 1819, all achieved with no help from a central bank."

This came from the blog [url]http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10542.aspx[/url]

Ron Paul is a step in the right direction and that is getting the country out of debt and maintaining a foreign policy that is backed by the United States Constitution. And I believe it is only a matter of time befor every American realizes the true cost of these wars and the bad economic practice going on in this country....

[snarky]

Ron Paul has garnered support from many different races across this country... these newsletters are a thing of the past and should stay there. I am not racist and nor do I believe Ron is a racist... The real question should be why is the MSM all of a sudden making a huge deal about this? When Ron himself has stated he did not write these letters... If you don't believe that many races endorse Ron Paul for president than do a quick google or youtube search for this subject... here I will get us started with a good rant from a black man concerning the issue [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rsXoeSm2X0[/url]

While i am no economist, I did a little research and found a good explaination and example concerning the buissness cycles pre Federal Reserve...

"A central bank isn't required for there to be business cycles according to the Austrian theory. The crucial ingredient to a business cycle, central bank or no, is inflation of the money supply (i.e. the printing of paper money that isn't backed by gold or silver). The way to do this with or without the help of a central bank is through fractional reserve banking. Under a fractional reserve system, a bank will loan out gold that was deposited in the bank as demand deposits. The problem with this system is that because the original depositors have claims to their deposited gold on demand, as do the receivers of the loans, there is an increase in the money supply, though no increase in the gold specie.

The reason central banks came into existence is because inflation of the money supply by a single bank is self-limiting. As Rothbard explains in "What Has the Government Done to Our Money", the money loaned out in the form of paper money will make its way into the hands of people who have accounts in separate banks, and they will deposit the paper money into their banks. Their banks will quickly call on the original bank to redeem gold, and the original bank will quickly find its vaults running out of gold.

A good example of this happening is the Panic of 1819. In order to fund the War of 1812, the US government turned to banks to lend them money, but unfortunately the New England banks, which were normally the government's go-to banks for loans, were against the war and refused to loan to the government. Therefore the government got loans from less established banks from out of the region, and these smaller banks heavily inflated the money supply way beyond what they could back in gold. Soon the bank money made its way to New England to pay for military equipment, and just as in the previous example, the money was deposited into the more well-established New England banks, and just as expected, they called on the smaller banks to redeem their gold. Had it not been for government intervention in the form of suspension of specie payment, these banks would have gone under in a second, but they were allowed to continue business though they were entirely bankrupt. It is this shaky foundation, aggravated by government intervention, that is responsible for the Panic of 1819, all achieved with no help from a central bank."

This came from the blog [url]http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10542.aspx[/url]

Ron Paul is a step in the right direction and that is getting the country out of debt and maintaining a foreign policy that is backed by the United States Constitution. And I believe it is only a matter of time befor every American realizes the true cost of these wars and the bad economic practice going on in this country....

Whereever his support is coming from the newsletters are another thing that bothers me. Whether he wrote them himself doesn't really change the issue for me. If he wrote those words then in no way is the man fit to be president of this country. And if he didn't write them and doesn't agree with them, he is a failure at a pretty simple executive function.

I haven't really advertised this but my father was a member of the House of Representatives when I was a kid. He personally read every piece of mail that came into his office and every piece of mail that went out. He might not have written the outgoing mail; but he made sure it properly reflected his views.

I think it's a cop out for Ron Paul to claim he didn't know what was being printed in newsletters put out under his name. And if he truly didn't know what was being done in his name, he shouldn't be asking me for my vote for president.

As for the banking/federal reserve question, as I read it the only difference I see is that before teh Fed we had recessions which were made worse by bank panics.

Like I said, he says a lot of stuff that I agree with, but overall I think he is a weak candidate.

[AzStillers1989]

I think you are mistaken sir'. Ron Paul is not a weak candidate.But let me ask you, does a weak candidate receive twice as much military donations than all the other candidates combined, INCLUDING Obama? I think not... Does a weak candidate have a consistant voting record for 30 years? I think not. Does a weak candidate vote for the Constitutuion of these United States of America every time? I think not...

See the biggest problem is people have a hard time digesting reality... So many times we have herd on the mainstream media about how we have to go to war with Iran ,that bailouts are good, printing money out of thin air is good, the patriot act and the NDAA act are good because they keep us safe, and at what cost ? Our personal liberties and freedom?

So please, befor you go telling me Ron Paul is weak, think again who you are ultimatly refering to... If a man who stands for a pro-american foreign policy, for the rights of the people witch is defind in the Constitution, and a sound economy is un electable... than I for damn sure do not wanna see who you define as strong....


BTW - we are all Americans and this is ultimatly my right to believe as well as it is yours to believe what you wish. I just ask of you, to see things outside of the MSM and formulate your own opinion....


This isn't about one man by the way.... It is about a philosophy, about a message... That message is FREEDOM. So don't be so apathetic in a time of great decent...

Oh and by the way, you and anyone else are always welcome to the good side.... the door is always open.


PEACE

[snarky]

A few points:

What I actually said is "I think he is a weak candidate". Basically I'm giving you my personal opinion of his candidacy. This is a forum for discussion and if you are going to use to it promote your candidate of choice, you shouldn't act so precious when somebody disagrees with you.

Secondly, I've never concerned myself with who the military is supporting and who they aren't supporting. While I respect our troops greatly for the personal sacrifices and risks they take for this country, we do not live in a military dictatorship. And if they are fighting for anything that matters in terms of democracy, there should be no demand that I heel to the candidate of their choosing.

I'm glad they are politically involved and I'm glad they have a candidate they can support. But their specific political leanings are of little concern to me.

Next, what makes you think I haven't gone out and done my own evaluation of each candidate. We have a lot of political arrogance in this country (and on this board) where people claim that those who don't agree with them are brainwashed, naive, or sheep. We have a lot of challenges in this country and, IMHO, anybody who pretends to have all the answers is fooling themselves.

I've taken the time to learn about each candidate and even Gingrich (who I find to be a despicable human being) has some excellent points (particularly on immigration). I've also been researching raw metrics on things like health care costs and tax rates over time because I wish to cast an informed vote when the time comes.

Again, this is a forum for discussion and I would hope the fact that I have engaged in a political discussion would indicate that I have spent some time thinking about the topic at hand. (And by the way, have I said anything along the way that would suggest that I am simply regurgitating MSM or FOX?)

And finally, on what basis are you calling me apathetic?

[flippy]

All the republican candidates are weak. Just like McCain was a weak candidate last go round.

I sorta think the republican party should close up shop and start over. The problem is they have too many constituents to pander to - the Christians, the military, the rich, the conspiracy theorists, and on and on.

No one I know buys into what this party is selling across the board.

The Democratic Party is just as bad, but at least they pander to the masses. They are what they are and they're going to get the votes of the poor, elderly, and alienated.

I want a real candidate without a party affiliation. I want someone fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And I want someone that lives both sides to the extreme.

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. But he's no legitimate candidate. He's just hanging around to try and exert some influence on the issues facing our country. And good for him. And good for us.

But at the end of the day we're going to have 2 knuckleheads to choose from - Romney and Obama. And at the end of the day, we'll collectively be worse off no matter who's in office.

I honestly believe Obama will one day go down as the worst president in the history of our country. But he is likely better than McCain or Romney.

How pathetic have the Republicans become when they can't find a better candidate than Obama?

[birtikidis]

After the NDAA I couldn't vote for that slimy bastard (obama) for any reason on earth.

[birtikidis]

The thing that turned me off the most is that he made the claim that the Federal Reserve causes economic cycles. If you look at the economy in the 1800s, that is a patently false statement.

I think when you are talking about something as drastic as eliminating the fed, you better have your facts in line.

The problem with your statement is that the Federal Reserve wasn't created until 1913

[snarky]

The thing that turned me off the most is that he made the claim that the Federal Reserve causes economic cycles. If you look at the economy in the 1800s, that is a patently false statement.

I think when you are talking about something as drastic as eliminating the fed, you better have your facts in line.

The problem with your statement is that the Federal Reserve wasn't created until 1913

Actually, that's my point. We had no shortage of recessions and depressions in the 1800s (prior to the founding of the Fed). The only difference is that prior to the fed, even recessions were accompanied by bank panics.

[birtikidis]

The thing that turned me off the most is that he made the claim that the Federal Reserve causes economic cycles. If you look at the economy in the 1800s, that is a patently false statement.

I think when you are talking about something as drastic as eliminating the fed, you better have your facts in line.

The problem with your statement is that the Federal Reserve wasn't created until 1913

Actually, that's my point. We had no shortage of recessions and depressions in the 1800s (prior to the founding of the Fed). The only difference is that prior to the fed, even recessions were accompanied by bank panics.

We were also a developing nation dependent on slavery, coming off a civil war.