All I'm going to say is that this guy is completely wrong about the gold standard. This country was on gold for like 150 years and didn't collapse in an "inescapable deflationary spiral". That is nonsense trotted out by big government economist. In fact, the highest rates of GDP growth still remain gold standard years. The only reason the crash of 29 existed was because of the central bank's (which didn't exist prior to 1913) inflationary bubble in the 20s, which HAD to be corrected. And rather than letting it correct, Hoover and FDR resisted and intervened mightily. All prior recessions were allowed to run their course, this one wasn't. I mean, for god's sake, FDR was slaughtering livestock to prevent food prices from falling alongside wages. Is it any wonder the damn thing persisted for like 15 years?

>> ^Fairbs:

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.

The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden. Today, the national debt is so large and short term that interest rates can't go up without causing unpayable interest. Without healthy interest rates, there are no savings. Without savings, there is no real investment to upgrade those shovels to bulldozers. And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.

That being said, Romney isn't the solution. This guy is just like GWB, will say anything to get into office. The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored. Raising taxes on anyone doesn't come close to stopping the coming currency collapse. You guys are doing the economic equivalent of playing with your dicks. And it's going to become painfully obvious in the next 10 years regardless of which one of these clowns you elect.

>> ^PHJF:

Plural of roof is roofs, not rooves


While true, it is a strange and illogical part of the language as it stands today. We pretty much pluralize every other word ending in "fs" to "ves". Dwarf/dwarves, staff/staves, scarf/scarves, life/lives, hoof/hooves, half/halves, calf/calves, and on and on. It's easier to enunciate this way. If enough people agree and use rooves, it will eventually be legitimized by dictionaries.

The department of education helps no one but those in the education industry, it's a really bad deal for students. Education is a noble profession, but all services can be overpriced. Federal loans allow colleges to jack up rates every year knowing that the government will borrow more to pay for this supposed "sacred service that is the key to everything no matter the cost". Politicians have no fear of loss, the money is coming from future taxpayers that don't exist to vote it down. It's no coincidence that prices have accelerated far faster than unsubsidized products and services. If the government were to declare laptop ownership a social protocol and issue $1000 vouchers to everyone, the price of laptops would go up $1000 overnight. They do the same to education as they've been doing with housing.

My stepfather graduated from college in 1967. He paid 4k total for 4 years, that includes room and board. His first accountant job paid 10k a year. He is actually fairly liberal and is shocked to see how many people naively think that college didn't exist or wasn't any good prior to the DoE. He's old enough to know it's the total opposite.

>> ^longde:

Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood


You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget, that any funds get back to his district after they're taken means it doesn't go to the general fund to be spent on some bullshit embassy or something. It's like taking a tax credit despite being against the income tax: it's not hypocritical, it's salvaging what you can should you fail to stop appropriation. Oh, and earmarks actually tell you what the spending is for, whereas the Fed issues trillions in new money and doesn't have to tell you where it went. Maybe you should hang around smarter message boards so you don't fall for every half-brained argument you see.

Profit means you are utilizing resources effectively. The opposite is net destruction. If everyone consumed more than they produced, we would eventually have nothing. Henry Ford accumulated a lot of personal wealth for his innovations, but everyone he traded with got a car and his employees were better paid than unions. You can pay a guy with a bulldozer a lot more than a guy with a shovel and savings and investment is what makes that upgrade possible. No business can force you to trade your production for theirs, only the government with taxes can do that. If the government didn't have the power to dole out special favors to business, would business bother bribing them? Lobbying is the symptom, the problem is in excess government power.

The thing that socialists don't understand is that the wealth creation is what's important, not concentration. In capitalism, 1 guy could have 7 yachts and a moon base, but if the average person has two cars, two kids, a home, and countless amenities, who cares? Without the profit motive, who would go through the trouble of inventing and selling anything en masse if your greatest reward is no better than someone on the assembly line who took no risk? If everyone equally has very little as the soviets did, how is that better?

But you know, socialists act like all megarich people do is spend their money on frivolous things. In reality, they have too much to do that. It gets invested in upstart companies who need the capital to express their ideas and by the end, most is usually given to charity. In other words, it gets recycled back into wealth creation whereas the government would just waste it on bombs and embassies.

Oh, and to the guy who said the FDA is there to help you from business, look up stevia and aspartame. Your naive belief that giving others the power to choose for you is a complete backfire that accomplishes the opposite. The FDA is bribed shitless into using their "protective ban" powers to ban, harass, or steal from perfectly safe competitors on behalf of their corporate cronies. Also look up all the instances where a company was sued for supplying dangerous or defective products. That's not the FDA, that's libertarian-approved courts and recourse dissuading fraud and abuse in the marketplace. It's not more profitable to take shortcuts, it's less profitable because you'll be sued into oblivion. Do some businesses die because their owners are too stupid to see that? Yes. But business mortality is good, we don't want destructive businesses surviving like a horrid government program can.

>> ^VoodooV:

Sorry, but reality disagrees with you.
Demand for health care is not unlimited, it is finite. Sure it is a large demand, but it is quite finite. You're making a strawman argument because no one is advocating the absurd prolonging of life you're accusing others of.
News flash, we don't exist in a vacuum. We don't live in a universe where our decisions only affect us alone so your Ayn Rand fantasy utopia of everyone taking care of themselves and fuck the other guy doesn't exist..it never will.
It benefits everyone to give quality healthcare to all. We are more productive and contribute more when we don't have to bankrupt ourselves paying medical costs. We pay large amounts of money already because people don't have proper health care and don't do anything about it until they show up at the emergency room at death's door. Taxpayers foot that bill when they can't pay. So the question is simple: Do you want to pay for it now while it's cheap and easy to treat, or do you want to pay more later when it's a LOT worse and a hell of a lot more expensive.
Besides, you don't seem to mind spending other people's money and taking their lives when it comes to defense spending and invading other countries. And as the video already pointed out. We don't see Republicans sticking to their conservative "principles" and refusing Medicare/Medicaid when they need it....only when other people need it. So stop being such a hypocrite.


Most of the costs are borne by people who are retired, so I fail to see how borrowing trillions we don't have on life prolongation does anything but doom the future to crushing taxes and inflation for something the present desired but weren't productive enough to pay for. You can't do that, it's not fair, and many young people are waking up to the fact that this essentially a generational ponzi scheme with nothing in it for them. The first SS recipient contributed well below what she received and the final one will have paid in far more than they will receive in benefits. SS and Medicare, by their end, will have impoverished more people than any government programs in the history of mankind. Every naive socialist program is a sentimental black hole that accomplishes the opposite of what it intends. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, made it easier to get a loan, but in doing so increased the price of homes and thus the size of the loan. Because suddenly you've got this "magic bottomless guarantee" to print up a loan, and now you've got damn near everyone seemingly capable of bidding up the prices. Of course, now we realize it wasn't bottomless after all, it just seemed that way for a while.

You've successfully convinced me that you really, really want health care at some future untold person's expense. The populace as a whole is resisting taxes. Their money has been devalued so thoroughly that they can't budget in broad tax increases today, so what makes you think the future can? It's also true that employers are not poor people. We've had nothing but more and more government involvement in this sector and, just like education, the costs have risen with how much the government is able to tax and borrow. I used to work for an online college called Kaplan. Kaplan's price IS what the government takes and loans. Why would they price below that? You just don't seem to understand how markets work. Look at something like LASIK and PRK aren't covered by private or public insurers. It's had nothing but price declines and quality improvements. Look at computers, constant price declines and quality improvements. When people are forced to spend their own money, the fear and greed offset works. When they're spending a pool of forcibly appropriated funds, they lose sight of its true cost to them and the future and become reckless.

Oh, and I'm not a Republican in favor of military adventures. I sympathize less with that nonsense than I do with you. I understand that public roads are of lower quality than toll roads, but I'd rather we bear that cost for the simplicity of not having to dick with toll booths. Everything governmental has that dynamic, but I say the government should be completely disallowed from borrowing in excess of revenue. If you want something now, pay for it now, the end. If you can't raise the revenue, don't cry about it and don't steal from the future.

And yes, demands are infinite. Austrian economics 101. You offer someone everything on earth for $100, they'll probably take it. Problem is, supply ISNT infinite, so the price will never be that low. If you found some way of making planets full of shit cheap and abundant, you'd see that demand is indeed infinite.

>> ^VoodooV:

What planet are you from Banshee? Republicans make false accusations about the health care reforms having death panels....now you're advocating them?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Republicans have no fucking clue what they're for. The only thing they know is that they'll take the opposite stance of whatever a Democrat wants.
I'm waiting for Obama to openly support trickle down economics just so I can watch the Reps head explode.


How can you not understand what I'm saying? Demand for health care is unlimited. Every person has to decide how much money they want to sock away for a future problem afflicting them. It is a balance between quality of life and length of life. People make those kinds of decisions already with the quantity of children they have. Each child causes an additional divide from the same pot. But you can't make those kinds of decisions with OTHER people's money, because you will take everything and more. Eventually, it gets to the point where no one wants to produce in such amounts that would reduce their benefit relative to their burden. And if the majority are consuming more than they're producing, where do the funds come from to consume in the first place? Net destruction ends in nothingness, a currency so worthless you can scarcely afford anything. But hey, it works for a while.

Payroll taxes for Medicare and SS go straight into the general fund and the government annually spends in excess of the fund by borrowing at interest. The interest payments alone are becoming massive burdens.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!



Define "some" medical care. As we speak, there are thousands of elderly people who could live 3 months longer by getting a million dollar artificial heart. Are you a heartless monster for not giving every red cent you make past your bare necessities to financing these kinds of procedures? You could voluntarily contribute right now by selling all your luxuries and not bearing costly children. Why don't you? His cost is fatal and yours isn't. You'd live in squalor, but you'd live. Why I ask you? Why must you be so heartless?

This is why "forced transfer" programs can't work, because the demand is unlimited, but the resources to finance it are not. You have bankrupted yourself in the name of military adventurism and life prolongation.

What I find weird about liberals is that... Medicare and Medicaid is about life prolongation. How much are you willing to transfer from the young to the old? That is the question because that is how these programs are paid for, not by the recipients, but by immediate transfers. So far, the answer is essentially "everything" since there is at least 50 trillion in unfunded promises that will be paid by future taxes or inflation.

It's a nice sentiment, it wins a lot of votes, but you can only prolong life by reducing its quality among the young. Draw a line somewhere.

Oh, and didn't the post office just announce they're like 3 billion underfunded? The employees voted themselves nice pensions based on future revenue that can't possibly exist. And rather than cut the pensions, they want to just work a 4 day week. Pretty soon, it'll be a 3-day work week for the same wage. Pretty sweet deal if you're a USPS employee, pretty awful deal if you're a citizen who just wants their fucking MAIL.

It shouldn't be discounted that the USA has a lot of land and its population is very spread out. Europe's population density (other than scandinavia) is much more closed in. You don't have the problem of having to justify wiring costs through vast tracts of unoccupied areas.

http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/popden.html

That being said, the USA has a fairly massive government, it's just that, unlike other countries, it hasn't much incentive to spend wisely because it's the reserve currency of the world with no metal backing. We can print and run deficits fighting useless wars and subsidizing useless industries for as long as the world allows us.

So prior to 1960, we're on a gold standard and there is no Department of Education or federal student loans. You had to PRODUCE your own way through. And since you were producing, you FEARED losing that production by wasting it on bad schools. And since there were no loans coming from forced appropriation, the cost was not inflated to get the full loan amount.

I am a $10 an hour peon for an online university and we put 90% of our efforts into getting leads and getting those students' loan applications in and approved. We don't care what happens to you after those loans disburse. At that point you owe the government what it stole from people to give us. We've got our money. The cost of tuition is never set below the loan amount. Why would we price it at less than what the government is willing to give? The more they borrow, the higher we price it. And if the return on the investment was what the government claims, private lenders would be jumping at the chance to make these loans. But it's a huge net loser that massively benefits the "schooling" complex at the expense of society and students.

Socializing college is as stupid as socializing food and car repair. All service providers naturally want money by force, they don't want to have to worry about people spending their money in other places. It doesn't have to be another school, either. What if houses and food become so cheap that people start forgoing college because it's no longer seen as a way to faster get what they want? Then colleges would have to lower their prices to continue to be seen as a value. THIS IS HOW THE WORLD WORKS PEOPLE.

The real trigger is a dog whistle off camera, not necessarily blown by a mouth. Nice little trick to get 250k youtube views.

I see little difference between this and dollars. Who is behind its issuance? Who will be behind it 100 years from now? What ensures that a company or a government doesn't take it over and issue bitcoins for themselves without labor while everyone else has to labor?

People who add more gold to the money supply are workers just like you and me. There is no central overlord for gold, because it's a physical product with characteristics well suited for money. It has no "issuer" that can print more for themselves at a whim while everyone else has to labor for it. It is the ultimate disabler of the banking elite who have made their jobs 100x more profitable with loans at interest that otherwise wouldn't have existed or been needed. When money retains its value, you can afford things outright and altogether avoid interest.

The banking elite is extremely powerful, but I'm pretty sure alchemy is beyond their abilities, and that's why I continue to support a hard plastic currency embedded with gold and a ban on fractional reserve banking. Any bitcoin fans want to put my fears to rest?

Making hard drugs illegal solves nothing. It makes drug usage harder, but in doing so creates a problem much worse: a black market and the lives and resources that are destroyed trying to dominate or prevent it. It truly is no different from alcohol prohibition. Instead of dying of drugs because of parental neglect, now your children will have an opportunity to die:

1. in a gang from a cop or other gang members
2. from a gang as a cop
3. from a gang as a citizen who gets caught in the crossfire
4. from a gang as a citizen who was going to testify against a gang member
5. as a citizen who otherwise might have had a cop in the area to help them if not for their being busy with anti-drug enforcement

It also increases the chance of corruption within the police force because the confiscated substance are of such high market value from the artificial scarcity. Of course, we saw all of this from the 30s with alcohol prohibition, yet don't apply the same logic to all drugs. People are dumb when it comes to weighing cost/benefit ratios. Look at marijuana, marijuana is 1% as dangerous as even alcohol, and people still cling to its prohibition as being worth the costs incurred.

Then there's the philosophical part, which is that you should have the right to do to your body as you wish because you own your body from the day you're born. All rights derive from property. If you can be incarcerated against your will for doing something to yourself, then you are a slave of the state.