The USSR had a great social saftey net!!! Greece, Spain, Portugal have plenty of great social safteny nets. In fact, pretty much every UNSTABLE society has fantastic social safety nets. But let's not let the truth and facts get in the way.
Let me guess, you went to a liberal arts school? Or all your teachers were Marxists?? And you now believe nonsense such as man-made global warming, unions are responsible for the increased standards of living in this country, redistribution of wealth will make us all better off, diversity is strength, the economic problems in the US and Europe are due to capitalism and not the welfare/cradle-to-grave socialist states. Good for you, from one wonderland to another.
Actually, the Constitution provides a list of things that the Federal Government CAN do, not a list of things the states cannot do. This law is perfectly constitutional
I guess it's much better to outlaw it and make these compulsive gamblers go underground, likley run by organized crime.
And prohibition has worked out fantastically well every time it's been tried in the US. Look at how much safer we are thanks to the war on drugs, compared to say Holland or Canada.
why "Republicans" are against this?? Aren't they supposed to be in favor of small goverment and fewer regulations?
This is exactly why the tea parties are becoming so big, we should be able to do what we want with our own money in a free society, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson Who cares? "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
This will not likely reduce carbon, what will likely happen is coal plants in other states to will increase capacity while the ones in Minnesota will likely shut down.
This is the same thing that is happening with the US and China. Companies in the US can't afford to meet all the environmental regulations, so they move to China, and continue to pollute. The end result is the same amount of pollution, and increased unemployment in the state/city/country with the strict regulations.
Big Brother is slowly limiting the activities they allow you to do. We already have a decent legal system, there is no need for more laws, if someone is found to be doing something dangerous, then let the legal system work.
It starts with something simple like talking on the phone, or seat-belts, but it won't end until the gov't dictates everything you do!
Americans will become interested in Science again if they know they or their children can have a future perusing it. That will only happen if America stops outsourcing its R&D and limits the number of scientists it imports.
Dropping no child left behind, and actually promoting achievements instead of preventing failures wouldn't hurt either.
The number of swedish women hasn't really increased much, but the number of women from the rest of the world has increased substantially, so the ratio of beautiful women to average is much much much lower than 20 years ago
The Iranian protests are as scripted as Lord of the Rings. The CIA should have hired Peter Jackson since he's not going to direct The Hobbit. I'm sure CNN would have donated some $$$ for their 24 hour coverage.
why waste their time buying computers to make their population more productive when the government could instead
nationalize bankrupt companies and buy toxic and worthless loans??
Can't we have a legal system that would just dismiss something so rediculous and unreasonable???
You know, something to protect the people??
They could have put "by agreeing, we will assume the deed to your house", and I'm sure the number of downloads wouldn't have changed.
This may help you personally, but doesn't help programmers in general. Making something easier increases the supply of people who can do the job as you no longer need extensive training. An increase in supply means a decrease in the equilibrium wage. If, on the other hand, there was no F/OSS, your company would have to pay another company if they want to make your job easier (ie, make you more productive), this puts money in the hands of programmers
I hope you aren't suggesting that paying off debt will cause a recession. I suggest you read about Nicholas Biddle, who was the president of the Second Bank of the United States, which shows exactly why Central Banks are so dangerous. The bank puts its own interests first. From wikipedia
"To fight back, Biddle decided to shrink the money supply and cause a recession in 1834 to force Jackson to accept a re-charter bill. The Bank demanded that old loans be repaid. It made no new loans."
"all prosperous countries in the world make the work so well" as long as the money supply increases at a rate that is similar to the increase in its GDP. However, when you have a government that wants to start wars and doesn't have the money to pay for it, they need to borrow and print money to pay for it, which causes inflation and will eventually destroy the currency. What makes you think that the hyperinflation that many countries experience could not happen here?? Do you think it's because of superior intelligence or undertanding of economics??
Ron Paul was good friends with Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, I'm sure you would consider him a "respected" economist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html
Ron is also a follower of the Austrian School of Economics, a very respected school of economic thought. Ron Paul is a true student of Economics, likely the only candidate that truly understands Economics.
I hope you realize that the federal reserve is a PRIVATE enterprise. It has been responsible for the latest housing and dot-com bubbles. I suggest you look at the History of federal banks or reserves and who the federal reserve truly represents. Andrew Jackson has written "I killed the Bank" written on his tombstomb.
His reasons for wanting to kill the Second Bank of the United States:
"It concentrated an excessive amount of the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
It served mainly to make the rich richer.
It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states. " from wikipedia.
You think anything has changed???
The current Federal Reserve was by the top families(Morgans, Rothchilds , rochefellars) in Jekyll Island (look it up). Do you think they were looking out for the good of the public?
http://www.amazon.com/Thieves-Temple-America-Federal-Reserve/dp/0975965484
Just one point, and this is really scary, especially since I've been studying economics for years and never heard of this until recently. The way CPI was historically calculated is that if a typical basket of goods is steak and wine, they would track the prices of steak and wine over time. BUT, in the early 1990s, the FED decided that if steak and wine became too expensive, people would substitute it with Hamburger and Coke. So the new CPI was not the adjustment for the cost of livings, but instead, it measures the adjustment for the COST OF SURVIVAL.
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/56
This is a (still??) free society, so you are allowed to criticize Dr. Paul, but I ask everyone to do some research, his views are soundly footed in economics and history
You suspect? you mean you are making these conclusions about him without any knowledge of his beliefs except that he's a libertarian/constitutionalist.
The reason for these "cultists" is that people are tired with politicians who are pushing their own agendas. Everyone knows where Ron Paul stands and his beliefs are firmly rooted, unlike any other politician. He is very intelligent, and a true student of economics and history.
I'm not going to try to convince you, all I can recommend is to do your own research. There is a reason that his message is so popular.
Which part is removed from reality? His talking about free markets? Minimal government? Austrian economics??? He has written a dozen books, many about foreign policy and economic history, and he was good friends with Milton Friedman, so I don't understand how you can call him a historical ignoramus.
I changed my opinion about the future of the United States and Capitalism. I was completely pesimisstic and was predicting complete economic and social collapse. But, thanks to Ron Paul, I realized that it was possible to go back to what made America great, and away from this welfare/warfare fascist/socialist mess that will eventually bankrupt the country. Thanks to Ron Paul, I also changed my mind about the Federal Bank. I always realized that the bank was the reason for the housing and dot com bubbles, but I always assumed that the bank was necessary, but Ron Paul made me realize that a better system is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
The USSR had a great social saftey net!!! Greece, Spain, Portugal have plenty of great social safteny nets. In fact, pretty much every UNSTABLE society has fantastic social safety nets. But let's not let the truth and facts get in the way.
Let me guess, you went to a liberal arts school? Or all your teachers were Marxists?? And you now believe nonsense such as man-made global warming, unions are responsible for the increased standards of living in this country, redistribution of wealth will make us all better off, diversity is strength, the economic problems in the US and Europe are due to capitalism and not the welfare/cradle-to-grave socialist states. Good for you, from one wonderland to another.
Actually, the Constitution provides a list of things that the Federal Government CAN do, not a list of things the states cannot do. This law is perfectly constitutional
I guess it's much better to outlaw it and make these compulsive gamblers go underground, likley run by organized crime. And prohibition has worked out fantastically well every time it's been tried in the US. Look at how much safer we are thanks to the war on drugs, compared to say Holland or Canada.
why "Republicans" are against this?? Aren't they supposed to be in favor of small goverment and fewer regulations? This is exactly why the tea parties are becoming so big, we should be able to do what we want with our own money in a free society, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson Who cares? "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
This will not likely reduce carbon, what will likely happen is coal plants in other states to will increase capacity while the ones in Minnesota will likely shut down. This is the same thing that is happening with the US and China. Companies in the US can't afford to meet all the environmental regulations, so they move to China, and continue to pollute. The end result is the same amount of pollution, and increased unemployment in the state/city/country with the strict regulations.
Big Brother is slowly limiting the activities they allow you to do. We already have a decent legal system, there is no need for more laws, if someone is found to be doing something dangerous, then let the legal system work. It starts with something simple like talking on the phone, or seat-belts, but it won't end until the gov't dictates everything you do!
Americans will become interested in Science again if they know they or their children can have a future perusing it.
That will only happen if America stops outsourcing its R&D and limits the number of scientists it imports.
Dropping no child left behind, and actually promoting achievements instead of preventing failures wouldn't hurt either.
The number of swedish women hasn't really increased much, but the number of women from the rest of the world has increased substantially, so the ratio of beautiful women to average is much much much lower than 20 years ago
The Iranian protests are as scripted as Lord of the Rings. The CIA should have hired Peter Jackson since he's not going to direct The Hobbit. I'm sure CNN would have donated some $$$ for their 24 hour coverage.
why waste their time buying computers to make their population more productive when the government could instead nationalize bankrupt companies and buy toxic and worthless loans??
Can't we have a legal system that would just dismiss something so rediculous and unreasonable??? You know, something to protect the people?? They could have put "by agreeing, we will assume the deed to your house", and I'm sure the number of downloads wouldn't have changed.
This may help you personally, but doesn't help programmers in general. Making something easier increases the supply of people who can do the job as you no longer need extensive training. An increase in supply means a decrease in the equilibrium wage. If, on the other hand, there was no F/OSS, your company would have to pay another company if they want to make your job easier (ie, make you more productive), this puts money in the hands of programmers
I hope you aren't suggesting that paying off debt will cause a recession. I suggest you read about Nicholas Biddle, who was the president of the Second Bank of the United States, which shows exactly why Central Banks are so dangerous. The bank puts its own interests first. From wikipedia "To fight back, Biddle decided to shrink the money supply and cause a recession in 1834 to force Jackson to accept a re-charter bill. The Bank demanded that old loans be repaid. It made no new loans." "all prosperous countries in the world make the work so well" as long as the money supply increases at a rate that is similar to the increase in its GDP. However, when you have a government that wants to start wars and doesn't have the money to pay for it, they need to borrow and print money to pay for it, which causes inflation and will eventually destroy the currency. What makes you think that the hyperinflation that many countries experience could not happen here?? Do you think it's because of superior intelligence or undertanding of economics??
Ron Paul was good friends with Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, I'm sure you would consider him a "respected" economist. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html Ron is also a follower of the Austrian School of Economics, a very respected school of economic thought. Ron Paul is a true student of Economics, likely the only candidate that truly understands Economics. I hope you realize that the federal reserve is a PRIVATE enterprise. It has been responsible for the latest housing and dot-com bubbles. I suggest you look at the History of federal banks or reserves and who the federal reserve truly represents. Andrew Jackson has written "I killed the Bank" written on his tombstomb. His reasons for wanting to kill the Second Bank of the United States: "It concentrated an excessive amount of the nation's financial strength in a single institution. It exposed the government to control by foreign interests. It served mainly to make the rich richer. It exercised too much control over members of Congress. It favored northeastern states over southern and western states. " from wikipedia. You think anything has changed??? The current Federal Reserve was by the top families(Morgans, Rothchilds , rochefellars) in Jekyll Island (look it up). Do you think they were looking out for the good of the public? http://www.amazon.com/Thieves-Temple-America-Federal-Reserve/dp/0975965484 Just one point, and this is really scary, especially since I've been studying economics for years and never heard of this until recently. The way CPI was historically calculated is that if a typical basket of goods is steak and wine, they would track the prices of steak and wine over time. BUT, in the early 1990s, the FED decided that if steak and wine became too expensive, people would substitute it with Hamburger and Coke. So the new CPI was not the adjustment for the cost of livings, but instead, it measures the adjustment for the COST OF SURVIVAL. http://www.shadowstats.com/article/56 This is a (still??) free society, so you are allowed to criticize Dr. Paul, but I ask everyone to do some research, his views are soundly footed in economics and history
You suspect? you mean you are making these conclusions about him without any knowledge of his beliefs except that he's a libertarian/constitutionalist. The reason for these "cultists" is that people are tired with politicians who are pushing their own agendas. Everyone knows where Ron Paul stands and his beliefs are firmly rooted, unlike any other politician. He is very intelligent, and a true student of economics and history. I'm not going to try to convince you, all I can recommend is to do your own research. There is a reason that his message is so popular.
Which part is removed from reality? His talking about free markets? Minimal government? Austrian economics??? He has written a dozen books, many about foreign policy and economic history, and he was good friends with Milton Friedman, so I don't understand how you can call him a historical ignoramus.
I changed my opinion about the future of the United States and Capitalism. I was completely pesimisstic and was predicting complete economic and social collapse. But, thanks to Ron Paul, I realized that it was possible to go back to what made America great, and away from this welfare/warfare fascist/socialist mess that will eventually bankrupt the country. Thanks to Ron Paul, I also changed my mind about the Federal Bank. I always realized that the bank was the reason for the housing and dot com bubbles, but I always assumed that the bank was necessary, but Ron Paul made me realize that a better system is possible.