Republican candidates for 2012

• Skyhook79

  

  Cleveland Buck;922539 wrote: worthless paper dollars

  Last week I gave a Ford dealership 15,000 dollars worth of worthless paper dollars and they gave me a brand new car in exchange, boy are they going to be pissed when they find out its worthless paper.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Skyhook79;922796 wrote:Last week I gave a Ford dealership 15,000 dollars worth of worthless paper dollars and they gave me a brand new car in exchange, boy are they going to be pissed when they find out its worthless paper.

  I'm sure the people who paid 10% of that 40 years ago are the ones who feel like idiots.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;922667 wrote:Hot damn, I wish most the "republicans" in Washington thought this way.

  Yeah, well, I never mentioned political party in my rant.
  
  I've said this before and I'll say it again, both parties are responsible for the mess we're in but unfortunately the Repubs are the best bet to right the ship short of grassroots revolution.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;922897 wrote:Yeah, well, I never mentioned political party in my rant.
  
  I've said this before and I'll say it again, both parties are responsible for the mess we're in but unfortunately the Repubs are the best bet to right the ship short of grassroots revolution.

  I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think most of the current crop on the Republican side would do any righting of the ship at all. Regardless of the pace, I don't think they'd help the country head in any better a direction than the current president. They may not take us the wrong way at the same speed, but it's still the wrong way.
  
  If one of them goes against some of their talking points, and they end up proving me wrong, I'll be delighted. I just don't see more than maybe two (only one of whom has any chance at all) in any of the GOP debates whose open positions on matters are even solutions to the problems, let alone what they would actually do.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;923032 wrote:I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think most of the current crop on the Republican side would do any righting of the ship at all. Regardless of the pace, I don't think they'd help the country head in any better a direction than the current president. They may not take us the wrong way at the same speed, but it's still the wrong way.
  
  If one of them goes against some of their talking points, and they end up proving me wrong, I'll be delighted. I just don't see more than maybe two (only one of whom has any chance at all) in any of the GOP debates whose open positions on matters are even solutions to the problems, let alone what they would actually do.

  For me it's always of cutting my losses.
  
  I can (a) vote for the status quo (in this case more inept Obama leadership) or (b) vote for the Repub candidate who would take us down the same path at the slower speed to which you referred or (c) vote for the inevitable third party candidate who talks the right game but has a snowball's chance of winning hence turning that vote into an indirect vote for more of Obama.
  
  If we're going to head do down the abyss, I'd rather take my time about it.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;923182 wrote:For me it's always of cutting my losses.
  
  I can (a) vote for the status quo (in this case more inept Obama leadership) or (b) vote for the Repub candidate who would take us down the same path at the slower speed to which you referred or (c) vote for the inevitable third party candidate who talks the right game but has a snowball's chance of winning hence turning that vote into an indirect vote for more of Obama.
  
  If we're going to head do down the abyss, I'd rather take my time about it.

  The problem is, unless more and more people continue to support that third-party candidate (or, in this case, he's not technically even third-party), there will never be a foundation to break the current cycle.
  
  Change has to start somewhere, and even if they don't have immediate results (ie that candidate being elected), the results will come with consistent growing support.
  
  One of these days, enough people will get pissed off about the current "two parties" (that are, again, more similar than we'd like to admit) that there will be enough voters willing to vote for the third party candidate, and I don't know when that will end up being (as I'm betting it will end up being a surprise), but the longer people resort to voting for one of the "normal" candidates (whether it's apathy or something else), the longer that will take.
  
  The sooner people abandon the mentality that they are going to vote for the lesser evil because it's the only one they could imagine being electable, the sooner a candidate who is actually good for the nation will have a legitimate shot, which means the sooner we won't have to settle for the lesser evil.
• jhay78

  

  Republicans have only 1 or 2 more elections to straighten up before the third-party scenario becomes a reality for me. I see the whole Tea Party thing as a last-ditch effort to rescue the party from the RINO, establishment, beltway Republicans who made fun of Ronald Reagan until he won two landslides, and who are currently scared to death of us right-wing nutjobs.
  
  I'm not ecstatic with the likes of Boehner, McConnell, etc., at this moment, but the real test of Republican resolve comes when (if?) they control the White House and both houses of Congress. If they blow another opportunity like that, then the RINO's can have their party and a third party becomes legitimate (if America as we know still has a pulse).
  
  It's not one candidate or bust for me either. With the exception of Romney, who sounds like a Democrat criticizing any effort to reform SS, I could get behind and feel excited about most any of the other candidates.
• stlouiedipalma

  believer;922421 wrote:I concur.
  
  I believe the Federal government needs downsized and let the state and local governments be where our leftist friends attempt to implement their socialist agendas (if they can) as our Nation's Founders designed. In other words if Texas - for example - wants conservative governance so be it. If California wants a socialist government, so be it. Let the states decide what type of role government should have in people's lives as the Founders envisioned.
  
  The Federal government's role should be reduced to what the Constitution allows (IE: National defense, national currency, foreign tariffs, international treaties, etc.). The Feds definitely shouldn't be in the business of regulating education at the local level, environmental policies, etc.

  
  
  Do you also believe that the conservative government of Texas can impose duty on products shipped out of Texas to other sovereign states? Or those products made (or grown) in the socialist state of California? You seem to want to give the states all of the responsibility, are you willing to allow them to take it to an extreme degree?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  We probably don't have one or 2 more elections. If we elect Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, or Gingrich we will continue to spend over a trillion dollars per year policing the world, and even more as they decide we need to invade Pakistan and Iran and Syria. It is impossible for us to cut Social Security and Medicare in a meaningful way, so just with that it is impossible for any of them to balance the budget even if they wanted to. Combine that with the fact that at some point interest rates will rise on our debt. The Fed can't hold them down forever. At some point they will ruin the dollar holding interest rates down, but after that they will go up anyway. When interest rates go up to 5% you double the annual budget deficit. When they go up to 10% interest payments take up every penny of federal revenue. If you think we can continue to police the world and still make meaningful cuts the budget you are absolutely wrong, and this country will be in worse shape than Greece in less than 10 years.
  
  Not to mention they are preparing for this by stripping us of our personal liberties and rights in the Constitution. They know what will happen when people need garbage bags full of dollar bills to buy a loaf of bread or when the 1st of the month comes and no checks are in the mail. Our president is now our king and can have us assassinated at his whim, can detain us indefinitely without charges, can torture us. People don't understand that we don't have one or two more elections. We have this one. I don't want to guess what things will look like for the next one, if there is another one.
• stlouiedipalma

  jhay78;923279 wrote:Republicans have only 1 or 2 more elections to straighten up before the third-party scenario becomes a reality for me. I see the whole Tea Party thing as a last-ditch effort to rescue the party from the RINO, establishment, beltway Republicans who made fun of Ronald Reagan until he won two landslides, and who are currently scared to death of us right-wing nutjobs.
  
  I'm not ecstatic with the likes of Boehner, McConnell, etc., at this moment, but the real test of Republican resolve comes when (if?) they control the White House and both houses of Congress. If they blow another opportunity like that, then the RINO's can have their party and a third party becomes legitimate (if America as we know still has a pulse).
  
  It's not one candidate or bust for me either. With the exception of Romney, who sounds like a Democrat criticizing any effort to reform SS, I could get behind and feel excited about most any of the other candidates.

  
  And what will your response be when the Democrats adopt the obstructionist methods perfected by the Senate Republicans, forcing or threatening filibusters at every step in the process?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  stlouiedipalma;923297 wrote:Do you also believe that the conservative government of Texas can impose duty on products shipped out of Texas to other sovereign states? Or those products made (or grown) in the socialist state of California? You seem to want to give the states all of the responsibility, are you willing to allow them to take it to an extreme degree?

  Have you ever read the Constitution? If not, read Article 1, Section 10.
• I Wear Pants

  Can someone remind me how switching to gold or silver vs the dollar would solve anything? It's one arbitrary object representing a certain amount of labor vs another. Calling it "worthless paper" is a trick to make the others seem like a better idea.
• stlouiedipalma

  Merely a hypothetical, Mr. Buck. I was taking believer's argument to the nth degree. When you cry out for what is essentially "states' rights" you must be prepared to address the "what ifs".
  
  Besides, you can always find ways around Section 10.
• Skyhook79

  

  Cleveland Buck;923300 wrote:We probably don't have one or 2 more elections. If we elect Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, or Gingrich we will continue to spend over a trillion dollars per year policing the world, and even more as they decide we need to invade Pakistan and Iran and Syria. It is impossible for us to cut Social Security and Medicare in a meaningful way, so just with that it is impossible for any of them to balance the budget even if they wanted to. Combine that with the fact that at some point interest rates will rise on our debt. The Fed can't hold them down forever. At some point they will ruin the dollar holding interest rates down, but after that they will go up anyway. When interest rates go up to 5% you double the annual budget deficit. When they go up to 10% interest payments take up every penny of federal revenue. If you think we can continue to police the world and still make meaningful cuts the budget you are absolutely wrong, and this country will be in worse shape than Greece in less than 10 years.
  
  Not to mention they are preparing for this by stripping us of our personal liberties and rights in the Constitution. They know what will happen when people need garbage bags full of dollar bills to buy a loaf of bread or when the 1st of the month comes and no checks are in the mail. Our president is now our king and can have us assassinated at his whim, can detain us indefinitely without charges, can torture us. People don't understand that we don't have one or two more elections. We have this one. I don't want to guess what things will look like for the next one, if there is another one.

  So unless Ron Paul and only Ron Paul is elected the Country will never have anther election?
• Skyhook79

  

  I Wear Pants;923311 wrote:Can someone remind me how switching to gold or silver vs the dollar would solve anything? It's one arbitrary object representing a certain amount of labor vs another. Calling it "worthless paper" is a trick to make the others seem like a better idea.

  I know plus imagine how difficult it will be carrying Gold and Silver to the grocery store?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;923311 wrote:Can someone remind me how switching to gold or silver vs the dollar would solve anything? It's one arbitrary object representing a certain amount of labor vs another. Calling it "worthless paper" is a trick to make the others seem like a better idea.

  Nothing represents a certain amount of labor. Money is a medium of exchange. If you know how to write software and you wants to buy a dozen eggs, instead of finding someone who has a dozen eggs and needs a program written, you write software for money and pay that money for the eggs. Throughout history there have been many different things used as money, but the main characteristics are that is has some value on it's own and it is scarce. If there is too much money chasing products and services then prices go up, and if the supply of money keeps growing then the money you earned loses its value.
  
  Governments like paper money because they can create as much of it as they want to finance their agenda, caring little for the people who suffer because the money they earn can't buy what it used to.
  
  Without trying to continue the history lesson, in one of the debates Ron Paul pointed out that you can buy a gallon of gas for a silver dime, which is what our coins were made of until the 1960s, and which is what a gallon of gas cost back then, about 10 cents. In other words, if our money was still based on gold and silver, we could still buy a gallon of gas for 10 cents.
  
  When money is scarce it holds its value, doesn't destroy the poor and middle classes, and prevents the government from creating more money to monetize huge deficits which means they have to find someone to lend them money if they want to go to war or have a welfare state.
• jhay78

  

  stlouiedipalma;923301 wrote:And what will your response be when the Democrats adopt the obstructionist methods perfected by the Senate Republicans, forcing or threatening filibusters at every step in the process?

  My response will be they're acting like Democrats.
  
  Who stood on the Senate floor during the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and basically invented the modern filibuster, leading a marathon 83-day filibuster until common sense prevailed and solid majorities in both parties voted for it? Robert Byrd- Democrat.
  
  Who wrote the book on obstructionist tactics during GW Bush's attempted judicial nominations? Democrats.
  
  Who is currently "obstructing" Obama's jobs bill in the Senate? Democrats, led by Harry Reid, because they know this bill is political suicide, and besides that they know they don't have enough votes among their own party.
  
  When Obama and the Dems had 2 years to enact their agenda, which pieces of legislation sure to solve this country's ills were obstructed and filibustered by Republicans? Seems to me they got through what they wanted to get through, and the results are coming back to bite them.
• stlouiedipalma

  Wow, you are getting your whine ready a little early, aren't you? Just want to be sure you're ready when it comes.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;923323 wrote:Nothing represents a certain amount of labor. Money is a medium of exchange. If you know how to write software and you wants to buy a dozen eggs, instead of finding someone who has a dozen eggs and needs a program written, you write software for money and pay that money for the eggs. Throughout history there have been many different things used as money, but the main characteristics are that is has some value on it's own and it is scarce. If there is too much money chasing products and services then prices go up, and if the supply of money keeps growing then the money you earned loses its value.
  
  Governments like paper money because they can create as much of it as they want to finance their agenda, caring little for the people who suffer because the money they earn can't buy what it used to.
  
  Without trying to continue the history lesson, in one of the debates Ron Paul pointed out that you can buy a gallon of gas for a silver dime, which is what our coins were made of until the 1960s, and which is what a gallon of gas cost back then, about 10 cents. In other words, if our money was still based on gold and silver, we could still buy a gallon of gas for 10 cents.
  
  When money is scarce it holds its value, doesn't destroy the poor and middle classes, and prevents the government from creating more money to monetize huge deficits which means they have to find someone to lend them money if they want to go to war or have a welfare state.

  No, you couldn't.
  
  Currency is a representation of labor/work/value which facilitates exchange of things that we don't think are worth the same.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Skyhook79;923320 wrote:So unless Ron Paul and only Ron Paul is elected the Country will never have anther election?

  That's right, apparently I said that. I'm sure someone as astute as you are can point out where I said it.
  
  I sure am excited about Romney and Perry and Cain. They are ready to invade Iran and Pakistan and Syria right now, and that is what we need, a strong defense. Perry wants to invade Mexico too though, so he is my choice. What could be better than war in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Mexico. Those terrorists will know better than to fuck with us. America, fuck yeah.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;923329 wrote:No, you couldn't.
  
  Currency is a representation of labor/work/value.

  Ok, that was convincing.
  
  No, it isn't.
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;923312 wrote:Merely a hypothetical, Mr. Buck. I was taking believer's argument to the nth degree. When you cry out for what is essentially "states' rights" you must be prepared to address the "what ifs".
  
  Besides, you can always find ways around Section 10.

  State powers are limited by the constitution as well. Read the constitution pay special attention to the 10th amendment and you will have no worries of believer's argument being taken to the nth degree.
  
  
  10th amendment:
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
• I Wear Pants

  $1 of gold and $1 of paper money are exactly the same. We assign the same value to each and we use it to purchase labor or the results of labor with each.
  
  And besides. No one wants to carry around a bunch of damned gold. So we then print paper money which is a representation of that gold which we use to represent a certain amount of labor or results of said labor (I want your burger which you say is worth two gold, I give you two gold).
  
  What we use to facilitate trade is entirely arbitrary. Gold and silver aren't magic.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;923333 wrote:$1 of gold and $1 of paper money are exactly the same. We assign the same value to each and we use it to purchase labor or the results of labor with each.
  
  And besides. No one wants to carry around a bunch of damned gold. So we then print paper money which is a representation of that gold which we use to represent a certain amount of labor or results of said labor (I want your burger which you say is worth two gold, I give you two gold).
  
  What we use to facilitate trade is entirely arbitrary. Gold and silver aren't magic.

  I'm with you so far. Right now $1 and $1 worth of gold are worth the same thing. If you have your paper that represents the gold, that implies that you can exchange that paper for the gold. If the amount of papers representing gold are limited to physical gold behind them, then you have a limit to the amount of paper in circulation. There is no limit to the dollars in circulation.
  
  Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are $1 trillion in circulation to buy all of that, then all of a sudden there are $2 trillion, as that extra money works through the economy the price of everything will have doubled on average (not every price would double because some of that money might increase some prices more than others).
  
  Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are 1 trillion gold backed papers in circulation to buy all of that and the supply of gold stayed constant or grew very little. On average, prices would remain unchanged.
  
  Your argument is technically right in that if the government were to put strict limits on the money supply then our paper could be as good as gold. No government would ever do that though because it relinquishes their power to control the economy and recklessly wage war and buy votes with a welfare state.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "$1 of gold and $1 of paper money are exactly the same"
  
  That is correct as long as the jurisdiction recognizes the paper money, paper money is a promise. If there isn't anything backing it, it's an empty promise.