Quote :

"Ron Paul could win Iowa. That's just a fact. If he gets 5-8% more in the polls (unlike nationally, his NH and IA numbers have been increasing) and/or a snowstorm on election day, it's very possible."

If Ron Paul wins Iowa or even gets 2nd, I think we'll see a huge change in dynamics for this election cycle. We're already seeing Ron Paul get a lot more respect on stage.

12/12/2011 1:15:54 PM

I was surprised that they put him in the middle of the stage at that last debate.

12/12/2011 1:21:49 PM

Ron Paul is a sheep in wolf's clothing. Nobody fully understands the impact of federal deregulation because they are riding the antigov wave.

12/12/2011 6:52:30 PM

Quote :

"Nobody fully understands the impact of federal deregulation because they are riding the antigov pro-corporatist wave."

FTFY

The regulatory process has been co-opted by the industries that are supposed to be regulated by it. Now what?

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 7:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2011 7:01:33 PM

^ either a repub or democrat congress would hamstring any of his initiatives.

if you thought the current GOP stonewalling is bad, a Ron Paul presidency would be even worse.

but... it would mean that subsequent elections, the huntsmans and whatever that fat guy's name is would be taken more seriously.

I would also be morbidly curious to see what would happen under deregulation. History tells us that corporations would run amok, but maybe they'll surprise is THIS time...?

12/12/2011 7:03:51 PM

Corporations are running amuck as we speak. Are you blind?

Some of you, it seems, actually worship the state. All "regulation" is good. All "deregulation" is bad. You don't bother to talk about what it is that's being regulated, how it is being regulated, or what it would mean to "deregulate".



[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2011 7:04:48 PM

U are just singing the chorus and not listenting to the song. Deregulation leads to corporate profiteering unlike anything u have seen. states rights leads to a divided union. Taking away fed student loans makes education accesible only by the well off.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM. Reason : T]

12/12/2011 11:29:49 PM

When you say deregulation, what are you talking about? Which regulations specifically? Do you make any distinction between regulations that actually protect the consumer and regulations that were literally written by the people that would benefit most from them?

Quote :

"states rights leads to a divided union."

Why is that an inherently bad thing? Is having a government that represents a larger territory somehow inherently better than having smaller states?

Quote :

"Taking away fed student loans makes education accesible only by the well off."

Nope. What it would do is help bring an end to academic bubbles where tuition is driven up by easy access to credit. It helps prevent us from having an entire generation of unemployable debt slaves. It helps credit flow into areas that are actually supported by the market.

12/13/2011 1:04:58 AM

Man, you tell me how some lower class sap with parents that don't have any credit or a home is gonna be able to get a lone and a cosigner? It aint gonna happen. I guess in your definition poor is "house poor", but it gets a lot worse than that.

Quote :

"Why is that an inherently bad thing? Is having a government that represents a larger territory somehow inherently better than having smaller states?"

Did people forget about the civil war already? This country is fairly well divided already when it comes to liberal vs. evangelical christian beliefs. State's rights would only broaden the divide and it would start with abortion and gay rights.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 11:03 AM. Reason : df]

12/13/2011 11:01:29 AM

No, Banjo. D#s doesn't remember the Civil War or the Industrial Revolution and what it actually was like before regulations. He's convinced that regulations are simply an attempt to control the population instead of help them. He's convinced that the free market will protect the common worker even though we have long periods of history pre-regulation that demonstrates that this isn't the case.

He's an idealist for an ideal which has already been tried and failed. Well, it succeeded greatly for a few people but failed for pretty much everyone else. I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it would be different this time. I anticipate I'll hear "You just don't understand anarcho-capitalism" as the response to this post.

12/13/2011 11:41:31 AM

Quote :

"Man, you tell me how some lower class sap with parents that don't have any credit or a home is gonna be able to get a lone and a cosigner? It aint gonna happen. I guess in your definition poor is "house poor", but it gets a lot worse than that."

You're clearly not getting it. I don't want people to have to go in debt to go to school. It wasn't always like that. It became like that over time when the federal government began backing student loans.

If the federal government stopped subsidizing loans, university facilities would not simply close their doors. There are far more universities than there are "rich kids" in the United States. If the faculty and university administrators wanted to avoid bankruptcy, they'd lower their tuition to something that students could afford.

Quote :

"Did people forget about the civil war already? This country is fairly well divided already when it comes to liberal vs. evangelical christian beliefs. State's rights would only broaden the divide and it would start with abortion and gay rights."

I, in fact, did not forgot about the civil war. A lot of Americans on both sides died in that war. An intense, residual bitterness is still with us. I have been clear on this point: the Civil War should not have been fought, slavery should have been ended without a war (as it was everywhere else in the world), and the preservation of a unified "United States" is not some great ideal that should be adhered to under all circumstances.

Here's the reality that most of you progressives don't "get" - the rednecks in Alabama don't want what you want They want an oppressive society. And, no matter what you do, that is the society they will have.

You're not going to get your ideal, utopian society, so you (whether you realize it or not) want federalism. Move to a place where people have similar values. Values cannot be effectively "handed down" by a federal government. The country is too big and people are too different.

12/13/2011 11:48:30 AM

Quote :

"You're clearly not getting it. I don't want people to have to go in debt to go to school. It wasn't always like that. It became like that over time when the federal government began backing student loans."

Obviously you're not a golfer. I highly doubt that poor schmucks with no family backing are going to be able to support themselves all the way through college without a little loan help. And those exact kids are the ones that need it the most.

12/13/2011 12:00:50 PM

^

He's saying the cost of high cost of tuition is due to loans. Ie. you remove the loans as an incentive to go to school and the price will have to come down for everyone thereby making it affordable for the middle class without loans.

12/13/2011 12:23:25 PM

What he's really saying is eliminate the loans and shut down a shit ton of schools because when only people that can afford it can go there will be much less demand for it.

That's the part that's always unsaid. Let's totally redo monetary policy! Nevermind the millions of jobs and productivity it will destroy until we reach parity.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2011 12:27:35 PM

What's the alternative? Out of control tuition hikes until it's impossible to go to school without being in debt until the day you die.

Quote :

"That's the part that's always unsaid. Let's totally redo monetary policy! Nevermind the millions of jobs and productivity it will destroy until we reach parity."

It's a lot better than high unemployment and economic stagnation. Yes, the correction is necessary, and it sucks. But, like I said, the alternative is much worse in the long run.

Quote :

"What he's really saying is eliminate the loans and shut down a shit ton of schools because when only people that can afford it can go there will be much less demand for it."

I'm all for private loans. I'm certain that loans will still be accessible if 1) The student has a track record of high performance and 2) The student is entering a field of study that is lucrative (i.e. supported by the market)

We need engineers, doctors, scientists, and other professions that actually lead to creation of value. We don't need more attorneys with shit JDs from fourth tier law schools. We don't need more accountants. We don't need a bunch of people with Ph.D.s in the humanities.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 12:31:12 PM

^

Alternative is eventual revolt by the indentured servants.

I always wonder if the industrial food system was setup so the really bad off wouldn't have real reason to revolt anymore. The poor of the French Revolution were literally starving. Our poor are obese and content with being that way.

Quote :

"That's the part that's always unsaid. Let's totally redo monetary policy! Nevermind the millions of jobs and productivity it will destroy until we reach parity."

Reminds me of all the horrible bureaucratic companies for which I've worked. They say, "We can't possibly do anything to fix this department or hold them accountable for their mistakes. If we do that we'll lose a bunch of people and it'll cost more to redo what they've done!" Over time they end up laying everyone off anyway and canning the whole thing.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM. Reason : a]

12/13/2011 12:36:34 PM

Quote :

"What's the alternative? Out of control tuition hikes until it's impossible to go to school without being in debt until the day you die."

TAX TAX TAX! There is no reason that the rich gazillionares watch their money pile up without contributing back to the society (and don't give that job creation schpeel).

Look, you are advertising a system that is not used currently and I am advertising something that is ued with great success in western europe and japan. There is no reason why we cant increase the tax on the top 1% to fund programs such as universal health care and education assistance. There is just no reason. Other countries do it, and it works.

12/13/2011 1:22:40 PM

Are you sure that Japan and Europe are the examples you want to use to demonstrate how successful debt-fueled programs are?

The creation of credit fuels the creation of bubbles. That means higher prices in the areas where credit flows to. That has been housing, that has been medical expenses, and now, it's student loans.

Taxing will not solve the problem. Taking money away from productive enterprise (that actually does create value) and giving it to kids that don't have a clue what they want to do with their lives is not going to make us prosperous. What it will do is give us a bunch of unemployable, entitled assholes.

Quote :

"TAX TAX TAX! There is no reason that the rich gazillionares watch their money pile up without contributing back to the society (and don't give that job creation schpeel)."

Steve Jobs - did he contribute anything to society, in your mind?

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 1:29:55 PM

^^

I was in a business meeting last week with a lot of such people that have 100+ companies in their portfolios. Why should they be forced to give up resources being devoted to people actually working on ideas that provide value? There are lots of people without money using that money to build companies and provide real value on society.

As much as a general education is important... if it doesn't support your bills when you graduate you should be doing something else with your time. Education has been commoditized and over sold. It needs a giant rework to provide real value again.

http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Learning-Right-Side-Education/dp/0132346494

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 1:35 PM. Reason : a]

12/13/2011 1:34:29 PM

Quote :

"Reminds me of all the horrible bureaucratic companies for which I've worked. They say, "We can't possibly do anything to fix this department or hold them accountable for their mistakes. If we do that we'll lose a bunch of people and it'll cost more to redo what they've done!" Over time they end up laying everyone off anyway and canning the whole thing."

I'm not the one suggesting that the *only* solution is redoing monetary policy from scratch. It is actually possible to not be in debt by taxing more and spending less. I'm not suggesting we do nothing, I'm just suggesting cutting our heads off to fix the problem isn't the best idea.

Quote :

"As much as a general education is important... if it doesn't support your bills when you graduate you should be doing something else with your time. Education has been commoditized and over sold. It needs a giant rework to provide real value again. "

I happen to think humanities, art, music, etc have value and am willing to subsidize people's edcation in these fields. I don't think that "only degrees which result in the production of something" or "only degrees that people are willing to hire in times of severe economic downturn" is a good litmus test of worthy endeavors for society.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2011 1:36:33 PM

The police force keeps making concessions to these crime syndicates, making them more powerful!

Clearly, the solution is to make the police for less powerful so they have fewer concessions to give!

12/13/2011 1:39:04 PM

^^Think about the scale of what you're talking about.

-15 trillion dollars in debt.

-We're running 1-1.5 trillion deficits every year, meaning that we add that much to the debt.

-Interest rates are close to zero

Do you really think that the American people are going to deal with two decades of high taxes, spending cuts, and high unemployment? I don't think so. When no options are left, the American people will opt for default, and that is what we should do. Attempting to pay this debt off through austerity would be a death sentence for this generation.

Quote :

"I happen to think humanities, art, music, etc have value and am willing to subsidize people's edcation in these fields. I don't think that "only degrees which result in the production of something" or "only degrees that people are willing to hire in times of severe economic downturn" is a good litmus test of worthy endeavors for society."

Then you can subsidize them. Don't force me to. If those areas are worth supporting (and others agree with you), then you'll all pitch in, right?

Oh, I get it. You don't want to support those areas. You want other people to take responsibility, while you sit at home and do nothing.

Your problem is that you conflate "the state" with "society". They are not the same.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 1:43:25 PM

^^^

Quote :

"I happen to think humanities, art, music, etc "

I think art/music and creative endeavors are the only ones that matter in the modern economy because they can't be commoditized and automated away. Most of the authority thinking in education agrees. Standardized tests and long division is not the way to spend a kids time. Take the kids talented in art and design and turn them into Steve Jobs instead of forcing them into learning by rote.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM. Reason : a]

12/13/2011 1:44:21 PM

Quote :

""As much as a general education is important... if it doesn't support your bills when you graduate you should be doing something else with your time. Education has been commoditized and over sold. It needs a giant rework to provide real value again."

GOP dogma, without the annoying, bible thumping, racist constituents. Don't try to convince me that this is a horse of a different color.

12/13/2011 2:13:35 PM

You're a partisan asshole.

12/13/2011 2:29:15 PM

lmao yeah destroyer and you're a levelheaded, even-handed, open-minded moderate

12/13/2011 2:38:56 PM

^^No, I'm not. It's just that most of the "cut spending" jibber jabber boils down to the fallacy (which is inherently racist) that all of the goverment spending goes to some single black female in Compton with three kids, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Working class americans that make minimum wage punching in time clocks only have enough money to survive.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM. Reason : df]

12/13/2011 2:42:21 PM

I have nuanced views that are in stark contrast with both political parties' agendas.

The quoted text there was perfectly reasonable. If you think the K-12 --> 4 Year Degree model is working or anywhere near optimal, you're a stooge with a severe case of normalcy bias.

^I mean...you are. Instead of engaging in a real discussion, you wrote off his comment as "GOP dogma".

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 2:43:21 PM

Read my edit, bro

12/13/2011 2:45:43 PM

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

IA: Gingrich 22, Paul 21, Romney 16, Bachmann 11, Perry 9, Santorum 8, Hunstman 5

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary

NH: Paul up to 18%.

With NH after IA, this could be awesome to watch. But for Paul to have any sort of hope, he HAS to win IA. Second place just doesn't cut it.

12/13/2011 2:49:59 PM

Your edit is even worse. You actually did something more dishonest than writing the point off as "GOP dogma" - you said it was inherently racist. Are you even trying to be taken seriously?

12/13/2011 2:51:06 PM

Quote :

"I have nuanced views."

Aren't you an anarcho-capitalist? That's literally the most un-nuanced view you can have. The AnCap manifesto could fit on the back of a postcard.

1. Commodify justice

2. ...?

3. Profit!


[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2011 2:53:12 PM

Justice already is commodified, there's just only one corporation legally allowed to sell it. Monopolies are bad, right? Except when it's the government...

12/13/2011 2:56:52 PM

Lmao HE'S CATCHIN ON I TELL YA

12/13/2011 2:58:28 PM

Quote :

"Justice already is commodified, there's just only one corporation legally allowed to sell it. Monopolies are bad, right? Except when it's the government..."

Lmao I for one enjoy having a right to a state appointed attorney as opposed to my status as guilty/not-guilty depending entirely on whether I'm in the good favor of the currently dominant warlord.


And my point still stands that your ideology, that is "MARKET. SOLVES. EVERYTHING." is literally the least-nuanced one possible. Hint: Typically nuance means having more than one item in your bag-of-answers.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2011 3:09:54 PM

Gingrich is teflon candidate. He'll get the GOP nomination and lose the general.

12/13/2011 3:13:12 PM

Quote :

"Lmao I for one enjoy having a right to a state appointed attorney as opposed to my status as guilty/not-guilty depending entirely on whether I'm in the good favor of the currently dominant warlord."

Let's see if you catch on. Right now, the U.S. government is the current dominant warlord. We literally having millions of innocent people sitting in jail. Were these miscarriages of justice? No, those innocent people were put in jail because the law is designed to do exactly that.

Aside from drug laws, look at tax laws. Tax laws criminalize inaction. How in the world is that acceptable? It doesn't matter that you get a shitty state-appointed attorney. You're guilty by default. It's your responsibility to prove that you're innocent. You better hope that you paid your protection money (erm..."taxes"). If you disagree, you'll be killed.

I'm proposing that we open up every function of government to competition. The current system, where the government has a monopoly on force, is ruining a lot of lives and it has to be stopped. The U.S. government is the biggest gang of thugs that exists.

Quote :

"And my point still stands that your ideology, that is "MARKET. SOLVES. EVERYTHING." is literally the least-nuanced one possible. Hint: Typically nuance means having more than one item in your bag-of-answers."

Let me clarify something for you. The market is people. They can be used interchangeably. Problems are solved by people. Problems are best solved when all individuals are able to participate on a voluntary basis. Any time that people are forced to "help", we end up with more problems. A "free market" is a circumstance where individual rights are not violated.

When you recognize that "the market" is just a term for a far more complex concept (voluntary interaction and emergent order), you'll understand that there's room for plenty of nuance.

12/13/2011 3:50:04 PM

Quote :

"Let's see if you catch on. Right now, the U.S. government is the current dominant warlord. We literally having millions of innocent people sitting in jail. Were these miscarriages of justice? No, those innocent people were put in jail because the law is designed to do exactly that."

Ok...I'm with you here...

Quote :

"Aside from drug laws, look at tax laws. Tax laws criminalize inaction. How in the world is that acceptable? It doesn't matter that you get a shitty state-appointed attorney. You're guilty by default. It's your responsibility to prove that you're innocent. You better hope that you paid your protection money (erm..."taxes"). If you disagree, you'll be killed. "

TIN FOIL HAT LAND!

12/13/2011 4:06:07 PM

There's nothing conspiratorial about that statement. That's actually how taxes work.

12/13/2011 4:07:30 PM

Yeah, Tin foil hat wasn't exactly what I was going for. Probably should have said Prison Planet land or something to that effect.

I'm with you on drug laws. I still think you should pay your taxes and be punished for not paying them. They're club dues, and you're a member of the club. I know you didn't choose to be born here, but too bad.

12/13/2011 4:09:43 PM

Quote :

"They're club dues, and you're a member of the club. I know you didn't choose to be born here, but too bad."

I'm surprised that doesn't sound any alarms in your head.

I mean, let's break this down - I have to pay taxes for obligations that were established prior to my birth. In other words, previous generations can borrow money, spend it, die, and now I have to pay.

I don't know how you personally derive "morality", but that seems wrong to me.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 4:11:32 PM

Previous generations can also leave you wealth, is that immoral?

12/13/2011 4:16:13 PM

Nope. I could either show up to your house and steal your TV, or show up to your house and give you a TV. Are the two actions morally equivalent?

12/13/2011 4:17:48 PM

Quote :

"Let me clarify something for you. The market is people."

the government is people, too. and a more educated people can govern more fairly. that's at the crux of the Occupy Movement.

12/13/2011 4:18:03 PM

Quote :

"the government is people, too. and a more educated people can govern more fairly. that's at the crux of the Occupy Movement."

This is a very disturbing insight into your views.

Our current gang of thugs is very educated. Many (most?) of them attended some of the most prestigious universities in the United States. At their core, they are still sociopaths (they want to control others), so their education has only allowed them to more effectively game the system for their own personal benefit.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 4:44:36 PM

Quote :

"^^No, I'm not. It's just that most of the "cut spending" jibber jabber boils down to the fallacy (which is inherently racist) that all of the goverment spending goes to some single black female in Compton with three kids, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Working class americans that make minimum wage punching in time clocks only have enough money to survive. "

@BangoMan (Hi Dave)

I'm more worried about it going to a system where the teachers are worried about kids logging onto Kahn Academy because they could end up knowing more than a teacher about a subject. There are 1000s of startups and venture capitalists in education now trying to come up with systems that teach kids how to get that $300K job at Google/Apple and to start and build companies in the modern world. Pumping money into a system that does nothing but churn out indebted drones is the last thing we should be doing.

12/13/2011 4:52:24 PM

bravo screentest!

you alone are brave enough to proclaim what the idiot left on this board actually believe.

...effectively nullified much conversation regarding this topic in the past and future.

i salute you.

12/13/2011 4:58:41 PM

Whoops!

Trump withdraws as moderator of Iowa debate

Quote :

"Donald Trump withdrew Tuesday as the moderator of a debate planned for later this month in Iowa, citing his interest in possibly still running for president as an independent. Trump pulled out of a debate he had planned to host along with the conservative magazine Newsmax, scheduled for Dec. 27, just days before the Iowa caucuses. All the GOP presidential candidates save for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum said they would not participate. "The Republican Party candidates are very concerned that sometime after the final episode of The Apprentice, on May 20th, when the equal time provisions are no longer applicable to me, I will announce my candidacy for President of the United States as an Independent and that, unless I conclusively agree not to run as an Independent, they will not agree to attend or be a part of the Newsmax debate scheduled for December 27, 2011," Trump said in a statement. "It is very important to me that the right Republican candidate be chosen to defeat the failed and very destructive Obama Administration, but if that Republican, in my opinion, is not the right candidate, I am not willing to give up my right to run as an Independent candidate. Therefore, so that there is no conflict of interest within the Republican Party, I have decided not to be the moderator of the Newsmax debate. The American people are embarrassed by the gridlock currently taking place in Washington. I must leave all of my options open because, above all else, we must make America great again!" It's not clear whether any debate with Newsmax will go forward at all. Trump thanked Gingrich and Santorum for their willingness to participate nonetheless. "I would like to thank Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum for having the courage, conviction, and confidence to immediately accept being a part of the Newsmax debate. I believe this would not only have been the most watched debate, but also the most substantive and interesting debate!" he said."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9420383-trump-withdraws-as-moderator-of-iowa-debate

12/13/2011 5:45:40 PM

^Still considering getting in on the race? Iowa and New Hampshire will be decided in less than month.

12/13/2011 6:23:25 PM

Newt: Palestinians are an invented people.

Is he claiming that all Palestinians are terrorists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXZ3i6Zj4PA


Gotta give Ron Paul credit here. I don't like his domestic policy, but he's spot on on this issue.

12/13/2011 7:55:21 PM