Ron Paul warns Canada’s conservatives that the U.S. war on drugs failed

[Mr. Ambien]

Dramatically increased consumption has nothing to do with standard of living, it has everything to do with why the US is up s***'s creek, which is why such reckless deficit spending that started in the Clinton presidency (which Krugman has defended for years) has lasted well over a decade and a half has caused them so many problems and this decade, as well as future decades now, will continue to cause so many issues.

People like Krugman have absolutely no sense of a future economy. Things are all about now and the short term, investors like Peter Schiff who know what long term economics are by finance and investments, actually have a clue. Krugman's gimmick hasn't fooled the intelligent.

The US must stop spending so much. It isn't that the US must raise taxes, the US must drop it's consumption, i.e. spending.

A great analogy is actually from an active thread near the top of this subforum that relates to fast food. Americans have a health issue that relates to fast food. They're fat because they consume too much crap food at a fast rate without producing energy to burn off the calories they intake. Likewise, they consume too many goods without producing enough, in the long term deficit spending is not viable, and Krugman naively believes this is somehow manageable even $16 trillion dollars in the hole later. The only idiots I know of that sit there in a hole this deep saying that come from the Catholic Church.

[CB007]

Dramatically increased consumption has nothing to do with standard of living, it has everything to do with why the US is up s***'s creek, which is why such reckless deficit spending that started in the Clinton presidency (which Krugman has defended for years) has lasted well over a decade and a half has caused them so many problems and this decade, as well as future decades now, will continue to cause so many issues.

People like Krugman have absolutely no sense of a future economy. Things are all about now and the short term, investors like Peter Schiff who know what long term economics are by finance and investments, actually have a clue. Krugman's gimmick hasn't fooled the intelligent.

The US must stop spending so much. It isn't that the US must raise taxes, the US must drop it's consumption, i.e. spending.

A great analogy is actually from an active thread near the top of this subforum that relates to fast food. Americans have a health issue that relates to fast food. They're fat because they consume too much crap food at a fast rate without producing energy to burn off the calories they intake. Likewise, they consume too many goods without producing enough, in the long term deficit spending is not viable, and Krugman naively believes this is somehow manageable even $16 trillion dollars in the hole later.

[Mr. Ambien]

I expected more from you than a simple-minded, uninformed rant. Unless you have more to say, you obviously have not studied the issues from both sides critically, intellectually and analytically.

Until you have more concrete arguments to make....

[CB007]

Oh, my bad, I should be more concrete like reducing Ron Paul's arguments by calling him a doctor (ignoring his work on economic and foreign affairs), and cut and pasting someone's education background like that makes a difference when their decades long assertions are devoid of logic, like the person I'm posting to isn't going to see right through that.

You must think people are really stupid. Carry on with the dog and pony show.

[Mr. Ambien]

Wall Street was supposed to collapse, but that was the fault of government expending so much effort incentivising reckless credit issuance to people who didn't deserve it and using taxpayer as collateral. No thanks, I think I'll take Wall Street falling instead of f***ing the populace later on. Although, "Wall Street falling" is quite dramatic, that's Krugmanspeak for the financial and housing markets correcting themselves from phony growth. That comes from too much government stimulus, tax breaks, and so on (this is all stuff Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Niall Ferguson warned about), and government incentives and backing of extremely risky loans and credit issuance. This is why Keynesian economics has been a failure. Textbook definitions of it are irrelevant when it's uses make it a detriment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

You'll notice a common theme right off the bat about "bad medicine".

Common sense doesn't need a degree about it.

[CB007]

Wall Street was supposed to collapse, but that was the fault of government expending so much effort incentivising reckless credit issuance to people who didn't deserve it and using taxpayer as collateral. No thanks, I think I'll take Wall Street falling instead of f***ing the populace later on. Although, "Wall Street falling" is quite dramatic, that's Krugmanspeak for the financial and housing markets correcting themselves from phony growth. That comes from too much government stimulus, tax breaks, and so on (this is all stuff Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Niall Ferguson warned about), and government incentives and backing of extremely risky loans and credit issuance. This is why Keynesian economics has been a failure. Textbook definitions of it are irrelevant when it's uses make it a detriment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

You'll notice a common theme right off the bat about "bad medicine".

Common sense doesn't need a degree about it.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

I just love how a thread with connections to the failed war on drugs (like no crap, tell me something I didn't know) has veered so far off of the tracks you'd need Amtrak to make it get back to where it was originally. Whether you agree with Paul's policies or you don't...as a third party (Green Party) supporter, he'd be one hell of a lot better than what we've got in office down here right now...and he was MILES ahead of either of the last two Republican candidates for President. While I may not agree with everything Ron Paul has to say, I think he's got some great ideas in some areas, with others a bit lacking...but no one is going to agree with EVERYTHING any politician has to say. There's no way around that. You'll have some policies you support and some you don't. I actually hoped that the GOP would turn to Paul this time around...but they apparently were satisfied with a megalomaniacal Mormon marionette who would have destroyed this country and small businesses and eliminated FEMA and Social Security within his first month in office. I'm not saying I wouldn't be reluctant to cast my vote for Paul especially if he were running as a bonafide Republican...but I think he'd at least made this last election close enough for Obama to have been sweating on Election Night. Just my two cents.