Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]
He was in the low single digits 4 years ago and now he’s around 20%. That’s a massive increase. He doesn’t have much further to go and he has a kid who can pick up where he leaves off. There is hope for this year and every year forward, you need to wake up and join the movement.[/quote]Except he’s not around 20%, he’s below 15%. Usually below 10%. Some polling only use landlines, others use both cells & landlines. And by adding 10% to Paul for what you’re considering invalid methods, you’re assuming that somehow this is a negative for Paul and a positive for the other candidates. (That might be true, but I’d like to hear the rationale for it.) Last time around his final average polling number was 6.5%, even with the newest polls, he’s still under 10%. At that rate of improvement, he may be in the fight for the nomination around 2032. When he’ll be 97. He still won’t be electable.
ParticipantThe current RCP numbers were the ones I looked at before I posted. I agree a lot can change. One of the differences, I think, is that Ron Paul has been through this before. He didn’t poll any better last time around. Republicans know who he is and have dismissed him. (I agree with those that say the press has been unfair to him, but it seems pretty unlikely that will change.)
I did see a poll this morning that I think was nationwide that had him at 14.5%. Everyone on the Republican side still in the race have had their day in the sun, and they all seem to be falling to the side except for Romney and Cain. I suspect Cain will fizzle shortly, when the absolute emptiness and silliness behind his 9-9-9 plan become obvious.
It’s not impossible that one of the others will rise again, though I think their popularity among Republicans, for those that have shown strength in the past (particularly Bachmann and Perry) is passionate but shallow. Someone else cold appear on the scene but the likely candidates have already said no. They have about 90 days to change their minds. (Chris Christie? I suspect whatever the reason he said no before will remain and he won’t change his mind.)
Barring new entrants in the race, for Paul supporters, it comes down to Romney v. Paul. And irrespective of Paul’s lack of respect from the press, he just doesn’t have the mass appeal that Romney has, as tepid as that appeal is. We’ll end up with <15% with passion for Paul and a > 30% plurality among Republicans with lukewarm support for Romney. I don’t see it turning out any other way.
Participant[quote=markmax33]
Well Ron Paul has 20% of the vote already and he’s either going to win the Republican nomination or win as a third party.
[/quote]In what universe? He doesn’t have 10% of republicans in recent polling. And the best he’s done in any recent nationwide polling is 13%. Without regards to my own feelings about the guy, you can’t really will him into a viable candidate. He simply isn’t viable.
Participant[quote=markmax33]
Are you really sitting here arguing semantics in an overall global point I am trying to make? You agree on the inflation therefore my point is proven. The middle class is being squeezed out. You are so childish to waste everyone’s time when I proved the point.[/quote]
I’m not arguing semantics. I’m specifically arguing the points you made. If your point was simply inflation is real and it’s bad, then no one will disagree with you. All you’ll have is a bunch of nodding heads. But that’s not actually what you claimed.
And even if everyone does agree on that point, it’s not the least bit supportive of a Ron Paul candidacy.
Participant[quote=AN]If the market didn’t crash, we wouldn’t have tea party, OWS, etc. We would have a piggington that mainly talk about RE and there wouldn’t be any debate about RE being over priced :-)[/quote]
touche 🙂
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Also, I wanted to add that government pensions are paid ONLY out of their respective retirement systems. Those systems are run by Boards elected periodically by their members. These systems are funded by a combination of employee and employer contributions and are invested for growth, dividends and income. Some systems are more “solvent” than others (depending on the management skills of each Board and investment performance).[/quote]That’s a key point in the discussion. THE main problem with retirement plan funding has not been the plans themselves, but rather, the poor investment performance over the last 4 or 5 years.
The UC retirement plan, for instance, was so successful over the two decades preceding 2007, that no employee contributions were required and very little (on a per employee basis) from the employers. It was significantly over-funded, solely as a result of excellent investment performance. There are employees who had worked for the system for more than 20 years who had never contributed a dime. Not so anymore. If the market hadn’t crashed, this discussion would not be at the forefront as it is.
The same is true for many public retirement systems across the country.
(Please note, I’m not commenting on the appropriateness of any of the public retirement plans, only the reason it’s currently a discussion point.)
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
The only point you are effectively making is that many city firefighters are ridiculously overcompensated. We’ve already established that fact pretty well on other threads.Using examples of generous government compensation really doesn’t support the argument that the middle class is doing just fine. It actually supports the general libertarian position that government is too big and spends too much.
You are actually making a better argument in favor of Ron Paul than our new friend markmax – but that really is not hard to do.[/quote]
Not really. Markmax point, which I don’t think anyone can logically dispute, is that there has been significant inflation in the last 60 years. (Duh!) He’s made the point with rediculous absolute assertions which can easily be proven wrong. I’m reasonbly sure that no one here has tried to claim that middle class is doing just fine, only that there are are exceptions to markmax’s absolute claims. (Note to markmax, when you make absolute assertions like “nobody can do this now”, all it takes is a single example to disprove.) I don’t think proving we’ve had inflation is the least bit supportive of Ron Paul.
Markmax lives in a manichean world of absolutes. His writing writings reflect that over and over again. When that kind of thinking becomes pathological, it also becomes dangerous, as it has here. Most of us live in a world with nuance. He doesn’t. I’m tired of teasing the monkeys.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]What’s up w Ron pails weird 70s newsletter. Is it true he was suspicious of Jews back then. I understand because everyone was back then but question; do you think he could learn to trust me?[/quote]
Isn’t the more important question whether you could ever trust him?
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Is Ron Paul ok with medical marijuana?[/quote]
He is! In fact he’s in favor of making it completely legal for all uses. Party on RP!
Nevermind. He’s not all that keen on a woman’s right to privacy.
Participant[quote=markmax33]
You can not inflate your way out of a bubble. It leads to a larger bubble in another sector and then the currency defaults every time.The federal reserve lowered interest rates after the tech bubble and created a larger bubble in the housing market by artificially fixing the market. If they had instead let the market fail completely, they would have never had the housing bubble. The FED distorts markets and screws all of us.[/quote]
Actually you can inflate your way out of bubble. Mexico has done it at least twice in the last 40 years. As has Israel. And guess what? Neither are on the gold standard. And neither one failed! So there goes your theory that it defaults every time.
Citation please on the Fed causing the housing bubble? Oops. Nevermind. I know. You can’t cite any because there isn’t any!
There’s plenty of good reasons to criticize the Fed. Why don’t you use those instead of making up shit?
Participant[quote=markmax33]
He very clearly explains the Federal Reserve’s position and the GSEs. How you can say the GSE’s had little or nothing to do with the housing bubble when 90% of the mortgages currently written are owned by fannie mae and freddie mac? You sir have lost all credibility. You are no economist.[/quote]How can I say it? I already did. Are we in a bubble now? I’m pretty sure we’re not. I’m also pretty sure that the GSE’s % of purchases of new mortgages is more than 90% right now.
But in 2003 it wasn’t. And it was an even smaller piece in 2004. And even smaller yet in 2005. And guess what? It was even smaller in 2006!
Countrywide on the other hand…
Look quick! Over there ———>> It’s a clue!
Participant[quote=markmax33]
Here is why it’s not anecdotal:A family with a single income teacher could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income engineer could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income fire fighter could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income architect could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income police man could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
Now you couldn’t imagine doing that with any of those professions, THUS it is not anecdotal it is a rule. If it were one profession or a couple I would agree. It is every profession now. Only the top 3% of income earners can get away with this now when it used to be the top 50%.[/quote]
It’s still an anecdote. But thanks for your list.
Participant[quote=aldante][And Paul was right on his prediction of the bubble. He was dead wrong on the cause.
SK please explain this statement? How was RP dead wrong?[/quote]
He predicted that it would all be related to the GSE’s. The GSE’s were a small player in the creation of the bubble. Their market share shrank, and their net portfolio size was stagnant during the bubble years. It was primarily non-GSE’s and non-federally chartered banks that fueled the bubble. (What fueled the lenders is a different piece of the puzzle.)
Participant[quote=markmax33]
SK in CV,
Obviously we are below 2003 inflation adjusted values so I was dead on at the time. If you predicted the housing bubble so late, maybe you are just behind the curve on the $14.8T on federal debt and how it will destroy our society and way of life if we don’t get it under control. I suggest you research it and then you will be motivated to correct the federal reserve system which distorts our markets.[/quote]Some markets are below 2003 inflation adjusted values, some aren’t. But no, I wasn’t behind the curve. If I had sold when you predicted the bubble, I would have been out about $450,000. I was early by about a year in predicting the end of the bubble.
And Paul was right on his prediction of the bubble. He was dead wrong on the cause.
By the way, have you ever reviewed the Fed audit? Interesting as always.
-
AuthorPosts
