Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

Except that there could be a proportional tax cut which would create more demand and then these people who could actually work would be forced to get a job and increase the amount of stuff being produced... That there's eco-nomics...

 

Be careful. If you're too talented at getting out the vote, he might win

 

Interesting video:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4IJ_4xUBHU"]Juan Williams Defends Ron Paul On Fox's 'The Five' Show, "Has Changed American History" - YouTube[/ame]

If you want to know what's behind the media blackout, there it is. They simply can't seperate their own opinions from their observations enough to just objectively report. They can't "report, you decide", because they have *already* decided.
Is he polling well? Yup. Is he crushing the straw polls? Yup. Does he have a formidable organization? Yup. Does he have a huge war-chest? Yup.
But they can't get around their opinions of his "electability" or positions and simply report what's going on anymore. Even as they *freely admit* that he's completely changing the discourse and proven right time and time again.
This video is a frank and stark admission of the insular viewpoint of the media clouding their perceptions.
Don't take my word for it. Watch the video and they'll tell you themselves.

 

Tax cuts do not create jobs.

 

So...
Step 1: Someone makes money
Step 2: We take away the money
Step 3: We give the money away
Step 4: People spend money and 'make demand'
Step 5: Jobs are created
It seems to me as though you could skip step 2 and 3 and just have
Step 1: Somone makes money
Step 2: This person spends money
Step 3: Jobs are created
If tax cuts don't create jobs then tax hikes wouldn't do this either, if tax cuts don't create jobs then why the heck would tax hikes take away jobs? So let's tax everything, and then give everything away, and this will create... JOBS

The dumb in all statist economics is staggering.

 

And, of course, whereas the former method produces jobs based on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats, the latter method produces jobs based on satisfying consumer demand. Only the latter method will actually lead to the production of goods and services most desired by consumers.

So the government-make-work strategy also requires that you perceive all jobs as equally productive and good in and of themselves. If the government is paying a worker to dig holes in the ground and fill them back up, this is not supposed to be wasted labor. It's just as good as if the worker were providing services actually demanded by consumers.

 

The government make work programs should create job where goods are actually produced, based on demand of course.

Not that I condone the practice at all, but it would be preferable to pushing paper around.

 

Wayyy to true. I really think that most people are socialists who dislike socialism. If there's a problem let's get the government to fix it, so let's get em to make us jobs, a job is a job right?
It would be amazing if we could actually start to get rid of the bureaucracy and see what the massive amount of people doing unproductive things could do if they worked together with other people instead of having the government steal from people and waste money.
Back to the discussion though, there's also the fact that there would be more people to do jobs if we cut welfare, this would mean that the amount of stuff the economy could turn out would be greater than it otherwise would, so you want to
1. Take money from people
2. Give it to people who don't earn it
3. By doing this restrict the work force
4. By doing this increase prices and making it harder for productive people to get what they want.
Yeah, great idea, good to see the great effects of bypassing individual cooperation and letting papa government handle everything for us!

 

Fascism is just as bad as normal statism buddy. Even if it was preferable can you imagine what people would do if they got it into their heads "hey guys, let's have the government run everything, we don't need these her companies!"

 

The problem is that the government has no means to discover which goods are most in demand for which resources. In the market, this is done through the price system: the higher the price of something is, the more the demand, and the more the incentive to increase the supply to meet the demand. The government doesn't operate within the price system, so it is unable to allocate resources efficiently according to the demands of consumers.

 

not now he cant,till the american people get off their lazy you know what and take their country back,he wont get elected.we dont elect these people,they are selected for us.there is a book called VOTESCAM that explains all this everybody should read.

 

unfortunately thats true.thats what the establishment wants and we dont elect these people,the establishment selects them for us and they are pleased with the evil obozo running things.

 

so if he is a young guy and evil and wants to destroy the constitution which all these other candidates want to since they are CFR members,then want him in office? gotch.great logic there.

 

stands up and gives standing ovation.Oaul will never get in,they will make sure of that,he has the same visions that kennedy had and they will make sure he wont get elected.you got to be a member of that evil organization the CFR to get elected.even kennedy was.the only reason he got in was they thought he would be evil and corrupt like hsi dad was but he was nothing like him so they got rid of him.

 

the point is to get new people spending money. People who already have money are more likely to put the money away where it doesn't flow as fast as it would if given in the form of food stamps.

 

NEW people spending doesn't matter, what matters is people spending (at least in your book), so if you really wanted to make sure that people would spend money then you would give tax cuts to the bottom tax brackets who are usually the people who usually spend the largest percentage of the money they get. If they save the money then it will be invested, if they stow it away then eventually that money will go out of circulation and prices will drop with deflation.
Anyway, even if we weren't "creating jobs" per se, there would be more people to work, and they would be able to find work as long as there weren't things like minimum wage to stop them from working. Then more things would be produced and prices would all so people would be able to buy more stuff, and you'll find that the tax cut will go longer than it initially would.
I hate to bring it back to kindergarten but theft isn't the answer, cooperation is.

 

The old "hoarding" bogey. Apparently, Keynesians don't realize that people these days don't usually keep their wealth in banks where it's loaned out to be used as capital. I guess they think loans and investments don't qualify as "spending."

Even if the wealth was kept under a mattress, some level of saving is good, in case you need the savings for the future.

 

People are spending money on useless stuff, toys, the latest must haves...so the money goes elsewhere, and what we produce here and send elsewhere doesn't measure up, nowhere near, to make up for the discrepancy.
So, instead of giving the money to the people to make them happy temporarily, why not just send it back from where we borrowed it in the first place?

 

We're not dumb. Of course we realize that. I didn't say that money doesn't flow at all. I said it flows slowly. Much slower than it does when given to food stamps. You have to target where money goes so that the flow is fastest. Targeting it so it goes through a savings account is the absolute slowest way to do it. Especially these days when we are having a credit crisis and banks are being stingy with loan money.

 

Because you don't want to send it to people who don't need it. You want to send it to people who are going to spend it instantly. And on local items.

The poor are more likely to not only spend their money fast but spend it on local items like food and home maintenance and bills. The upper class is more likely to spend it much slower and are more likely to spend it outside of the country.

 

Savings is good for the personal finances. Not for an economy. High savings means money that is not doing anything. It means deflation. It means higher debts. It means less jobs.

 

The bottom tax brackets already don't pay taxes. Many of them don't have jobs. This makes them the best candidates to give money to when you want money to move through the economy fast. Because they will find something to spend on almost instantly.

Obviously we don't want to give them so much that getting a job is not worth it. But we do want to give them enough to feed themselves and their family.

 

Japan is also in deep economic trouble as it has a national debt twice that of GDP and now faces huge borrowing costs to fix the devastation. On top of that, the famed Japanese savings rate which has prevented the worst ravages of debt from taking hold, is plunging rapidly and is about to go negative.

The Japanese plunder through debt and the fallout will be terrible. On the other hand, they will probably hold together better than the US when our chickens come home to roost.

 

If your financial security rests upon plundering the hard work of others than by all means, go! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

All of our financial security depends on the hard work of others. To pretend otherwise is insane.