JorgeBurrito said: So apparently Romney is taking credit for saving the automobile industry, now. I know how fond of revisionist history the Republicans are at times, but you got to be kidding me. I know Romney flip flops like mad, but this is just blatant lies.
Obama became the first sitting president today to announce his support of gay marriage. He has always been pretty wishy washy on the issue and previously had supported civil unions, but never full blown gay marriage. Personally I think it is great that he came out and said this and makes me proud to have a president that actually believes in equal rights for all. Having said that, I am not sure this was the smartest move in an election year. Gay marriage is 0-28 when actually put to the people of individual states, and while I think public opinion is beginning to turn on this issue, I am quite sure this will cost him some independent votes. I guess it is possible it might fire up the base though which might offset any lost independent votes. Was an interesting move to make at any rate.
scrouds said: Its time to reject feel good economics. There's a reason why economics is known as the dismal science, and its origins lie before the kensyenians and the chicago school bought out america's economists and instituted this current form of feel good-gov't bailout theory.So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.
JorgeBurrito said: So apparently Romney is taking credit for saving the automobile industry now. I know how fond of revisionist history the Republicans are at times, but you got to be kidding me. I know Romney flip flops like mad, but this is just blatant lies.
camiolo said: JorgeBurrito said: The shovel ready jobs was a joke Obama told, even Fox News admits as much, but the federal permit process is too time intensive which is definitely a real problem. You either have to deregulate though which has led to horrible consequences just about every time it has been tried, or hire more government workers to process the permits which the Republicans would have a hissy fit about.
Obama cares about Republican hissy fits? ....you're right, he does. That's why he's been failing as president. He can't lead.
He has to, they have control of the house and filibuster everything and anything in the senate.
larrymoencurly said: scrouds said: Its time to reject feel good economics. There's a reason why economics is known as the dismal science, and its origins lie before the kensyenians and the chicago school bought out america's economists and instituted this current form of feel good-gov't bailout theory.So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.Get rid of the fed, worship gold.
Gold is a very effective economic moderator. Any limited source of value that appreciates in value along with the economy is a very good growth moderator. If its not painlfully apparent ever since the dawn of industralization, rapid growth leads to busts.
We can keep fiat money, but we have to remove the incentive to devalue the currency. We would need to work the levers of the economy to control and restrain growth during the boom years. To put it even simpler, we need to level out the peaks and valleys. We can do that artifically, or we can just use a natural method, gold.
Government should return to its limited roots. Secure our borders from invaders, punish crime and promote the betterment of our society. It should stop creating monopolies and oligopolies via trite regulations designed to snuff the small guy from competing. The government should only act in the business realm to protect the health and safety of people and control for the failures of a free market. Things like public goods such as roads and radio waves and market failures such as healthcare businesses like cable and phone where fixed costs outweigh margin costs.
Remember less then 100 years ago, gold was so dangerous to the keynesians' plans that the government made the ownership of gold illegal.
larrymoencurly said: scrouds said: Its time to reject feel good economics. There's a reason why economics is known as the dismal science, and its origins lie before the kensyenians and the chicago school bought out america's economists and instituted this current form of feel good-gov't bailout theory.So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.
I must add sir, that you are a master (de)bator. Proactively disqualifying the correct answer is really a pro move. But the weight of the facts do overcome your supurb gamesmanship.
JorgeBurrito said: camiolo said: JorgeBurrito said: The shovel ready jobs was a joke Obama told, even Fox News admits as much, but the federal permit process is too time intensive which is definitely a real problem. You either have to deregulate though which has led to horrible consequences just about every time it has been tried, or hire more government workers to process the permits which the Republicans would have a hissy fit about.
Obama cares about Republican hissy fits? ....you're right, he does. That's why he's been failing as president. He can't lead.
He has to, they have control of the house and filibuster everything and anything in the senate.
Few presidents are 'lucky' enough to have their party control both houses. And when democrats did control both, he barely got Health Care passed.
Obama should do a better job Leading, and not caring about what the republican party says. But he is unable or unwilling to competently lead.
And the worse news is; the job only gets harder from here. Assuming he wins, the republicans will have more power in the Senate, and still control the house. If Obama's unable to function with a Republican house; how can he expect to succeed with a Republican house and senate?
We've been over this many times now, you can't lead those that show no willingness to be led. No other president has faced such a decisive, hateful opposition. Since the Republicans lost control of the senate in 2006, their has been record number of motions for cloture each year, more than double the number of any previous congress for any given year. In the first 70 years since the beginning of the filibuster their was 385 cloture motions filed. In the last 5 1/2 years their has been 359. The minority leader of the senate came out and said that their number one goal was not doing what was best for the country, but instead to do what is necessary to make Obama a one term president. The Healthcare plan that the Republicans were so totally and wholly opposed to was almost entirely based off of a Republican plan. Taking an oath to not raise taxes in any circumstances signed by 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators doesn't leave any room for compromise. Blocking nominations to stop the implementation of laws that were duly enacted is the work of a party with no interest in working with the president. An unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling which had previously been raised 78 times with little debate (btw a majority of the times it has been raised has been under Republican administrations). You have a Republican coming out and saying “about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party are members of the Communist Party”, pretty sure he won't be working with the president. I understand not liking Obama because of his policies, but if the reason you don't like him is because you think he is a bad leader I think that just shows a poor understanding of what has happened to last three and a half years and an extreme willingness to only consider facts that affirm your own position. By electing Republicans you are saying it is OK to do what is in the best interests of your party and not what is in the best interests of the country. Even if I agreed with Republican policies I would refuse to reward them for this type of behavior.
By the way the Democrats really only had 4 months of super majority in the Senate due to delay in seating Al Franken and health issues of Ted Kennedy. Even then Democrats have to deal with the so called Blue Dog Democrats who are really just Republicans that are not extreme enough for the current Republican Party, which demands that you are 100% in agreement with their agenda.
scrouds said: larrymoencurly said: scrouds said: Its time to reject feel good economics. There's a reason why economics is known as the dismal science, and its origins lie before the kensyenians and the chicago school bought out america's economists and instituted this current form of feel good-gov't bailout theory.So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.
I must add sir, that you are a master (de)bator. Proactively disqualifying the correct answer is really a pro move. But the weight of the facts do overcome your supurb gamesmanship. There's a reason you can say worshiping gold isn't a solution. It's explained in FWF gold threads. Gold fails as a money back because you can't buy a cup of coffee with pure gold (the amount of gold required is too small, a fraction of a gram), and any non-pure gold (alloy coin, $1 of gold backing $x paper bills etc), is vulnerable to the government changing the backing rate (making it no better than the current situation). Gold fails as a currency because it's too rare to be used.
Ending the Feb is similarly not a solution. Before the Fed the US spent more % of the time in recessions, and every pre-Fed recession except one was worse in terms of GDP effect than the Great Depression.
Gold gold gold. I'm not saying use gold, but having our currency in usable denominations backed completely by a gold reserve makes sense. Such bills should be redeemable for a set amount of gold. To give you an idea, a gram of gold is worth about $50. a $5 bill would be worth 1/10 of a gram of gold. A $1 coin would be worth 1/50 of a gram of gold. Easily usable.
scrouds said: Gold gold gold. I'm not saying use gold, but having our currency in usable denominations backed completely by a gold reserve makes sense. Such bills should be redeemable for a set amount of gold. To give you an idea, a gram of gold is worth about $50. a $5 bill would be worth 1/10 of a gram of gold. A $1 coin would be worth 1/50 of a gram of gold. Easily usable. You missed my point. Anything that's not direct, 100% pure gold, is subject to government manipulation. The government can simply say "ok now the $1 coin is work 1/100 of a gram of gold" The only way a gold system can possibly work is by completely removing the government's ability to mess with the values. And the only way you can do that is by using 100% pure gold for everything (no embedding it in plastic, no alloy etc). And 100% pure gold for everything is not practical, the dollar coin would be 1/50th of a gram... so tiny you pretty much couldn't see it. It simply doesn't work from a practical standpoint. If you want to go to some commodity standard, you need a less valuable commodity that can represent amounts like $1 in a physical size a human being can deal with. Except the commodity must also be chemically pure, because otherwise you have the problem of meddling in alloys.
It's not that a standard is bad per se (though I personally do think a standard is bad), it's that gold makes a terribly bad standard. People that want gold standard are picking something that makes a terribly bad standard for practical usage. It shows that they haven't actually put any thought into the idea.
kamalktk said: scrouds said: Gold gold gold. I'm not saying use gold, but having our currency in usable denominations backed completely by a gold reserve makes sense. Such bills should be redeemable for a set amount of gold. To give you an idea, a gram of gold is worth about $50. a $5 bill would be worth 1/10 of a gram of gold. A $1 coin would be worth 1/50 of a gram of gold. Easily usable. You missed my point. Anything that's not direct, 100% pure gold, is subject to government manipulation. The government can simply say "ok now the $1 coin is work 1/100 of a gram of gold" The only way a gold system can possibly work is by completely removing the government's ability to mess with the values. And the only way you can do that is by using 100% pure gold for everything (no embedding it in plastic, no alloy etc). And 100% pure gold for everything is not practical, the dollar coin would be 1/50th of a gram... so tiny you pretty much couldn't see it. It simply doesn't work from a practical standpoint. If you want to go to some commodity standard, you need a less valuable commodity that can represent amounts like $1 in a physical size a human being can deal with. Except the commodity must also be chemically pure, because otherwise you have the problem of meddling in alloys.
It's not that a standard is bad per se (though I personally do think a standard is bad), it's that gold makes a terribly bad standard. People that want gold standard are picking something that makes a terribly bad standard for practical usage. It shows that they haven't actually put any thought into the idea.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? We're not in some crazy doomsday scenario where we can't trust the currency of the united states of america. We just have the government print up gold backed currency and coinage and hope for the best. Nothing is certain in the world, but if we adopt a gold based monetary structure, we'll be headed in a more stable direction.
camiolo said: JorgeBurrito said: We've been over this many times now, you can't lead those that show no willingness to be led.
I don't agree. A good leader can lead all.
But assuming your correct - how would Obama succeed in 2013? If he can't lead Republicans, then this country is f'ed if Obama's re-elected.
So you are saying since Republicans are not willing to work with anyone else, lets put them in a leadership role...does that really make sense as a logical argument to you? I am not going to reward Republicans for throwing what has been in essence a massive temper tantrum the last 4 years. At any rate ignoring the silliness of the question the answer is it depends on your point of view...I see Republican control as a worse alternative versus another 4 years of Obama who even with one of the most obstructionist oppositions ever managed to accomplish quite a bit. I even have hopes that an Obama reelection might force Republicans to reevaluate their strategy of putting party first, but that may be a bit naive on my part.
camiolo said: But assuming your correct - how would Obama succeed in 2013? If he can't lead Republicans, then this country is f'ed if Obama's re-elected.But at least we won't have republicans leading us. Look what last time it did to the country: war without purpose or victory; massive expansion of government; biggest enhancement of entitlement to the elderly(medicare part D), and worst of them all, deepest recession since WW2.
scrouds said: larrymoencurly said: scrouds said: Its time to reject feel good economics. There's a reason why economics is known as the dismal science, and its origins lie before the kensyenians and the chicago school bought out america's economists and instituted this current form of feel good-gov't bailout theory.So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.Get rid of the fed, worship gold.
Gold is a very effective economic moderator. Any limited source of value that appreciates in value along with the economy is a very good growth moderator. If its not painlfully apparent ever since the dawn of industralization, rapid growth leads to busts.
We can keep fiat money, but we have to remove the incentive to devalue the currency. We would need to work the levers of the economy to control and restrain growth during the boom years. To put it even simpler, we need to level out the peaks and valleys. We can do that artifically, or we can just use a natural method, gold.
Government should return to its limited roots. Secure our borders from invaders, punish crime and promote the betterment of our society. It should stop creating monopolies and oligopolies via trite regulations designed to snuff the small guy from competing. The government should only act in the business realm to protect the health and safety of people and control for the failures of a free market. Things like public goods such as roads and radio waves and market failures such as healthcare businesses like cable and phone where fixed costs outweigh margin costs.
Remember less then 100 years ago, gold was so dangerous to the keynesians' plans that the government made the ownership of gold illegal.Gold has been a terrible economic moderator. Its worship and reintroduction to our monetary system after WWI caused the Great Depression, and in the late 19th century, when we usually had no Fed but did use gold as money, our economy kept alternating between boom and bust, sometimes even with inflation. The California gold rush of 1849 cause a great deal of inflation, just as gold discoveries in North America in the 16th century did to Spain. Noose of gold, and Roosevelt freed us from it by taking us back off the gold standard and devaluing the dollar by half (the $35/ounce official price set by him was about half the previous market price of the metal). Also when the US had no central bank, big private banks went bust frequently because they were only weakly unregulated and enticed to lend too much money. So why do you want to put our money back on the gold standard when it actually hasn't prevented inflation? Do you worship gold rich Russia and South Africa or gold-hoarding France and China? Why did even Switzerland finally get off the gold standard, only a couple of decades ago?
The rest of your solution is just a bunch of cliches, sort that Thomas Dewey spoke in the 1948 presidential campaign, when he said he was for America and goodness.
scrouds said: larrymoencurly said: scrouds said: Its time to reject feel good economics. There's a reason why economics is known as the dismal science, and its origins lie before the kensyenians and the chicago school bought out america's economists and instituted this current form of feel good-gov't bailout theory.So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.I must add sir, that you are a master (de)bator. Proactively disqualifying the correct answer is really a pro move. But the weight of the facts do overcome your supurb gamesmanship.Disqualifying gold here is no different than ruling out jumping out of a plane with a parachute made of clay. The obviously bizarre and wrong, like the flat Earth theory, trepanation, and the gold standard, should always be dismissed before serious conversation even starts.
JorgeBurrito said: So you are saying since Republicans are not willing to work with anyone else, lets put them in a leadership role...does that really make sense as a logical argument to you? No, I'm saying don't put Obama in a leadership role. He can step down and let Joe run for President. He hasn't been nominated yet.
And yes, the argument - if you can't work with others, don't lead - is a sensible argument.
JorgeBurrito said: I see Republican control as a worse alternative versus another 4 years of Obama who even with one of the most obstructionist oppositions ever managed to accomplish quite a bit. I even have hopes that an Obama reelection might force Republicans to reevaluate their strategy of putting party first, but that may be a bit naive on my part.
Note - it's the Senate (controlled by Democrats) that's obstructionist. The Senate, where Obama served for 6 years, doesn't play nice with him.
In Summary - Obama can't lead, and it's his own dam fault.
scrouds said: Why does it have to be all or nothing? We're not in some crazy doomsday scenario where we can't trust the currency of the united states of america. We just have the government print up gold backed currency and coinage and hope for the best. Nothing is certain in the world, but if we adopt a gold based monetary structure, we'll be headed in a more stable direction. As soon as there's something in between pure gold and what you use on a day to day basis, you've allowed the government to have a say in the value. And the government will, inevitably, use that say. The idea of having a gold standard is it will remove government's ability to do that, but there is no way to remove the government unless only pure gold is used. It can't be some minted alloy, it can't be "government says backed by x", because those allow the government to change the alloy or amount of x. Gold standard is based on a fundamental distrust of the government, so the government's ability to mess with it must be removed. So it must be all or nothing.
JorgeBurrito said: So apparently Romney is taking credit for saving the automobile industry now. I know how fond of revisionist history the Republicans are at times, but you got to be kidding me. I know Romney flip flops like mad, but this is just blatant lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCrqMXeNTY I don't think anyone can take credit for "saving" the automobile industry since 1) Ford didn't need much saving and 2) Despite the BILLIONS in bailout money, GM went bankrupt anyway. larrymoencurly said: So what's you're solution? Keep in mind that getting rid of the Fed and government and worshipping gold isn't a solution.
The U.S. has only been off the gold standard since 1971.
kamalktk said: Ending the Feb is similarly not a solution. Before the Fed the US spent more % of the time in recessions, and every pre-Fed recession except one was worse in terms of GDP effect than the Great Depression. GDP is a bs stat anyway. Look up how they measure that crap.
JorgeBurrito said: An unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling which had previously been raised 78 times with little debate ...
By electing Republicans you are saying it is OK to do what is in the best interests of your party and not what is in the best interests of the country. Even if I agreed with Republican policies I would refuse to reward them for this type of behavior.
By the way the Democrats really only had 4 months of super majority in the Senate due to delay in seating Al Franken and health issues of Ted Kennedy. Even then Democrats have to deal with the so called Blue Dog Democrats who are really just Republicans that are not extreme enough for the current Republican Party, which demands that you are 100% in agreement with their agenda.
In the first part, you blame Republicans for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling. In the later part, you blame Republicans for demanding the party is in 100% agreement with their agenda. Yet the reason for the huge debt ceiling fight was because a bunch of Republicans said "No more business as usual" while the rest of the Republicans wanted business as usual and to raise the debt ceiling so they and Dems could steal and spend more of your children's future.
The Tea Party was started in 2007 by (mostly) Republicans disagreeing with Bush and the rest of the establishment Republicans! Sure, it got hijacked later by fake conservatives and Bible thumpers, but the point is the Republican Party hasn't been in agreement with itself for years now.
In fact, that's the biggest fight of this election. This election isn't really about Dems vs. Reps. It's more about big-government Reps vs. small-government Reps for control of the Republican Party.
The really sad and telling part about establishment Dems and Reps is how they agree on things like NDAA. Oh sure, they'll fight about tax cuts or whatever, but when it comes to putting you in prison without transparency or due process, they're ALL for that. (well, most of them.)
nycll said: But at least we won't have republicans leading us. Look what last time it did to the country: war without purpose or victory; massive expansion of government; biggest enhancement of entitlement to the elderly(medicare part D), and worst of them all, deepest recession since WW2. Sounds like Republicans of late are pretty much the same as Democrats. Maybe we need more libertarians or something....
kamalktk said: scrouds said: Why does it have to be all or nothing? We're not in some crazy doomsday scenario where we can't trust the currency of the united states of america. We just have the government print up gold backed currency and coinage and hope for the best. Nothing is certain in the world, but if we adopt a gold based monetary structure, we'll be headed in a more stable direction. As soon as there's something in between pure gold and what you use on a day to day basis, you've allowed the government to have a say in the value. And the government will, inevitably, use that say. The idea of having a gold standard is it will remove government's ability to do that, but there is no way to remove the government unless only pure gold is used. It can't be some minted alloy, it can't be "government says backed by x", because those allow the government to change the alloy or amount of x. Gold standard is based on a fundamental distrust of the government, so the government's ability to mess with it must be removed. So it must be all or nothing.
I'd rather put my blind faith in congress then the fed cabal. There's a modicm of trust needed, by eschewing all trust you're saying we should remain in our current broken system, where the cabal of bankers set our currency? Lets move towards a better answer, not do nothing because we can't get it perfect.
kamalktk said: scrouds said: Why does it have to be all or nothing? We're not in some crazy doomsday scenario where we can't trust the currency of the united states of america. We just have the government print up gold backed currency and coinage and hope for the best. Nothing is certain in the world, but if we adopt a gold based monetary structure, we'll be headed in a more stable direction. As soon as there's something in between pure gold and what you use on a day to day basis, you've allowed the government to have a say in the value. And the government will, inevitably, use that say. The idea of having a gold standard is it will remove government's ability to do that, but there is no way to remove the government unless only pure gold is used. It can't be some minted alloy, it can't be "government says backed by x", because those allow the government to change the alloy or amount of x. Gold standard is based on a fundamental distrust of the government, so the government's ability to mess with it must be removed. So it must be all or nothing.
Alloyed coinage isn't "backed by" X, it is a known quantity of X and isn't prone to manipulation as long as the alloy is known and stated on the coin.
Krugerrands are alloyed at 22k, but that doesn't make them prone to manipulation.
Not that I'm advocating a gold standard, but the fact is in that scenario all that matters is having coinage made of a known mass and stated purity of whatever the chosen metal is.
deusxmachina said: JorgeBurrito said: So apparently Romney is taking credit for saving the automobile industry now. I know how fond of revisionist history the Republicans are at times, but you got to be kidding me. I know Romney flip flops like mad, but this is just blatant lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCrqMXeNTY I don't think anyone can take credit for "saving" the automobile industry since 1) Ford didn't need much saving and 2) Despite the BILLIONS in bailout money, GM went bankrupt anyway.
It was always the plan for GM to go through Chapter 11. It allowed them to shed troubled assets. This was a necessary step no matter what. They would have never emerged from bankruptcy without investment of some kind from an outside source though. They shopped heavily to find private investment, but their was no takers for even pennies on the dollar. Obama and the government stepped in and provided the necessary capital. I understand why people didn't like them doing it, but the fact is it did indeed work. This is the big difference between Romney and Obama and why it is so silly of Romney to take credit...after the point of Bankruptcy and having failed to find any private investors, Romney would of let the company die, he has said as much numerous times.
HumDoHamaraDo said: "I'm quite a different guy now."
Shake shake shake. Shake that Etch-A-Sketch!
Mitt Romney offered a qualified apology for his behavior as a high school student, without specifically saying whether a report that he bullied a student thought by his classmates to be gay was accurate.
“Back in high school I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that I apologize,” Romney told FOX radio host Brian Kilmeade Thursday. “If I did stupid things, I’m afraid I’ve got to say sorry for it.”
Romney, 65, noted he graduated from high school nearly five decades ago, and said, “I’m quite a different guy now.” He admitted “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks in high school and some of them might have gone too far, and I apologize.”
Five classmates described to the Washington Post on record an incident in which Romney, then a high school senior, teased and ultimately assaulted a student, John Lauber. According to their account, Romney mocked the student’s long blond hair, recalling that he once said, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” before joining classmates in chasing him, pinning him to the ground and cutting his hair as Lauber screamed for help.
“I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual,” Romney told Kilmeade. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.” tsk tsk.
ETA: Doesnt matter if he was gay or not. Calling names, chasing him, pinning him down to ground and cutting hair?
In the first part, you blame Republicans for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling. In the later part, you blame Republicans for demanding the party is in 100% agreement with their agenda. Yet the reason for the huge debt ceiling fight was because a bunch of Republicans said "No more business as usual" while the rest of the Republicans wanted business as usual and to raise the debt ceiling so they and Dems could steal and spend more of your children's future.
Not true at all, if even a quarter of the Republican went along with the democrats the debt ceiling increase would have passed easily in both the house and senate.
I have no problem with having the debt debate, it is a debate that needs to be had and something that needs to be addressed and soon. I have issue with the Republicans holding the economic prosperity of the nation hostage in order to have that debate. The fact that they at least were saying publicly that they were willing to let the US default on their debt as an actual option shows either a complete misunderstanding of the way economics work, or a willingness to destroy the US economy...neither one of those are particularly good qualities to have in your representatives. This extreme stance they took scared the ratings agencies enough that it was given as one of the reasons for downgrading the US's credit rating.
I will give you some credit in that at least you seem to understand that Republicans are no longer and haven't been for a long time the party of small government. It amazes me so many people think they still represent that.
KayK said: HumDoHamaraDo said: "I'm quite a different guy now."
Shake shake shake. Shake that Etch-A-Sketch!
Mitt Romney offered a qualified apology for his behavior as a high school student, without specifically saying whether a report that he bullied a student thought by his classmates to be gay was accurate.
“Back in high school I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that I apologize,” Romney told FOX radio host Brian Kilmeade Thursday. “If I did stupid things, I’m afraid I’ve got to say sorry for it.”
Romney, 65, noted he graduated from high school nearly five decades ago, and said, “I’m quite a different guy now.” He admitted “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks in high school and some of them might have gone too far, and I apologize.”
Five classmates described to the Washington Post on record an incident in which Romney, then a high school senior, teased and ultimately assaulted a student, John Lauber. According to their account, Romney mocked the student’s long blond hair, recalling that he once said, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” before joining classmates in chasing him, pinning him to the ground and cutting his hair as Lauber screamed for help.
“I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual,” Romney told Kilmeade. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.” tsk tsk.
ETA: Doesnt matter if he was gay or not. Calling names, chasing him, pinning him down to ground and cutting hair?
Dont want any of that. No thank you.
It was 50 years ago, and he was a kid.
You are probably a liar if you say you didn't do things as a kid that you now wish you had done differently.
Seriously, how dare Julia go to college on student loans where she might not otherwise be able to afford it. I was really ticked off when the government helped her start her own small business...she should be working for minimum wage at WalMart not trying to start her own business. Don't even get me started about the part where she has health care coverage, that is just infuriating.
Note - it's the Senate (controlled by Democrats) that's obstructionist.
That is exactly my point though, the Democrats should have control of the Senate, but they don't thanks to record breaking numbers (and not just by a small amount) of filibusters from the Republicans.
Note - it's the Senate (controlled by Democrats) that's obstructionist.
That is exactly my point though, the Democrats should have control of the Senate, but they don't thanks to record breaking numbers (and not just by a small amount) of filibusters from the Republicans.
Democrats could push to end the effectiveness of filibusters. But they won't/don't.
And Obama highly values the ability to say No; so he's not pushing to end it.
Obama is a bad president. He's not getting better. And the job of president is getting harder every passing day.
arch8ngel said: kamalktk said: scrouds said: Why does it have to be all or nothing? We're not in some crazy doomsday scenario where we can't trust the currency of the united states of america. We just have the government print up gold backed currency and coinage and hope for the best. Nothing is certain in the world, but if we adopt a gold based monetary structure, we'll be headed in a more stable direction. As soon as there's something in between pure gold and what you use on a day to day basis, you've allowed the government to have a say in the value. And the government will, inevitably, use that say. The idea of having a gold standard is it will remove government's ability to do that, but there is no way to remove the government unless only pure gold is used. It can't be some minted alloy, it can't be "government says backed by x", because those allow the government to change the alloy or amount of x. Gold standard is based on a fundamental distrust of the government, so the government's ability to mess with it must be removed. So it must be all or nothing.
Alloyed coinage isn't "backed by" X, it is a known quantity of X and isn't prone to manipulation as long as the alloy is known and stated on the coin.
Krugerrands are alloyed at 22k, but that doesn't make them prone to manipulation.
Not that I'm advocating a gold standard, but the fact is in that scenario all that matters is having coinage made of a known mass and stated purity of whatever the chosen metal is. How do you know how pure it is? You have to put your faith in the minter of the coin. Even the Roman Empire wound up debasing their coins. Gold standard's purpose is to remove the governments ability to interfere. Any time you have any alloy, you've put your faith in the minter, the same group you're specifically trying to prevent from interfering.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
Shopping
Earn Cash Back while you shop - just 3 simple steps.
1. Sign Up so we know who to pay! (It's FREE.)
2. Shop through FatWallet for deals from your favorite stores. Your online purchases earn Cash Back that builds in your FatWallet account.
3. Get Paid by requesting a payment via check or PayPal.
FatWallet coupons help you save more when shopping online. Use our Coupons Search to browse coupons and offers from thousands of stores, gathered into one convenient location.
Forums
As part of our FatWallet Community, you can share deals with almost a million shoppers in our forums. Forum content is generated by consumers for consumers. Share deals, money-saving tips, and more. It's FREE, fun, and addicting.
Support
Our customer experience team is here around the clock - real people ready to assist.
