patrick.net

Stock Market has tripled. Housing has gone up 25% or more. Unemployment has dropped by 3% or more. Corporate profits are through the roof. We are out of the war in Iraq. We are moving toward exiting the war in Afganistan.....

Wow, it is hard to imagine you frequent this forum and can still be that ignorant.

A better question to ask is what are the Rand Paul policies that you believe will improve the welfare of the citizens of these United States?

Theoretically a better standard of living for ALL, with more freedom.

But at this point we are circling the drain pretty fast.

17 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 1:35am

Call it Crazy says

indigenous says

edvard2 says

That is what the GOP desperately wants to believe.

What is Hillary going to bring to the party? or is she another novelty?

I've asked that same question over and over, and to date, you know what response I've received?????

Crickets......

She is going to bring the presidency.

What is Rand Paul going to bring?

An absolute eviceration of the republican party.

18

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 1:35am

An absolute eviceration of the republican party.

Fine by me

19 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 1:37am

Theoretically a better standard of living for ALL, with more freedom.

Theoretically, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, who is ignorant?

20

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 1:37am

who is ignorant?

I even have to repeat that? YOU

21 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 1:42am

yup1 says

An absolute eviceration of the republican party.

Fine by me

Ok now I am trying to get what you mean. So you want an ultra conservative to destroy the republican party so afterward you get.....

a. A More conservative party?
b. A more moderate party?

I mean theoretically you should want a more moderate party if you want the ultra conservative libertarian to destroy the party. But your views are ultra conservative/libertarian so.....what are you trying to accomplish?

22 edvard2 2014 Jun 17, 1:42am

What is Hillary going to bring to the party? or is she another novelty?

A whole hell of a lot more than whoever the GOP chooses because if the last two elections are any indicator they'll choose someone totally inappropriate.

23 edvard2 2014 Jun 17, 1:45am

Here's the thing. A lot of us Democrats AND Republicans want a more moderate GOP. No- that doesn't mean the GOP suddenly starts acting like Democrats. Maybe more like the GOP of 20-30 years ago. The further to the right the GOP drifts the less they are beneficial in solving real world problems. A more moderate GOP would also mean a more moderate Democratic party. Both parties being more moderate would mean a return to more sensible, less sensational politics and more measured, reasonable, and actionable government...

24

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 1:46am

I mean theoretically you should want a more moderate party if you want the ultra conservative libertarian to destroy the party. But your views are ultra conservative/libertarian so.....what are you trying to accomplish?

Libertarians by definition are socially liberal and economically conservative.

The biggest threat to freedom is economic freedom which is a burden to every one. This means get rid of debt.

25

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 1:47am

A whole hell of a lot more than whoever the GOP chooses because if the last two elections are any indicator they'll choose someone totally inappropriate.

That is a non answer you did not say anything.

26 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 1:51am

The republicans I talk to want to destroy the GOP as it is today and replace it with the more conservative Tea Party. Every republican that I have talked to calls every moderate republican a RINO. Every republican that I have talked to and discussed Ronald Reagan with now calls him a RINO. The GOP of 20-30 years ago was a bunch of RINO's to the current average republican that I talk with. They want a more conservative republican party, which will destroy the party.

27 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 1:52am

yup1 says

I mean theoretically you should want a more moderate party if you want the ultra conservative libertarian to destroy the party. But your views are ultra conservative/libertarian so.....what are you trying to accomplish?

Libertarians by definition are socially liberal and economically conservative.

The biggest threat to freedom is economic freedom which is a burden to every one. This means get rid of debt.

Ok, so you want to eliminate debt. How?

28

prodigy 2014 Jun 17, 1:53am

The writing is on the wall.
But not for the things stated by either side in this thread.
By 2016 Iraq will have split into 3 separate entities.
One of those states will be controlled by Al Queida et al.
Not just Obama, but the entire democratic party will be held responsible for allowing this direct threat to the US to exist.
Every foreign policy debacle will seem larger than life to the american public.
Benghazi will be held up as living proof of the stupidity of the administration.

The galling part for the people will be that all Obama had to do was follow the blueprint that history provided for converting subhuman societies to democratic bastions. South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc etc.

Simple leaving 20K troops on the ground for 20-40 years has repeatedly done the trick. Early withdrawal is a hallmark of the democrats, and is the exact opposite of what was needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
edvard2 says

prodigy says

This will be the undoing of Hillary in the 2016 run.

That is what the GOP desperately wants to believe. The writing is already on the wall for their party in 2016:

29

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 1:53am

Here's the thing. A lot of us Democrats AND Republicans want a more moderate GOP. No- that doesn't mean the GOP suddenly starts acting like Democrats. Maybe more like the GOP of 20-30 years ago. The further to the right the GOP drifts the less they are beneficial in solving real world problems. A more moderate GOP would also mean a more moderate Democratic party. Both parties being more moderate would mean a return to more sensible, less sensational politics and more measured, reasonable, and actionable government...

Actually the missing element is compromise.

Both sides have acquiesced to the monetary expedient compromising everything in the process.

Both parties should be who they are but have to compromise or nothing happens.

But one way or another this country is going to fail soon without a miraculous change. Many doubt this but that doesn't make it so.

30

Y 2014 Jun 17, 1:56am

Thats what She said...

Early withdrawal is a hallmark of the democrats,

31

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 1:58am

Ok, so you want to eliminate debt. How?

Not likely to happen.

1 educate people about super simple economics on television.Not a small project but Paul Martin did it in Canada in the 80s and the results were real.

2 You put in a budget. Not the horse shit that they do now but a real one.

3 Highly unlikely but you get rid of redundancies and corruption (top to bottom)

32 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 1:59am

Benghazi will be held up as living proof of the stupidity of the administration.

Those not watching Fox News do not care at all about Bendhazi.

By 2016 Iraq will have split into 3 separate entities.

One of those states will be controlled by Al Queida et al.

You think? I mean maybe. If Al Qaeda had a state I am pretty sure it would become a nice fat target. We could carpet bomb it for practice.

33 yup1 2014 Jun 17, 2:04am

yup1 says

Ok, so you want to eliminate debt. How?

Not likely to happen.

1 educate people about super simple economics on television.Not a small project but Paul Martin did it in Canada in the 80s and the results were real.

2 You put in a budget. Not the horse shit that they do now but a real one.

3 Highly unlikely but you get rid of redundancies and corruption (top to bottom)

So a fundamental change. We are talking about the presidential election of 2016? I mean I hear you, but it is not like any politician is going to propose or attempt to do anything like this.

34

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 2:05am

Call it Crazy says

5) The country wants real change.

That is what I think.

George Will said a while back that Hillary's time has passed. No longer in the zeitgeist?

35

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 2:07am

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8zN8AswLTs4
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-benghazi--20140617-story.html

So a fundamental change. We are talking about the presidential election of 2016? I mean I hear you, but it is not like any politician is going to propose or attempt to do anything like this.

Reading between the lines I think Rand Paul is, to some degree Paul Ryan regarding a budget.

36

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 2:18am

Call it Crazy says

If they vote for an "empty pantsuit" with NO accomplishments (former Senator and Sec of State) this time around, well, then there's ZERO hope for this country...

Agreed, goes from slim to none

37

Y 2014 Jun 17, 5:40am

By your definition it looks like Barack and Hillary are big Fox fans....

prodigy says

Benghazi will be held up as living proof of the stupidity of the administration.

Those not watching Fox News do not care at all about Bendhazi.

38 edvard2 2014 Jun 17, 5:45am

That is a non answer you did not say anything.

of course it was. The GOP chose crappy candidates in 08 and 12 and so I fail to see what's changed: They'll once more choose a totally inappropriate candidate with outdated idealogical plans and lose the vote to basically everyone except for their shrinking base.

39 edvard2 2014 Jun 17, 5:46am

The writing is on the wall.

Some people apparently live in a mythical universe...

40 edvard2 2014 Jun 17, 5:48am

Reading between the lines I think Rand Paul is, to some degree Paul Ryan regarding a budget.

Here's the only problem with Ryan. I will give it to him that he is a smart guy. But a whole ton of the plans that he has proposed economic-wise would not only bankrupt the country but put even more money into the pockets out outside controlling interests in various lobbys, industrial umbrella groups, and so on. In other words he would be like the version of economics the GOP favors but on a much greater, amplified basis.

41

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 5:49am

They'll once more choose a totally inappropriate candidate with outdated idealogical plans and lose the vote to basically everyone except for their shrinking base.

You may be right...

42

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 6:04am

But a whole ton of the plans that he has proposed economic-wise would not only bankrupt the country but put even more money into the pockets out outside controlling interests in various lobbys

I haven't paid much attention because I know they have no chance at this time. I thought he wanted to balance the budget way out just to get the conversation started. He is a CPA he kind of knows what he is talking abut regarding the BK thing. Is that the spin the Dems are putting on it?

Truthfully with as much waste as there is: in overpaid public employees at the Fed level, corruption in SS, the 175 billion dollars on the video just posted on the X35 that will not work, overlapping agencies between the Fed and the state levels, subsidies (corporate welfare), defense contractor boondoggles, the post office, etc, etc.

The budget might be brought under control simply by getting rid of most of the subsidies. Sowell says that you would not even have to get rid of all of them to balance the budget.

That is a trillion fucking dollars every fucking year give me a fucking break.

Look at how the judge who automatically grants long term disability claims automatically. That is 10 million people which is a 2 fer by the way because they no longer are paying taxes.

Or how big pharma poisons the people with some sort of panacea that leads to mass shootings at a huge fucking profit.

Look at how many things are public that should be private. How much would it save on schools, police, prisons, healthcare, if privatized?

Egregious pensions for public employees, how many thousands in just Calif are over 200k let alone over 100k for bullshit jobs?

Bankrupt NO, a different budget you bet your ass

43 control point 2014 Jun 17, 6:17am

That is a trillion fucking dollars every fucking year give me a fucking break.

Removing a trillion dollars in federal spending would shrink the economy by at least a trillion dollars. ~7%

Nice way to cure economic problems, that.

44

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 6:21am

Removing a trillion dollars in federal spending would shrink the economy by at least a trillion dollars.

Typical fallacy, Nope e.g. take away the 4 trillion spent on the bailout. Would it reduce the economy by 4 trillion? Fuck no not even close.

What is worse you mutts think that government spending increases economic activity. Did that 4 trillion produce more than 4 trillion in economic activity? Fuck no

45 control point 2014 Jun 17, 6:28am

Typical fallacy, Nope e.g. take away the 4 trillion spent on the bailout. Would it reduce the economy by 4 trillion? Fuck no not even close.

Google this:

Y = C+I+G+NX. What is Y? What is G?

By definition, smarty pants.

46 control point 2014 Jun 17, 6:30am

What is worse you mutts think that government spending increases economic activity. Did that 4 trillion produce more than 4 trillion in economic activity? Fuck no

I don't think you want to talk about velocity with me again.

And by the way, you don't understand the difference between a balance sheet item and an income statement item. If you did, you would know that the answer is yes. As M2 grew $4 trillion over 6.5 years 2008-2014.5. GDP grew $2.5T in 2014 alone from where it was in 2008. And 1.9T in 2013. And $1T in 2011. And $.5T in 2010. Lets see, 2.5+1.9+1+.5 > 4.

47

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 6:39am

Google this:

Y = C+I+G+NX. What is Y? What is G?

By definition, smarty pants.

Bite me

Purchases by the government do not find market value. Would anyone spend 350 million on an X35 when it can be shot down by a French Mirage and located with WWll radar? That is what happens with government spending it is a malinvestment and has a fraction of the value of the money spent. and it will not create economic activity other than the malinvesment I indicated.

You do know how fallacious that GDP number is anyway right?

I don't think you want to talk about velocity with me again.

Oh dear I'm so intimidated, sounds like you are flattering your self, typical?

48 control point 2014 Jun 17, 6:48am

Purchases by the government do not find market value. Would anyone spend 350 million on an X35 when it can be shot down by a French Mirage and located with WWll radar? That is what happens with government spending it is a malinvestment and has a fraction of the value of the money spent. and it will not create economic activity other than the malinvesment I indicated.

You don't even understand your made up Austrian terms. Buying x35's is not an example of malinvestment for the reasons you give. If true, its a bad investment at any price.

49

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 6:54am

You don't even understand your made up Austrian terms. Buying x35's is not an example of malinvestment for the reasons you give. If true, its a bad investment at any price.

Once again Mr CP with all due respect, bite me

While it is true that since it is not on the market in the first place perhaps you could not call it something that is being invested in in he first place. But since it does not have value for it's intended customer it is a case of money being spent on something that does not have the intended value.

50 control point 2014 Jun 17, 7:02am

Once again Mr CP with all due respect, bite me

HAHA.

With all due respect, every idea you read from mises.org ain't worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin getting it on.

51

indigenous 2014 Jun 17, 7:04am