Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Ron Paul Questions and Concerns Well
- This topic has 266 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM #731754October 31, 2011 at 2:17 PM #731758
Anonymous
Guest[quote=markmax33][…] the unequal redistribution of wealth.[/quote]
Wealth distribution was more equal in the 19th century?
October 31, 2011 at 2:38 PM #731764SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]
NO! Boom and bust cycles are required in a free market. The huge green you see is the federal reserve’s $14.8T of debt and the unequal redistribution of wealth. Our redline will be much larger than anything previously seen and will trump the rest of history.[/quote]I think you’re confusing federal debt (which is about $14 trillion) and federal reserve debt, which was less than $2.5 trillion at the beginning of the year.
And please explain the “unequal redistribution of wealth”. Do you really mean unequal? Which would mean the redistribution isn’t the same for everyone. Which would make the word unequal unnecessary because redistribution would mean the same thing. Or do you mean unequalled, as in it’s never happened before? Because historically it has happened before. We’ve had much higher taxes than we have currently.
October 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM #731771markmax33
Guest[quote=markmax33]
NO! Boom and bust cycles are required in a free market. The huge green you see is the federal reserve’s $14.8T of debt and the unequal redistribution of wealth. Our redline will be much larger than anything previously seen and will trump the rest of history.[/quote][quote=SK in CV]
I think you’re confusing federal debt (which is about $14 trillion) and federal reserve debt, which was less than $2.5 trillion at the beginning of the year.
[/quote]I might not be 100% clear:
1. The national debt is $14.8T:
2. The federal reserve loaned $16T during Ron Paul’s audit since the bailout:
http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts
It should shock you into submission.
[quote=SK in CV]
And please explain the “unequal redistribution of wealth”. Do you really mean unequal? Which would mean the redistribution isn’t the same for everyone. Which would make the word unequal unnecessary because redistribution would mean the same thing. Or do you mean unequalled, as in it’s never happened before? Because historically it has happened before. We’ve had much higher taxes than we have currently.[/quote]Unequal redistribution of wealth = The GOV and federal reserve bailout the big banks and the big bank CEOs make millions of dollars in bonuses while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and losing their homes. This is horrible and should concern all Americans.
October 31, 2011 at 3:30 PM #731773Guest[quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33][…] the unequal redistribution of wealth.[/quote]
Wealth distribution was more equal in the 19th century?[/quote]
We had no federal reserve and 12 random men handing out $16,000,000,000,000 in the 19th century. It is a crime.
October 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM #731775Guest[quote=walterwhite]Did the founding fathers have porn? No photos. Were there pornographic etchings? TG, perhaps your knowledge of porn history could enlighten as to the founders intent re issues of porn.
Of course back then it was I think ok to have sex with 11 or 12 year olds.
Things change.[/quote]
The founding fathers were clear about the laws and they clearly extend to porn. Ask a quesetion and then try to apply the constitution. It works just fine. You just need to think critically.
October 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM #731780scaredyclassic
ParticipantCan reasonable minds differ in the conclusions they draw from their critical thinking or is there just one right answer?
October 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM #731782Guest[quote=walterwhite]Can reasonable minds differ in the conclusions they draw from their critical thinking or is there just one right answer?[/quote]
Ask a question and I will show you the constitution works. You can’t just randomly say the constitution is outdated when the topics in it apply universally without the influence of technology. The technology argument is not applicable.
October 31, 2011 at 4:14 PM #731786Participant[quote=markmax33]
Unequal redistribution of wealth = The GOV and federal reserve bailout the big banks and the big bank CEOs make millions of dollars in bonuses while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and losing their homes. This is horrible and should concern all Americans.[/quote]Ok, I didn’t understand, now I do. The source of my confusion is that “redistribution of wealth” has been a catch phrase used by critics of Obama administration and attempts to increase taxes on upper income taxpayers. It’s often been assailed as socialism.
You’re talking about something at the opposite end of the spectrum. And despite the somewhat awkward wording, it’s something we entirely agree on.
October 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM #731787Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Unequal redistribution of wealth = The GOV and federal reserve bailout the big banks and the big bank CEOs make millions of dollars in bonuses while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and losing their homes. This is horrible and should concern all Americans.[/quote]Ok, I didn’t understand, now I do. The source of my confusion is that “redistribution of wealth” has been a catch phrase used by critics of Obama administration and attempts to increase taxes on upper income taxpayers. It’s often been assailed as socialism.
You’re talking about something at the opposite end of the spectrum. And despite the somewhat awkward wording, it’s something we entirely agree on.[/quote]
Well then welcome to being a Ron Paul supporter, he’s the only one that will address it.
October 31, 2011 at 4:22 PM #731788aldante
Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=markmax33]
NO! Boom and bust cycles are required in a free market. The huge green you see is the federal reserve’s $14.8T of debt and the unequal redistribution of wealth. Our redline will be much larger than anything previously seen and will trump the rest of history.[/quote][quote=SK in CV]
I think you’re confusing federal debt (which is about $14 trillion) and federal reserve debt, which was less than $2.5 trillion at the beginning of the year.
[/quote]I might not be 100% clear:
1. The national debt is $14.8T:
2. The federal reserve loaned $16T during Ron Paul’s audit since the bailout:
http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts
It should shock you into submission.
[quote=SK in CV]
And please explain the “unequal redistribution of wealth”. Do you really mean unequal? Which would mean the redistribution isn’t the same for everyone. Which would make the word unequal unnecessary because redistribution would mean the same thing. Or do you mean unequalled, as in it’s never happened before? Because historically it has happened before. We’ve had much higher taxes than we have currently.[/quote]Unequal redistribution of wealth = The GOV and federal reserve bailout the big banks and the big bank CEOs make millions of dollars in bonuses while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and losing their homes. This is horrible and should concern all Americans.[/quote]
That sounds like a pretty good definition to me!
October 31, 2011 at 4:54 PM #731791Participant[quote=markmax33
Well then welcome to being a Ron Paul supporter, he’s the only one that will address it.[/quote]Not quite. There have been a handful of Democrats and one Socialist in congress that have been on it for many years.
October 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM #731794ParticipantLook there are literally thousands of cases winding their way through the courts every year involving disputes requiring constitutional interpretation . Is there always one clear right answer in all these disputes? Is all this arguing re different positions just unnecessary if the wrong side would just read the text of the constit. more carefully?
October 31, 2011 at 6:47 PM #731799ParticipantTake a look at the second amendment. Assume Heller wascorrectly decided. Now, does the second amendment guarantee me the right to carry a concealed weapon? Why?
October 31, 2011 at 9:38 PM #731808
svelteParticipant[quote=markmax33]
Ron Paul has been saying the SAME thing since the 1970s. There are several videos all over the place that can confirm that! I’m sorry you aren’t up to speed.[/quote]
Boy, you sure have a knack for insulting people. And because of that, I just might take great pleasure when Ron Paul loses in 2012.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.