so is there going to be a HBD Ron Paul thread in TSB on Monday?

8/16/2007 11:58:46 AM

since my thread was locked....

Fellow WolfWebbers,

Rarely do I ask any of you to go out of your way for any purpose (if ever), but today I am asking with most every fiber in my being not only for you, your future, but for the future generations and for this once great nation now in decline to watch these following links. If I could impart or convey my somewhat educated point of view without making you all read on for hours I would, but I think we all can agree and feel in our guts that something is not right and certainly not as bright pertaining to our futures in America. That is why I decided to try to be a part of the solution instead of the problem, and am getting this message out, even though the powers that be (big media, etc.) are trying to block it. In the end you may disagree, and I hope that we never lose that right to disagree or choose, but at least I will feel right with throwing my 2 cents into the ring and taking a stand, however small that stand may be.

Please take a look if not for my urging then for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otZgd9wxE98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8


Worthy of mention and Overview of Congressman Dr. Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Ron Paul is a MD who has delivered over 4000 babies and is not a career politician backed by corporate funding and interests.

Get a FREE Ron Paul bumper sticker at http://ronpaul.squarespace.com

Each one teach one!

-Desh





(I am in no way affiliated with the Ron Paul Election Committee)


[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : can someone plz embed?]

8/16/2007 5:45:02 PM

I bet Ron Paul also wishes that the number of YouTube subscribers for each candidate meant something with regards to the polls. But it doesn't.

8/17/2007 1:41:22 AM

Quote :

"He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war."

just a question: what has he voted FOR?

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 12:55 PM. Reason : i want bill numbers if possible]

8/17/2007 12:54:55 PM

obama has a better chance than this dude and obama is half negro

8/17/2007 12:58:06 PM

^^I can tell you I agree with all of his "no" votes as outlined in your quote.

and did you not read

Quote :

"Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress"

I think if he introduced the legislation, its safe to say he voted for it.

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2007 1:01:59 PM

ok. so is he just going to be the veto president if elected?

and still:
what has he voted for?

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2007 1:02:29 PM

from reading about Paul, in most of your outlined pieces of legislation he didn't vote for them b/c it shouldn't be the federal governments area anyway....they should be state decisions.

8/17/2007 1:06:03 PM

ok. fine. does anyone know some bills he voted FOR?

8/17/2007 1:08:48 PM

there are plenty, see for yourself:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

8/17/2007 1:15:11 PM

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

all of the bills that he probably sponsored/co-sponsored which are in the right bar of the website.

8/17/2007 1:17:07 PM

here are some specifics bills he voted yes for:

Quote :

"Vote 99: H CON RES 63: This measure expresses the House's disagreement with President Bush's planned troop buildup in Iraq. The nonbinding resolution pledges support for U.S. personnel serving "bravely and honorably in Iraq" but says Congress "disapproves" of the president’s plan to add more than 20,000 combat troops. The resolution was approved 246 to 182. Seventeen Republicans joined 229 Democrats in support of the resolution. Two Democrats opposed the measure. While the 95-word resolution has no legal weight to force the president to change his course in Iraq, it marks a first key showdown between the White House and the new Congress controlled by Democrats"

this one should be of interest:

Quote :

"This bill would lower the interest rate on student loans. The legislation would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and decrease the interest rate on federally subsidized student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in stages over five years. It would impact undergraduate student borrowers in the Federal Family Education Loan and Direct Loan programs. Interest rates would decrease to 6.12 percent in 2007, 5.44 percent in 2006 and continue to drop until they reach 3.4 percent in 2011. The first reduced interest rate would apply on loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2007. The Washington Post reported that the bill's projected $6 billion cost would be offset by trimming federal interest rate subsidies and raising fees on loan providers. Bill authors said a borrower with $13,800 in student loan debt would save $4,400 over the life of the loan according to The Post. Other provisions of the bill include lender insurance changes and increased loan fees for borrowers. The House passed the bill on Jan. 17, 2007, with a vote of 356-71. All House Democrats voted for the bill, joined by 124 Republicans. "

Quote :

"This bill would allow the government to negotiate directly with drugmakers for lower prescription drug prices for individuals using Medicare. The bill, which amends the Social Security Act, permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies on behalf of private insurers that run the drug benefit program for Medicare. This overturns a 2003 law which made private insurers responsible for these negotiations. The bill would require the secretary of Health and Human Services to lead negotiations and report back to Congress in six months. Even with this new legislation in place, pharmaceutical companies are not mandated to lower their prices. The House swiftly passed the bill on Jan. 12, 2007, by a vote of 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining House Democrats. A companion bill has not been offered in the Senate. A similar Senate bill allows the government to negotiate with drugmakers in some instances."

Quote :

"Vote 135: H R 4297: Extended the Bush tax cuts."

Quote :

"This bill would clamp down on illegal immigration and toughen border security. It does not include any new avenue for current illegal immigrants to gain legal status. "

Quote :

"Vote 6: H RES 5: Instituted a number of changes in the ethics rules that govern the conduct of individual members of Congress"

8/17/2007 1:21:25 PM

ok. the first one he voted yes on. "banning partial birth abortions". doesn't that increase the power of the executive branch? shouldn't that be a state decision?

and it's telling the handful of bills he actually voted for:

the only bill (listed on votesmart) that he voted for appropriations between 1998 and 2000 was the "adoption restriction act":
"Vote to adopt an amendment that would ban federal funding in the District of Columbia for couples who want to adopt a child but are not related by blood or marriage. "

makes you wonder where his priorities are.


and as far as budget votes go: he just hasn't voted for any budget resolution since 1997. is he just going to sit on his hands his entire presidency?

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2007 1:21:27 PM

Quote :

"Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement: Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion? A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances . It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website http://www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members. "

^you're probably right, my guess is since he's a doctor (gynecologist) this issue is of personal importance to him. I imagine since he can't stop federal dollars from going to that area, he's going the other route. Idk for sure, but i'd bet if you pursue the issue you could find out instead of being a blind cynic.

Quote :

"and as far as budget votes go: he just hasn't voted for any budget resolution since 1997. is he just going to sit on his hands his entire presidency?"

he's said numerous times he won't vote for an unbalanced budget.

Quote :

"Vote to adopt an amendment that would ban federal funding in the District of Columbia for couples who want to adopt a child but are not related by blood or marriage"

there's your answer.



[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2007 1:33:30 PM

so he's cool with selective bans on funding?

like it'd still be alright if he said: i'm banning public funding for schools for black folk and women.

but i'm REDUCING funding so it's all cool, right!?

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

and the biggest thing that gets me is that he'll vote in favor of things that suit his interest (school vouchers, defense bills, etc.) but he won't vote for any sort of a budget.

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2007 1:36:36 PM

^actually he does want to repeal preferential treatment on basis of race for college/jobs.

you don't have to agree with the man, hell, I don't agree with alot of his positions....but he's not changing his views every other vote to please his party, and he actually addresses questions about his views honestly and in a forthright manner.

all the big ticket candidates are worried about is mudslinging the opponents and adjusting their views to what they think will get them elected.

8/17/2007 1:42:39 PM

i just don't think he would make a good president because he seems basically to be anti-everything. he hasn't exactly translated this into much substance. and he won't because there's no way in hell he'll get elected.

8/17/2007 1:44:15 PM

Quote :

"and the biggest thing that gets me is that he'll vote in favor of things that suit his interest (school vouchers, defense bills, etc.) but he won't vote for any sort of a budget."

Quote :

"voucher programs will have to meet strict requirements in order to be found constitutional. A constitutional voucher program must be completely neutral with respect to religion."

my guess is his vote went somewhere along those lines

and like I've said, he will not support an unbalanced budget.


I know he won't get elected, but any closer we get to getting rid of this shitty two party system (really getting to the point of a constitutional monarchy) is a step in the right direction imo.

8/17/2007 1:48:43 PM

Ron Paul could easily become the Barry Goldwater of this generation.

[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 5:13 PM. Reason : minus the whole GOP nomination part]

8/17/2007 5:12:40 PM

Quote :

"i just don't think he would make a good president because he seems basically to be anti-everything."

That's actually a good thing.
(I know you don't mean everything, but I get your point)

4 years of something that different would really be a good wake-up call. He might not accomplish that much, but then again who knows? He could veto some socialist or fascist bullshit, or appoint a nice strong constitutional libertarian supreme court justice.

But alas, no, he doesn't stand a chance....

8/17/2007 7:10:13 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul could easily become the Barry Goldwater of this generation."

He better do so fast, he turns 72 this week

8/17/2007 7:40:59 PM

I have a question, if Ron Paul is so big on the government not interfering with the personal and private lives of the people... why is he anti-choice?

8/17/2007 9:54:05 PM

What a silly question.

He's "anti-choice" because he believes that your 'choice' for an abortion is in fact committing murder. No libertarian, nor any rational person for that matter, believes murder should be a "private, personal decision" with no government intervention.

The entire question is whether abortion is murder. If it is not, Paul would not want the government involved. But if it is murder, then damn straight the government should be involved.

It really is very simple. You disagree with him on whether abortion is murder, but you cannot paint him as a hypocrite.

Let's not make this an abortion thread, though.

8/17/2007 10:08:04 PM

I've gotta admit, this is pretty awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

(no rickroll)

8/17/2007 11:32:06 PM

I like the outraged expression on the girlfriend's face

8/18/2007 12:35:43 AM

ha. he's about to be on wait wait don't tell me on npr

8/18/2007 2:18:29 PM

Quote :

"i just don't think he would make a good president because he seems basically to be anti-everything. he hasn't exactly translated this into much substance. and he won't because there's no way in hell he'll get elected. "

Dude, are you really that dense?

He's libertarian. He, rightfully so, believes that the federal government should be as minimal as possible, deferring to state rights. You are making the assumption that a politicians worth is defined by how much policy he or she creates. In reality, it should be defined by how well the country runs in reaction to government policy. And more != better, it just means more.

[Edited on August 18, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2007 3:10:21 PM

ron paul. a libertarian? i had no idea. i understand the ideals of libertarianism. i must be a fucking idiot to disagree with them though, right?

8/18/2007 4:01:38 PM

HBD Ron Paul

8/20/2007 8:52:04 AM

Quote :

"High-Risk Spending by Ron Paul Last week this column addressed the train wreck that federal spending has become. To score political points politicians will make loud noise about fairly small matters such as earmarks, even while refusing to address the real problem. Namely, that our federal government is too big and does too much. Politicians prefer to pass a bill or create a program every time somebody points to a new social problem; this way they can tell their constituents how much they are doing to help. Instead of rationally explaining the proper role of government, politicians have attempted to play the role of friend, preacher, parent, social worker, etcetera – in essence, whatever any organized special interest can demand. Waste, fraud and abuse are often easy targets. Everybody knows a story of the government doing something absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Plus, recent headlines have been packed with stories of corruption in Washington. One thing that has not drawn enough attention is the link between the size of government and the mismanagement that leads to wasted money. If the government was restrained within its proper constitutional functions, it would be far better managed and much more readily would proper oversight occur. You see, while waste, fraud and abuse are very easy to attack, it seems they are much more difficult to actually address within the current federal behemoth. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) puts out a “high risk list” and describes this list as programs with “vulnerabilities to fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement.” There are currently 27 programs and operations on this list, up from 26 last year. But here are the more surprising facts: The list was originated with 14 programs in 1990. Of those original 14 programs, from 17 years ago, only 8 have been removed. How can it be that 6 programs remain on such a list nearly two decades later? While government is supposed to move slowly, this is ridiculous. What the GAO is saying is that a problem exists, we have been aware of it for 17 years, and it is still not corrected. Of course, with the size and scope of federal activity, including attempting to rebuild societies in the middle east, and massively expanding federal involvement in education (along with thousands of other “programs”), it is small wonder that this list doesn’t really get addressed. Yet it does seem reasonable to ask “If you can’t stop waste in 6 federal programs after 17 years, how exactly will you improve local schools or foreign nations?” In the time that the GAO list has existed, there have been 33 additions and a mere 18 removals, including two this year. Only when the people demand the federal government stop trying to meet any and all demands, and instead return to a constitutionally limited republic, will the list of programs subject to waste, fraud and abuse be dramatically reduced. While government will never be perfect, a limited government is far more able to not only identify problems, but to actually correct them."

8/20/2007 9:30:13 AM

according to wikipedia, there's supposed to be a debate today in reno, nevada...but i cant find any info other than that...anyone know if this debate is still on?

8/20/2007 10:34:10 AM

Quote :

"i must be a fucking idiot to disagree with them though, right?"

Not at all, everyone is certainly entitled to his or her political ideal.

You are an idiot to not understand that his opposition to new policy doesn't mean he isn't doing anything in office. His opposition is exactly why he got there in the first place.

8/20/2007 10:47:11 AM

where exactly did i speak of his motivations?

i'm just saying that he won't get anywhere in a presidential run because he can't provide evidence of things that he has done. he hasn't exactly strung together any sort of a coalition to make his no votes mean anything. he hasn't done much of substance beyond casting no votes (or not casting votes at all in many cases) on basically anything having to do with spending money. sure that makes a point maybe. but it doesn't translate to much of anything when you're one vote out of hundreds.

a president should be able to compromise and be able to gather people around a cause (and not just people on the internet, but people in washington too)

and i really don't understand the need for personal attacks. and you should watch who you talk about. i may have known you since middle school or something (which i have)

8/20/2007 11:28:02 AM

you used the word idiot I'm just messing with you.

My only point is that his no-votes ARE examples of his motivations and his effects in office. To say "one vote in hundreds doesnt even matter" is completely ridiculous. I could just as easily claim any senator voting in favor of failing propositions because it's only "one vote in hundreds" doesnt make a difference.

The reality is that MOST legislation hinges on a very small majority of votes and that no vote can often times be crucial. In addition, as president he would be granted much more control in stopping legislation.

8/20/2007 7:33:52 PM

Quote :

"according to wikipedia, there's supposed to be a debate today in reno, nevada...but i cant find any info other than that...anyone know if this debate is still on?"

It was going to be the "Big 3" plus Ron Paul - those were the only invitees. Once the Big 3 heard of this, they all backed out. Motivations could range from "They're scared of him!" which, I think in some sense is true, but more that they just don't want to legitimize him. He would also bring the debate back to fundamental questions on war, spending, privacy rights, etc. - which would not give them as much opportunity to flesh out their plans/views, because they're stuck discussing underlying principle.

Even as a Paul supporter, I think that's a legitimate reason to back out. They want chances to differentiate themselves from each other - not chances to differentiate themselves from Ron Paul.

8/20/2007 8:06:46 PM

Quote :

"Socialists and Neocons versus Ron Paul by Bryan Edds From my experience, people who attack libertarians such as Ron Paul are often not serious about ideas. I have noticed the individuals who deride Dr. Paul do so mostly with shallow and dishonest attacks. Take the various socialists and welfare-statists who attack Ron Paul. I understand they support nationalizing healthcare while generally being against the occupation of Iraq. Because they oppose the occupation, they should find a powerful ally in someone as principally opposed to it as Ron Paul. Take also the neoconservatives in the mass (minded) media such as Faux News who attack and omit Dr. Paul. I understand they support the occupation of the Middle East but also believe government should be strictly limited in accordance with traditional conservative ideas (right? right???). In Ron Paul, they have a great opportunity to highlight these at least rhetorical parallels while simultaneously expressing reasonable disagreements. Because of these considerations, I believe it reasonable to expect a certain amount of give and take among the three camps, if only for practical reasons. What I have experienced instead has been a surreal and dishonest two-front attack against Ron Paul. No argument seems to be too trivial or irrelevant for the anti-Paulians to make. They seem to be bringing up every possible issue (real or imagined) against Ron Paul in the hopes something – anything – will stick. Consider: While the President gets dictatorial power to spy on and indefinitely kidnap innocent Americans, socialists and neocons speculate wildly about Ron Paul supporters "spamming" internet polls. While thousands of men, women, and children violently die in Iraq and Afghanistan, socialists and neocons misrepresent Ron Paul's refusal to fund stem cell research. While the Bush administration plots to drop nuclear weapons on Iran, socialists and neocons spin every single Ron Paul victory to be meaningless or nonexistent. While people suffer without healthcare because government intervention makes it unaffordable to the poor, socialists and neocons distort a decade-old mishap Ron Paul had with one of his previous ghostwriters. Where they manage to attack Dr. Paul’s ideas directly, they do so with increasingly ineffective arguments. Consider further: While the Constitution is trashed and mocked by all three branches, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's message of rule of law is anachronistic. While government at all levels rob the people blind, socialists and neocons sneer at Ron Paul’s suggestion to get rid of the Federal income tax. While the American economy further implodes due to the boom and bust cycle created by the Federal Reserve, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's anti-Fed proposals are "irrelevant." While the prices of essential goods dramatically increase via inflation, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's hard-money ideas are unrealistic. While Ron Paul educates Americans on economics, socialists and neocons spread discredited Keynesian and Marxist myths which undermine liberty and prosperity. While Ron Paul plans to help reintegrate America with the world through peaceful trade and foreign policy, socialists and neocons smear him as "isolationist." While Ron Paul gains more supporters every day, socialists and neocons criticize his lack of name recognition in land-line phone polling – yet at the same time groan about how fanatical and pervasive his supporters are... Something isn't right. There is honest disagreement, and then there is demagoguery. There is mutual respect, and then there is mud-slinging. I cannot name one person who Dr. Paul has disparaged as badly as most of his critics see fit to disparage him. This says a lot about all said parties involved. What is it then about Ron Paul that inspires such fevered attacks? I will say what I believe. I believe the battle for freedom takes place not only in the upcoming election, but also in the arena of ideas. In this arena, I believe Ron Paul’s message is more powerful than any political shenanigans that can be put against him. I believe also the embittered detractors have good reason to be up in arms. With every Ron Paul victory, they have found their intellectual weaponry to be unexpectedly brittle and ineffective against the message of freedom. "

8/22/2007 9:46:23 AM

That article reads like one of salisburyboys posts.

Quote :

"people who attack libertarians such as Ron Paul are often not serious about ideas"

"If you don't agree with me/him, you're stupid."

Quote :

"Take also the neoconservatives in the mass (minded) media such as Faux News who attack and omit Dr. Paul."

Yay, I'm an idiot blogger who can call Fox news Faux, get it! I can play with phonetics and make arguments that say that Ron Paul is being ignored while at the same time as being attacked!





For the record I support Paul more than most other candidates. That article was just stupid and makes everyone that supports him look like an idiot.

8/22/2007 10:14:47 AM

^
Oh I dunno. Seems like the author would fit in quite nicely here in the Wolf Web.

8/22/2007 10:46:51 AM

Sadly, you may have a point.

8/22/2007 10:48:44 AM

That's why i said it sounds like salisburyboy's (or maybe even hooksaw or treetwista's) posts.

8/22/2007 10:55:09 AM

Quote :

"August 22, 2007 At a talk show in Nashua, New Hampshire, the host asked me about the fair tax. Well, I agree on getting rid of the IRS, I told her, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax, I said. This was something she had never considered, but after I talked about the depreciation of our dollar by the Federal Reserve, its creation of artificial booms and busts, and its bailouts of the big banks and Wall Street firms, to the detriment of the average person, she loved it. That is another tax, she agreed, a hidden and particularly vicious tax. They try to tell us that the money issue is boring or irrelevant. In fact, it is the very pith of our social lives, and morally, Constitutionally, and economically, the central bank is a disaster. Thanks to the work of this movement, Americans are starting to understand what has been hidden from them for so long: that we have a right to sound and honest money, not to a dollar debauched for the special interests. Unconstitutional government has created a war crisis, a financial crisis, a dollar crisis, and a freedom crisis. But we don't have to take it. We don't have to passively accept more dead soldiers, a lower standard of living, rising prices, a national ID, eavesdropping on our emails and phone calls, and all the rest. We can return to first principles, and build the brightest, most brilliant future any people on earth has ever aspired to. Help me teach this lesson. Help me campaign all over this country, in cooperation with our huge and growing volunteer army. Help me show that change is not only possible, but also essential. Please, make your most generous contribution (https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/) to this campaign for a Constitutional presidency worthy of our people. Invest in freedom: for yourself, for your family, for your future. Sincerely, Ron"

Part of an e-mail that the Ron Paul campaign sends out to those who sign up for newsletters. I'm curious about this notion of a fair tax. I've done a paper on taxation, and the problem isn't really the IRS but the code that the IRS is tasked to enforce. This is the first Paul newsletter of this sort that I've gotten that has seemed overly outrageous to me. Any thoughts on "fair" taxation? What are other candidates saying about taxation?

8/22/2007 4:16:38 PM

What did you think was outrageous?

8/22/2007 4:39:29 PM

Having no taxes is outrageous. There are services that only a federal government can provide. I'm all for small government, but it isn't realistic to ask tariffs to pay for services today. We could downsize the government by many orders of magnitude, and still need to tax individuals. It might come as consumption taxes, income taxes, or whatever else, but there has to be a system of basic taxation to fund federal government only services (military, trade negotiations, foreign aid...)

8/22/2007 5:23:40 PM

16th amendment is all about the apportioned, direct and indirect taxing.....I believe the 16th changed verbage to allow a federal income tax which was once unconstitutional.

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2007 9:58:51 AM

Quote :

"Unconstitutional government has created a war crisis, a financial crisis, a dollar crisis, and a freedom crisis. But we don't have to take it. We don't have to passively accept more dead soldiers, a lower standard of living, rising prices, a national ID, eavesdropping on our emails and phone calls, and all the rest."

Damn if this doesn't sound like a certain crazy ass Soap Box poster...

8/23/2007 10:02:04 AM

^
Is it really your intention to ridicule those concerned with the problems of fiat money and inflationary spending? Your dollar ahs lost 95% of its spending power since the Fed came into being. Alex Jones had nothing to do with that.

8/23/2007 10:30:15 AM

Quote :

"Your dollar ahs lost 95% of its spending power since the Fed came into being."

Relative to what?

8/23/2007 1:18:05 PM

Relative to the price of a night out on the town, back when Earthdogg was our ages.

8/23/2007 3:30:34 PM

Quote :

"Relative to what?"

Sorry..Let me put it this way for you... Something that cost $10 in 1913 today would cost $210.

Something that cost $10 in 1983 (around when you may have been born) today would cost $20.

It takes more money to buy the same item...our money is becoming worthless. Thus the hidden tax of inflation.

8/23/2007 7:41:41 PM

but the rate of inflation is dramatically lower than the rate of earning.

People forget that Ron Paul is all about removing the FEDERAL taxes, not state. He is trying to reduce the federal government. And frankly there isn't a whole lot that the Fed needs taxes to do, other than defense, roads, national preservation and maybe environmentalism.

8/23/2007 8:23:06 PM