(11/07) Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States?

[1968]

The results of Optiboard's October Straw Poll are listed here: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25359

The Democrats surged ahead of the Republicans in the latest round: Hillary Clinton won for the first time with 26% of the vote (i.e. 9 votes) and Barack Obama placed second (18%, 6 votes). John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson all tied for third (12%, 4 votes). Ron Paul was sixth (9%, 3 votes) and Al Gore was seventh (3%, 1 vote). No one voted for Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Bill Richardson, or Mitt Romney.

Thanks to all those who voted!


To determine which candidates should be listed, I reviewed the results of the most recent Gallup polls for each of the two major parties and put down the top six from each party. This poll closes at the end of November and I plan to open a new one in December.

[Pete Hanlin]

Still with Fred... but I've heard a lot of good things about Huckabee!

"President Huckabee" (somehow that just doesn't work...).

[1968]

Still with Fred... but I've heard a lot of good things about Huckabee!

"President Huckabee" (somehow that just doesn't work...).

Both seem to be doing well in Texas. Huckabee appears to be gaining some tractions, so the next 60 days should be very interesting. I think he stands a good chance at becoming someone's VP choice.

[Grubendol]

The deeper into it we go, the more I prefer John Edwards.


Interesting sidebar, I was listening to Thom Hartmann today and he did an informal poll of his audience. People called in and just said which candidate they preferred, nothing else. In the 10 minutes I listened to of that, Edwards was getting 85% of the vote (granted it's a Hartmann audience and they were only talking about the Dem noms, but still I found that striking)

[rbaker]

Hartmans on in the early afternoon. Most of those listening are the idle and unemployed. John Edwards is their man. Yes indeed.

[Grubendol]

being old and grumpy is one thing, but nasty and belligerant is another.


I listen on my computer at work, as do many many people....Rush Limbaugh is on in the early afternoon, are all his listeners idle and unemployed?

[1968]

Rush Limbaugh is on in the early afternoon, are all his listeners idle and unemployed?

Oh, the many possibilities from which to answer that question!

[1968]

Funniest thing I've heard today: Pat Robertson endorses pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination! I'm tellin ya, I won't shed a tear if I see the Republican Party, as we know it, disintegrate before my eyes.

[Grubendol]

Funniest thing I've heard today: Pat Robertson endorses pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination! I'm tellin ya, I won't shed a tear if I see the Republican Party, as we know it, disintegrate before my eyes.

It’s so ironic that a party which was created in the mid 1800’s as a reformist group to fight the corruption of the Democratic Party has become exactly what they were formed to fight. They were the party of corruption and control in the 1890’s and again since the 1970’s on.

Both parties need serious reformation….The fact that the Democrats voted for Mukasi to get him out of committee and onto the floor says enough about that….(As a lifelong Feinstein Supporter, I’ve sent her an email telling her I am going to do whatever I can to get her out of office).

[1968]

If Mitt Romney becomes President of the United States, will he be able to do anything without his lawyers and political advisers?

When asked, "[i]f you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?":

"You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."source

When "asked by voters if he would give a speech outling his religious beliefs and how those beliefs might impact his administration":

"I'm happy to answer any questions people have about my faith and do so pretty regularly," the former Massachusetts governor said. "Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no — it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."source

Sheesh!

[braheem24]

Right now I have 2 criterias for a President.

1. Brain.
2. Backbone.

It does not seem like too much, yet somehow :hammer:

[For-Life]

I was just reading about Ron Paul (directly from his website).

I do not think this guy ever took a class in Economics. His beliefs and issues have no fundamentals to them whatsoever. Heck, he is pushing the Gold Standard!!!!!

I do not think he got these ideas from research, investigation, and dilligence. Instead, I think he got it from the old men at the Country Club.

[GOS_Queen]

I was just reading about Ron Paul (directly from his website).

I do not think this guy ever took a class in Economics. His beliefs and issues have no fundamentals to them whatsoever. Heck, he is pushing the Gold Standard!!!!!

I do not think he got these ideas from research, investigation, and dilligence. Instead, I think he got it from the old men at the Country Club.

I'm curious, besides the gold standard, what do you think is odd?

Actually, he has extensively studied Austrian Economics (www.mises.org)

Have you checked out his writings at www.ronpaullibrary.org ?

[rinselberg]

I don't know enough about money to understand the role of a "Central Bank" - which Ron Paul says needs to be abolished - or what it would mean to reinstitute the "Gold Standard" (Ron Paul) - but I think that Ron Paul is totally wacko when he talks about abolishing the Income Tax.

Nevertheless, Ron Paul could make the most sense (overall) of the whole bunch that's appeared so far ... at least I'm not saying otherwise.

Not that long ago, if memory serves me, (the) shanbaum posted that it would make the most sense if a progressively scaled personal income tax were to become the Federal Government's primary way of collecting tax revenues to run the government, eliminating (for the most part) all other kinds of taxes; esp. taxes paid by employers, companies and corporations out of their profit/loss line.

I thought that made a lot of sense.

I'm keeping a finger crossed (how do you cross "a finger" by the way ..?) that shanbaum will sense his name being broached here and will post some further remarks on Ron Paul's ideas about banking, taxes and economics.




[movel]Global Warming Countdown[/movel]Michael Crichton's State of Confusion: Climate science gone bad
Global Carbon Project: IPCC predictions already surpassed by reality
Message to climate contrarians: "Stop hiding behind the sun"
Climate change smarts from CNN TV's Glenn Beck
"Fast Facts" on climate change from National Geographic News
Nuclear power plants: Busting an urban myth
Ethanol fuel: Moving beyond corn
FutureGen: Electricity from coal without greenhouse gas emissions
Energy from parking lots
Energy from earth orbiting satellites

[GOS_Queen]

Rinsie:

I don't understand why you think abolishing the income tax is wacko?
In Washington State, they do not have state income tax but they seem to have roadways and services for the public goods (they just collect taxes in other ways such as a sales tax).

I do not pretend to be an economic scholar but I do remember in history class (maybe 8th or 9th grade) we were learning about the economic collapse in Germany (early 1900's ?) and how the goverment was creating rapid inflation by printing money left and right! Ever since then, it worries me today when the Fed decides to print more money (that seems silly to say but I'll never forget how freaked out I was to learn about that in history class!)

I would suggest that if you are interested in learning about Ron Paul's positions, to check out his writings on www.ronpaullibrary.org .

I was going to copy some of his writings over but the articles are a bit long and I don't want to take up space on the message board.


Here's some articles I think you might find interesting and informative -



May 7, 2001
The Case Against the Income Tax
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=199


October 16, 2006
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=482


December 5, 2005

What do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=438

April 25, 2006
What the Price of Gold is Telling Us
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=537

[For-Life]

The role of the Federal Reserve is to control the money supply and interest rates. It has a long history. That has to be investigated to understand the full situation. I will give a brief summary:

- the FR (Federal Reserve) is supposed to be a body separate from political influence and bias to help control the economy. It's main tool is monetary policy.

- The US, like most nations, used to have the Gold Standard. This was a system that based the value of currency on how much Gold a nation has. It was abolished due to inaccuracies between nation to nation, rapid fluctuations where the adjustments were made, and because it did not represent the overall health of the economy.

- In 1944, the US hosted the Bretton Woods conference. The main outcome of this was that the US would be going back to the Gold Standard, and other other nations (the ones involved) would peg their currency to it. It also developed new rules for devaluing money by printing more currency and such.

- This system worked relatively okay until the 1970s with stagflation. Nixon and Carter encouraged the Federal Reserve to print more money as a solution.

- A floating currency rate system was then introduced.

- 1980s new economic principles began to develop. Before this, the main goal was to control interest rates (if I am correct), but this led to inflation. The new decision was to control inflation through interest rates. Alan Greenspan brought this in ushering a new way of doing things.

- When the economy was doing poorly, interest rates would be lowered to increase investment. When the economy was doing well but heading toward inflation, interest rates are increased to curb spending. This monetary policy has been proven to be more efficient than fiscal policy.

- Because of this, you have seen inflation rates steadily between 1 and 3 percent, and honestly you will not see them get out of that too much ever again (unless you get an idiot with too much power and influence).

- Money is never printed as a solution anymore. Keep in mind. You may get upset that this group controls the money supply, but who would if it was abolished? It has to be controlled. Do you want a rogue President doing it again?


As for Paul, I went directly to his site. His plan for social security addressed some of the problems (or symptoms), but his solution was nothing. His health care policy would only increase the cost of health care. His education policy will ensure that poor areas will provide children the worst education.

Rinsie:

April 25, 2006
What the Price of Gold is Telling Us
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=537

Wow, what a scary article. I do not think this guy understands anything about currency and currency rates. I mean he knows nothing.

[For-Life]

...

[GOS_Queen]

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040907.htm

The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money

April 9, 2007 Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
Certainly it’’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe. Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.

[GOS_Queen]

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst120406.htm

Monetary Inflation is the Problem

December 4, 2006
The financial press reported last week that the value of the U.S. dollar plummeted to a 14-year low against the British pound, and weakened against the Euro and Yen. Many financial analysts predict continued rough times for the dollar in 2007, given reduced expectations for economic growth at home and less enthusiasm among foreign central banks for holding U.S. debt.
This decline in the value of the dollar is simple to explain. The dollar loses value as the direct result of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury increasing the money supply. Inflation, as the late Milton Friedman explained, is always a monetary phenomenon. The federal government consistently wants to spend more than it can tax and borrow, so Congress turns to the Fed for help in covering the difference. The result is more dollars, both real and electronic-- which means the value of every existing dollar goes down.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke faces two basic ongoing choices: raise interest rates to prop up the dollar, but risk pushing the economy into a recession; or lower interest rates to stimulate the economy, but risk further declines in the dollar. This unfortunate dilemma is inherent with a fiat currency, however.
Of course Mr. Bernanke inherited this tightrope act from his predecessor Alan Greenspan. The Federal Reserve did two things to artificially expand the economy during the Greenspan era. First, it relentlessly lowered interest rates whenever growth slowed. Interest rates should be set by the free market, with the availability of savings determining the cost of borrowing money. In a healthy market economy, more savings equals lower interest rates. When savings rates are low, capital dries up and the cost of borrowing increases.
However, when the Fed sets interest rates artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. Individuals incur greater amounts of debt, while businesses overextend themselves and grow without real gains in productivity. The bubble bursts quickly once the credit dries up and the bills cannot be paid.
Second, the Fed steadily increased the monetary supply throughout the 1990s by printing money. Recent Fed numbers show double-digit annual increases in the M2 money supply. These new dollars may make Americans feel richer, but the net result of monetary inflation has to be the devaluation of savings and purchasing power.
The precipitous drop in the dollar shows how investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When government policies in a fiat system are the sole measure of a currency’’s worth, the currency markets act as a reliable barometer of how those policies are viewed around the world. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool the financial markets over time. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government.

[For-Life]

GOS Queen, the only time the Federal Reserve has done something stupid enough to increase inflation, was under political influence. Political influence was removed to stop that from ever happening again.

Because of that, inflation is at 2 percent, not 10.

[chip anderson]

This poll is making me feel better at least there are more than three conservatives in the optical business.

[1968]

Nevertheless, Ron Paul could make the most sense (overall) of the whole bunch that's appeared so far ... at least I'm not saying otherwise.

I like Ron Paul's ideas, however, I will be the first to admit that he has a daunting task ahead of him. I believe his knowledge of economics is head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates, but that won't do him any good when the voting public is made up of those more familiar with Oprah Winfrey and Sean Hannity than they are of Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman. Although the American public routinely seems to be disenchanted with their choices in Presidential elections, they always choose candidates that support the status quo. In this sense, we get what we deserve.

[rinselberg]

I don't think that Ron Paul makes much sense when he talks about eliminating the Income Tax: I've been led to think about it by a shanbaum post that appeared not too long ago ... It seems to me that the overarching purpose of economic activity is to produce income (in one form or another) for people. So it follows that the fairest and most logical way to collect revenues to run the government is to tax people: Tax their personal income.


Personal income tax receipts comprise almost one half (48%) of federal tax revenues. Select ("click') image to view.

In a typical corporation, executives receive more income in the form of wages and other benefits than line workers. What is the logic of levying a tax on corporate income or profit before it's doled out in various ways to employees, executive level employees and stockholders? It seems more reasonable to shift that tax from the corporate level to the individual or personal level, in order to more accurately reflect the proportionately higher share of the "gets" that executives (or other higher paid employees) are receiving.

I have to admit: I don't think that often or at much length about economic, fiscal and tax-related issues.

Image: http://www.infoplease.com/cig/econom...e-economy.html



Climate change
The eerie purple glow that threatens humanity ...

[chip anderson]

Risel:

The big despute here which you fail to recognise is: The purpose of work is to produce income for people or is it to produce income for the people. There are the collectivists (communist, socialist or whatever you want to call them) who believe the latter. And there are the conservatives (whatever you want to call them also) who believe the former.

Chip

[For-Life]

I like Ron Paul's ideas, however, I will be the first to admit that he has a daunting task ahead of him. I believe his knowledge of economics is head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates, but that won't do him any good when the voting public is made up of those more familiar with Oprah Winfrey and Sean Hannity than they are of Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman. Although the American public routinely seems to be disenchanted with their choices in Presidential elections, they always choose candidates that support the status quo. In this sense, we get what we deserve.

Is that why he still thinks inflation is out of control and advocates putting the money supply into the hands of politics (which in the past has led to nothing but trouble)?

Personally, I believe Ron Paul is all smoke and mirrors. He says stuff that gets everyone to smile, but in reality are not practical.