Can you explain it? After all, the Federal Reserve provides sound money.
Ron Paul: Traitor to his country
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
ron paul let his stupid crazies out. Can't we just give Texas back?
No, if you're so adamant that the Fed doesn't matter, please explain how eliminating it won't have any detrimental affects on our monetary supply. Please phrase your answer with regards to M2 and (theoretical) M3.
Thanks.
Thanks.
but, but Ron Paul doesn't like big government and he's for the people so he must be right.
If Ron Paul wants to keep government out of peoples lives, then why is he running in the first place ?
Because whores get abortions, and Jesus wants those to be illegal.
It's also easier than not writing white supremacist newsletters, and you get to be on the teevee like the stars of Hee Haw used to be.
So he would not be in favor of Planned Parenthood changing their name to the Mary Magdalene Clinic ?
Politics is so dern confusing.
Probably not, unless they put up a sign that said, "NO COLOREDS" and then it would be ok.
Hopefully when gays can get married under all the RP freedom I'm gonna start a store called fagwedding. the largest gay registry in the us.
Also Desmo, federal and supreme court rulings found the Federal Reserve to be constitutional, under the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 19).
thanks for playing though. I bet you also think Kennedy was killed because he tried to end the fed too.
thanks for playing though. I bet you also think Kennedy was killed because he tried to end the fed too.
Gay Marriage would really stimulate the economy by raising revenues and pumping resources into the community.
its gonna stimulate and pump something alright, like a lot of man junk.
oh that pesky dan savage
You keep saying that the DOE is the reason that universities have quality education, and I keep telling you that people (prospective students and employers who have lots of money on the line) are smart enough to research universities on their own, keeping the quality high. You haven't explained why my reasoning is faulty on that point.
kidwoo,
Is there a reason that the Fed's operations need to be kept secret?
Is there a reason that the Fed's operations need to be kept secret?
of course there is! otherwise everyone could see, that there is a freemason conspiracy. duh...
Let's say you own stock in Bank XYZ. Suddenly across the headlines you see "Bank XYZ asks Fed for emergency 60-day loan due to cash flow problems". Are you going to keep owning that stock? Or are you going to ditch it in favor of something else?
The Discount Window is a place where banks can get immediate short term loans to deal with cash-flow and liquidity issues. It's been kept secret because any bank going to borrow money would suddenly be seen as weak, which would cause people to pull their money out of its stock, which would in turn cause it to be weaker (and probably kill it).
Or is that just what THEY want you to think?
you couldn't be more right. and it really isn't "secret". the short-term borrowings of a bank are disclosed on a quarterly basis. just look at a balance sheet of any publicly traded bank and you'll see that line item. also, you'll be able to see how much they are dipping into the fund through their cash flow statement. you can also get this info on non-publically traded banks through call reports all banks have to file on a quarterly basis (this is required through the banking regulators, but who needs them?
).
What I really keep stressing is standardization and access. What you keep saying is that the education 'market' will dictate quality.
As dante keeps saying, RP's great ideas only rely on best case scenarios. In this case that's top tier schools and applicants with money to spend. That's not the whole picture. Not by a long shot.
Since this really boils down to budget, what do you think the DOE does with most of its money? I mean that's the whole point of closing it right.........save money?
They're not that secret.
But if you can't understand why they don't put out commercials telling the world every single decision they make, I can only assume you were pissed you didn't know about the osama bin laden raid ahead of time too right?
Stability man.........even the mighty free market benefits from it.
^^^^ Exactly.
So here's a serious question for ????? and any other Ron Paul supporters that want to jump in: Why do you believe anything that he (or his supporters) tell you without question, but want additional information from us on here about what the (catastrophic) results would be? When you hear Paul say "end the fed", why don't you do the research then before accepting Paul's assertion that nothing bad would happen?
So here's a serious question for ????? and any other Ron Paul supporters that want to jump in: Why do you believe anything that he (or his supporters) tell you without question, but want additional information from us on here about what the (catastrophic) results would be? When you hear Paul say "end the fed", why don't you do the research then before accepting Paul's assertion that nothing bad would happen?
I had a Paulie tell me Kennedy was killed because he tried to end the fed. I guess we attacked Libya as well because they were going to release an all gold currency and the jew bankers couldn't have that.
I told her, she was stupid and wrong. The proceeded to tell her kennedy wanted to kill silver certificates but supported the fed and expansion of it's powers. As for her Libya comment it was simply too ****ing stupid to address.
She deleted me. I guess RP's fans only like absolute liberty and freedom when it doesn't make them look like the stupid assholes they are.
I told her, she was stupid and wrong. The proceeded to tell her kennedy wanted to kill silver certificates but supported the fed and expansion of it's powers. As for her Libya comment it was simply too ****ing stupid to address.
She deleted me. I guess RP's fans only like absolute liberty and freedom when it doesn't make them look like the stupid assholes they are.
A few reasons:
1) Lessen the bureaucratic crap that teachers on a local level have to deal with. Standardized tests, paperwork, etc.
2) Get rid of the federal student loan programs that have ballooned the cost of higher education, creating a bubble which will be very painful for everyone involved when it pops. Yes, college enrollment will go down, at least in the short term, and people will lose jobs. This is better than the alternative of making the bubble larger.
3) Save money. ~60 Billion is not that much compared to what RP has claimed he'll cut military spending by, so this isn't a huge deal.
How incredibly specific. What besides the no child left behind provision are you talking about? The DOE existed long before that.
A lot of that 'bureaucratic crap' is the reason we have elementary schools that are worth a damn in the first place. Take the research and even passive oversight off, and you honestly, truly, really believe, that primary schools everywhere will succeed based soley on their merit, as viewed in the eyes on the populace?
Our education system is pretty poor overall anyway. You're trying to tell me that would IMPROVE, in the absence of national standards?
Um........what?
For the zillionth time: There once was world without the department of education. Problems with consistency and access were bad enough that enough people (red blooded american people even), decided to create an agency to address these problems. This is the core of what the department of education does. It doesn't do it at gunpoint and it doesn't do it from a strong armed enforcement perspective. If the DOE goes away with nothing similar to replace it in its absence, the exact same problems will occur again. And then years from now they will be bad enough that someone will say "damn...there's ought to be somethin' done about this!"
Let me do my ron paul impersonation again: "why we got a cat!!?? We ain't had no mice problem since we got the damn thing anyway!"
Got a problem with how the money is handled? Change how the money is handled, but the purpose of the department is a good one. The research they do alone provides all kinds of insight into where we're strong and where we're not. You want the internet to do that? Awesome. And believe it or not, their existence has allowed a huge part of the population to be educated.
It's an available resource for the general welfare. Civilized societies set those kinds of things up you know.
It's not perfect but it's one of the only centralized bodies who's sole purpose is the furtherment of education. Relying on the internet in an increasingly profit driven world is insanely short sighted.
Last edited:
Can I ask this question again? Why exactly do you accept a pretty far-fetched idea as fact just because Ron Paul says it?
(And for the record, compare it to housing: housing prices worldwide have all followed the same trajectory, even though the US "subsidizes" housing whereas most of the world does not. So it's highly unlikely that having the US government subsidize student lending has any impact other than allowing lower-income students to be able to afford an education)
He seems to think artificially inflated housing prices are the same thing as increasing privately paid education costs that are mostly that way because of decreased resources........you know.......like the DOE provides.
How does an education price bubble 'pop?'
How does an education price bubble 'pop?'
Last edited:
Right, but my point was that if the rest of the world doesn't subsidize housing, why are their home prices as just as high (and falling just as fast) as they are here? The "government subsidy" aspect has little effective impact on housing, education, etc. The only reason that international higher education costs haven't skyrocketed is due to the fact that some of the best ones are public colleges subsidized by taxpayers.
Last edited:
Oh for sure.
I wasn't asking you directly as much as trying to figure out what hell he's even talking about
I wasn't asking you directly as much as trying to figure out what hell he's even talking about
"why we got a cat!!?? We ain't had no mice problem since we got the damn thing anyway!"
Ah yes, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
About an education bubble:
The price of a college education, both in cost and in opportunity cost, has surpassed the actual productive value of that education (this depends on the degree and the individual of course). The main reason a degree (again, not talking about all degreees) is still worth something now, is that businesses use it to screen applicants. If that changes then the value of the degree drops, and a lot of individuals are left with mountains of debt that can't be repudiated in bankruptcy, and degrees that aren't useful in getting a job. Then you get things like the OWS movement.
So why would businesses stop using degrees to screen applicants? If the cost of education keeps rising, which it will if it continues to be subsidized, then more and more intelligent people will forego getting a degree for more practical types of education. Once enough people do this, degrees will no longer be a good way of screening applicants for businesses, and the inflated value of the degree as a signalling device drops, popping the bubble.
Ah yes, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
About an education bubble:
The price of a college education, both in cost and in opportunity cost, has surpassed the actual productive value of that education (this depends on the degree and the individual of course). The main reason a degree (again, not talking about all degreees) is still worth something now, is that businesses use it to screen applicants. If that changes then the value of the degree drops, and a lot of individuals are left with mountains of debt that can't be repudiated in bankruptcy, and degrees that aren't useful in getting a job. Then you get things like the OWS movement.
So why would businesses stop using degrees to screen applicants? If the cost of education keeps rising, which it will if it continues to be subsidized, then more and more intelligent people will forego getting a degree for more practical types of education. Once enough people do this, degrees will no longer be a good way of screening applicants for businesses, and the inflated value of the degree as a signalling device drops, popping the bubble.
RE: The fed
I don't know much about the fed so I shouldn't have made any comment about it.
Certainly tax policy and other housing legislation had an impact on blowing up the real estate bubble. If you talked to people buying houses at the time, the tax breaks for mortgages were always a factor for them for buying >>> renting.
Yes, you get pissed off students that realize they've spent years of their lives, loads of work, and will be saddled with large amounts of debt to chase degrees that aren't worth very much. And that they were lied to by guidance counselors and college reps who told them their whole lives that if they didn't graduate college they'd end up turning tricks under a bridge, breaking into gas station restrooms once a week to bathe, disfigured and unloved.
I humbly request that you provide evidence to support your statement.
it helped, but the impact was much lower than the brokers/dealers buying and selling mortgages pretty much unregulated.
but... of course we're going to have tax codes that support purchasing over renting. people who own stuff are a lot more stable than people who don't. when you own, you're not going to move so much and you need to hold a job, and you're probably going to work more to pay for that house, and you are definitely more likely make more babies, which in the long run is better for a nation. when you get stuck into paying a mortgage, you have a better chance of becoming an economically contributing member of society. RP's current ideas will bury the economy deep in the stank for the long term, and the WAY long term.
The people who bought stuff are the problem with the housing market right now. Renters have always tended to live much better within their means than home buyers who have leveraged their equity to buy car's, tv, jet skis.
I don't remember hearing anywhere that all those renters caused some huge financial crisis. Other than not having to rent places and compete again the former homeowner who defaulted on their loan.
And this would magically go away if students only had access to 8% non-subsidized loans instead if their current 5% federally subsidized ones?