High-Ons Unite to Pass Ron Paul the Presidential Spliff

[oladub]

rb336: now read carefully what I'm saying, not what you THINK I'm saying:
1) The way things are now, allowing giant banks to fail would have a devastating impact on the broader economy from which it may take tens of years to recover. Would you like that outcome? and no, you can't answer with your fairy tale of smaller banks just picking up the pieces, because, well, it's a fairy tale

2) The way to prevent a broad economic disaster is to break up those giant banks and enforce anti-trust laws. How would Paul feel about that?

3) Paul's anti-regulatory stance would be the ultimate preferential legal treatment

.
Once again, You make the “too big to fail argument.” More consolidation will continue with such thinking. Those mega-banks could also be regulated at the state level as are insurance companies. I think that Ron Paul would be fine with that. Ron Paul would probably also be fine with the Bank of North Dakota owned by that State. There are more ways to skin this cat than to centralize even more power at the federal level. The FDIC does not even insure N. Dakota bank accounts and the Bank of ND even handed out interest free student loans until Obama nationalized student loans. Now, ND students have to pay interest on student loans to the federal government. It probably wasn't the change they had hoped for.

To quote Reagan "there you go again" with your fairy tale. Smaller banks wouldn't be able to cope with the financial issues that would come with the pieces of a failed mega bank. A mid-sized bank might decide to try, mostly to bump themselves into the upper realm, but would likely then fail again. A failed mega bank wouldn't send ripples through the economy, it would send a tsunami across it.

Interesting that you are quoting Ronald Reagan and defending Wall Street these days.

So he would FORCE the monopolies to give me equal access to the airwaves? that is a very un-libertarian stance. What rules would he oppose? [[and don't just regurgitate the BS about the bailouts like you usually do. It seems to be your only argument)

What gives you the idea that I like lobbyists? Or wars? Wars are sometimes a necessary evil. You still mistake my arguments for the constitutionality for support of the action, although I DO think supporting people trying to overthrow tyrants is a good thing.

You must like wars enough to support Obama and defend his executive order to bomb Libya and disregard the opinions of Nader and Kucinich opposite to your own. You support the mega banks as if you were a lobbyist telling us those banks are too big to fail and support politicians who created that situation.

“Force” is a word from the authoritarian lexicon. Authoritarians are the opposite of libertarians. I suspect that where possible, the air waves could be opened up and at lower prices. Government need not be protecting the exclusivity of Murdoch’s enterprise as it does with artificial barriers and financial barriers to play in the game. Why shouldn’t someone even start broadcasting without a license if they didn’t interfere with their neighbors on the broadcast spectrum? If some regulation is needed, and it probably is, to sort some of this out, why couldn’t it be done more at the state level?

specifics please. Dodd did a number of good things and a number of not good things. You merely gave a blanket comment which I showed was not warranted.

Countryside and headlines like this:
Sen. Chris Dodd took millions from now-failing finance firms he oversees

Chris Dodd tries to gut derivatives proposal

Isn't Dodd's latest gig trying to promote SOPA/PIPA? If there is an 'enemy of the people', Dodd pretty well meets it's criteria.

Probably because you looked for the exact phrase instead of inference.

Your quote was, “As I said before, that quote from Paul is true”. I hadn’t realized that inferring and saying something are the same in your mind.

[rb336]

.
Once again, You make the “too big to fail argument.” More consolidation will continue with such thinking.

Gee, do you realize what I ACTUALLY said? they need to be BROKEN UP

Those mega-banks could also be regulated at the state level as are insurance companies.

Their business crosses state lines - and international boundaries - and you think the states can regulate them? What a joke. That is the mindless stupidity of Paul's position. Guess what? we HAD a system where states regulated banking and it FAILED spectacularly, almost taking the nation's existence with it.


The rest of your mindless post wasn't worth a response.

[oladub]

Gee, do you realize what I ACTUALLY said? they need to be BROKEN UP

Their business crosses state lines - and international boundaries - and you think the states can regulate them? What a joke. That is the mindless stupidity of Paul's position. Guess what? we HAD a system where states regulated banking and it FAILED spectacularly, almost taking the nation's existence with it.

The rest of your mindless post wasn't worth a response.

You were more likely unable to respond with your stock base of cliches. What I wrote was, "Those mega-banks could also be regulated at the state level as are insurance companies." Insurance companies operate on a state basis and often do not operate in given states. I found this out the hard way when my Michigan AAA was considered a "foreign" company in Wisconsin where AAA buys insurance from another broker. There was a move afoot to reduce health care costs by making health insurance policies cover every state. Evidently, insurance policies and companies vary from state to state. Not all banks operate nationally. Why should any be allowed to do so? I don't think that every problem only has a federal solution.

[rb336]

Not all banks operate nationally. Why should any be allowed to do so? I don't think that every problem only has a federal solution.

How are you going to stop them? do you even think about how absurd that sounds? You think you can turn back the clock to the 20s? or, more correctly, to the 1780s?

[oladub]

How are you going to stop them? do you even think about how absurd that sounds? You think you can turn back the clock to the 20s? or, more correctly, to the 1780s?

Offhand 1)by establishing state regulations which are not to the banks' liking. 2) There are state only chartered banks. 3) I already mentioned the State owned Bank of North Dakota which issues loans to farmers for lower rates than other banks and used to provide interest free rates to students. Why would big banks even come in to compete where they had such a disadvantage? 4) toss executives from even mega-banks into prison if they violate state laws.

[rb336]

Offhand 1)by establishing state regulations which are not to the banks' liking. 2) There are state only chartered banks. 3) I already mentioned the State owned Bank of North Dakota which issues loans to farmers for lower rates than other banks and used to provide interest free rates to students. Why would big banks even come in to compete where they had such a disadvantage? 4) toss executives from even mega-banks into prison if they violate state laws.

Pure fairy tale. All you would do is turn the banking system into total chaos, you would get bankers whipsawing the states just as you do with insurance now. Companies that want to compete in different states would have to follow 50 different sets of rules. Banks would rip us off even more than they do now because they would be MUCH more involved in the state legislative process. Look at how the insurance companies work today. It's not good for the consumer in any way

[oladub]

Pure fairy tale. All you would do is turn the banking system into total chaos, you would get bankers whipsawing the states just as you do with insurance now. Companies that want to compete in different states would have to follow 50 different sets of rules. Banks would rip us off even more than they do now because they would be MUCH more involved in the state legislative process. Look at how the insurance companies work today. It's not good for the consumer in any way

We already have total chaos. That's why the federal government is bailing out Wall Street share holders, transferring bad bank debts to US taxpayers, and a partial audit of the Fed, opposed by the President, revealed that the Fed had 'printed' and handed out $16T to US and foreign banks. Your solution is more of the same; to let the same people who wound us up in this situation make new rules to keep their game going on a little longer.

How is the Bank of North Dakota, the socialist example I used, in any way more corrupt than the goings on at the federal level? Or how are credit unions and other state chartered banks, on the whole, ripping us off more than Goldman Sachs, CitiBank, Bank of America, etc...?

[oladub]

Dr. Paul will participate in a townhall event in Highland Park, a city next to Detroit and hit hard. Why this is so different, is that it is a townall with a demographic not normally addressed by candidates of any party...the poor and minorities of the inner city. To add to the importance, the church that the event will be held at is used as a school for high school drop outs, an excellent venue to discuss the institutional racism going on in our legal and school system. It is my hope that people from all political backgrounds can see the value in supporting Dr. Paul. I believe this will be a standard bearer for future urban cities and in future elections. We cannot ignore our urban cities and how status quo policies have effected them. Any candidate can speak at Ford Field or the Detroit economic club, few if any will speak to the citizens in hard hit communities. Dr. Paul is one in a million. Fun fact, the last presidential candidate to speak in the inner city in Detroit was Harry Truman in 1952. Thank you Dr. Paul for being you. Submitted by David A Dudenhoefer on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 15:08 Ron Paul 2012

[rb336]

[QUOTE=oladub;305416] We already have total chaos. That's why the federal government is bailing out Wall Street share holders, transferring bad bank debts to US taxpayers, and a partial audit of the Fed, opposed by the President, revealed that the Fed had 'printed' and handed out $16T to US and foreign banks. Your solution is more of the same; to let the same people who wound us up in this situation make new rules to keep their game going on a little longer.

How is the Bank of North Dakota, the socialist example I used, in any way more corrupt than the goings on at the federal level? Or how are credit unions and other state chartered banks, on the whole, ripping us off more than Goldman Sachs, CitiBank, Bank of America, etc...?[/QUOTE]

How disingenuous can you get? Yes Obama was initially opposed, but, as usual, you fail to understand the context of his opposition. Once that was addressed he supported it. Turning the regulation of banking exclusively to the states would not only create far more chaos than we have, it would set us at a severe disadvantage on the international front, just EXACTLY as it did under the AoC. That is WHY the Constitution says "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." The mechanism through which they chose to do so was via the federal reserve system. States are not even mentioned except to allow them to ONLY mint gold & silver coinage. States still have the ability to charter banks and to own them. Federal rules apply to FDIC insured institutions. You don't like Federal banks? don't go to one

[rb336]

Dr. Paul will participate in a townhall event in Highland Park, a city next to Detroit and hit hard. Why this is so different, is that it is a townall with a demographic not normally addressed by candidates of any party...the poor and minorities of the inner city. To add to the importance, the church that the event will be held at is used as a school for high school drop outs, an excellent venue to discuss the institutional racism going on in our legal and school system. It is my hope that people from all political backgrounds can see the value in supporting Dr. Paul. I believe this will be a standard bearer for future urban cities and in future elections. We cannot ignore our urban cities and how status quo policies have effected them. Any candidate can speak at Ford Field or the Detroit economic club, few if any will speak to the citizens in hard hit communities. Dr. Paul is one in a million. Fun fact, the last presidential candidate to speak in the inner city in Detroit was Harry Truman in 1952. Thank you Dr. Paul for being you. Submitted by David A Dudenhoefer on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 15:08 Ron Paul 2012

paulites crack me up

[oladub]

rb: How disingenuous can you get? Yes Obama was initially opposed, but, as usual, you fail to understand the context of his opposition. Once that was addressed he supported it. Turning the regulation of banking exclusively to the states would not only create far more chaos than we have, it would set us at a severe disadvantage on the international front, just EXACTLY as it did under the AoC. That is WHY the Constitution says"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." The mechanism through which they chose to do so was via the federal reserve system. States are not even mentioned except to allow them to ONLY mint gold & silver coinage. States still have the ability to charter banks and to own them. Federal rules apply to FDIC insured institutions. You don't like Federal banks? don't go to one

Truman: "the buck stops here"
Obama supporter: "Yes Obama was initially opposed, but, as usual, you fail to understand the context of his opposition. Once that was addressed he supported it." Presumably, you are referring to Bush's Wall Street bailout.

I didn't rule out all federal banks but states could make it rougher on the likes of Bank of America or Wells Fargo so they wouldn't want to come around stinking things up. I do go to a state chartered credit union. The Constitution also says that

• No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

That seems to rule out Federal Reserve notes not even based on gold or silver like silver certificates once were. Congress is supposed to have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof; not empower a Federal Reserve which Congress cannot fully audit. Its like Congress letting President Bush decide if we should go to war in Iraq. It was supposed to be Congress' role to make that determination.

[rb336]

Truman: "the buck stops here"
Obama supporter: "Yes Obama was initially opposed, but, as usual, you fail to understand the context of his opposition. Once that was addressed he supported it." Presumably, you are referring to Bush's Wall Street bailout.

Please come up with something original. THAT doesn't even match what we are talking about, which was the Fed audit. Please do try to keep up. He was against certain wordings, which were vague and they changed them.

I didn't rule out all federal banks but states could make it rougher on the likes of Bank of America or Wells Fargo so they wouldn't want to come around stinking things up. I do go to a state chartered credit union.

another pure fairy tale

The Constitution also says that

No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

um, i just said that, do try to keep up

That seems to rule out Federal Reserve notes not even based on gold or silver like silver certificates once were. Congress is supposed to have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof; not empower a Federal Reserve which Congress cannot fully audit. Its like Congress letting President Bush decide if we should go to war in Iraq. It was supposed to be Congress' role to make that determination.

Are you kidding me? that restriction was EXPLICITLY on the STATES, not the Federal Government. There is absolutely NO "gold standard" or anything similar limiting Congress' right "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" In fact, regulating the value of... implies NOT hitching it to the value of gold, since that varies on the world market

[oladub]

rb336: Please come up with something original. THAT doesn't even match what we are talking about, which was the Fed audit. Please do try to keep up. He was against certain wordings, which were vague and they changed them.

Right. In a previous post you claimed that what you "said" is the same as what you inferred although you didn't really say it. My error, I wan't properly interpreting your adjective "it" when I should have imagining what you were inferring.

um, i just said that, do try to keep up

You did not write, "No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt." You wrote, "That is WHY the Constitution says "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." Do try to be accurate.

Are you kidding me? that restriction was EXPLICITLY on the STATES, not the Federal Government. There is absolutely NO "gold standard" or anything similar limiting Congress' right "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" In fact, regulating the value of... implies NOT hitching it to the value of gold, since that varies on the world market

rb, are you really denying that there was was a gold and silver standard until 1971 [[gold) and 1964[[silver)? Congress did regulate the value of paper money based on gold. Roosevelt devalued paper relative to gold to help pay for all his spending for instance. But I wasn't questioning the quote you brought into the conversation. I just pointed out another part of the Constitution stating, "No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."; something that hasn't happened since 1964.

Forbes had an interesting article making the point that the price of oil isn't going up. Rather, the value of the dollar is declining against gold. You've inspired me to post it on the other thread.

[Gannon]

As I was saying...hey, you guys should get a room or somethin'...

Oddly, the folks I know who support Ron Paul do so BECAUSE they are sick of the hook, line, and sinker bullshit of standard politics on both sides of the aisle.

In my lifetime, I've never seen a person in such a strong position to create a third party. There is momentum with this guy, even moreso when the mainstream media is caught red-handed ignoring him and lying about how much support he actually has. Then there is the mechanizations within the party...Maine will be remembered by many as one of the most blatant abuses of power, amidst a mad-scramble to maintain control of their status quo.


I'm on the fence...it is either continuing the Obama fiasco, which I'm leaning towards...or Paul. I will at least be Republican for a day next week, if the public declaration is the only threat.


He is not some Messiah, nor was the current President. I merely thought it funny he would broach this topic, with his uncommon clarity and apparent honesty. Curious he would bring it up the same week the administration swerves away from their previous trajectory over medical use of cannabis...although I didn't fully read the report last week.


Cheers!
Back to being Republican, if only for a day!

[maxx]

rb336: Not one of these things would shrink the power of mega corporations an iota.

I'd like to give it a try by ending subsidies to coal and oil gradually.

[rb336]

You did not write, "No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt." You wrote, "That is WHY the Constitution says "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." Do try to be accurate.

sheesh -- you are mixing up posts worse than you usually mix metaphors. I didn't quote the exact line, but RIGHT AFTER what you quote I wrote " States are not even mentioned except to allow them to ONLY mint gold & silver coinage. Then again, you seem to think saying anything ONLY counts if is verbatim or if it is said within your short-term memory holding period.

rb, are you really denying that there was was a gold and silver standard until 1971 [[gold) and 1964[[silver)? Congress did regulate the value of paper money based on gold.

Where did I say that? my comment about the gold standard not being constitutional was merely being flippant, parodizing the moronic "constitutional money" crowd.

Forbes had an interesting article making the point that the price of oil isn't going up. Rather, the value of the dollar is declining against gold. You've inspired me to post it on the other thread.

A notion that has been debunked here too many times to count

[oladub]

rb336: sheesh -- you are mixing up posts worse than you usually mix metaphors. I didn't quote the exact line, but RIGHT AFTER what you quote I wrote " States are not even mentioned except to allow them to ONLY mint gold & silver coinage. Then again, you seem to think saying anything ONLY counts if is verbatim or if it is said within your short-term memory holding period.

Right. Posting something different than what you claimed, inferred, or imagined you posted posted doesn't usually count.

Where did I say that? my comment about the gold standard not being constitutional was merely being flippant, parodying the moronic "constitutional money" crowd

.

You were asked a question about if that was what you were saying. I didn't know you were being flippant although the constitutional money crowd would point out that the Constitution reads, "No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt." What seems moronic to me is watching the spending power of Federal Reserve notes evaporate before out eyes and accepting that.

A notion that has been debunked here too many times to count.

Which statistics, as found in that article, are wrong?


Our choice:
Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich = status quo =dollars backed by nothing and hidden inflation taxes
Ron Paul = change = gold and silver backed dollars = more consistent oil prices

How about we take Gannon's advice and each write one long paragraph on how our respective candidates will cut the cost of gasoline and be done with this discussion?

[rb336]

You were asked a question about if that was what you were saying. I didn't know you were being flippant although the constitutional money crowd would point out that the Constitution reads, "No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt." What seems moronic to me is watching the spending power of Federal Reserve notes evaporate before out eyes and accepting that.

Do you understand that it is STATES that they are talking about? NOT the Federal Government? It is arguments like that that make that crowd so laughable.

Which statistics, as found in that article, are wrong?

Answered in the other thread

[mjs]

now read carefully what I'm saying, not what you THINK I'm saying:
1) The way things are now, allowing giant banks to fail would have a devastating impact on the broader economy from which it may take tens of years to recover. Would you like that outcome? and no, you can't answer with your fairy tale of smaller banks just picking up the pieces, because, well, it's a fairy tale

2) The way to prevent a broad economic disaster is to break up those giant banks and enforce anti-trust laws. How would Paul feel about that?

I read it carefully and I'm very confused about the consistency of your views. You first say that we can't let big banks fail through the free market system because that would cause them to break up into pieces and its a "fairy tale" that the small banks have the resources to absorb those loans and deposits. However, your second point is that the solution is for the government market system to cause them to break up into pieces because the small banks have the resources to absorb those loans and deposits.

How would Ron Paul feel about that? He would say that while organic growth is good, government driven mergers and acquisitions for chosen winners goes against basic free market principles. He would say that if the government didn't act as the lacky for Citi, Goldman, BOA, AIG, etc, they wouldn't have grown so large at the disadvantage of their small bank cpmpetitors so they would have never become large enough to require a breakup.

Furthermore, you do realize that the Executive branch is responsible for enforcing anti-trust and they quit enforcing anti-trust under the Clinton administration. The specific incident that got this whole banking collapse rolling was the Citi merger. What did Clinton's administration attempt to do to stop it other than delay it a few hours so they could express their glowingly support with the exact argument that I heard you post; this is needed so one of the richest banks in the world in one of the richest countries in the world can remain competitive in international banking.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Vote for ron paul for republican presidential primary!

[rb336]

I said two different things -- we can't allow giant banks to fail AND we should break up those giant banks. There is no inconsistency. Break them into smaller chunks that can fail without major economic repercussions.

Actually, they stopped enforcing anti-trust under Reagan.

How exactly did a merger [[WHICH Citi merger? there have been several) in the 1990s cause a banking crisis 10 years later?