What's so crazy about the gold standard? I will admit, I do not know that much about the history of it and I have only read a little about it, but in seemed to work for quite some time and in theory would prevent the government from inflating the dollar.
The list of problems is long, but primarily it makes keeping the economy healthy and stable a far harder job then it already is. The fed does a lot of work to keep the dollar stable and inflation at a healthy natural rate (3-5%ish for the United States - higher for developing countries) through the fed funds rate, the discount rate, and the required reserve ratio.
Having to rely on a gold standard would - at best - make those things very very hard to do. At worst it could lead to some very bad things like deflation.
What's so crazy about the gold standard? I will admit, I do not know that much about the history of it and I have only read a little about it, but in seemed to work for quite some time and in theory would prevent the government from inflating the dollar.
The list of problems is long, but primarily it makes keeping the economy healthy and stable a far harder job then it already is. The fed does a lot of work to keep the dollar stable and inflation at a healthy natural rate (3-5%ish for the United States - higher for developing countries) through the fed funds rate, the discount rate, and the required reserve ratio.
Having to rely on a gold standard would - at best - make those things very very hard to do. At worst it could lead to some very bad things like deflation.
I couldn't believe they asked the candidates whether or not they believed the president has to go to congress first before declaring war. It seemed like the answer to that is retardedly obvious (it's yes), but almost all of them said no. Which is.... severely depressing, to say the least.
Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney seem to have huge hard-ons for "optimistic thinking", because they repeated it over and over. Too bad optimistic thinking doesn't actually solve anything.
I guess I shouldn't be too worried, because none of them will win anyway (even though I wish Ron Paul would).
I couldn't believe they asked the candidates whether or not they believed the president has to go to congress first before declaring war. It seemed like the answer to that is retardedly obvious (it's yes), but almost all of them said no. Which is.... severely depressing, to say the least.
I don’t know if they actually believe it, but I’d bet they said yes because the Republicans can’t appear weak on anything involving national security.
It wasn't proposed as a declaration of war but as a protracted air strike that would fall under the auspices of the War Powers Act. It's more of a 'will you be inclusive with your decision making on the most important foreign policy powers you control' question than you're making it out to be.
• Rep. Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But the maverick GOP lawmaker and presidential contender also has represented a congressional district that is consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's 2006 fiscal year alone, it received more than $4 billion in federal aid.
• The Texas Transportation Department has lately warned of a budget crunch. Yet the highway-building agency raked in more federal funds than all but three other state agencies around the nation in the first three quarters of the 2006 fiscal year: $2.9 billion
These and other findings are included in a state-by-state breakdown of federal spending by the group OMB Watch.
The analysis provides an insight into where federal dollars are flowing and underscores what Southern Methodist University political science professor Cal Jillson calls the "pork-barrel libertarianism" philosophy of many Texans.
"Texans like to think of themselves as the modern-day Marlboro Man," he said, "small government, low taxes and deregulation and 'keep your hands out of our pockets and I will take care of myself.' But they reach out to Washington every time there seems to be federal money available."
Is there a large U.S. military presence in Paul's district? When people talk about government money going to southern states, that's often a large part of it.
Also, I'm not sure what relevance the TTD's budget crisis has to the amount of federal money it's getting, but in any case, it stands to reason that maintaining the highways in Texas would be more expensive than in most other states. There's a lot more highway.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Is there a large U.S. military presence in Paul's district? When people talk about government money going to southern states, that's often a large part of it.
I'm not sure that military falls under the definition of "federal aid." Usually, they refer to things like the $400 million worth of earmarks that Ron Paul requested for things like subsidizing the local shrimping industry. It's actually pretty funny watching the Paul Savants trying to rationalize how the rules apparently don't apply to their savior.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul'â„¢s district?)
The short answer...YES. http://www.jarbobayoutimes.com/fish...
And, I won't provide the links but chemicals and antibiotics in imported shrimp, particularly from China and others involved in aqua-farming as opposed to wild are of great concern. Look it up and I am sure you won't want imported shrimp. The FDA is supposed to check...but they are too busy checking dog food, I guess. This alone should be reason enough to protect "wild" shrimping and ensure that at least those of us in the US of A can have good shrimp caught off the gulf if we want it.
It's a valid point, except for the fact that I seriously doubt that they would approve if someone like Barbara Boxer asked for it in her own district. It's not the earmark that people hate, it's the hypocrisy.
Also, I'm not sure what relevance the TTD's budget crisis has to the amount of federal money it's getting, but in any case, it stands to reason that maintaining the highways in Texas would be more expensive than in most other states. There's a lot more highway.
Fair enough, but in a Ron Paul world, shouldn't that be up to the states to maintain? Install a few toll roads built by private industry, problem solved.
Posts
The list of problems is long, but primarily it makes keeping the economy healthy and stable a far harder job then it already is. The fed does a lot of work to keep the dollar stable and inflation at a healthy natural rate (3-5%ish for the United States - higher for developing countries) through the fed funds rate, the discount rate, and the required reserve ratio.
Having to rely on a gold standard would - at best - make those things very very hard to do. At worst it could lead to some very bad things like deflation.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney seem to have huge hard-ons for "optimistic thinking", because they repeated it over and over. Too bad optimistic thinking doesn't actually solve anything.
I guess I shouldn't be too worried, because none of them will win anyway (even though I wish Ron Paul would).
That would be great, cause then we could police the entire world!
Also, I'm not sure what relevance the TTD's budget crisis has to the amount of federal money it's getting, but in any case, it stands to reason that maintaining the highways in Texas would be more expensive than in most other states. There's a lot more highway.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm not sure that military falls under the definition of "federal aid." Usually, they refer to things like the $400 million worth of earmarks that Ron Paul requested for things like subsidizing the local shrimping industry. It's actually pretty funny watching the Paul Savants trying to rationalize how the rules apparently don't apply to their savior.
http://dailypaul.com/node/1135
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul'â„¢s district?)
The short answer...YES. http://www.jarbobayoutimes.com/fish...
And, I won't provide the links but chemicals and antibiotics in imported shrimp, particularly from China and others involved in aqua-farming as opposed to wild are of great concern. Look it up and I am sure you won't want imported shrimp. The FDA is supposed to check...but they are too busy checking dog food, I guess. This alone should be reason enough to protect "wild" shrimping and ensure that at least those of us in the US of A can have good shrimp caught off the gulf if we want it.
It's a valid point, except for the fact that I seriously doubt that they would approve if someone like Barbara Boxer asked for it in her own district. It's not the earmark that people hate, it's the hypocrisy.
Fair enough, but in a Ron Paul world, shouldn't that be up to the states to maintain? Install a few toll roads built by private industry, problem solved.