digg

Join DiggAbout

Ron Paul Fox Business Interview David Asman 5-13-08 watch!

youtube.com — This one is a very good one, in depth with Paul's views and replies to Ben Bernake's statements on why we have the FED & why it is the way it is. Enjoy...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • digitronix, on 05/14/2008, -6/+127Subtitle at 0:43: "We don't need K-Fed". WTF???
    • Stryder81, on 05/14/2008, -2/+24wow Good eye, I didn't see that till now....
    • Todash19, on 05/14/2008, -9/+26That there is the quintessential example of the US liberal media.
      K-Fed, Brinany and all the other debu-*****.

      Smoke and mirrors, pay no attention to the real issues, there are no real issues. Instead, LET'S DANCE!
      • ncairns, on 05/15/2008, -13/+8Do you have any IDEA how trite you are?
        • Todash19, on 05/15/2008, -2/+10Quickly Troll, your missing out on Ron Paul stories to go bury.
          • ncairns, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4I'm not missing out on anything - whenever I see someone stupid enough to refer to Fox as 'liberal media', they're more than deserving of my attention.
      • sanman, on 05/15/2008, -8/+4Anyway, I understand Dr Paul's point about fractional reserve, but the announcer was very right to point out the benefits that have accrued with this mortgaging of the dollar. All kinds of technological progress has been accelerated due to the presence of this extra false wealth. The internet. The web. DIGG! All made possible by the extra fake money circulating around based on fractional reserve and its statistical calculations. It's like time-sharing. You won't be using that vacation cottage all year, so let someone else use it for part of the time. Sure, you'd run into problems if you both tried to stay there all the time.

        Hell, all the redneck Ron Paul supporters wouldn't have their F150 pickups without the fractional reserve accelerating technological progress by artificially propping up the economy and artificially boosting demand. So just like I say to the environmentalists -- if you wanna protest against fur, then don't wear it yourself. If you want to protest against slaughterhouses, then don't eat meat. If you want to protest against technology, then don't use it. Fractional reserve and its fakery have made much technology possible. So don't sit on your computer using it, if you don't like how it was brought about.
        • ostracize, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Did you even hear Ron's response to that absurd point?

          If I got a million dollar loan and said "oh look how great this system is! Thanks to this amazing system I can afford my brand new Ferrari!". Well no *****, but you owe that money PLUS interest to someone else. In fractional banking who pays it back? It's the ever shrinking middle class who can't afford an F150 anymore because it's too damn expensive because the lenders decided to inflate the currency rather than piss EVERYBODY off and call the loans in.

          Those technologies could have developed on their own through the very market that demanded it without any artificial money being thrown around..
        • eviltandem, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1That's a really poor argument. Using that logic we should start exterminating the Jews and stealing all their wealth as we do it. Worked out well for the Germans. Look at all the fine wealth that system created for the Nazis!

          Don't kid yourself into believing fractional reserve is a good thing. It doesn't push the innovation, it moves us from working to create wealth, to working to create wealth for others. You can't go buy a car anymore because the prices have been pushed up way high because we are both de-valuing dollars, and making them easier to get. The only way for a free market to combat that is to raise prices to once again restore balance.

          Technological progress has nothing to do with getting loans to buy a house.
    • trogdor282, on 05/14/2008, -0/+33Well, for what it's worth we really DON'T need K-Fed.
      • sanman, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Remember, K-Fed is F-Ked spelled backwards ;P

        Do you really wanna be F-Ked from the back end?
    • EvilDr.X, on 05/14/2008, -1/+12True, though. We really don't need K-Fed. We could get along just fine without him.
    • Greg2k, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4ICE SPOKE
    • Hangly, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Kentucky Fried Fed?
    • SQLserver, on 05/15/2008, -14/+8OK. Listen people- I don't like Ron Paul! Sure he may seem like a cool frood, like I just don't like him.
      I don't like his plans for internal affairs.
      You see, this is what Ron Paul is about for me.
      Ron Paul is all about giving the states more power- From what I've seen of the whackjobs, most of the South will turn into a Theocratic Southern Confederacy 2.0. Yeah sure, it sounds good, but reality? Reality is that if you let Wackjobs in the South turn half of America into a Theocracy, you've got a problem.
      Ron Paul is all about Big Business- Something that I find a hell of a lot scarier then big government.
      Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution- So he won't exactly CARE if the south turns into a Theocracy.
      Ron Paul doesn't give a damn about the environment- 'Leave it up to the free market!' Big Business is going to do NOTHING for the environment.
      If you think politicians are bad, you haven't looked into the insanity of big businesses. They don't CARE about the environment, you, or anything besides money.
      Hell, at least we can force politicians to do stuff.

      In all, I'm trying to say that Big Business, and the States don't CARE about Freedom, America, or anything besides their own insane beliefs and your money.

      Leaving it up to them scares me.
      • visionaryIX, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7I don't get the whole evolution argument. Thats his personal belief and he's not going to impose it on you in any way.
      • HigherLogic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6I can see the concerns with things like evolution and abortion, he is a Christian after all. I just think we're so conditioned in the US that when someone proclaims to be a Christian and politician, we immediately thinkg they're going to push their views on us. Thankfully, RP is a politician first, Christian second. He doesn't let his PERSONAL views get in the way of his job, and that's how all Christians should view things.
      • jaymzdean, on 05/15/2008, -0/+13But by supporting the status quo, you ARE leaving it up to Big Business. That's why you're so goddamned stupid. You can't ***** see that. What in the hell do you think all those ***** lobbyists in DC are up to, roasting ***** marshmallows? Sorry for the language, but I've had it with ***** stupid people.
        • rilla825, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5QFT
        • eviltandem, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1We all want change. Unless it's in how we do things, our monetary system, our government, or our politicians. Then we want more of the same...
    • mike17032, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Wow 2 paulspam stories on the home page at the same time, been a while since you spammers were organized enough to game digg this well.
  • cashman57, on 05/14/2008, -5/+109Thanks for posting this. I don't get fox news.
    I think Paul accurately described it as complete nonsense.
    • noelsusman, on 05/15/2008, -21/+5No, requiring banks to keep 100% reserves is complete nonsense. Take any basic high school economics course and you will find this out for yourself. If banks have to keep every dollar that they take in, then where on earth are you going to get your mortgage from? Our banking system works by banks taking in money from clients and then loaning a portion of it out as home loans and car loans. They receive interest on these loans, and that is how they are able to give you free checking and other rewards to entice your money to them. Yes, the system is very flawed, but requiring banks to hold 100% reserves is completely ridiculous and will destroy the American economy.

      Ron Paul has some great ideas, but that is definitely not one of them
      • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+14You have NO idea what you're talking about. The fractional reserve system isn't a system that lets a bank loan out money that depositors have placed in the bank; that's normal loaning on savings, which generates interest. Entirely normal and entirely run of the mill.

        The fractional reserve is a system that lets a bank loan $10 for every dollar they take in. So let's say you deposit $100 in savings. The fractional reserve system allows the bank to loan not the $100, but one THOUSAND dollars.

        That is what Paul is talking about. Not loaning money the bank has, from you and others -- but loaning money it DOESN'T have!

        Originally, if you had a savings account, the REASON you earned interest, is because they were loaning out your money. That's why accounts that don't save - checking, for instance - typically don't earn interest. It's a hang over from those days.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9I'll buy your house, pay you 10%, and you can assume I'm good for the rest. :)

        You're right. Take a high school economics course and they'll teach you nonsense like fractional reserve banking is good.
      • eviltandem, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11. You obviously don't know what "fractional reserve" means. You should look it up before posting.

        2. One does wonder how on earth man-kind functioned for so many centuries without it. To hear you tell it, things have always worked like this. Again, you should read about it before you talk about it.

        3. The system you describe is what Ron Paul is advocating. He wants a system where banks are only allowed to loan out what they have on hand. Nothing more. If we need more money supply we should have economists and the Fed controlling the money supply. As things are, our economy tanks the the gov't can't really do anything about it. Banks control the money supply, not the federal government. Big shock to discover they'll cheat eh?
    • Sogui, on 05/15/2008, -19/+6If Paul's 100% reserves isn't complete nonsense I don't know what is.

      Nobody would be able to go to college, buy a house, own a car, or anything that requires substantial money because 100% reserves LITERALLY means that bank's cannot loan out any money. As soon as a bank loaned out any money it would drop below a "100%" reserve and would violate Ron Paul's banking theology. This principle would literally send us back into the financial dark ages and would send us from the world's economic super power into a 3rd world country overnight.
      • guntario, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9No, it's obvious you haven't read the function of banks before these new types of banks we have now were established. Go read some history.
      • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Entirely wrong. See my reply to noelsusman, above.

      • Sogui, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4A bunch of people with their money deposited together isn't going to be enough to finance everyone's homes, college education, and cars. Let alone the huge investments that companies must make in order to keep themselves competitive in a global market.

        You can either try to refute this or just silently bury me knowing that you're wrong.

        • kemp34, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Please read "The Case Against the Fed" by Murray Rothbard.
        • thall, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1If we all switched to a 100% reserve overnight then you are right we would have a big problem. But, no one (not even RP) is suggesting an overnight switch. The broken system must be phased out.

          Had the fractional reserve system been rejected from the start, the real estate market, tuition prices, automotive market, etc. would keep their prices much much lower than they're at today because the no one would get large/phony loans. So while the amount of money stayed relatively the same, so would the prices, and everyone would've been able to finance their homes, college education, cars, etc.
        • eviltandem, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1You don't understand basic economics. Let's say everybody wants a car. Cars cost many thousands of dollars, and not everybody has that on hand. So banks get a great idea. They can create money, and loan it to you at interest (along with millions of others) and give you the money to buy a car.

          One problem. Now everybody has thousands of dollars and wants a car. Supply and demand takes over. The only way to again restore the supply and demand curve for automobiles is to now raise the prices of them. Not everybody can have a car at one time, so the price must go up to the point where only the people that can afford them can actually afford them.

          Basically all this does is create run-away inflation. The services are the same, but they now cost many times what they should. The availability of these systems is exactly the same, it's just prices had to go up to balance out everybody now having thousands of dollars on hand.

          Now instead of working to buy things, you work to pay interest on the things you buy because you can't afford to buy them in the first place. I have to spend many times what I should on a car because even people that don't have the money can spend debt as though they do. It just creates higher prices for me, which I then have to pay interest on making the problem even worse (and creating even more imaginary money).
      • rmtatum, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4You have no clue. The Federal Reserve has gold that it stole from the American people.

        The following is an excerpt from pg. 138 of The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard:

        Federal Reserve Notes, the legal monopoly of cash or “standard,” money, now serves as the base of two inverted pyramids determining the supply of money in the country. More precisely, the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks consist largely of two central items. One is the gold originally confiscated from the public and later amassed by the Fed. Interestingly enough, while Fed liabilities are no longer redeemable in gold, the Fed safeguards it gold by depositing it in the Treasury, which issues “gold certificates” guaranteed to be backed by no less than 100 percent in gold bullion buried in Fort Knox and other Treasury depositories. It is surely fitting that the only honest warehousing left in the monetary system is between two different agencies of the federal government: the Fed makes sure that its receipts at the Treasury are backed 100 percent in the Treasury vaults, whereas the Fed does not accord any of its creditors that high privilege.

    • Kranklin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2uhm, they wouldn't be fair and balanced if they didn't argue for the other side of the issue
    • coreyb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+13I agree with Paul, the system is nonsense. The unfortunate thing is that this is the argument that should have been made 100 years ago. But it won't work now, too many people, companies, banks, and just plain variables depend on the current system to start a quick drastic overhaul. We need to slow the progression of the fed and its oversight and start backing it up carefully to where we were 100 years ago, to before the fed was installed as the governor of our country.
      • darkhand, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10No one's suggesting we just up and switch systems, but you're right that a gradual withdrawal is exactly what's needed. I think Ron Paul needs to stress that point more, that his plans aren't intended to happen overnight. That would quiet down the trolls that squeal about how his plans would upend the economy. It was never intended to change this stuff overnight, it's intended to be a slow, gradual change from one system to another.
    • JettaMan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You don't need a regulation saying you must have 100% reserves. Just allow competing currencies. And if a financial institution ***** up, let them die. Buyer beware.
  • demicritter, on 05/14/2008, -19/+206Dr. Paul is the only candidate of character and honesty. And who believes in the Constitution.
    • sodade, on 05/14/2008, -35/+11Obama was a constitutional scholar. How can you say he doesn't believe in it?
      • SpikeLee, on 05/14/2008, -17/+5Because the belief that we should honor the constitution as concrete decree rather a living documents that makes sense does not favor tax protestors or neo-confederates.
        • forgiste, on 05/14/2008, -5/+6What? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Since when was Obama a "neo-confederate"?
          • Civilizationist, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6I think he was saying that those who do no belive the Constitution is a living document are neo-confederate, etc.
            Really though a living Constitution is the same as a dead one; theoretically we could have an entirely different Goverment every two years when new Congress is elected (6 for Senate (I think)), based on how they spin it.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1"Really though a living Constitution is the same as a dead one; theoretically we could have an entirely different Goverment every two years "

            What on earth are you babbling about?
      • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -3/+16He selectively believes in it. Doesn't understand the 2nd amendment, for one thing.
        • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -6/+10You mean he doesn't chop it up and selectively read certain parts of it in isolation so as to exclude any reference to a well regulated miliia and then claim it says something it doesn't?
          • andrew1193, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5You need to learn what 'well-regulated' meant back when the Bill of Rights were ratified. It meant 'well-functioning', and was only one of several reasons why the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -6/+2"and was only one of several reasons why the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed."

            So why weren't any of those other reasons mentioned in the 2A? Seems rather odd that the authors would have chosen to stick in the well regulated militia justification but leave out all the other ones you say are lurking in the background. What gives?

            Also, does the 2A allow me to put a SAM missile launcher in my backyard? How about a SCUD?
          • andrew1193, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5"So why weren't any of those other reasons mentioned in the 2A? Seems rather odd that the authors would have chosen to stick in the well regulated militia justification but leave out all the other ones you say are lurking in the background. What gives?"

            Because first and foremost they wanted a militia to ensure that the country was kept free.

            "Also, does the 2A allow me to put a SAM missile launcher in my backyard? How about a SCUD?"

            Amendment II allows such, as it allowed heavily armed warships in its time, but its highly unlikely you, or anyone else would be able to afford a personal missile system.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2"Because first and foremost they wanted a militia to ensure that the country was kept free."

            That doesn't explain why it was the ONLY justification they gave. They could have said "a well regulated militia, and a bunch of other things, being necessary..." but they didn't. They just said "a well regulated militia" and left it at that. You're claiming that the 2A contains some kind of basket provision, but nothing of the sort is described in the text of the amendment. This is not in keeping with the wording of other basket provisions like the necessary and proper clause.

            Sounds like you believe in a "living constitution." Either that, or you're just making ***** up.

            "but its highly unlikely you, or anyone else would be able to afford a personal missile system."

            It doesn't matter how likely it is. If you're correct, it's a violation of my constitutional rights that I'm forbidden from keeping a nuclear missile in my back yard!

            What do you think it means for a militia to be "well regulated," andrew1193?
          • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5petro, militia doesn't mean "army". You're mistaking an old term with a new term. Militia just meant healthy male; well regulated, as spelled out in law at the time, meant consistently armed. Free state means the personal state of being free, not a "free government." Why would 9 of the ten amendments be about citizen's rights, and #2 be about the right of the government to have an army? Makes no sense. But if you use the language of the day, it becomes immediately clear.

            HOWEVER: The 2nd is formed of 2 clauses, a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The prefatory clause says why, and although it does make perfect sense, it's actually irrelevant, just as the constitution's main preamble is irrelevant. The operative clause is direct and to the point. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

            Arms - at the time - included frigates with multiple levels of cannon, fused bombs firebombs, chain shot, grappling hooks, knives and swords of all kinds, pistols, rifles, brass knuckles, armor, bows and projectiles, muskets, ground-based cannon, wagons full of ammunition in the form of shot, powder, balls, etc. These are the "arms" of the day, and when the militia (able men) were called up, the well regulated part meant something along the line of "bring your gun, X amount of shot, X amount of dry powder, food, and a blanket." Just like that; go look it up. But if they also showed up with a cannon and a horse to pull it, believe it, they were welcome.

            Now, as to why they only gave the explanation that men needed to maintain a free state, this reflects the long and detailed discussions you can find in the author's conversations, manyl written down for posterity, where they discuss the need of the citizens to be able to turn on the government when it got out of hand -- something they had direct and personal experience with in the form of King George.

            it *does* all make perfect sense. but you can't read it as if it was written today; read it using the vocabulary and phrasing you find in the rest of the founding father's papers, and you'll be amazed at how much sense it makes, and how amazingly well written and prescient it is.

            Does it allow owning any arms at all? Yes, it pretty much does. Is there a solution to that? Yes, there is. Article 5 -- Amendment. They knew they could no anticipate everything, and so the door was intentionally left open for change, IF it was really important and broad agreement could be put together.

            Now, tell me: If we got together and wanted to amend the 2nd so that it added wording to the effect of: "arms is not to include nuclear or biological weapons of any nature", do you think that would fail to pass? I don't -- I think it's a shoo-in. And that's how these things need to be approached. Not "well, gee, they CAN'T have meant this or that, so never mind the whole thing."

            I encourage you to study the constitution and the environment in which it was conceived and implemented. It isn't enough to just read it. The language of today is different, and if you don't have the context, which means everything from the Virginia constitution to the wide-ranging arguments over whether they needed the amendments at all, you're just not going to understand it which leaves you at the mercy of any idiot with an opinion and a gavel.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1"The prefatory clause says why, and although it does make perfect sense, it's actually irrelevant, "

            Oh my, isn't that convenient! Who knew it was so easy to plainly ignore the words of the founding fathers?

            "Militia just meant healthy male; well regulated, as spelled out in law at the time, meant consistently armed. "

            Very well. Explain the "well regulated" part.

            "Now, as to why they only gave the explanation that men needed to maintain a free state, this reflects the long and detailed discussions you can find in the author's conversations, manyl written down for posterity, where they discuss the need of the citizens to be able to turn on the government when it got out of hand -- something they had direct and personal experience with in the form of King George."

            So it really has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting one's self against armed hoodlums on the streets of Washington, DC? Interesting...

            "They knew they could no anticipate everything, and so the door was intentionally left open for change, IF it was really important and broad agreement could be put together."

            Great. So every time someone develops a new weapon that's capable of wiping out millions of people in the blink of an eye, we need only amend the constituion to make it illegal for people to own that weapon. Awesome! I can't imagine a more efficient mechanism for prohibiting my next door neighbor from acquiring the latest technology for wiping out entire cities!

            "And that's how these things need to be approached. Not "well, gee, they CAN'T have meant this or that, so never mind the whole thing."

            You still haven't answered my question about the "well regulated" part though.

            "I encourage you to study the constitution and the environment in which it was conceived and implemented. It isn't enough to just read it. "

            And I encourage you to check out what one of the most highly regarded constitutional scholars has to say on this very subject!

            http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/11/sun ...

            In case you're wondering, he doesn't buy your interpretation of the text of that provision.

          • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5"Oh my, isn't that convenient! Who knew it was so easy to plainly ignore the words of the founding fathers?"

            No, you misinterpret what I'm telling you. There are no instructions in the prefatory clause. It doesn't say "do this" or "don't do that"; it doesn't say "now, but not then" or "here, but not there"; that's why it's called an *explicatory* clause -- it *explains* the rationale for the following instruction. That's why it is irrelevant to interpretation of what to do - it doesn't say anything ABOUT what to do.

            And in that sense, it is very like the preamble; it says why, which is interesting; but it contains no instructions to anyone.

            "Very well. Explain the "well regulated" part."

            I did. You missed it, I suppose. Here it is, again:

            "the well regulated part meant something along the line of "bring your gun, X amount of shot, X amount of dry powder, food, and a blanket."

            To elaborate: Well regulated meant consistent. It did no good if you showed up for organization without a gun and ammunition for it. Laws on the books at the time went so far as to define exactly what one had to bring; so much shot, so much powder, kept dry in such-and-such a suitable container.

            "So it really has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting one's self against armed hoodlums on the streets of Washington, DC? Interesting..."

            Well, ask yourself: How would you remain in a free state if you allow a hoodlum - be it an individual or an out of control government - to steal from you, mug you, abuse your family, etc.? Suddenly it's very clear how broadly it applies, isn't it?

            "And I encourage you to check out what one of the most highly regarded constitutional scholars has to say on this very subject!"

            I was unable to follow your link. Digg breaks your links if you edit your post, just so you know. I also looked on the blog for 2007/11/ for posts about the 2nd amendment, didn't see one. If you would be so kind, repost the link and don't edit the post. Just a post with the link would be fine.

            "In case you're wondering, he doesn't buy your interpretation of the text of that provision."

            Neither does Obama. That doesn't make them right. Obama has a clear agenda: He has to appeal to the fear-stricken US citizens who think that guns are the devils own tool. Until I read the opinion you're referring to, I can't comment on your scholar's take on things. If you re-post the link so it works, I will do so.

            In the meantime, you might be interested to note that the DC circuit court came down exactly along the lines I've laid out to you. Here's the PDF of the decision; start reading on page 14:

            http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf




          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1"it *explains* the rationale for the following instruction."

            Very well. The rationale for preserving the right to bear arms seems to have something to do with a well regulated militia being necessary for security. Once that militia is no longer necessary, what exactly is the rationale proferred by the 2A?

            "How would you remain in a free state if you allow a hoodlum - be it an individual or an out of control government - to steal from you, mug you, abuse your family, etc.? "

            I dunno, by hiring cops?

            "Well regulated meant consistent."

            Funny, the DC Circuit opinion you refer to below doesn't buy that definition. Go read it. Specifically page 34 where the court notes that in fact some citizens were barred from participating in the militia, it that this is one of the many ways in which militia were "well regulated."

            "Neither does Obama. That doesn't make them right. Obama has a clear agenda: He has to appeal to the fear-stricken US citizens who think that guns are the devils own tool."

            No. Obama represented the South Side of Chicago for many years, where people live in vast ghettos and don't like it when kids run around shooting each other in the streets. South side Chicagoans have no trouble getting access to guns, so if they wanted to use them for self defense they could, and yet they've learned the hard way that such measures aren't all they're cracked up to be.

            But Obama has no problem with Misssippians or whoever buying their guns and getting CCW permits and whatnot.

            "In the meantime, you might be interested to note that the DC circuit court came down exactly along the lines I've laid out to you."

            No, actually it didn't. It struck down the DC gun ban because it was too restrictive. The opinion still allows for some restrictions to be placed on individual firearm ownership.

            From page 53 of the opinion: That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law.

            And from page 54 of the opinion: Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401 (excluding “idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime” from militia duty).

            So no, fyngyrz, the DC Circuit's opinion doesn't seem to be saying what you're saying. The DC Circuit doesn't say that well regulated means "consistent." It doesn't say that the 2A guarantees a right to use guns as self defense against muggers. It doesn't say that Obama's position on the issue is fearmongering - it actually upholds his take on the issue by stating that some regulations on firearms ownership are reasonable, perhaps even necessary.

            Cass Sunstein doesn't buy your interpretation either (fixed link): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8303168382 ...

            Just curious: what constitutional authorities DO accept your reading of the 2A, fyngyrz?
          • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1"The rationale for preserving the right to bear arms seems to have something to do with a well regulated militia being necessary for security."

            Necessary to preserve the citizens security or state of freedom, yes.

            "Once that militia is no longer necessary, what exactly is the rationale proferred by the 2A?"

            I honestly don't know in the current context; I'd be happy to try to answer if you could cobble up a scenario where being armed isn't necessary to preserve one's freedom against the threats currently extant in society. Personally, I can't imagine such a scenario in a world where people invade your homes, mug you on the street, kidnap your children, make up unconstitutional laws and violate the prohibitions in the constitution left and right, and a whole laundry list of other violations of the citizen's liberties at every level.

            "I dunno, by hiring cops?"

            Cops are by definition insufficient to the task. The classic description of this is: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Police are like firemen. They deal with the aftermath. Firemen rarely prevent fires, and police rarely prevent crimes. Which means that it is *your* responsibility not to set the bed on fire or store gasoline next to your ozone generator; as it is *your* responsibility to deal with the criminal when he enters your window and commences to stab and rape your wife. If you wait for the police, the odds of you also waiting for the coroner for your loved ones (and perhaps yourself) increases. If that's an acceptable trade off for you, then hair on ya, buddy. It isn't for me. It never will be.

            You said: "No. Obama represented the South Side of Chicago for many years, where people live in vast ghettos and don't like it when kids run around shooting each other in the streets."

            That's entirely irrelevant. The second amendment does not allow laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That's the end of it; doesn't matter *why*, which is the point you keep trying to argue; what matters is what the government is allowed to do, and what it isn't. The 2nd says that the feds can't infringe; the 14th, via a court ruling, has been taken to mean that anything in the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) that applies to the feds, also applies to the states, and that means they can't make laws that infringe, either. Arguments from emotion, or from perfectly well reasoned points of view, don't magically supersede the constitution. There's only one way to do that, and that's defined in article 5: Amendment.

            "No, actually it didn't. It struck down the DC gun ban because it was too restrictive."

            Yes, in fact, it did. I'm talking about the points I previously raised, not the decision itself; so I'm looking towards the reasoning the justices used. Here we go:

            First question. Right given to the state in today's context of national guard and army, or to the people?

            Page 19...20:

            In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
            is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
            important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
            holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the
            First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
            never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
            protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
            interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth
            Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States
            by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
            reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates
            that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
            distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the
            states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the
            people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
            elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

            So far, we have established that the court sees the right to bear arms as given to the people, not the state (previous pages disposed of the state argument.) The above quote is the basis for the court's presumption that it is the people who are the intended beneficiaries of the amendment. More:

            In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read
            intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us
            to conclude that the right in question is individual.

            There you go.

            Second question; what did militia mean?

            Page 29:

            The signification attributed to the term Militia
            appears from the debates in the Convention, the history
            and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings
            of approved commentators. These show plainly enough
            that the Militia comprised all males physically capable
            of acting in concert for the common defense.

            So we see here that "militia" is not simply enrolled army, navy or national guard (though it certainly includes those people). It is that subset of the population that are physically capable of acting as warriors. More:

            And further, that ordinarily when called for service these
            men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
            themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

            ...which is exactly what I told you, above. I also told you that the laws defined what the citizen was to be prepared with.

            Page 31:

            ...every citizen, so enrolled and
            notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide
            himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient
            bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
            pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than
            twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket
            or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity
            of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack,
            shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to
            the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of
            powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and
            provided, when called out to exercise, or into service.

            So the decision DOES say that "well regulated" means consistent. In precisely the same terms I explained to you. Age range, physical competence, armament. But wait! It goes even further, to what "militia" actually means today in law, and surprise, surprise, it means the SAME THING:

            The current congressional definition of the “Militia”
            accords with original usage: “The militia of the United States
            consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . .
            under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
            of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of
            female citizens of the United States who are members of the
            National Guard.” 10 U.S.C. § 311. The statute then
            distinguishes between the “organized militia,” which consists of
            the National Guard and Naval Militia, and the “unorganized
            militia,” which consists of every member of the militia who is
            not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

            Read it again, and parse for "unorganized militia."

            You said: "No, actually it didn't. It struck down the DC gun ban because it was too restrictive. The opinion still allows for some restrictions to be placed on individual firearm ownership."

            I'm not talking about the decision's focus, I'm talking about the thinking behind it. You have asked repeatedly "who agrees with me", and I am simply pointing out that the DC circuit court agrees with me. Quite specifically.

            "Cass Sunstein doesn't buy your interpretation either"

            Sigh. Look. I know a lot of people don't "buy" my interpretation. Some of them are respected scholars. Some of them are bloody idiots. Some of them are well educated, and some of them are as ignorant as one could imagine.

            Nonetheless, these are my opinions. Just as yours belong to you. Now, if you think you can raise a better argument for any particular point at issue here, go right ahead. So far, you've failed to do so, that's all.

            "Just curious: what constitutional authorities DO accept your reading of the 2A, fyngyrz?"

            This isn't a game of "who is on my side", petro; this is a matter of the federal government, an entity that derives its legitimate authority from the constituting documents -- literally the constitution -- either obeying the instructions it was given, or via intentional sophist actions, trying to use that constituting authority to do things it was specifically prohibited from doing. Clearly, if the feds are doing such evil things, they've managed to do so with the willing assistance of people in power in the judiciary and the congress. So the question is, do we see such malfeasance, or do we not? If we do, then should we, as citizens, attempt to determine what is right and correct, or do we leave that decision to the same people who are violating the constitution in the first place? The latter seems outright stupid, if indeed there is malfeasance.

            So we -- or I -- turn to the question of malfeasance. First, we have the commerce clause. It says that the feds can regular trade between the states. The feds, however, claim that it says that it allows them to regulate virtually any intrastate commerce you can imagine. Without going into detail, I assure you that I see this as direct and explicit malfeasance. Now looking at this prohiibition: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and considering the fed's use of torture... yes, this is also clearly malfeasance. The 2nd says "shall not be infringed" and despite the fed's specious and incorrect assumption that it can override the instruction if it thinks it is "reasonable", it can't, because -- and this is critical -- NOWHERE in the constitution is the fed given any such authority -- therefore, it doesn't have it. Period. So every law that infringes on the right to keep and/or bear arms is malfeasance. Likewise, the first says that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. There's no "except in the case of" or "unless reasonable.." in the amendment, or any permission anywhere in the constitution to make such a modification, just an explicit instruction that no abridgement is allowed. So all laws that abridge speech are unauthorized and illegal. This includes censorship, the ironically named "free speech zones", the "quiet zone" around funerals, and so forth.

            Most apologists for the feds say "but if we don't have this law or that law, how would the fed do [____]"? That's not our problem. The constitution isn't a document that is there so things are easy for the feds. The constitution is there to LIMIT the power of the feds and to ENSURE the liberty of the people; that's why they wrote it. To argue that the feds are being inconvenienced by limits in the constitution is to say that yes, the founders managed to do exactly what they intended to do.

            And to argue that the government can do things like take the right to keep and bear arms from the citizens in Detrioit (or whereever) because that's convenient for them is entirely specious. They don't have that right; they have nowhere to get it from, either. What they DO have is POWER; just like King George, they can inflict anything they want upon the people by using force, coercion, bribery and so forth -- but the arbitrary use of power is definitely something entirely distinct from the use of legitimately delegated authority.

            I could go on, but I have a most distinct feeling that I'm speaking to a deaf ear, and by the nature of Digg's constant wash of new articles, I doubt there are significant numbers of other readers still here. Let's just agree to disagree, and you can sleep well knowing that should someone enter my home with the intent to do me and mine harm, I am armed to the teeth. In return, I'll rest easy knowing that should the same happen to you, one more government apologist will probably go to their funeral because they didn't sufficiently value their liberties.

            I apologize for any remaining typos; limited time to edit, you know.

            Ta.
    • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -17/+9He also seems to believe it doesn't include a commerce clause, a supremacy clause, a necessary and propert clause, or a general welfare clause. His supporters don't know any better though because none of them have actually read the constitution anyway, except perhaps for isolated snippets on bogritz.com.
      • brad3378, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8please elaborate
        • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -8/+13Everything federal law or initiative I've ever heard Ron Paul decry as "unconstitutional" can actually be defended under one or more of the clauses I listed. Sometimes his ravings seem based on a flawed understanding of the very government program he's railing against.

          For example, he often criticizes the Department of Education as unconstitutional, claiming that the federal government has no business forcing national education standards on the states. What he overlooks or ignores is the fact the DOE regulations are not mandatory. They only attach to federal funding. States are free to ignore the DOE completely if they want to fund their public schools themselves. The DOE enforces its mandates primarily through accedidation, but there is absolutely no federal requirement that children even attend accredited schools.

          States' rights advocates seem to think that they're entitled to the federal funding but not the restrictions to attach to that funding. They'll huff and puff and demand that the DOE stop telling them how to run their local schools, but you can bet they'd exponentially more livid if they had to pay the higher local taxes that would be required to fund those schools without the federal government's financial support.
          • Minarchian, on 05/15/2008, -5/+6You act like you think you're intelligent, then come up with this crap?

            Please, tell us all where the DOE is allowed in the Constitution.

            There's not a damned word about it in the Constitution, and I believe you know that, but would rather muddy the issue with funding.

            Perhaps you didn't think that if the DOE weren't around that the States would have MORE money for their own schools?
          • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Yeah. We call not giving us an equal share of the money (that was taken from us as taxes under the premise that it would be redistributed as government services) unless we do something we don't want to do, "bribery." We're funny like that. Go figure, eh?

          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -8/+3"Please, tell us all where the DOE is allowed in the Constitution."

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

            "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

            Education is a critical component of the general welfare of society.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1"We call not giving us an equal share of the money (that was taken from us as taxes under the premise that it would be redistributed as government services)"

            It is redistributed as a government service though. The constitution gives the federal government the authority to do this under the general welfare clause and the 16th amendment.

            Perhaps you think the constitution says that states are entitled to receive from the federal government exactly as much as they contribute, but this is a ruse. In fact, the constitution say nothing of the sort. Calling it bribery does nothing to change that fact.
          • Minarchian, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Petro, you are pretty ignorant, aren't you?

            The General Welfare Clause is for the general welfare of business between the States, NOT between the States and the People.

            Try reading books based on facts instead of Socialist propaganda.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2"The General Welfare Clause is for the general welfare of business between the States, NOT between the States and the People."

            Do you have any actual reasoning to back this claim, or are you just throwing it out there as uncontroverted fact? Because as it stands you look pretty dumb.

            If you don't believe me, read up on what Alexander Hamilton (author of the General Welfare clause) had to say on the subject:

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/ ...

            "It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."

            So there you have it: "learning" is one of the express components of the general welfare as conceived of by the author of that document.

            Sorry Micarchian, you'll have to find a more gullible audience if you want to pass off your lies as truth. Those of us who actually have some familiarity with the constitution know how full of ***** you are.
          • Minarchian, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Petro,

            You're still defining ignorance as intellectualism.

            Even though the SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Butler (1936) that the Hamiltonian view on the Welfare Clause gave Gov more power than what is enumerated,( it seems to me that you think gov has limitless powers) it ruled that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, not local, welfare. Welfare between the States.

            James Madison objected to this reading of the clause (that it is broad and gives plenary powers), he argued that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. And he was, and still is, correct in his assessment.

            Your idea of that clause means that the Gov can do anything it well pleases. It is an anathema to freedom and liberty.

            As the rest of the clause states "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"...With the words "common Defense and general Welfare" it becomes obvious, to those who aren't out for a free ride through Socialism, that the clause is intended to keep the Fed Gov within the confines of business between the States.

            Sorry petro. If you want to destroy what little freedoms and liberty we have left by believing that government has plenary powers, keep thinking this non-sense.

            If you want to know the ONLY business the Fed Gov has you need look no further than Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. There you will find the ENUMERATED powers of the Government. No clause that is within the Constitution can run afoul of these enumerated powers

            The Constitution is NOT a living document. It is a CONTRACT which can not be re-written by successive administrations through fiat.

            Seriously, try reading something other than your Marxist crap.
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1"Your idea of that clause means that the Gov can do anything it well pleases"

            No. My "idea" is that education is a component of the general welfare. This is backed up by what Hamilton has to say on the subject, and ironically by the supreme court that you cite in defense of your reading.

            It's unfortunate that you have to resort to straw man attacks to assail my argument. It's also unfortunate that you defer to the interpretation of the general welfare clause given by the supreme court, when that interpretation only supports my argument that general welfare includes education.

            It's also puzzling that you ignore Hamilton's express words on this subject. Perhaps you think "learning" means something different from "education." I don't know. I just know that your interpretation is flatly contradicted by every authority we have on this subject, from Hamilton on down. If that makes every constitutional scholar for the last 200 years a "Marxist," so be it.
        • cmdrNacho, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4you can't believe that yourself.. public school's are under funded as is.. and if they refuse to follow federal guidelines they don't get federal money
          its a catch 22..
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2No, our public schools are not underfunded. Go look at how much the US government spends per capita on public education and compare it to the figures from places like South Korea that kick our ass by every objective measure of primary school performance.

            In any case, even if that WERE true, it doesn't change my point, which is that states are free to fund public schools entirely on their own and reject federal money. A states' rights purist would claim that in fact this is the ONLY way that schools should be funded.

            But you can't have it both ways. If you want to be free from DOE regulation, you will have to accept the heightened tax burden of funding your own damn public schools. This is what Ron Paul and his ilk will never tell you, because they simultaneously oppose federal regulation AND increased taxes. They want you to think you can have it both ways, but you can't.
      • reddikilowatt, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6You are absolutely right. I would much rather have my LOCAL school district taxing me for the neighborhood kids' education than the FEDERAL government taxing me for everyone's education. If I don't like the way the LOCAL school district is using my money, I have a few choices:

        1) Complain at school board meetings
        2) Run for the school board (most elected officials on a local level are part time and mostly regular folks)
        3) move to a different district that is more in line with my values

        Under the federally funded system, I can:

        1) rant on a web site
        2) complain to my congressman (who has nearly 1 million other people who complain to him about a variety of issues), and will likely not respond unless I own a large business that employs a large number of people, or I can afford to bribe him with campaign funds.
        3) put my kid in private school and work 2 jobs to pay for it.

        They say all politics are local. I say all politics SHOULD BE LOCAL.
        • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3"I say all politics SHOULD BE LOCAL."

          In that case you should ignore Ron Paul entirely since he's running for national office.
          • brad3378, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Thanks for responding to my request to elaborate on one of your previous comments.
            For some reason there's no "reply" button above so I'm replying here instead.

            Regarding federal funding for local schools, here's a philosophical question:
            If schools have the right to refuse federal funding, should they be allowed to be refunded a portion of the taxes they pay into the federal budget? Personally I'm (overall) in favor of local funding (and control), but I'd like to hear an opposing viewpoint so I can more fully understand the issue.

            This is not to say that my viewpoint is flawless.
            For example:
            If a community of retirees (with no school aged children) discourages young families from moving into an area, it would lead to a low student to population ratio - effectively lowering their property taxes. Is it fair for a member of this community to pay less taxes towards educating than a member of some other community? I must concede the fact that the federal approach to funding forces everybody to pay - (which I believe is more fair). Anyway - I'm rambling now - what's your point of view?
          • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3"If schools have the right to refuse federal funding, should they be allowed to be refunded a portion of the taxes they pay into the federal budget?"

            In an ideal world, sure. Under the US constitution? No.

            Frankly, I think 90% of what the federal government does is abominable. I'm much more a libertarian than you might think based on my posts. However, the difference between myself and Ron Paul is that I don't naively believe that the constitution forbids most of what the federal government does. That document was written by a bunch of different people with competing conceptions of how the state should be organized. They compromised by leaving the language vague and loose and allowing future generations to fill in the gaps. I find it particularly irksome when people like Ron Paul speak as though the framers spoke with one voice. That does a tremendous disservice to people like Alexander Hamilton, who did not share Ron Paul's conception of how the federal government ought to relate to the states. He seems to think James Madison is the only one whose opinions mattered.

            The reality is that the constitution is not a perfect document. A lot more could have been done to hash out the details. The separation of powers between the various branches is not always well defined. The nondelegation doctrine was developed because the framers neglected to draw sharp lines between the legislature and the excutive on certain points. The commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are too loosely written. I think we'd do a lot better to have an honest and frank discussion about the constitution and the limits of its wisdom than to do like Ron Paul and treat it like it was handed down from on high while ignoring all the little bits that make us uncomfortable.
    • Sogui, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2Honesty? Sure. Intelligence? Who needs it when you can have 100% reserves for all banks, I hope you have a nice $400,000 set aside for you car, house, and education. Because the banks sure as hell won't be able to give YOU a loan with a 100% reserve requirement.

      Even Bernanke didn't address the idea of 100% reserves, the clip they pulled had him talking about "enhanced" reserves that would simply diminish the need for a Federal Reserve, sure 100% reserves would remove the need for a Fed, but it would set back our financial system about 2,000 years and nobody would be able to buy anything that they didn't have cash-in-hand for.
      • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Prices would go down, no one would be able to afford a 400,000 dollar house therefore the price would go down. He talks about bubbles and the housing market is one of them. The house should have never been worth 400,000. Would you rather watch our currency slip into worthless bills?
        Would you rather sell your house for 400,000 dollars and have them be worthless or would you rather sell it for 200,000 dollars that can actually buy you things?
    • JoeVet, on 05/15/2008, -15/+10Ron Paul believes he can selectively interpret the constitution in such a way as to allow discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. His H.R. 300 go so far as to allow invasion of home privacy to enforce religious doctrine and allows the states to legally block legal protection under the law. There is a reason that he didn't even win one state.
      • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -5/+1Source?
      • petrodollar, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

        lol, no wonder he hates the federal courts so much. He evidently can't stand it when judges who have actually read the constitution dare to use provisions like the Establishment Clause to strike down state laws enforcing jesus freakery.

        Why does Ron Paul hate Article III, Sec. 2 of the constitution, which reads in relevant part: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

        Just another example of Ron Paul's total disdain for the constitution as it is actually written. Sorry Ron, the founding fathers were smart enough to put Article III in that document precisely so that ignoramuses like you couldn't run roughshod over the system of government they sought to establish.
    • BeyondDGrave, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Digg...with reason and action? What happened to the "Obama is awesome!" quotes...when did we ditch mob rule with reason? I was only gone for two days...lol
  • XanderDee, on 05/14/2008, -8/+183Good to see Ron Paul on TV telling people what they don't want to hear.
  • louiss19, on 05/14/2008, -11/+100Go Ron Paul!
  • Todash19, on 05/14/2008, -11/+99Great interview. RP knocks every one of them out of the park.

    • WhereAmI, on 05/15/2008, -5/+4And they knock back with their "delegates" on their side.
  • lodibug3, on 05/14/2008, -22/+11Go Ron Paul... Perhaps he is RIGHT where we need him!!
    • plimpton777, on 05/14/2008, -1/+19WRONG. We need him in the White House, and we need his policies in Congress.
      • WhereAmI, on 05/15/2008, -14/+5Luckily America isn't dumb enough to vote for a nut job.
        • darkhand, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12You missed the last two elections didn't you.
  • Grantismo, on 05/14/2008, -9/+90w00t, let's get more of the doctor on digg, I miss all the articles :]
  • Gandhilion, on 05/14/2008, -46/+23Ron Paul? He's still in the race?
    • fluoro, on 05/14/2008, -3/+19He answers this very well if you watch the video. But that's not what this clip is about.
    • Idiggapony, on 05/15/2008, -4/+8The "race," as you call it, is immaterial. Dr. Paul speaks the truth. Dr. Paul's twin messages of liberty and freedom bring enlightenment to the sheeple of this nation.

      Ron Paul.
    • WhereAmI, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Technically he still is, he never dropped out. Sure, McCain has the support of republicans across America, but what does that matter?
    • mike17032, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5Nope, he lost it several months back. He is just to stupid to know it, and his supporters to crazy to care.
      • thall, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4revolutions don't have deadlines.
      • kaelyiesta, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Ah, name calling. One of the dullest tools in the arsenal of the troll, but it gets the job done.
  • OffPiste, on 05/14/2008, -95/+21The racism from this guy just doesn't stop.
    • latinjones, on 05/14/2008, -2/+42I didn't catch any racism or racial undertones in this clip. Did I miss something?
      • zephc, on 05/14/2008, -1/+27Don't feed the trolls, for they are hungry and smell of feces.
    • USNavyBlue, on 05/14/2008, -1/+29That is what trolls do, is scream "racism" when they have no valid arguments to Dr. Paul's opinions! It is worn out! It is not going to shut us down, period. We are sick of you and you are the racist, bigot and hater and UN-American!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does not work anymore - the word racism- to shut down an honest debate. Get over yourself. *****!
      • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -25/+3Ron Paul is a certified, white sheet wearing, racist. It has been proven numerous times. Stop supporting a racist politician.
        • gottadiggit, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3And your ignorance, has been certified right here.
        • p0tent1al, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1For every time it has been proven, it is been either thoroughly debunked, or recalled. I actually find it funny people call him a racist, when a lot of his supporters are black people.

          http://youtube.com/watch?v=40Vo7FIfttw
    • Bkaufman, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10Probably one of the Obama backers, who like to conveniently ignore that his key demographic is racist black people and guilty whites. Also the same ones who called West Virginians ignorant for voting for Hillary. Elitists and racist.
      • Kegher, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3what?! you'll have to show me those people. on the other hand watch the latest daily show where 3 WVians publicly say they don't trust black people, assume Obama is a muslim because he's black and because he's called Hussein. And those are only the ones who are stupid enough to say it in front of a camera.
      • Bkaufman, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Just admit it, you think that you're better than them. I'm from Boston, but I don't presume to know what is best for the rest of the country just because I'm lucky enough to be able to get an education. Its very funny that you conveniently ignore that 90% of blacks are going to vote for Obama, which in your mind is not racist. Yet whites vote for Hillary somehow is?? give me a break.
    • Samurai77, on 05/15/2008, -2/+11WTF how the ***** do you get racism out of that? STFU
    • JMScheib, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Holy *****. I was shocked too. This is ridiculous. Check out the comments by the original poster:
      "Subtle? I made it very clear that neoconservatism is a Jewish ideology. Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, Irving Kristol, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz are all Jews."
      JESUS CHRIST
    • mikeas, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1******* ******
  • chicofaraby, on 05/14/2008, -63/+17The USA has enough problems to solve without another right wing nut screwing things up even worse. The right wing's has had it's chance. We've all seen the results. Go away now.
    • Progrockusa, on 05/14/2008, -2/+30no such thing as right and left. they are all for big spending and big government.
      • chicofaraby, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2*****. There are definitely right and left. The right seems to think that government is an enemy. They trust in the Magic Marketplace that is always correct and always the best solution for any issue. We on the left think that governments exist because they are necessary. They need to work well. They need to fill in the gaps where markets fail. Things like border control and fire departments. City streets and national rail lines. National air traffic control. Your garbage pick up. All of that stuff needs governments. This isn't the 18th century, the local governments can't and should not need to do it all. We ARE a nation. We need to bring the power of the entire nation to bear on our common problems like cleaning up the mess our industries have made over the decades. Things like making sure Americans have medical care that ranks higher than 37th in the world.

        The right has been in power for decades. Look around at the financial ruin, the corporate malfeasance, the illegal attack on Iraq, the obscene amounts of tax dollars wasted by military industry. Look at the combination of inflation and joblessness not seen since.... Richard Nixon. Like I said, the right wingers like Congressman Paul have had a long run and they have made a complete hash of things. Time for those ideas to move on. They have failed.
    • 223Sniper, on 05/14/2008, -0/+27ignorant *****, try listening to the guy first before opening that sewer on the front of your face. I support the otherside but Ron Paul has more wisdom then the entire republican and democratic parties combined,
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/15/2008, -16/+4He calls all inflation bad when 2% inflation is actually good.
        He goes against fractional-reserve banking when it is a world standard and encourages growth.

        This reactionary ***** doesn't deserve any attention at all.
        • 223Sniper, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5your another ignorant *****, go kill yourself...save someone else to effort.
    • doyoulikeworms, on 05/14/2008, -3/+18Bush is a modern liberal. Prove me wrong.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6Ah yes, I remember that same mantra in 2004. "Republicans are done, we're fed up with Bush and his cronies". Yep, that worked out well..
    • USNavyBlue, on 05/14/2008, -2/+10chicofaraby: is a RACIST and a troll pay NO mind to him or her. Fascist comes to mind also.
    • Idiggapony, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6No doubt about it, chicofaraby is CLEARLY a fascist and a racist.
    • Samurai77, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5You go away, silly socialist
  • AHippie, on 05/14/2008, -61/+23I'm sorry... Ron Paul lost. I'm really getting sick of all these articles where people get +300 diggs saying "YEAH GO RON PAUL YOU CAN WIN THE ELECTION!" No. He can't. He can still make a difference, yes, but JOHN MCCAIN WON THE PRIMARIES. The primaries have been over for several months now. And not only that, but no one outside of Digg has ever heard of Ron Paul before... sorry... but it's true.
    • afflusso, on 05/14/2008, -5/+16Who says that? He just wants to spread his message, in hope that the major candidates will actually adopt some of his policies. He said in the interview that he realizes he can't win.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/14/2008, -11/+3Considering how many votes those policies got him, I'd say that's not likely.
      • JoeVet, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2He just wants to milk you idiots for all your worth. Now go donate to his campaign so they can buy another balloon.
        • Bojanglesmn, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3They didn't buy that, the supporters did.
    • Bojanglesmn, on 05/14/2008, -3/+15Can you point me to the comment where someone said he can still win? I'm not seeing it.
    • WhereAmI, on 05/15/2008, -10/+3I know did, he won't go away.

      ***** Digg sucks now with all of this spam.
    • Todash19, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2It's so funny how the parent comment here has -29
      Yet all of the ones that follow are negative as well, with +4, +7, and +0 (cause I dugg it down, but not the others) prospectively.
      You have to come in here and digg up your own comments.
      Thanks for that. That about made my day.


      • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4??

        Hey, if I could digg up my own comments, I would. I kind of like them. Then again, I'm biased towards me.
        • Todash19, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3So, since we're down here were nobody goes, why dont you tell me what the hell you guys are trying to accomplish? RO supporters only want to restore the constitution. I mean why waste all the time? Neo-Cons paying you guys or something?
          • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I have no idea about anyone else. I merely made the claim that Ron Paul's platform as a whole seemed to be a big failure if you're judging it based on votes. I'm not trying to accomplish a thing by making that statement. The statement stands on it's own.

            I don't dislike Ron Paul (his constitutional approach really appeals to me), however, I can't get behind half of his platform. Case in point being his isolationist ideas. In the 1700's or 1800's that would have been something that was doable, but in a world that is growing increasingly smaller with so many economic avenues intertwined in the international community, isolationism would do nothing but damage our country.

            One thing about your statement though, when you say RP supporters only want to restore the constitution, that's fine and dandy, but it's only a part of the total platform he's running on. There are quite other things that RP wants to accomplish that are not in the best interest of the country.

            That being said, non of the candidates, I'll include Ron Paul just for kicks, have great platforms. People bitch about the direction that Bush has taken the country, yet Bush's opposition brings about as many good qualities and great ideas to the table as Bush. That's not saying much, and is a big part of the reason that this country is in the disarray it's in. That opposition has had almost 2 years under it's belt to correct some of the problems or at least work toward correction, and they're no closer to doing that now, than the were after the '06 elections. That's just pathetic.
    • rodgerdodger5, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/apr/judicia ...
  • castir0n, on 05/14/2008, -12/+7Viva La Revolution!
  • SoIcanDigg, on 05/14/2008, -17/+1*shakes head and hands violently* DO we need a fed?!
  • Ghoztt, on 05/14/2008, -15/+49MMmmm.... Ron Paul....
    Down with the Federal Reserve! Go get em' Doc!
  • alexanEmpire, on 05/14/2008, -40/+16RON PAUL! OMG!!!! MAC OS X! XKCD! SPOOGE! I'M GONNA CUM!!!!
    • cnot3, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2If we keep talking about freedom maybe more people will demand it. You obviously don't give a *****.
      • alexanEmpire, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Maybe you need to borrow my CHILLdo.
  • davidg11, on 05/14/2008, -16/+6Go Ron Paul! Get McCain to choose a libertarian republican VP!
  • hopeast, on 05/14/2008, -49/+11Ron Paul is senile.
    • Avaseal, on 05/14/2008, -3/+7Care to elaborate on that one?
      • hopeast, on 05/14/2008, -14/+3Naw, I just wanted to piss some people off..
    • kuantan97, on 05/14/2008, -3/+15For believing that wealth isn't created by printing on little pieces of paper?
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/15/2008, -9/+8Shut the ***** up, moron. It's called fiat currency, and it works for EVERY COUNTRY.
        • kuantan97, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10Yikes. Sounds like someone needs a hug.

          You are right. It does "works for EVERY COUNTRY"...by redistributing the wealth of the masses to those who first receive the pieces of paper, that is.

          While we're at it, friend, define "works," if you will.
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/15/2008, -8/+5If it didn't work, you wouldn't be using a computer right now among other things.

            And it's funny how you attack distribution of wealth when Ron Paul's laissez-faire capitalism will widen the gap even further.
          • kuantan97, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4You still didn't define "works." You did, however, commit a post hoc fallacy in your little computer anecdote. Without counterfeit money might I also be divested of some of my other possessions: my house, my clothes, my dog, even? Please elaborate.

            As for your second assertion, well, why even bother since you're only blubbering. You made your claim. Now where's the evidence?
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/15/2008, -7/+3Evidence: Look at the robber barons of the late 1800s.

            Shut up and stop trying to act smart by naming logical fallacies and talking about semantics. You can buy things with your so-called worthless printed paper. I don't see what needs to be elaborated.
          • WhereAmI, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2If you're trying to say we should be back on a gold standard thats a horrible idea. What happens if the gold being sent as payment is on a ship and that ship sinks? Hmm? That led to the downfall of the gold standard since ther Germans in WWI kept sinking the ships with the Gold. And what happens when a country runs low on gold from a few bad years? Inflation out the ass? And what happens when a new Gold Deposit is found? Add that to the mix and then you've got a huge problem of gold losing some of its value which trickles everywhere.

            You don't know what you guys are talking about. Ron Paul is not a savior and he is not an almighty being that knows everything. The WHOLE WORLD no longer uses the gold standard FOR A REASON and it will continue this way for quite some time.
          • kuantan97, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2The gold standard would be better than the current counterfeiting cartel known as the Federal Reserve. I would prefer a completely free market in currency, though.

            Under free market conditions, gold warehouse receipts, rather than the gold itself would likely be moved. If a country "runs low on gold from a few bad years"--I assume by that you mean that its purchasing power increases. If this occurs, there is no "inflation" as you say, but rather deflation. Prices would drop. This might stimulate further gold mining. It could also encourage the use of more silver. What's the worry here?

            It is a little ironic that you link gold to inflation when under the current counterfeit conditions we really do have "inflation out the ass."

            Eventually, the market will dictate gold rather than fiat be used. "The WHOLE WORLD no longer uses the gold standard FOR A REASON" ... fair enough. But, of course, that "reason" is not something you or I ever opted for; the state merely told us it was so.

            If not for state guns dictating the use of its counterfeit paper, the market push for gold would be irrestible.
        • kuantan97, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3"Evidence: Look at the robber barons of the late 1800s." Those same "robber barons" who increased our standard of living through competitive market practices?

          "You can buy things with your so-called worthless printed paper. I don't see what needs to be elaborated."

          The only reason people exchange the paper is because govt. says we have to, otherwise, no sane person would accept the garbage.
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1Okay, so you're pretty much rejecting reality (everyone else is insane, right?) and substituting your own. You're too ***** crazy to cure now.

            By the way, your understanding of history is completely bogus. Look up the muckrakers and the pictures they have to show.
  • Fragle1980, on 05/14/2008, -13/+88Ron Paul Is the man... his logic is undeniable!
    • Versh, on 05/15/2008, -16/+8Except for that whole "not accepting evolution" thing...
      Oy...
      • XanderDee, on 05/15/2008, -6/+7It's theory not fact. I agree with the "theory" of evolution just like I agree with the "theory" that building do not fall at the speed of gravity with out explosives. By the way I am not sure if my last statement is a fact or theory go look that up will you.
        • Versh, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4What???
          Theory:
          A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
          Theories are based on facts!
          Furthermore, Evolution is perhaps the most proven theory in existence.
          But you can't even read this, you're one of those conspiracy types-- you're too far gone from having a rational discussion I guess.
          Please seek an education.
    • Sogui, on 05/15/2008, -7/+9Yea go 100% reserves, that's some sweet banking logic from the dark ages... literally. Banks have been doing fractional reserves for over a millennium. It's what lets you buy things you cant afford in whole. like a house, a car, an education... but who needs things like that!?
      • duerra, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Well, by getting away from a system like that, you wouldn't have to worry about inflation nearly as much, your savings would actually mean something, and prices of things like homes, cars, etc., would go down. Go figure. =)
      • CowWithBeef, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10Fractional reserve banking is a confiscation of wealth. In the case of a home loan, they are taking a little bit out of every person's savings through monetary inflation, and lending it to one person. If he doesn't pay it back, the bank gets to keep the house. The bank doesn't give the money back to the people who lost money to inflation. The bank didn't have the money to buy the house and suddenly it owns it.
        It's possible that by forcing wealth out of the hands of people who are not investing it we are making our use of it more efficient. Also by destroying everyone's savings we are making sure that they have to work for their entire lives, thereby generating more wealth. I'm just glad that I understand this and know better than to save my dollars now. It's just a medium for exchange. Get it and spend it or invest it. If Ron's correct the currency will inevitably collapse at some point.
        Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
      • Laminarcissus, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2So duerra, you're saying that eliminating the average 3.42%-per-year inflation we've had since 1913 would suddenly allow people to afford to pay for cars and homes and college educations without loans?

        I see you've thought this through as carefully as Ron Paul has.
      • JoeVet, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2At least McCain admits he doesn't know about economics. Paul just has to open his mouth to remove all doubts of his understanding. Following his advice will lead to the collapse of our whole economy and way of life.
        • bty2047, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1agreed I thought he was smart until I took economic classes.. If you had 100% reserve banking first. You couldn't buy anything, second who would be the bank?
        • DongfangBuBai, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1take some more classes and history, too.
    • dsmx, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3It's a pity that he will never be elected because he says things people don't like to hear. That's nothing against Ron Paul it's just the reality of the world and the fundamental flaw in democracy. Democracy is only concerned with doing what is necessary to get elected not what is right for the country.
  • siktath, on 05/14/2008, -42/+12Too bad he has no clue about monetary economics for the amount he talks about it.
    Too bad he doesn't have the support of the "base".
    I will never align myself with a conservative, again. They've shown themselves to be the worst scum of the decade.
    • Gogogo111, on 05/14/2008, -1/+24Too bad Bush wasn't a conservative. He was a ***** madman.

      Ron Paul IS a conservative because he wants to SAVE money, reduce government size and up the value of our terrible dollar.
      • siktath, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2No, a Conservative is what the Republican party has turned into: Drag Queen Democrats.
    • xerigen, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Then please, enlighten us on monetary economics, siktath. The "base" is a group of people who blindly label themselves as "Republican" and have no idea what that means.
      • WhereAmI, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2Yes I posted this earlier. I encounter this supreme knowledge on Digg all the time.

        If you're trying to say we should be back on a gold standard thats a horrible idea. What happens if the gold being sent as payment is on a ship and that ship sinks? Hmm? That led to the downfall of the gold standard since ther Germans in WWI kept sinking the ships with the Gold. And what happens when a country runs low on gold from a few bad years? Inflation out the ass? And what happens when a new Gold Deposit is found? Add that to the mix and then you've got a huge problem of gold losing some of its value which trickles everywhere.

        You don't know what you guys are talking about. Ron Paul is not a savior and he is not an almighty being that knows everything. The WHOLE WORLD no longer uses the gold standard FOR A REASON and it will continue this way for quite some time.
      • siktath, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Don't get me wrong. Ron Paul's one of the best Republicans and definitely the best person running for the Presidency, but the Gold Standard is no Panacea.
        His obvious flaw is supporting the Dollar at all. Free Banking should be the objective. The historical excuse for the Dollar has been to ease borrowing in war time. I think the public debt to GDP ratios of the 20th century have shown that the US has no trouble in that department. The Dollar should be phased out of existence.
    • Samurai77, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Where did you get your Econ Degree? The stuff he is taking about is Econ 101
      • siktath, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Negative. Have you seen how he falls apart when he tries to talk about inflation? The Austrian interpretation is terrible. I guess that's what happens when your school of thought rejects "numbers".
  • Xihix, on 05/14/2008, -9/+72The GOP is ***** stupid. Support the least electable idiot instead of this guy? I guess the party starting to slip up in 2006 wasn't enough for them.
    • EmporerTitus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+12The GOP is stuck on stupid. by definition, stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
      Ron Paul's Army is fighting a pleasantly downhill battle against the dying neocon party apparatchiki.
      As McSame endorses Gore's ManBearPig Credits, and Barr flanks from the right, it gets even easier.
    • MikeFallopian, on 05/15/2008, -13/+7Did you just say that Ron Paul - a dogmatic libertarian whose views are shared by a tiny percentage of the population - is more electable than McCain? Am I missing the sarcasm in your post or something?
      • jhart3, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5you should just assume that everything political goes over your head - or as you describe it, satire. Either way, dont vote!
      • JoeVet, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3Hey, he came in second in one state! He is plenty electable provided the rest of the country is excluded from voting. Obama's preacher has a better chance.
    • reddikilowatt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Actually, McCain is the most electable, in that he is a populist, not a consitiutionalist. Rugged individualism will always be a hard sell to people who think we put people in Washington to be our "leaders," instead of our "representatives."
  • Prism123, on 05/14/2008, -25/+14I'm not going to pretend to understand the intricacies in the economy, but from the little I understand requiring 100% of bank balances to be backed by liquid cash would be disastrous.

    Furthermore I'm going to trust the people with degrees and years of experience in economics over someone with a degree in biology.
    • Tommyhawk, on 05/14/2008, -2/+16Its funny but I've noticed its usually people who have no understanding of economics whatsoever and further don't care to learn are the ones who are most willing to trust a bunch of people who all went to school and learned the same theories over their own judgement and common sense.
      • kuantan97, on 05/14/2008, -2/+10Precisely. Their minds are institutionalized. Never having had an original thought, or at least the courage to try to think outside the box, they defer to those upon whom some academic institution has conferred a perception of legitimacy. Translation: they appeal to authority.
        • ufia, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3And where did you learn the intricacies of economics? From the bible? By working as a clerk at a gas station? By smoking marijuana in your mom's basement (for medical purpose, of course) ?

          The people with the best understanding of economics learned all that stuff from "some academic institution".

          Who the ***** are you to call them institutionalized minds, a school drop out? Or another one of those conspiracy nuts who believe they figured the meaning of life after watching an apocalyptic skull & bones video on YouTube?
      • bc289, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4At the same time, I've seen many who go "outside the box" who say things that are completely unsubstantiated and go contrary to academic conclusions that are backed by lots of data. To me, it is just as bad to distrust "authority" without any reason for doing so except for the fact that they are "authority."
        • kuantan97, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3For sure.
        • sovietninja, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Are you referring to the argument by Adams and Balfour and the "masked evil" of the bureaucratic structure of centralized authority?
    • chromerium, on 05/14/2008, -0/+25I don't really understand it either, but I think his argument boils down to this;

      When banks lend money that they don't have, and that money is spent (to buy houses, cars, whatever), then the economy is effectively creating money out of nothing. This is what causes inflation. Inflation doesn't hurt rich people; something that cost 500k one year costing 510k the next doesn't bother them. They're making a hundred times that on investments, the inflation is completely eaten by their ability to generate more money.

      The middle class and the poor however, suffer. What little money they are able to scrape together every month is devalued by inflation to the point where if they make any interest, the inflation rate more than offsets that. The money in our pockets devalues daily due to this false wealth being created by the federal reserve.

      Now that, in and of itself, wouldn't be a problem if we allowed the market to correct itself, but by giving failing corporations money to stay alive, by propping these places up, the fed is artificially trying to stall the correction that needs to happen. The longer the stall, the larger the correction will need to be ... eventually the fed will need to print more and more cash to back these banks, raising inflation to crazy levels.

      The point that people try to make is that large and expensive infrastructure projects such as the internet need this kind of investment because otherwise there wouldn't be funds available to invest - the return on the investments come in far too late. I'm not sure if this is a valid point or not; countries were able to fund large infrastructure projects back in the days when currencies were tied to gold, I think that the added risk of going out of business (and not being able to be bailed out by the fed) would probably result in wiser spending.

      The above summary is probably incorrect, but its how I understand it. I'd appreciate it if someone who actually understands this stuff could kindly restate things more closely reflecting Congressman Paul's view on this.

      People like to dismiss the man as "that crazy guy who doesn't understand monetary policy", but I have a feeling that maybe he understands it exactly the same way that everyone else does, but it doesn't sit well with him. All the other ***** standing up calling him "crazy" are making ***** of cash out of the current system, so it's in their best interests to try and bury him. What if he's right?
      • bc289, on 05/14/2008, -5/+6Ron Paul's views are a minority in the academic world. His views on inflation are not widely held - many economists will believe that inflation is bad, but it is not bad when it is at low levels. The levels that we are at are in fact low. Also, the one thing that I always see people forget is the wage side of inflation. Inflation has an effect of both prices AND wages; yes prices rise, but so do your wages. So low levels don't really do as much harm as most people would think.
        • shdspart, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7What about savings? That is Dr. Pauls concern. If your investment portfolio grows 5% every year and inflation is 4%, than your investment really only grew by 1%. This isn't a very good return if you ever plan on retiring some day. The other population he often brings up are those on fixed incomes. Social Security typically increases by 2 or 3% which is at par or below inflation levels. Many economists have also argued that the Cosumer Price Index (CPI) doesn't factor in or weigh heavy enough with items such as energy, healthcare, food and education....you know those things that we spend a large portion of our labor on! It sounds like your only concern is how many dollars you hold onto and not what those dollars are worth or how much they can purchase.
          • bc289, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2Social security is tied to the CPI, so inflation does not affect it. Savings take inflation rate into account as well. If you have a problem with it, you can just buy TIPS, treasury inflation protected securities, which are directly tied to CPI. However, your earnings return on your savings take into account inflation.

            These sort of things the average American does not know, and they inaccurately believe that inflation hurts them more than it really does.
        • chromerium, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Yes wages generally increase to match inflation.

          However for the middle class and the poor, they see their wage going up and matching inflation, but they can't save anything because cost of living is also going up at increasing rates exceeding the increase they get from their wage - fuel, food, rent - and the small amount of money they have put away in the bank is being devalued daily, and maybe they're needing to dip into it increasingly to support their monthly spending.

          It seems that the people who don't have a problem with the current system are all making money hand over fist. Something smells there.
        • bc289, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Inflation does not hurt savings as much as you think. Nominal interest rate = real interest rate + rate of inflation. In other words, your return that you earn on savings is not hurt by inflation - it goes up at the same rate as expected inflation. If inflation rises 1%, so does your return you're earning on your savings.
          • chromerium, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2yeah ok, but what about the cost of living? Thats the real thing that matters to most of the poor and middle class, which is what RP keeps mentioning. Those people lose out, bigtime, in the current system.
          • bc289, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1cost of living rises, but so do wages. Again, low levels of inflation are not as bad as ron paul says because wages increase as well, although slowly. Then again, prices rise slowly due to inflation too.

            If you're referring to food prices and oil prices, that has little to do with inflation, and more to do with the fact that supply and demand for those products are driving the prices up. Whatever currency you are on, they will cost more.
          • chromerium, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1OK fair enough. I'm not convinced, being one of those people who are looking at the rising cost of rent, house prices, and my salary creeping up by a mere 4% a year or whatever it is isn't covering that.
        • Tommyhawk, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1The CPI drastically understates inflation. The true inflation rate is somewhere between 7-12%. Over time various vehicles have been introduced to change the inflation calculation. Substitution, Hedonic Adjustments, the stripping out of Food and Energy. The bottom line is if you buy TIPS you are losing. If you have a savings account you're losing. If you get social security checks you're losing. The best way to pro