fed will not be abolished if ron paul becomes president even if he advocates it, just as the cia wont be disbanded... But ron paul will force a lot of changes in washington for the better, mainly fiscal responsibility and government roles. I mean who else are you going to vote? obama? romney? or the retard twins - bachmann/palin? it's not like there are a lot of choices...
There are two camps: First camp: the deflation camp : against government spending, beside higher unemployment and falling asset prices â falling stock market, they are invested in us government debt or sitting on cash. They are the benefactors of a recession or a depression. Second camp: the inflation camp: beside reviving the economic growth and put people back to work. obviously government debt and USD cash holders will loose out due to inflation when debt is inflated away Government spending encourages economic growth and putting American people back to work. At this point there is a tug of war. Ron Paul supports camp 1. But anyway ; I support one if his idea of individuals having the option to opt out of the system and not paying anymore taxes. They should be free to go anywhere after all their wealth is confiscated which they gained in our society and they will never have to pay any taxes ever again⦠Summing it up: Ron Paul is a clueless idiot, he has no idea what created peoples wealth and that there is a trade off after binge drinkingâ¦
Ron Paul is what the US is screaming for imo. Sadly, ALL mainstream press doesn't find common sense sensational enough to give time to, meaning a true Patriot gets ZERO airtime. It's all about the drama, and sensationalism as it sells ads while the sheeple watch.
Ron Paul isn't the best possible candidate, but he is the only one close to having a clue what the important issues are and what needs to be done. Any American that cares about their children's future needs to seriously consider supporting Ron Paul.
It's hard to dislike Ron Paul, though I think he is somewhat out of touch with reality. He doesn't have a chance to win the election, but I may send him a few bucks again, as I did last time around, though I had no choice but to vote for Obama. Couldn't take a chance on a senile President with Palin only a heartbeat away! Obama, though unpopular in the face of an endless recession, has been ineffective because of an uncooperative, dysfunctional congress. Nevertheless, Obama is in my mind several orders of magnitude less harmful, so far, than G. W. Bush was. Bush, as it turns out, was the only person to graduate from Yale with a third grade education. Bush might have done less damage had Cheney not been there. But Cheney was there, and the damage these two together did is incalculable and perhaps irreversible. I'm an independent and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats over the years -- not always with a satisfactory outcome. Incidentally, I thought, and still do think, that Kerry was the best prepared, and most promising candidate for President in my lifetime. Had he been elected I'm quite sure we would not be in nearly as bad a mess as we find ourselves in today.
I have given money to Ron Paul's 2012 campaign. I will be giving more too, hopefully every month. I will be voting for Ron Paul, but the most important thing is to give money to his campaign so that he can be as big of a squeaky wheel as possible. If you can watch this video and still not want to vote for Ron Paul, you probably don't have a pulse. <iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GCKnYLF2pkQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Gold versus Discretion 1983 Ron Paul 2
Jim Rogers certainly is. The guy doesn't even live in the USA anymore. He lives in Singapore. Also, he is a multi-billionaire that's old. Where are his biases? In fact, Jim Rogers has made incredible amounts of money over the last decades in commodities, not to mention the glorious amounts of monies he made before that time. Ron Paul would be his worst nightmare, in fact, if he wants to continue making money in commodities. Commodities are in a major secular bull market, mainly due to monetary inflation. A hard money guy like Paul would be detrimental for the commodity bull market.
It's a shame that you so miserably misunderstand economics. I recommend you put in some time and research in reading and comprehending the topics you are spewing. Stay away from Krugman and the rest of his moronic neo-Keynesian colleuges, and delve into some rationality based economic literature.
Let's face it, there is literally ZERO difference between Bush and Obama. Let me ask you something, what has happened to: 1) The wars? Not only has Obama continued Bush's pre-emptive wars, but he has started NEW wars. Libya, Yemen and even Pakistan. He has increased the troops in Afghanistan to unimaginable levels. 2) Warantless wiretapping, secret prisons, the patriot act and other civil liberties? Obama is Bush re-incarnate. 3) Big government spending and regulations. Bush grew government spending and regulations, spending under CLinton was something like 18% of GDP, Bush great it to 21% and Obama now has it more like 25%! 4)Bailing out the banks threw TARP like programs and the FED. Obama and Bush are literally no different at all in this respect. Let's take more money from the middle class and buy worthless assets and their face value from our buddies in the banking apparatus. 5) Stimulus and other nonsensicle economic programs. Bush = Obama. Let's come to grips, there is literally ZERO difference between Obama and Bush when it comes to the big issues. The biggest difference is the color of their skin, after that, i can't find anything different. Wait, Obama has Obama Care! Oh wait, Bush had the prescription drug plan, lol.