Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[alexamenos]

The official explanation from the Iowans for Tax Relief is that Paul was excluded because they planned the forum months in advance and their invitations were made at that time.

Of course it's worth noting that they've dropped one speaker and added another in the last week, so the explanation that their speaker list was set months ago is crap.

[Mavdog]

as i understand ron paul's position on tax relief, it's pretty simple: eliminate the income tax totally and not replace it with any new source of federal income.

commensurate with this approx 30% reduction in income, reduce federal spending by the same amount.

does ANYONE really believe this will be possible?

and second, if the income tax revenue is wiped away, wouldn't federal spending need to be reduced by about 130% of the amount of previous income tax revenues to balance the revenues/outlays? iow, we're currently seeing a deficit of a couple hundred billion dollars with an income tax.

does ANYONE really believe this would be possible?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

commensurate with this approx 30% reduction in income, reduce federal spending by the same amount.

does ANYONE really believe this will be possible?

You ask whether it is possible to reduce Federal Spending by 30%.

Do you realize that a 30% decrease in Federal Spending would take us to spending levels we had in the first years of the Bush Administration? Not the first Bush Administration, but the current Bush Administration....

Why is it impossible to imagine that spending levels which were adequate in 2001 are not at all possible today?

Do you realize that we could decrease spending by 40% and still be at the 1994 spending level, the last year in which the Democrats controlled both Houses and the White House?

Why is it impossible to imagine that spending levels which were adequate the last time the Dems held all the cards can be adequate today?

[Mavdog]

for one, the "30% reduction" you mention is the federal budget amount, which i believe does not include the war in iraq...so add another couple billion to that sum.

second, isn't a balanced account a reasonable goal? ...so add a few billion more to that amount.

(imho a balanced account is much more important)

add into the equation the fact that the 2001 price index is about 15% less than the 2007 price index, so let's add a few billion more to that amount. 1994 price levels? forgetaboutit.

so no, unless you advocate to reduce our military equipment purchases, or the pay levels for our armed forces, or to stop constructing highways, or stop the provision of public health services, or to stop scientific research grants, etc.......where are you going to cut federal spending the 30% you and ron paul advocate?

if the idea was to reduce the federal budget by a reasonable amount, I'd support that. 5%? 10%? sure, let's cut the pork.

iow, it's easy to throw out the idea of getting rid of the income tax, and believe me I do not support the current inequitable and overly manipulated tax code, but it's unrealistic to expect that the revenue source wouldn't need to be replaced.

[mcsluggo]

only 30% of federal revenues come from income taxes? really?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

for one, the "30% reduction" you mention is the federal budget amount, which i believe does not include the war in iraq...so add another couple billion to that sum.

I'm looking at actual spending, not budgets.

so no, unless you advocate to reduce our military equipment purchases, or the pay levels for our armed forces, or to stop constructing highways, or stop the provision of public health services, or to stop scientific research grants, etc.......where are you going to cut federal spending the 30% you and ron paul advocate?

Is this supposed to be a trick question? I'd think pulling out of Iraq would pretty well take of our miltary equipment spending, and take alot off pressure of pay levels for armed forces.

at any rate, I rather like the idea of cutting or eliminating all that you've mentioned, and you haven't even mentioned the Department of Education.

add into the equation the fact that the 2001 price index is about 15% less than the 2007 price index, so let's add a few billion more to that amount. 1994 price levels? forgetaboutit.

good point...inasmuch as that 15% reduction in the value of your dollar is a product of deficit spending and the monetary expansion, perhaps we should consider the elmination of the Federal Reserve while we're at it?

Cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

only 30% of federal revenues come from income taxes? really?

maybe more like 40%, but whatever it is it's considerably less than half....

a huge proportion of the revenues come from payroll taxes, which are not considered income taxes despite the fact that they are taxes paid as a percentage of your income.....

also, a whole lot comes from borrowing....borrowing and payroll taxes probably account for upwards of 50% of federal revenues, with corporate and excise taxes making up the rest.

hmmm....might as well interject a fact or two.....

for 2005, tax revenues as a percentage of spending.........

income taxes = 37.5%
payroll taxes = 32.0%

borrowing, corporate taxes and excise/estate/etc taxes making up the rest.

[mcsluggo]

well.....

payroll taxes are the direct contributions to Social Security, right...? so those should't really be in the whole discussion, since it is supposed to be an isolated trust fund, not related to overall general federal spending (CERTAINLY not in a discussion of government REVENUE, although the grubby hands certainy raid this cookie jar frequently enough)


corporate taxes really ARE income taxes... to incorporate a company means to treat the company as a stand alone individual (for liability purposes... the buck stops THERE), and the cost (from the investors viewpoint) of that bargain is that ... corrporations are treated as stand alone individuals (and their income is taxed as such)

borrowing shouldn't be treated as revenue per se either. It is the stopgap fix to meet the shortfall of costs versus revenue... not a source of revenue. I would hope that any tax cutting champion would have the nads to AT LEAST first cut spending enough that there isn't a deficit BEFORE the tax cuts are even implimented... In my opinion tax cuts without matching spending cuts are the ABSOLUTE PINACLE of lazy incompetent populist pussy-ass governing. (not holding my breath, though.)


anyway... just some musings.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm looking at actual spending, not budgets.

you should read ron paul's proposal more closely...

Is this supposed to be a trick question? I'd think pulling out of Iraq would pretty well take of our miltary equipment spending, and take alot off pressure of pay levels for armed forces.

most of the spending on Iraq is "off budget".

the costs of iraq are large, but so are the ships and airplanes we procure, which of course will not end if the iraq conflcit goes away.

and then when the iraq conflict stops, we'll need to replenish the stores of weapons we used over there, the guns, the ammo, the materials we typically have in reserve.

at any rate, I rather like the idea of cutting or eliminating all that you've mentioned, and you haven't even mentioned the Department of Education.

the dept of education budget for 2006 was a tad less than $90 billion, so you're not even a third of the way there..

why one would advocate reducing the support for educating our youth is beyond me. talk about a shortsighted position...let's NOT educate our youth! that's a GREAT plan for our future competitiveness and prosperity, let me tell ya!

good point...inasmuch as that 15% reduction in the value of your dollar is a product of deficit spending and the monetary expansion, perhaps we should consider the elmination of the Federal Reserve while we're at it?

Cheers

oh, that dastardly federal reserve must have manipulated the commodity markets around the world to increase the costs!

there are few economists who agree with the convoluted idea put forth by you and ron paul, which is that the federal reserve increased inflation rather than what they actually succeeded in doing, reducing inflation...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

well.....

payroll taxes are the direct contributions to Social Security, right...? so those should't really be in the whole discussion, since it is supposed to be an isolated trust fund, not related to overall general federal spending (CERTAINLY not in a discussion of government REVENUE, although the grubby hands certainy raid this cookie jar frequently enough)

well.....dollars are fungible, so saying this dollar goes to that thing while that other dollar goes to the other thing is rather useless. In my view, payroll taxes are income taxes, Social Security payments are welfare benefits, and everything else is accounting and semantic gimickry.

In my opinion tax cuts without matching spending cuts are the ABSOLUTE PINACLE of lazy incompetent populist pussy-ass governing. (not holding my breath, though.)

Absolutely. A government taxes what it spends, without question. The politicians who tout tax cuts on one hand and while delivering spending increases on the other are low-lifes more deserving of castration than elected office.

(Not that I'm referring to any actual politicians alive and serving today, just hypothetically you understand.)

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...there are few economists who agree with the convoluted idea put forth by you and ron paul, which is that the federal reserve increased inflation rather than what they actually succeeded in doing, reducing inflation...

I said it before and I'll say it again....put the macro economics down, MD, you're just gonna hurt yourself if not somebody esle.

Aside from that....you are absolutely correct, we can't can't cut the budget by 30% and still retain a massive Federal government that is responsible for educating our children, building our highways, providing us with healthcare, supporting our poor and old, democratizing iraq, supporting a military that is 10 times the size of the next ten biggest militaries combined, controlling CO2 admissions etc., etc....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I said it before and I'll say it again....put the macro economics down, MD, you're just gonna hurt yourself if not somebody esle.

what incredible support you voice for the william jennings bryanesque position of ron paul.

hey, come on into the 21st century, the waters fine....

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what incredible support you voice for the william jennings bryanesque position of ron paul.

hey, come on into the 21st century, the waters fine....

alex's really quick review of monetary history....

fiat currencies fail, badly, usually within one hundred years of iinception;

silver and gold have been reliable monies for a few thousand years.

Hey Mavdog, come into the AD's, the waters are very fine.

------------------------

seriously, tho.....

1) it's much easier to print a new dollar than to take a dollar from the hands of someone who has earned the dollar; therefore,
2) governments (throughout history) have been overwhelmingly inclined to debase* their currency by printing more and more of it to pay mounting debts; accordingly,
3) one day the government prints so much of it that people start to get the idea that the currency is worthless; which leads to....
4) all sorts of very bad things.

This is a process that has repeated itself too many times in history to ignore.

cheers

*actually, printing isn't the only way to debase a currency, and it doesn't just happen to fiat currencies. Mixing some cheaper metal into gold and silver was the preferred method for the Romans, among others. Fiat currencies are just much easier to debase to the point of worthlessness.

[Mavdog]

as "fiat currency" is a rather modern concept, it is difficult to endorse your generalization that they "fail badly within one hundered years of inception".

we actually have more of a credit money system today anyhoo...

you should look at the m1 supply over the last decade or so. it's pretty flat, which says 1) the feds aren't really expanding the supply, and 2) inflation exists even with a static supply level.

so, to summarize, our federal reserve is pretty darn smart about these things, the federal board of govs have done well and should be commended, and ron paul and other bryanians are making much ado about nothing.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as "fiat currency" is a rather modern concept, it is difficult to endorse your generalization that they "fail badly within one hundered years of inception".

The chinese had a fiat currency over 1,000 years ago.

You can point to just about any country in Europe or Africa and find a couple of examples of a fiat currency gone haywire. The notion that fiat currencies fail badly, and in relatively short order, is not a difficult thing to endorse.

you should look at the m1 supply over the last decade or so. it's pretty flat, which says 1) the feds aren't really expanding the supply, and 2) inflation exists even with a static supply level.

instead of looking at one component, why not look at the aggregate money supply? M2 has increased by 55% since January, 2000.

so, to summarize, our federal reserve is pretty darn smart about these things, the federal board of govs have done well and should be commended, and ron paul and other bryanians are making much ado about nothing.

to summarize....you're wrong on the most basic facts regarding money supply in the US.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Interesting stuff here --> link.

It may be worth reflecting back upon at a subsequent point in time. It'll further be interesting to see whether some mainstream guys that are following Paul pretty closely will take note, Andrew Sullivan being a fair example and Tucker Carlson being another.

In re this ^^^ stuff...

The upcoming Republican Candidate's Forum in Iowa is being sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance. We've already established that the Iowans for Tax Relief aren't interested in the most pro-tax relief candidate running for office, so let's take a look at the Iowa Christian Alliance list of Republican Candidates.

The Iowa Christian Alliances' "Meet the Candidates" Webpage

Republican 2008 Hopefuls

Announced Candidates:
Sam Brownback
Hugh Cort
John Cox
Jim Gilmore
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Mark Klein
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson


Potential Candidates:
Michael Bloomberg (Independent)
Newt Gingrich
Chuck Hagel
Fred Thompson

....who are Hugh Cort, John Cox, and Mark Klein? What staunchly pro-life, practicing protestant Christian candidate is not listed?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The Iowa Christian Alliances' "Meet the Candidates" Webpage

really cool....compare this link^^^ with a capture of the same page from a couple of weeks ago --> link.

Paul was listed as a candidate a couple of weeks ago, but no longer. The only change of substance from the old page to the new page was to remove Paul's name from the list of candidates, and this occurred during a time when his campaign was demonstrably gaining momentum.

The only plausible explanation is that the Iowan Christian Alliance is deliberately trying to keep Paul from gaining popularity within their state and/or group, and it's fair game to wonder why.

[alexamenos]

pardon me while I talk to myself, but I thought this would prove interesting and it really is......here's a telling bit from John Fund (Wall Street Journal Political Diary)....

There was a brief effort to exclude Texas Congressman Ron Paul from future GOP debates after he used a South Carolina event to criticize U.S. foreign policy as a contributing factor to the 9/11 attacks. The expulsion effort wisely died down when its organizer, GOP State Chairman Saul Anuzis of Michigan, realized (as he later told me) “we were helping Ron Paul by giving him publicity.”

You’d think the lesson would have been learned. But it appears that organizers of a forthcoming presidential forum in Iowa on June 30 have decided Mr. Paul will not be welcome. Six other candidates, ranging from Mitt Romney to Tom Tancredo, will be speaking.

Isn't that a telling quote?

The problem here, according to Fund, is not so much that Party leaders are trying to squelch debate and exclude candidates with differing points of view, but rather that they are giving candidates with alternative views too much publicity by doing so. That is a frank and stark admission that our *democratic choices* are limited to those acceptable to party muckity mucks....

....it's rather like we have a choice of any restaurant in town, provided the choice is McDonald's or Burger King.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The chinese had a fiat currency over 1,000 years ago.

for a short period of time mind you, and also in a closed economy that did not trade outside of itself.

that's the best you can do? tsk tsk

You can point to just about any country in Europe or Africa and find a couple of examples of a fiat currency gone haywire. The notion that fiat currencies fail badly, and in relatively short order, is not a difficult thing to endorse.

just what public, not private, forms are you referring to?

instead of looking at one component, why not look at the aggregate money supply? M2 has increased by 55% since January, 2000.

because m2 is not as accurate in defining the available money supply, the m2 figure includes savings accounts and other time deposit accounts. those are not immediately available for redemption by their very nature.

to summarize....you're wrong on the most basic facts regarding money supply in the US.

if you put a "nah nah nah" at the front you sound very much like my 6 year old...

"wrong" about the static nature of m1? nope, I'm right.

wrong about the fed managing our economy in a way that has benefited us? nope, I'm right.

tell me, just what have you said that has shown to be correct?

well?

you claim the federal reserve has fostered an inflationary environment by not pegging the dollar to gold.

then you claim that the fed has induced inflation by printing money.

that's flat out wrong....but then at least you're consistent.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

that's the best you can do? tsk tsk

MD -- you stated that fiat currencies are modern concept. I referenced a fiat currency from 1,000 years ago to demonstrate that they aren't a modern concept.

You state this fiat currency was only in exsitence for "a short period of time." Not only do I not disagree, but this is exactly my point.

just what public...forms are you referring to?

I don't know what you mean.

because m2 is not as accurate in defining the available money supply, the m2 figure includes savings accounts and other time deposit accounts. those are not immediately available for redemption by their very nature.

if we asked milton friedman or alan greenspan which was the more accurate measure I'm fairly certain that m2 would be the answer.

it is arbitrary to draw a line between money *immediately* available and money available after a few days, weeks, or even months. In either case the money is part of the overall supply of money.

"wrong" about the static nature of m1? nope, I'm right.

...the m1 supply has not been static, but has instead increased by more than 30% over the last decade, or slightly less than 3% (a number which not too surprisingly corresponds to FED published consumer price index rates over the last decade).

lessee....r-sq of cpi regressed on m1 = 99%....that is, 99% of the variability in the consumer pice index is explained by the supply of m1 over the last 45 years. The data is readily available on the web, and this process took me about 5 minutes -- you can check my math if you like.

Hence, inflation is unquestionably closely related to the supply of m1 (and that's by the US BLS's own exceedingly lame measures of inflation, measures which begin with the assumption that price increases are often the result of something other than an increase in price).

if you put a "nah nah nah" at the front you sound very much like my 6 year old...

I'm sure I'd enjoy a conversation with your six year old, I gather he knows at least as much about macro economics as you.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

Alex,

Your knowledge of the individual aspects of monetary economics is fine. I'd quibble with some niggling things here and there on the smal micro level points... but it would mostly be fairly small scale shadings and what not. That said, it would seem like you've got a good view of the trees, but have lost a little sight of the forrest, in my opinion. I view Mr. Paul's views on monetary economics (admidly mostly non-specific and inferred from others reporting on it) as borderline tin-hat-ish. One of the single most valuable assets the U.S. has is its role as THE currency of record in the global economy. This position comes about due to the vast credibility it is afforded in global markets. To toss this out the window out of some nostalgia for bye-gone days is tantamount to scrapping all the cars for horses and buggies... because didn't they just work well enough back in their day, damnit.

To point to mistaken attempts at the utilization of fiat currencies from the past as clear indication of this nostalgia view of the world. Fact is, monetary policy is a technology just like any other. It is a skill that has required development just like any other. Just because those absurd flapping wing air machines from the 1850s won't fly and would kill ya doesn't mean you shouldn't fly business class in a 767 today.

We have already discussed the relative weaknesses of using a commodity with uncontrolled levels of supply (and non monetary sources of demand) as the foundation of a currency regime, so we don't need to rehash it completely again (the gold and silver found in the "new world" that flooded into spain was a large contributing cause of the end of Spain's position as a global power). THere is actually a REASON that every monetary system in the world today is either directly fiat or indirectly (as in they tie themselves to the DOLLAR rather than to a commodity)... commodities and their prices are too damn eratic. If any country were going to forray back into commodity based systems... it sure as hell shouldn't be the US or other global powers whose monetary authorities currently command great credibility with the markets, it certainly WOULD be one of the small eratic currency regimes that are unable to command any authority with the markets when they announce monetary targets (that are inherently not perfectly observable)... but for some reason every country in that position that chooses to retreat from the pure fiat based regime chooses to back itself with DOLLARS rather than commodities. Hmm.




now, because I can't resist quibling

Originally Posted by alexamenos

MD -- you stated that fiat currencies are modern concept. I referenced a fiat currency from 1,000 years ago to demonstrate that they aren't a modern concept.

You state this fiat currency was only in exsitence for "a short period of time." Not only do I not disagree, but this is exactly my point.



I don't know what you mean.



if we asked milton friedman or alan greenspan which was the more accurate measure I'm fairly certain that m2 would be the answer.

it is arbitrary to draw a line between money *immediately* available and money available after a few days, weeks, or even months. In either case the money is part of the overall supply of money.

agreed

although an increasing money supply is not in and of itself an indication of an inflationary monetary policy (as we discussed above). there is money SUPPLY, and you can't determine whether a certain level is inflationary without talking about what is happening with money DEMAND, which intrinsically increases over time in a non-stagnant economy

...the m1 supply has not been static, but has instead increased by more than 30% over the last decade, or slightly less than 3% (a number which not too surprisingly corresponds to FED published consumer price index rates over the last decade).

lessee....r-sq of cpi regressed on m1 = 99%....that is, 99% of the variability in the consumer pice index is explained by the supply of m1 over the last 45 years. The data is readily available on the web, and this process took me about 5 minutes -- you can check my math if you like.

Hence, inflation is unquestionably closely related to the supply of m1 (and that's by the US BLS's own exceedingly lame measures of inflation, measures which begin with the assumption that price increases are often the result of something other than an increase in price).

you gotta be careful here. Money and prices are by definition tied in together, to look at correlation, and then asign causation is dangerous territory. once there is inflation in an economy (for whatever initial reason) it becomes embedded, at which point a non-recessionary monetary policy implies assuming that existing level of inflation... this means that inflation causes MS increases, not the other way around.

that said, it is basically true (by definition) that you can't have inflation i the long run without a monetary policy that accomodates it.

the thing is that the fed doesn't pursue a zero inflation target for its montary policy... but this isn't a bug its a FEATURE. Low levels of inflation allow the economy to absorb small real shocks as monetary or price changes, rather than as real changes (as in, scaling back production and firing workers). This is a good thing. Ask the Japanese which they prefer... 2% inflation or 2% deflation?

I'm sure I'd enjoy a conversation with your six year old, I gather he knows at least as much about macro economics as you.

cheers

I gotta go now... but I'm sure you won't take THIS sitting down

[alexamenos]

good post, mcsluggo. I will have to leave the comfort of the trees and venture into the forrest to adress this, at which point Dr. Paul's tin-foil hat will look positively demure in comparison to my headdressing.

Regards

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

really cool....compare this link^^^ with a capture of the same page from a couple of weeks ago --> link.

Paul was listed as a candidate a couple of weeks ago, but no longer. The only change of substance from the old page to the new page was to remove Paul's name from the list of candidates, and this occurred during a time when his campaign was demonstrably gaining momentum.

The only plausible explanation is that the Iowan Christian Alliance is deliberately trying to keep Paul from gaining popularity within their state and/or group, and it's fair game to wonder why.

Looks like the Iowan Christian Alliance had a come to Jesus meeting over the question of whether to include Ron Paul on their list of candidates.....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

MD -- you stated that fiat currencies are modern concept. I referenced a fiat currency from 1,000 years ago to demonstrate that they aren't a modern concept.

You state this fiat currency was only in exsitence for "a short period of time." Not only do I not disagree, but this is exactly my point.

so an emporer in china developed a fiat type currency that didn't even reach outside his realm, and that's an example of how "they fail within 100 years"?

not very persausive.

I don't know what you mean.

please take the time to learn abour public and private tender...

if we asked milton friedman or alan greenspan which was the more accurate measure I'm fairly certain that m2 would be the answer.

the two have their own characteristics. hint: that's why they are BOTH tracked. if one were wholly "more accurate", the other wouldn't be needed would it?

it is arbitrary to draw a line between money *immediately* available and money available after a few days, weeks, or even months. In either case the money is part of the overall supply of money.

guess you don't understand the disincentive placed on the retrival of time account funds.

if money isn't available today, how can it be used? answer: it can't.

one can borrow against it, at a cost. one can get to their ira or 401, but it costs you to do so. alot.

but the funds are out of reach at that point in time. they can't be used to purchase goods.

...the m1 supply has not been static, but has instead increased by more than 30% over the last decade, or slightly less than 3% (a number which not too surprisingly corresponds to FED published consumer price index rates over the last decade).

you really don't see the forest do you...or are you intentionally trying to be deceptive?

Q1 1997 m1 was at 1080.0
Q1 2001 m1 was at 1096.8

(so much for that 3% annual growth)

in response to the 2001 recession,
Q1 2002 m1 increased to 1190.0, increasing steadily to
Q4 2003 when m1 broached 1300.0 (1305.5 to be exact)

it's currently at 1375.9

(so much for that 3% annual growth again)

so, to summarize, a time period of 4 years of near static figures, 2 years of increase to combat a recessionary environment (btw a response milton friedman would endorse), and now 4 years of near static figures.

a graph of which does not correspond to the price index over the same period.

lessee....r-sq of cpi regressed on m1 = 99%....that is, 99% of the variability in the consumer pice index is explained by the supply of m1 over the last 45 years. The data is readily available on the web, and this process took me about 5 minutes -- you can check my math if you like.

Hence, inflation is unquestionably closely related to the supply of m1 (and that's by the US BLS's own exceedingly lame measures of inflation, measures which begin with the assumption that price increases are often the result of something other than an increase in price).

ah, so now you have changed your position, it is now "inflation is closely related to the supply of m1"....no shock to any of us out here btw, it's what we've been saying all along, that the money supply is but one quotient. the quantity theory says that very thing...
you on the other hand have been saying that money supply itself causes inflation.

I'm sure I'd enjoy a conversation with your six year old, I gather he knows at least as much about macro economics as you.

at least, unlike you appear to do, she and I understand supply AND demand....

[alexamenos]

mcsluggo....

after a very long response which I lost due to technological incompetence on my part, i've shaved my remarks down to the following...

We have already discussed the relative weaknesses of using a commodity with uncontrolled levels of supply (and non monetary sources of demand) as the foundation of a currency regime

Which is least subject to a controlled level of supply?

Gold, (or some other naturally occuring commodity); or

The electronic 1's and '0s wheeling through computers round the world which comprise our monetary supply.

I would argue that the whim of the Federal Reserve is far less subject to control than the physical supply of gold -- indeed the control of the supply of a fiat currency depends upon BOTH the good intentions as well as the competence of those calling the shots.

One of the supreme advantages of a commodity backed currency, IMHO, is that this inhibits the growth of unchecked and centralized power. To the extent that we may not agree that checking such a thing is a pre-eminent concern, we're likely not to agree generally on monetary stuff.

also, I note where the mavs drafted a tall, white, skinny kid with a funny last name. it's nice to know that somethings never change.

[alexamenos]

I think I'll revise my earlier statement that Paul's chances are less than one in a million....I give him two, maybe three chances in a million these days.

The changed assessment is based on a variety of things, but especially things like this -> link.

Military [financial] support for the republican candidates

NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN] [USMC**]

RON PAUL: 24,965 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075] [1,500]
McCain: 17,475 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800] [1600]
Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0]
Giuliani: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250]
Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0]
Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500]
Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]

Units are contributions in dollars by employees of the respective military organizations.

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.

Percentages**:

49.5% Ron Paul
34.6% McCain
7.0% Romney
4.6% Giuliani
2.0% Hunter
2.3% Others

Certainly there are a lot of possible explanations for this, but if Paul is well-received in military circles than this could be a good leading indicator of credibility and acceptance amongst conservatives.

[alexamenos]

classic video -- Ron Paul ca 1988...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

[iella]

Just thought I'd drop in and say that my vote is going to Dr. Paul...

And cheers, alex!

[Arne]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

classic video -- Ron Paul ca 1988...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Hilarious...:-)

[alexamenos]

I'll be durn....a fellow over at National Review (chief propaganda organ for the Republican Party) has written an article touting Ron Paul for the Republican Party nod. I never thought I'd see such a thing....

I'm raising my assessment of his chances from 2 or 3 in a million to 4 in a million, or one in a quarter million for the fractionally inclined.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'll be durn....a fellow over at National Review (chief propaganda organ for the Republican Party) has written an article touting Ron Paul for the Republican Party nod. I never thought I'd see such a thing....

I'm raising my assessment of his chances from 2 or 3 in a million to 4 in a million, or one in a quarter million for the fractionally inclined.

this article had some good chuckles to it...

"Think about it: Clinton has already alienated the substantial antiwar faction of the Democratic party, while Ron Paul has inspired a supportive banner even at an anarchist rally full of hippies and punks, urging people to join the Ron Paul “love revolution.”

hillary has captured the anti-war faction fairly well, not alienated it, and the image of a bunch of "anarchist..hippies and punks" all chanting and rooting together for a political candidate (esp a republican) is truly funny to visualize.

"it’d sure be nice to have one pushing in a small-government conservative direction for the first time since Reagan, and arguably the first time since Coolidge."

that's pretty funny, calling reagan a "small government conservative".

thanks for the laugh alex...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

thanks for the laugh alex...

you're quite welcome...cheers

[mavsmanfromohio]

It like Ron Paul. Smart, honest man who would put his country first.

[Janett_Reno]

I also agree, Ron Paul is an honest man who would put his country first and i do not think he could get bought out. I would have no problem at all with him president.

[Arne]

Nice vid...:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0VNsLgrEGM

[alexamenos]

Illinois Straw Poll Results --> Link

Mitt Romney – 40.35%
Fred Thompson – 19.96%
Ron Paul – 18.87%
Rudy Giuliani – 11.61%
John McCain – 4.12%
Mike Huckabee – 3.04%
Sam Brownback – 1.08%
Duncan Hunter - .65%
Tom Tancrado - .33%


Third, only a sconce behind 2nd place Thompson, receiving more votes than the aggregate totals of of "serious" candidates McCain and Giuliani....

...that's a solid showing.

[Mavdog]

wow.o a secret plan to create the "north american union" and the new currency the "amero".
impending declaration of martial law.
ron, when will you take off the foil hat?

ron paul on with the ultimate conspiracy monger alex jones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_FSkc2BDrA

here's where ron paul suggests that there will be a "contrived terrorist attack" like the gulf of tonkin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yv1y3CwXKE

this is the person you want to be president?
yikes.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

wow.o a secret plan to create the "north american union" and the new currency the "amero".
impending declaration of martial law.
ron, when will you take off the foil hat?

a) the formation of a north american union, however we shall call it, ain't a secret plan, but rather it's something being done quite openly.

b) it ain't surprising that such a thing is happening, especially in view of the European Union, the African Union, the Union of South American Nations, etc., etc... That we and our fellow north americans are following suit is hardly an unthinkable thing.

here's where ron paul suggests that there will be a "contrived terrorist attack" like the gulf of tonkin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yv1y3CwXKE

and you think the notin we could have (could have, not will have) a "contrived terrorist attack" like the gulf of tonkin is just plumb crazy?

it's seems quite plausible, after all the gulf tonkin really did happen....well, it didn't really happen, but you get my gist. at any rate, the notion isn't unthinkable.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

a) the formation of a north american union, however we shall call it, ain't a secret plan, but rather it's something being done quite openly.

b) it ain't surprising that such a thing is happening, especially in view of the European Union, the African Union, the Union of South American Nations, etc., etc... That we and our fellow north americans are following suit is hardly an unthinkable thing.

those are a wide variety of "unions", and the suggestion that there is an ongoing establishment of a "north american union" with a common currency (avoided that eh?) and voluntary abandonment of american sovereignty such as was embraced by ron paul and alex jones is just plain nutty. just how is it being implemented, as you claim it's "being done openly"?

there is the free trade agreement, but the conspiracy that ron paul and jones subscribe to is in the same league as the trilateralist mumbo jumbo.

apparently you agree with them, as for me I look at the blather of jones, and clearly ron paul as well, as borderline paranoid lunacy.

not the type of person to be in the white house and in charge of our executive branch.

and you think the notin we could have (could have, not will have) a "contrived terrorist attack" like the gulf of tonkin is just plumb crazy?

it's seems quite plausible, after all the gulf tonkin really did happen....well, it didn't really happen, but you get my gist. at any rate, the notion isn't unthinkable.

cheers

yes, i do believe that it is crazy to believe that the white house would attempt to provoke a tonkin-like episode with iran. the world is a different place, and the benefits that were obtained then wouldn't be realized today.

it wouldn't change the view by those who oppose the use of force against iran, either domestically or internationally.

btw, ron paul later flip flopped on this very idea, saying on fox news that he doesn't subscribe to the theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQfU6q9Ujs

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is the free trade agreement, but the conspiracy that ron paul and jones subscribe to is in the same league as the trilateralist mumbo jumbo....

apparently you agree with them, as for me I look at the blather of jones, and clearly ron paul as well, as borderline paranoid lunacy.

not the type of person to be in the white house and in charge of our executive branch.

it's an odd position you take....i really don't know what to make of it.

yes, there is a "free trade agreement"....

...and yes, there are plans to build highways from Mexico to Canada....

...and yes, there is disconnect between elite and common views on illegal aliens from Mexico...

and yes, there are people who advocate the creation of a common currency for N. America.....

and yes, the Council on Foreign Relations proposes "a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010."

i don't know how seriously one should take the possibility of the creation of a North American Union, nor do I know whether such a thing would be inherently bad. But these things are happening and given the precedent set by the European Union I frankly don't understand why it is "borderline paranoid lunacy" to acknowledge these things.

yes, i do believe that it is crazy to believe that the white house would attempt to provoke a tonkin-like episode with iran. the world is a different place, and the benefits that were obtained then wouldn't be realized today.

perhaps if you would itemize some of the benefits arising from the Gulf of Tonkin incident....

btw, ron paul later flip flopped on this very idea, saying on fox news that he doesn't subscribe to the theory.

i didn't see any big flip flop there...I did see where the Fox anchor mis-characterized his position, and I can see how someone not familiar with important nuances of language and logic or someone relying upon the anchor's interpretation of his position could take this as a flip-flop.

it's interesting that folks are trying to smear Paul as a lunatic paranoid freak.....I actually think that's a positive development for him.

cheers