BoatShoes;1274399 wrote:Well let's see, your boy Peter Schiff predicted hyperinflation in 2011 or 2012. Ben Bernanke has finally done the right thing in trying to get inflation expectation's to rise by promising to delay raising rates once the economy rebounds to potential gdp. Yet, no signs of hyperinflation but instead inflation still being projected below the target rate.

I suppose you've still got 3 and a half months left though.

You can't attack the theory behind it, so you have to attack the prediction someone made. Just like when you are bickering with the Republicans here you can't attack what they are saying, all you can do is attack what some other Republican did or said. Just because Schiff foolishly made a prediction as to when it would happen doesn't make anything else he says wrong. Chances are that your government CPI will never show hyperinflation when it happens. They will change the formula again or just stop reporting it. By then they won't have any credibility left anyway though, except in your eyes.

What I find remarkable is that after all of this time you still don't understand how my concept of inflation is different than yours. Yours is the increase in the CPI. Nothing else. Even if the CPI isn't increasing as much as you would like, a dollar still buys less every day. It buys less oil. Less gas. Less gold. Less in the stock market. Less college tuition. Less health care. Price inflation goes where the government sends it in our monetary system.

believer;1273899 wrote:Well whoever you waste your vote on certainly won't be POTUS so - yeah - go ahead and re-elect Barry by default.

The only way you can waste your vote is to cast it for someone you don't believe in. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is wasting a vote.

FatHobbit;1274410 wrote: Was he your favorite republican candidate, or favorite candidate overall? Meaning would you have voted for him over Obama? I'll take your word for it, because I do find you to be a very reasonable poster even when we disagree, but I get the impression you lean towards voting straight ticket democrat. (I could be wrong, but it just seems that way to me. Many people would seem to be very left/liberal compared to posters here.)

Well, fwiw, I've basically evolved into full ticket Democrat now. I voted for Voinovich and Bush in 04 but can't see myself voting for anybody in the GOP as it currently stands.

As far as '08 goes, I'm not sure if I would've voted for Romney over Obama. Romney was definitely my favorite Republican but I respected John McCain on foreign policy but I was generally over the hawkishness. I wanted Hillary to win the Democratic Primary. I thought Obama was impressive but a novice and better suited for Vice President but I did eventually vote for him over John McCain...but it was close. And, I think I must've looked like a McCain voter based upon the dirty looks I got on my way into the public housing complex where I vote.

Realistically, given that the main election issue became the economy, I think I would've voted for Romney because I would've trusted Romney on economic issues at the time. However, I basically thought of Romney and Obama similarly; two moderate, intellectual elites from the Ivy League who would likely engage in a keynesian stimulus like we know worked in the 30's.

I didn't really get the sense in that Republican primary that Romney was the hardcore conservative he's at least pretending to be now so there's a good chance I would've voted for him.

You have to remember that at the time, Republicans were all about enacting Keynesian policies (although inefficiently) in response to the economic downturn (remember the thread on JJ******** asking about what people were going to do with their stimulus checks?).

However, The hardline stance of the GOP against Obama since his election, the voting-out of reliable conservatives like Dick Lugar for being "too liberal" and the rejection of proper economic policies in a depressed economy (i.e. confidence fairy and hard money???) have made it very unlikely that I will vote for anyone in the GOP in the near future.

justincredible;1274426 wrote:The only way you can waste your vote is to cast it for someone you don't believe in. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is wasting a vote.

I think the term "waste your vote" can usually be translated to, "Your political beliefs are vaguely like mine (ie: conservative in general, but a different sort), so you not going pure party line hurts US!!!!!"

A person can call it "waste your vote" all they want, but that doesn't begin to touch the real issue of major parties and their inability to find legit quality candidates with anything resembling regularity. Interesting tidbit: Bush II is the only R candidate in the last few elections to not be a failed R primary guy at least once in the past and interestingly enough, Bush II was a two-time winner regardless of anyone's personal beliefs about him and how he did in the office. Dole FINALLY got the nod to lose to Clinton's second term; McCain failed against Bush, but was able to get over the hump to lose to Obama and now Romney's hoping to break the past-loser-losing-streak since it's his turn after failing to get the nomination before.

I mean, when you have a weak president in office, can't you do any better than essentially saying, "Yeah, this guy sucked too much to make it four years ago...but he's A-OK today!!!"? And then expecting anyone with remotely conservative beliefs to vote for him because otherwise, you're "wasting your vote". Mind = blown.

Heretic;1274447 wrote:I think the term "waste your vote" can usually be translated to, "Your political beliefs are vaguely like mine (ie: conservative in general, but a different sort), so you not going pure party line hurts US!!!!!"

A person can call it "waste your vote" all they want, but that doesn't begin to touch the real issue of major parties and their inability to find legit quality candidates with anything resembling regularity. Interesting tidbit: Bush II is the only R candidate in the last few elections to not be a failed R primary guy at least once in the past and interestingly enough, Bush II was a two-time winner regardless of anyone's personal beliefs about him and how he did in the office. Dole FINALLY got the nod to lose to Clinton's second term; McCain failed against Bush, but was able to get over the hump to lose to Obama and now Romney's hoping to break the past-loser-losing-streak since it's his turn after failing to get the nomination before.

I mean, when you have a weak president in office, can't you do any better than essentially saying, "Yeah, this guy sucked too much to make it four years ago...but he's A-OK today!!!"? And then expecting anyone with remotely conservative beliefs to vote for him because otherwise, you're "wasting your vote". Mind = blown.

Reps.

BoatShoes;1274440 wrote:Well, fwiw, I've basically evolved into full ticket Democrat now. I voted for Voinovich and Bush in 04 but can't see myself voting for anybody in the GOP as it currently stands.

As far as '08 goes, I'm not sure if I would've voted for Romney over Obama. Romney was definitely my favorite Republican but I respected John McCain on foreign policy but I was generally over the hawkishness. I wanted Hillary to win the Democratic Primary. I thought Obama was impressive but a novice and better suited for Vice President but I did eventually vote for him over John McCain...but it was close. And, I think I must've looked like a McCain voter based upon the dirty looks I got on my way into the public housing complex where I vote.

Realistically, given that the main election issue became the economy, I think I would've voted for Romney because I would've trusted Romney on economic issues at the time. However, I basically thought of Romney and Obama similarly; two moderate, intellectual elites from the Ivy League who would likely engage in a keynesian stimulus like we know worked in the 30's.

I didn't really get the sense in that Republican primary that Romney was the hardcore conservative he's at least pretending to be now so there's a good chance I would've voted for him.

You have to remember that at the time, Republicans were all about enacting Keynesian policies (although inefficiently) in response to the economic downturn (remember the thread on JJ******** asking about what people were going to do with their stimulus checks?).

However, The hardline stance of the GOP against Obama since his election, the voting-out of reliable conservatives like Dick Lugar for being "too liberal" and the rejection of proper economic policies in a depressed economy (i.e. confidence fairy and hard money???) have made it very unlikely that I will vote for anyone in the GOP in the near future.

I wouldn't worry about rhetoric. Romney is a hardcore Keynesian no matter what he says. He would have pushed for the same Keynesian stimulus that Obama did, that same one that dragged the Great Depression out for 17 years. It failed every time it was tried. It would have failed under Mitt as well. If he wins he will surely pass his own stimulus and just call it something else.

If you liked the warmonger McCain you will like Mitt as well, since his team is full of Bush retreads and empire builders. He also loves money concentrated in the hands of the banks and the government, which is how your proposed monetary policy, and our current monetary policy, works.

I can say all of the same things about Obama too. It is a great situation for you because you should love whoever wins. Endless empire, endless deficits, endless money printing. The Keynesian approach has worked this well so far.

Cleveland Buck;1274417 wrote:You can't attack the theory behind it, so you have to attack the prediction someone made. Just like when you are bickering with the Republicans here you can't attack what they are saying, all you can do is attack what some other Republican did or said. Just because Schiff foolishly made a prediction as to when it would happen doesn't make anything else he says wrong. Chances are that your government CPI will never show hyperinflation when it happens. They will change the formula again or just stop reporting it. By then they won't have any credibility left anyway though, except in your eyes.

What I find remarkable is that after all of this time you still don't understand how my concept of inflation is different than yours. Yours is the increase in the CPI. Nothing else. Even if the CPI isn't increasing as much as you would like, a dollar still buys less every day. It buys less oil. Less gas. Less gold. Less in the stock market. Less college tuition. Less health care. Price inflation goes where the government sends it in our monetary system.

I have vociferously attacked the Austrian Business Cycle and its theories about the money supply on here before...vociferously in fact. It doesn't sink in so it's much more fun and takes way less time to point out how the people who subscribe to that model of the world have been wrong about everything for years.

Cleveland Buck;1274471 wrote:I wouldn't worry about rhetoric. Romney is a hardcore Keynesian no matter what he says. He would have pushed for the same Keynesian stimulus that Obama did, that same one that dragged the Great Depression out for 17 years. It failed every time it was tried. It would have failed under Mitt as well. If he wins he will surely pass his own stimulus and just call it something else.

If you liked the warmonger McCain you will like Mitt as well, since his team is full of Bush retreads and empire builders. He also loves money concentrated in the hands of the banks and the government, which is how your proposed monetary policy, and our current monetary policy, works.

I can say all of the same things about Obama too. It is a great situation for you because you should love whoever wins. Endless empire, endless deficits, endless money printing. The Keynesian approach has worked this well so far.

See this is a classic example...I have a recent post in detail describing your false claims about the great depression in another thread but it doesn't matter. Even libertarian Milton Friedman agrees the Austrian view of the world is wrong and he shared their disdain for big government.

What is ironic is you ought to be warming up to Romney/Ryan considering that they both have patently endorsed austrian style views on monetary policy in response to QE3 and are seriously pushing budget cuts...if they weren't both warmongers they'd be right up your ally.

BoatShoes;1274477 wrote:I have vociferously attacked the Austrian Business Cycle and its theories about the money supply on here before...vociferously in fact. It doesn't sink in so it's much more fun and takes way less time to point out how the people who subscribe to that model of the world have been wrong about everything for years.

I don't remember anything specific that cast any doubt on the theory. The only objection I remember is you didn't understand how people could be "fooled" by artificially low interest rates, but that was easily explained and more semantics than anything.

BoatShoes;1274480 wrote:See this is a classic example...I have a recent post in detail describing your false claims about the great depression in another thread but it doesn't matter. Even libertarian Milton Friedman agrees the Austrian view of the world is wrong and he shared their disdain for big government.

There you go again. Calling Milton Friedman a libertarian is the same thing as calling Mitt Romney a conservative. Just because they claim that is what they are doesn't make it so. Anyone who wants a central planner to control one side of every transaction is not a real libertarian.

As for your detailed post about the Great Depression, I don't remember it, but if it was full of phony GDP numbers and other general aggregates that are worthless in the real world, then I'm sure I've seen it before somewhere else.

BoatShoes;1274480 wrote: What is ironic is you ought to be warming up to Romney/Ryan considering that they both have patently endorsed austrian style views on monetary policy in response to QE3 and are seriously pushing budget cuts...if they weren't both warmongers they'd be right up your ally.

First of all, rhetoric means absolutely zero to me. I know what they are all about. Second of all, criticizing Helicopter Ben for more QE isn't an Austrian style view. An Austrian style view would call for the end of the central bank. Since they need the central bank to monetize the debt for their wars and keep their corporate buddies fat and happy, you will never in your life hear them call for that.

Heretic;1274447 wrote:I mean, when you have a weak president in office, can't you do any better than essentially saying, "Yeah, this guy sucked too much to make it four years ago...but he's A-OK today!!!"? And then expecting anyone with remotely conservative beliefs to vote for him because otherwise, you're "wasting your vote". Mind = blown.

I've said this so many times it - well - blows my mind. But I'll repeat it once again. I in no way think Romney is the best the Repubs can do. So - yeah - I get what you're saying and agree.

Nevertheless I cannot in any way, shape, or form assist with Obama's re-election. If voting for a third party guaranteed loser gives you warm fuzzies about "doing the right thing" then by all means go for it.

But if and when Obama gets 4 more years to continue driving this country into the ground because he received indirect assistance via the warm fuzzie votes, I'm simply going to rock back in my chair and marvel over how truly insane this country has become.

Like it or not the fact is Romney is the fastest path towards getting Obama the hell out of DC. That should be Priority 1 for anyone with any amount of political common sense.

Romney may indeed be no different than Barry when push comes to shove but I'll be more than happy at this point to take the chance.

I think the better point to make is that 100% should not have to pay a Federal Income Tax.

Cleveland Buck;1274510 wrote:First of all, rhetoric means absolutely zero to me. I know what they are all about.

Suppose Romney/Ryan took a Ron Paul style view on foreign affairs...you don't find anything they've said on fiscal/domestic matters attractive at all? Paul Ryan for instance has essentially supported the idea of going back to gold coins for money...not even a competing currency view but going back to gold coins. And, they've put out a pretty serious first step in getting rid of medicare. Surely even you might admit that a return to true limited government may have to happen incrementally, no???

Also, can there not be libertarians with a capital L and libertarians with a lower case l?

Wow, it sure looks like Mitt got dog shit all over his shoes and halfway up his pantlegs. I really don't see how he can worm his way out of this one.

It seems to me that Mitt and his handlers underestimated the problems associated with a full-time national campaign, as in "they're in way over their heads".

Gee, you've gotta go back to Bob Dole to find such an inept Republican Presidential candidate.

I really have to wonder how long before House and Senate candidates start to put some distance between themselves and Mitt. Todd Aiken would probably be OK to have Mitt come out here and join him on the stump.

I don't think it's going to hurt nearly as much as the liberals hope. Not sure how much "you didn't build that" really hurt Obama. At best, it might help get the vote out for Obama, as "you didn't build that" will for Romney.

But as an election largely a referendum on Obama's record, if someone is voting for Obama there's not much that will change their mind. Not sure the Repub candidate even matters for those people - the only way anyone is rationalizing/justifying voting for Obama is because they really like him.

Now no one can say for certain how many voters will or might change their mind. These are the people who probably don't want to vote for Obama, but can't like Mitt enough to do it. Bank on most of them voting with their wallet.

It's still coming down to the debates. And I'll add "likely voters" are self-identified (and don't usually say they won't vote), and for Obama a pretty significant number of those are not motivated or enthusiastic enough to actually go vote for Obama. Possibly 5 points (or at least 5%), meaning Obama is actually trailing in nearly all the swing states.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

gut;1274698 wrote:I don't think it's going to hurt nearly as much as the liberals hope. Not sure how much "you didn't build that" really hurt Obama. At best, it might help get the vote out for Obama, as "you didn't build that" will for Romney.

I suppose it doesn't matter that the "you didn't build that" meme is a mendacious lie about what the President actually meant. Suggesting that successful business owners didn't build the road that takes their goods to market hardly compares to suggesting that half the country couldn't possibly be persuaded to take personal responsibility for their own life because they think they're entitled to food, housing and whatever else. :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;1274716 wrote:I suppose it doesn't matter that the "you didn't build that" meme is a mendacious lie about what the President actually meant

It's actually not a lie at all, but rather a "catch phrase" that succinctly and precisely sums up the context and philophy behind the entire speech. In case the context escaped you, it's that success is not something achieved but luck enabled by gubmit.

2kool4skool;1274710 wrote:Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Just like Romney's comments on Egypt were "damaging", but then polls showed the gap from the DNC bounce actually narrowing.

The only denial right now is that Obama isn't desperate for this election to be anything but a referendum on his record.

gut;1274721 wrote:Just like Romney's comments on Egypt were "damaging", but then polls showed the gap from the DNC bounce actually narrowing.

The only denial right now is that Obama isn't desperate for this election to be anything but a referendum on his record.

Romney is going to lose. And at this point, I wouldn't be shocked if it's by 80+ electoral votes. Trying to say Obama is down in "nearly all" the swing states was the denial I was referring to.

The election is far from being decided. The debates are coming up and the economy has been & continues to be in the tank.

I've been a political junkie for 40 years (most of you weren't even born yet) and I can say with a high degree of confidence that "gaffes" from either side will not be the deciding factor in this election.

Do not make the naive assumption that Romney has already lost this election because he stepped on his dick while speaking the truth in front of some low-life's hidden camera.

Politics is a contact sport folks. This race is still way to close to call.

Facts and truth frighten the Democrat:

*49% of all Americans pay no fed income tax
*47% receive a check from the government of which more than half are means tested welfare checks (Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.)
*36% of all Americans of working age are either not working or looking for work.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-gets-it-right/#ixzz26ufnXH8r

gut;1274719 wrote:It's actually not a lie at all, but rather a "catch phrase" that succinctly and precisely sums up the context and philophy behind the entire speech. In case the context escaped you, it's that success is not something achieved but luck enabled by gubmit.

No. He did not suggest that success is achieved by luck enabled by the government. That's what you think he really believes, despite countless statements to the contrary suggesting success requires hard work, etc.

Possibly 2 minutes missing from the hidden camera footage? Why is this even news then?

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Mother-Jones-Admits-Romney-Tape-Missing-One-or-Two-Minutes


[/URL]

bases_loaded;1274782 wrote:Possibly 2 minutes missing from the hidden camera footage? Why is this even news then?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Mother-Jones-Admits-Romney-Tape-Missing-One-or-Two-Minutes

LOL

Not a big deal those that support Obama are out of gas, broke and could careless about Obama ..... they will not show up in 2012