xcitor - 17 January 2012 10:41 AM

His bias shone very brightly in the first paragraph.
quote]

For thos who didn’t read the linkg, here is the first paragraph:

“In a recent column my friend Bob Reich wrote convincingly that Ron Paul is attracting the support of many youth because several of his messages are correct, even if wrapped in a misguided overall ideology. As Reich noted, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate calling for the end of America’s horrendously wasteful wars, a worthy position. Paul also rightly emphasizes the massive corruption that has overtaken Washington.”

And here is the definition of bias:

bi·as/ˈbīəs/ Noun: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

In this first paragraph, Mr. Sachs praises some of Mr. Paul’s positions and he says that the article by Mr. Reich was convincing. The first paragraph is hardly prejudiced or unfair.

Well I guess you got me there.

Oh man. Boo hoo.

Sachs was merely quoting someone else’s bias. I understand completely.

xcitor - 20 January 2012 02:35 PM

I understand completely.

Obviously you don’t…but that is nothing new.

These are proposals taken directly from the Ron Paul 2012 website:  http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

* Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.

*Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.

* Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.

*Vetoing any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.

*Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.

*abolishing highway motor fuel taxes, increasing the mileage reimbursement rates, and offering tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles.

*Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes

*As a congressman, Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care. He also believes it is immoral to tax senior citizens twice by requiring them to include Social Security benefits in their gross income at tax time. A first step to eliminating that requirement would be to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. Then we must abolish that tax entirely.

*While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

*Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.

*But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.

Add those up folks…does any of this make sense? How does the govt have no income, continued spending (even at lowered levels) and expect to have a balanced budget? How do you eliminate essentially all personal taxes, but then provide a myriad of new tax credits? Abolish all the taxes, including Social Security, yet there is no mention of how Social Security benefits could continue? How can one claim to be for families and then propose a flat tax? A flat tax in inherently regressive. How do you fight or control a deficit when your proposals would result in the explosion of debt? None of this makes any sense. None of it fits together.

And people wonder why Mr. Paul is referred to as a nut job?

But then again…maybe that’s why he wants to legalize pot? If everyone is stoned out of their gourd, then they won’t notice or care that his concepts make no sense? After all when your Jonesing for the Ruffles, you really don’t care about tax policy!

You act like Ron Paul is running for King instead of President and that all of these things will be declared by fiat on day one.

Like Dr. Paul often says, it is impossible to wrap your head around any of this without changing your paradigm with respect to what you think the purpose of government at the federal level is.

And yes, flat taxes don’t work, I agree with you. There are more than a few things in Ron Paul’s platform that aren’t my flavor. But I doubt you’ve ever voted for/supported a candidate whose platform you accept as an atomic unit. So don’t hold anyone else to a standard you don’t apply to yourself.

A vote cast for any one person’s best candidate is not wasted, even if there is no chance of that candidate winning. A vote is only wasted if you regret casting it the first place. I will not waste my vote.

xcitor - 07 January 2012 07:03 AM

I give you Ron Paul’s predictions from 2002:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA

Mr. Paul was completely and unequivocally wrong with his economic predictions.

He stated “an international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates” and “inflation and a major economic downturn will decimate US govt finances…” He also said that Fed policies will make the “dollar crisis worse”.

There was no dollar crisis. There is no dollar crisis. The dollar is lower today due to Fed actions taken to boost exports (which has worked well) not becuase of some inflationary spiral or lack of confidence in the dollar.

High interest rates were not the cause of the recession. (In fact, just the opposite was a factor)

Inflation was not and is not a concern and did not decimate US govt finances. In fact the opposite, deflation, is the greater concern.

The dollar has been and continues to be viewed as a safe haven during the economic downturn.

There were also comments about gold returning to “its historic role as money”. Gold has gone up in price, yes, but it has not returned to the aforementioned role and is still priced below its 1980 high.

The video posted uses newspaper headlines to twist Mr. Paul’s comments in a way to make it seem as if his predictions were accurate. They certainly were not.

You forgot to quote the part where I stated that unequivocally 100% of his predictions were spot-on.

Oh wait. I never said that.

Yes, some of these can be disputed to a certain extent. That’s not really the point of this video. How many talking heads on teevee today speak with incredulity and state that “no one could have seen the financial crisis coming”? Well Ron Paul did. One of the only ones in Congress who did, and publicly stated so.

I cannot argue with many things you state—yes, some things did not happen. But my question is: Why didn’t they happen? I would argue that quantitative easing and other Fed intervention was a factor. The term “window dressing” comes to mind. So it’s not reasonable to discredit Ron Paul for “not getting it right”. He is arguing against Keynesian economic policies, de rigueur of governments at all levels today. Through the analytic eyes of an Austrian-informed economist, much of Keynesian economics proves to be not very effective in the modern age. These are much different times than the Great Depression. It doesn’t follow, necessarily, that what worked then will work now.

The dollar crisis is coming. We’re already hearing of countries that will skirt the Iran oil embargo and pay for their Iranian oil in gold instead of U.S. dollars. What do you think will happen when countries the size of China and India are no longer buying dollars before buying their oil?

Peace won’t permanently come to the middle east, there will be an oil embargo, Israel and the US will remains best friends.

—Ron Paul, in 2002.

ok here is my prediction for 2020.

Peace won’t permanently come to the middle east, there will be an oil embargo, Israel and the US will remains best friends

xcitor - 26 January 2012 05:57 PM

You forgot to quote the part where I stated that unequivocally 100% of his predictions were spot-on.

So it’s not reasonable to discredit Ron Paul for “not getting it right”. He is arguing against Keynesian economic policies, de rigueur of governments at all levels today. Through the analytic eyes of an Austrian-informed economist, much of Keynesian economics proves to be not very effective in the modern age. These are much different times than the Great Depression. It doesn’t follow, necessarily, that what worked then will work now.

The dollar crisis is coming. We’re already hearing of countries that will skirt the Iran oil embargo and pay for their Iranian oil in gold instead of U.S. dollars. What do you think will happen when countries the size of China and India are no longer buying dollars before buying their oil?

Peace won’t permanently come to the middle east, there will be an oil embargo, Israel and the US will remains best friends.

—Ron Paul, in 2002.

Its amazing how you twist things around. You post the video with the caption “Ron Paul’s predictions”...yet almost every one of his economic predictions was wrong. Then you say its not reasonable to discredit him for “not getting it right”. (BTW: Keep that thought in your head next time you rant when some other govt official or employee doesn’t “get it right”)

If he got almost every economic prediction wrong, it IS reasonable to conclude that his economic theories are wrong.

It seems you haven’t been paying attention to history or current events. Federal Reserve response to the Great Depression was exactly the opposite of the Fed response to this current mess. Actions in the 1930s made things worse. Recent action stopped the plunge and created the conditions from which a recovery can be built.

“The dollar crisis is coming”??? You will say anything to paint this country in a negative light won’t you?

xcitor - 25 January 2012 11:59 AM

You act like Ron Paul is running for King instead of President and that all of these things will be declared by fiat on day one.

Like Dr. Paul often says, it is impossible to wrap your head around any of this without changing your paradigm with respect to what you think the purpose of government at the federal level is.

And yes, flat taxes don’t work, I agree with you. There are more than a few things in Ron Paul’s platform that aren’t my flavor. But I doubt you’ve ever voted for/supported a candidate whose platform you accept as an atomic unit. So don’t hold anyone else to a standard you don’t apply to yourself.

A vote cast for any one person’s best candidate is not wasted, even if there is no chance of that candidate winning. A vote is only wasted if you regret casting it the first place. I will not waste my vote.

The items I posted are the positions of your candidate. They are the things he wants to do if elected President.

“But I doubt you’ve ever voted for/supported a candidate whose platform you accept as an atomic unit.” Ah…the twist and deflect again. I did not pick one item from his website and declare him unfit. I picked the majority of them as they related to the country’s finances or economy to answer the question as to why people think he is a nutjob.

shadowdiver - 27 January 2012 03:45 PM

If he got almost every economic prediction wrong, it IS reasonable to conclude that his economic theories are wrong.

Give me a break. You are still ignoring the benefit of interventionist policy.

Consider that, as a young lad, mom tells us that putting your finger in a light socket will electrocute you. We proceed to attempt to do it anyway, and when we are mere inches away from “success” dad swoops us up in his arms to prevent it .. is it correct to state that mother was wrong?

From a theoretical perspective Ron Paul is correct.

Recent action stopped the plunge and created the conditions from which a recovery can be built.

Once again, “window dressing” or “engineered recovery” are terms that come to mind.

“The dollar crisis is coming”??? You will say anything to paint this country in a negative light won’t you?

Well, hoss, I didn’t invent the reality, I just call it like I see it. I suppose you can put whatever spin on it that makes you feel better about yourself.

shadowdiver - 27 January 2012 03:58 PM

The items I posted are the positions of your candidate. They are the things he wants to do if elected President.

 

Yup, God willing. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas. Will that be paper or plastic?

But you can relax. As I said up-thread, we all know Ron Paul will not be our next president. The country will once again be duped (or scammed via stolen elections as in 2000 and 2004) into the same smelling dog turd we’ve had for the past 30 years.

And life will go on, and nothing will change.

Jane Harmon incredulous that she was wiretapped. The beauty of this story? She voted for the PATRIOT Act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFn4JXkcwLs

My favorite part is when she’s flabbergasted that she was wiretapped at all and that she has no idea who did it.

Um, that’s kind of the point of we who have been protesting this liberty-robbing law from day one. Will you people listen now? Doubtful.

Reap what you sow, you silly bint. You deserve it.

Give me a break. You are still ignoring the benefit of interventionist policy.

What? Every interventionist action the US govt has taken in any instance you are automatically and vehemently against. Now you say interventionist policy is beneficial?

From a theoretical perspective Ron Paul is correct.

From a theoretical standpoint, extremely high interest rates can lead to horrible economic consequences. Sure (see the early 1980s). But that is irrelevant because it wasn’t the case in 2002 and isn’t now. From the standpoint of reality, Ron Paul was wrong on almost every one of his economic predictions. 

Once again, “window dressing” or “engineered recovery” are terms that come to mind.

I suppose you would have preferred a continued freefall? I believe we are close to 3 million jobs gained since the recession ended. Ask those folks if they are just “window dressing”. Ask a UAW member if he/she wants to give up that factory job because the US govt had followed your recommendations and just let the entire financial system fail. Bank accounts? Gone. Retirement savings? gone. College savings? gone. Window dressing my backside. GDP has recovered the output lost during the recession.

Well, hoss, I didn’t invent the reality, I just call it like I see it.

Well, in reality there is no dollar crisis. Not even close. You call it like you fantasize about it or, more to the point, in any manner in which you can point an anti American spin on your propaganda.

shadowdiver - 01 February 2012 09:39 AM

Give me a break. You are still ignoring the benefit of interventionist policy.

What? Every interventionist action the US govt has taken in any instance you are automatically and vehemently against. Now you say interventionist policy is beneficial?

Put “benefit” in quotes and it might read a bit differently to you. Also, just because an action might be “beneficial” according to one person’s (or even many people’s) standards, doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should be universally “for it”, as you seem to suggest.

I suppose you would have preferred a continued freefall? I believe we are close to 3 million jobs gained since the recession ended. Ask those folks if they are just “window dressing”. Ask a UAW member if he/she wants to give up that factory job because the US govt had followed your recommendations and just let the entire financial system fail. Bank accounts? Gone. Retirement savings? gone. College savings? gone. Window dressing my backside. GDP has recovered the output lost during the recession.

I would have preferred to let the free markets work. Period. It’s not really that complicated a concept to grasp. I believe that the economy would emerge much stronger on the other side of it vs. a “engineered recovery”. Like a drug addict must hit rock bottom before beginning the climb out of despair, so too to can economies benefit from bottoming out as opposed to engaging in valiant attempts to prevent it from happening.

BTW, most of the GDP gains of which you speak are bogus. The most recent BEA estimate of GDP growth for 4Q11, which they pegged at 2.8% is misleading because it includes inventory build-up by manufacturers. That is, more was produced than was sold. If you net out unsold inventory, real GDP growth was less than 1%.