digg

Join DiggAbout

Glenn Beck - The Real Story, Touching the Third Rail watch!

youtube.com — Glenn Beck's Real Story from January 9, 2008 - Touching the third rail and interview Dave Walker.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 86thefed, on 01/10/2008, -53/+95We the people of America have been lied to and are being lied to by the any Candidate who promises universal health care as part of their platform. It's sounds great but we don't have the money to pay for it. We don't even have the money to pay for this illegal war we started. We need real change in Washington not the same empty promises of change that candidates in past have promised.

    Ron Paul 2008
    • colberrep, on 01/10/2008, -38/+23ron paul? you mean turn health care and everything else to corporations EVEN MORE? not the change we need.
      • jmpeagle, on 01/10/2008, -7/+18because eliminating their drug patents and allow any generic drug maker to make them will sure make pharmaceuticals more profitable...
        /sarcasm
        • hipnerd, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1No plan I am aware of will take patents away from drug companies. can you cite someone who suggested this?

          And pharmaceutical companies They spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research. Maybe they could stop trying to sell me a sleeping pill that makes me crap in my pants four times an hour while I'm watching Letterman, and spend that money developing new drugs.
          • jmpeagle, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1ron paul is against government interference in the markets ergo patents and copyrights. It serves as a giant business subsidy.
      • BamaStangGuy, on 01/10/2008, -9/+28You're right. ***** those eveil corporations. Let's turn it over to those nice gentleman politicians.
        • colberrep, on 01/10/2008, -6/+6pick one.
          politicians are answerable to elections and the people.
          corporations are answerable to their majority share holders.
          politicians are sworn to uphold the constitution.
          corporations are sworn to pursue profit at all costs.
        • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7Corporations are answerable to the consumer and to the shareholder. Politicians can borrow as much money as they want on the country's good faith and credit and let future generations pay it off.

          Politicians can get as much money as they want from you by taxing you, corporations can only get money from you IF you choose to buy their product.
          • Tilon, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1"Politicians can borrow as much money as they want on the country's good faith and credit and let future generations pay it off."

            Only if they have the FED.
      • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -4/+7No, not "turn it over" to anybody... let *the people* be free and seek care on their own.
      • FatherVic, on 01/10/2008, -1/+7You seem to ignore the fundamental truth that is ever present in a capitalist society which is that government involvment = disaster.
        Look at Oil, HEALTHCARE, pharmacuticals, TSA..

        When the government controls a business sector, competition disappears. When competition disappears, so do low prices and quality of service. Just walk into the DMV or airport security if you don't believe me.

        You have it backward, sir.
        • tastycheese, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2The way I am treated at the DMV and at Airport Security is like a day at the beach compared to how I'm treated by my HMO.
          • FatherVic, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1your HMO is probably the most subsidized of all healthcare plans... probably because HMO's are a direct result of the HMO act of 1973
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973 (add your own http:// so digg does not truncate)

            The nightmare started in 1942 when congress made contributions to health insurance by a company completely tax deductable. Sounds good until you realize that private insurance ownership doesn't do you any good. There is no reason to compete. No reason to compete means: eff it, you need it, I got it, you have to have it so "F*** you, pay me!"
            That is the reason people cannot afford it. Cost doesn't have to be competitive if it is tax deductable for the right people.
        • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2@tastycheese: And that is a direct result of the mess we have in subsidized care, medical insurance, malpractice abuse and overextended FDA regulation. What we have now is not a free market by any stretch. I won't claim that a completely free market is the solution, or is even desirable for critical infrastructure such as health, but it's wrong to argue that what we have is the unavoidable result of a free market.

          As an aside, being forced to wait and put up with bad service while you renew your license or wait for a plane is one thing, but that kind of service at a hospital when timely service might be a matter of life and death is clearly unacceptable.
      • Fordi, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Two options: get government out of federal social programs, or print more money, thus reducing the value of the dollar farther than it already is.

        TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". And the US gov't's been eating comped steak for decades.
      • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1digg me down.
    • PATSCRU, on 01/10/2008, -28/+16how is 5th place relevant again? LMAO.
      • didiman, on 01/10/2008, -9/+8What you fail to realize is that the majority of Diggers live in their own delusional world.
        • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3I'll take that over living in Fox's or CNN's delusional world... What makes your reality so great?
        • Fordi, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3"What makes your reality so great?"

          Apparently, succeeding in an election and tanking the US Dollar. Hopefully, we can wake enough of our fellow citizens up to our economic crises and solutions, and get Paul on top before the end of the Primaries.

          By the by, 10% of an early vote is a far cry from the 1% polls from when Obama, for example, made his announcement to run (and got 25% at that point). Paul may not be on top yet, but there's still time before Super Tuesday.
    • More4, on 01/10/2008, -24/+17the rest of the industrialized world provides universal medical coverage, at a lower cost than the so-called christian usa. even a pea-brained limousine libertarian should understand that.
      • SeekerDarksteel, on 01/10/2008, -8/+11taxes != free.

        universal medical coverage does not necessarily result in good medical coverage. Unless you enjoy scheduling all your appointments months in advance.
        • JohnFlux, on 01/10/2008, -7/+6He never said taxes were free.
          To give a specific example, in the UK we pay half per capita (person - including taxes) on medical than the US.
          We also have a higher life expectancy, and a lower child mortality rate.
          In the US, the rich can get better medical coverage if they have good insurance - but the poor get screwed. Roughly half of all bancrupcies in america are due to medical costs, and of them over 75% did have medical insurance.
          • Trykt, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4You're correct, the current system is ***** up. But socialized medicine isn't the only answer or in many opinions the best answer. It would do nothing to actually lower medical costs (what's supposed to happen in a free market, but doesn't now because of government interference) which ultimately leads to more wasteful spending and less actual medical care.
          • biotch, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1It would lower the cost 33% right off the bat because it would delete the 33% that currently goes to profit insurance companies.
          • Fordi, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Assuming, of course, that the government won't eat the remaining 66% in a random war or a golden toilet seat.

            Governments aren't exactly known for spending their money in an efficient manner.
        • EditorResponse, on 01/10/2008, -3/+5JohnFlux, the TAX RATE in the UK is approximately 80%!

          WE DON'T WANT THE HEALTH CARE!
          • JohnFlux, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0Huh? Can you provide a source for that?
        • BuzzFriendly, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6Ever been to a VA Hospital? This is how your "free" health care would end up. The US Government has a poor track record of managing programs. Look at social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Be careful of what you ask you you might just get it.
      • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -5/+7The "rest of the industrialized worlds" has no respect for the individual. They force all citizens into a collective. That is contrary to liberty and not something to be proud of. The sheep analogy could not possibly be more apt... collective societies herd and corral the populace in the name of well-being.
        • biotch, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1better than hurding the populace in the name of killing Iraqis
        • Fordi, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2I usually don't do this, but how the ***** do you misspell 'herd' when there's an example of the damned word right above where you're typing??
    • jezsik, on 01/10/2008, -12/+14We don't have the money to pay for universal health care? Sure we do, we're just spending it on the wrong stuff. Why are we spending more than everyone else COMBINED for the military? Look after your citizens first; food health and education for everyone.
      • fatcatman, on 01/14/2008, -0/+0Look after yourself, idiot. Buy your own food, pay for your own health care and education. It's thinking like yours that has us so ***** now. "Oh, just give everyone free *****!" Hint: It's not free. Somebody has to pay for it. If we the people can't afford to pay our own way, how is the government supposed to pay for it? They get all their money from us! Therefore if we can't afford it, they can't afford it. This should be completely obvious to everyone.
    • biotch, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4Actually if we applied universal health care, 33% of the cost would disappear because right now 33% of what Americans pay for health care goes to insurance companies as pure profit.
      Take profit out of the health care system by funding it federally and save.
      • fatcatman, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Right, because that has always worked in the past. Government projects are full of pork. That 33% "savings" will be replaced by a 66% nightmare administrative burden.
    • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4Seriously, think about what you're sayiing for a moment... Think about everything you've ever heard Ron Paul say about fiscal policy... How detailed is this? How much of a plan is defined?... He knows how much money would be saved by getting out of Iraq, and will say random numbers for cash that would be saved by getting out of the rest of the world too... But he doesn't have any defined plans for taxes. If you take away all income tax revenues, the fact of the matter is, even if we pay for the absolute minimum on the federal level, we will never pay off our debt... This is just how it works, when you owe 10 trillion dollars, plus interest, payments of 100 billion a year (half of our are never actually going to get you there...

      Paul caters to people who want low taxes, but really, that only digs us a deeper hole, paying off our debt as soon as possible is the best possible scenario, and we should work towards that, not selfishly demand that we be able to keep a slightly larger percentage of our paychecks while ultimately dooming the nation.
      • Tilon, on 01/14/2008, -0/+2He wants to significantly slash the size of the Federal government, and eliminate the IRS, as well as creating a value-backed currency to compete with the dollar.
    • bobangitanov2, on 01/11/2008, -3/+1Ron Paul has as much clues on the economy as my retarded dog. The only thing this deficit does is lower the value of the dollar, and that's good for the US who is exporting a lot of product and not importing much (other from poor asian/latin american countries). The US will never have to pay this debt as long as it remains a superpower. When other developed countries surpass it in exports the US will be *****, its market will essentially be bought be outsiders and the people here will not be anything more than cheap labor like the chinese are to the US now.
      • OatmealBatman2, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1The US exports a lot and doesn't import much? I think you've got it backwards. Take a look at the toys that kids play with, electronics you use, or the clothes on your back, because it's likely that they're all made outside the US.
      • jeffwmartin, on 01/12/2008, -0/+0One thing is for sure, your retarded dog knows more about the economy than you do. One of those "poor" Asian countries (which we have a trade deficit with) is China. You know the same China that our government borrows a lot of the money to make up that deficit?
        Maybe I'm wrong and you actually made this comment 15 years ago and it's just now getting posted. In that case, you were a visionary.
  • winstonb, on 01/10/2008, -16/+81Ok, so Glenn Beck…not good enough… want another source? Steve Kroft ran basically the same story on 60 Minutes about a year ago.
    Here’s the big problem… what will the government do? Print more money? Likely. And what does that do? Causes inflation and the further devaluation of the dollar. Remember that the dollar isn’t actually worth anything but the promise from our government that they’ll honor it. The estimate I have heard is that it’s actually worth 4 cents in gold. That’s why Ron Paul and others are advocating a return to the gold standard. That way the money is actually worth something. It makes people more confident to do business with us.
    We are currently spending 62% of the government budget on Social Security and Medicare. I just don’t understand where we’re going to get the money from to pay for health care for everyone.
    • Jeffmr1, on 01/10/2008, -3/+22I don't really see why Glenn Beck wouldn't be good enough, seeing as how it's the head US Comptroller that he's interviewing.
      • someguyouknow, on 01/10/2008, -1/+14Additional sources are always good.
    • wclass, on 01/10/2008, -6/+27"I just don’t understand where we’re going to get the money from to pay for health care for everyone." How about start with reading the constituion. It is not the duty of the federal government to pay for health care. If we just followed the constituion, we would not have these problems.
      • BabyWookie, on 01/10/2008, -12/+5When the Constitution was written, health care was not nearly as relevant as it is today, due to the matter of how primitive it was at that time. You were often better off not getting the "care". The common "cures" were blood-letting, leaches, ingesting mercury and surgery, without antiseptics or anesthesia.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5What's your point? The fact remains that you will need to past an amendment to make it legal. And also the fact remains that a lot of us think that handing control over our health care to a federal bureaucracy is ***** STUPID.
          • BabyWookie, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1My point is: If the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution today, they might have included a provision which stated that every one has the right to health care, such as found is every more modern constitution in the civilized world.
            http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-health ...
          • Tilon, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1"My point is: If the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution today, they might have-"


            BZZT stop right there lol. You don't know law very well, do you?
      • pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -13/+12the constitution doesn't mention roads, education, fire protection, or disaster recovery either. let's get rid of those too.
        • lived666, on 01/10/2008, -6/+8It also does not authorize an air force, only an army and a navy probably because air planes were not yet invented when it was written. So I guess we have to get rid of the Air Force too.
          • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1And of course, the INTENTION of the framers of the constitution was to have a nation primarily defended by militias, to restore the constitution, returning to that system would be necessary.
        • Nosnevets02, on 01/10/2008, -4/+16Roads, education, fire protection and disaster recovery were supposed to be the jobs of the STATES. End of story, period.

          "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."
          • lived666, on 01/10/2008, -8/+5Still no Air Force
          • Nosnevets02, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5Stop being retarded. If there had been planes back then, they would have included an airforce.

            They had health care (doctors), roads, schools, and fire protection back then and did not include those as the responsibility of the federal government.
          • pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2have you ever driven on an interstate highway?
          • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1They had doctors - they did not have healthcare. Healthcare is a concept, what you said is like saying because they had devices of mathematical computation (i..e. abacuses), all possible technological considerations were accounted for.
        • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Hahahaha, education? Are you serious? Do you seriously ***** think that that is the job of the federal government?
          Well, in any case, it's not going to matter what you or I think. In the end, we're broke. And that's a hard fact. And it's not going to change unless we elect someone that truly changes the role of government.
          • nosecohn, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Education is a tough issue for me, because although I agree that it's a State responsibility, as it is specifically omitted from the Constitution, an educated electorate is more likely to vote for responsible leaders, preventing us from getting into this kind of mess in the first place. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the position was that voting rights should be restricted to the "landed gentry" (which basically means rich white men). This wasn't done for racist/sexist reasons, but because those people were the only ones with high levels of education, and the founders feared that an uneducated electorate would vote in irresponsible leaders who appealed to our trivial interests, to the detriment of the republic. Thomas Jefferson favored a different solution: pay to educate everyone and then allow them all to vote. For a brief period in history, the American education system yielded one of the most educated electorates in the world. But it has suffered a great fall in standing in the last 50 years. Now, everyone's got the vote, but perhaps not everyone should. (Note: I'm not arguing against suffrage, but rather, for improved education.) Our current crop of leaders reflects this knowledge deficit. Whether it's federal or state funded, I think the country as a whole needs a good education system to insure that the voters don't screw themselves.
        • iTorrey, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5Ok, then amend it. The founders knew that they couldn't envision every possibility so they have a system by which you can amend the constitution. So do it! Don't just ignore it because you like the benefit you gain. If you allow the government to ignore it whenever it suits you they are likely to do it when it doesn't. You can't just pick and choose when you want it to be followed and when you don't.
          • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2*golf clap* Exactly correct. The Constitution didn't HAVE to define everything the federal government might do, simply because it has a mechanism built in for change. This ensures that you have to get 2/3rds of the states to play along if you want to change the federal government's authority. This is a CRUCIAL check to make sure that the rights of state governments are not infringed.
      • teethman, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3People think universal medical coverage in the usa means a sort of socialized system. Nobody who supports this idea has bad intentions, but socialism assumes they are working on behalf of the citizens. It almost seems like they don't know more of the tax dollars will go directly to the monopolies. The hospitals are going to turn out like the ***** cable companies, or worse the DMV.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2What??? How are cable companies and the DMV remotely similar? I think health care *should* be like cable companies... or better yet, Wal-Mart/CostCo/Best Buy/Macy's/Neiman Marcus.
          • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Cable companies are heavily regulated by the FCC, and spend so many resources lobbying representatives, that they are practically another branch of government at this point. They would not be an ideal model for the health industry (though we're certainly close to that now).
          • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I think health care should be exactly like car insurance. Everyone picks the type of coverage they want and pay a monthly premium. Look how cheap car insurance is, and how many different companies there are. That is quite healthy competition, promotes better service as well as lower rates.
    • Terr01, on 01/10/2008, -11/+5"I just don’t understand where we’re going to get the money from to pay for health care for everyone."

      Dunno, maybe the same place that all of the money that the baby boomers paid into the system went? It's important to notice that this isn't a matter of "handouts" as much as it is about the US government doing some internal shuffling of funds and now having problems when it's time to shuffle them on back.
      • halligan00, on 01/10/2008, -4/+7The dollar is currently worth 1/890th of an ounce of gold.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Who the ***** cares? The value of gold is a superstition, not a rational judgment of worth. Gold's legitimate industrial and commercial value is a tiny fraction of the artificial value people place in it. If the value of gold were genuine, it would not be sitting in safes, it would all be going into actual products that people use. The fact that people invest in it and hold on to it is a perverse kind of proof that it is not actually deserving of it's value... valuable things get USED.
          • Tilon, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Precious Metals ARE used, you moron. The reason Gold is used as a Backer is because it has near universal value (Tried giving someone gold lately, idiot? Hint: They don't turn down) and because it has a determinable amount, and it can't just be conjured out of thin air.

            Very simple.
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3What is gold *actually* worth? Shouldn't worth be determined by utility? Gold is *not* worth the price currently assigned to it. Its current price is based on little more than superstition.

      It's really pretty simple... if people continue to think it makes sense to simply hold on to gold rather than use it for any practical purpose, that is *proof* that its price is hugely inflated. You morons are treating gold like comic books and rare stamps, not a metal to be used in physical products. That means the value is a lie.
      • texpundit, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4What you don't get is that when the gov't stopped using gold and silver to back our currency, gold investing TURNED INTO hobbyist investing. When the government was using it, the price was relatively stable, not like it is today where it fluctuates due to investing market demand. If the gov't went BACK to a gold/silver standard, the price would most likely come down (which would piss off investors), but would stabilize and allow for a stable currency that would actually base on SOMETHING instead of promises from a government that has proven that it cannot be trusted.
        • MoneyShot, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Ugh... all Paul zealots who think they're arm chair economists now are starting to get to me. Let me briefly explain something, since, like, I actually studied economics at a real school. Tethering the dollar back to gold would absolutely tank the US economy in the face of China's, India's (and to a lesser extend), Russia's rapidly growing economies. Why you all think that gold is the panecia to all our economic woes is beyond me. It's never going to happen, and that's a good thing. So forget about it and go rant about something else already.
          • nosecohn, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5I actually think there are two issues at play here. One is the control over the money supply, and the other is what backs the currency.

            Ron Paul favors getting rid of the Federal Reserve, because it's a privately controlled national bank of the kind which was killed twice before in our country's history. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to print money, not anyone else. The Fed banks are hugely profitable, and maintain an immense degree of control over the country's economy, without much oversight from our elected representatives, nor really an incentive to put the public's interest above their own.

            Although the Constitution also specifies the precious metal standard, if you listen to Ron Paul carefully, you can see that he leaves some wiggle room here... perhaps for an amendment. There are plenty of people who believe that we can eliminate the federal reserve and let the government start printing its own fiat currency, not backed by gold, but rather backed by the good faith and credit of the US, as with the current system. The difference would be greater controls on the supply of money and restriction of fractional reserve lending. But then you've got the problem of politicians deciding how to control the money supply, which is not a good idea. Somebody like the guy featured in this video, David Walker, is in a much better position to keep us responsible.

            Anyway, the point is, you can kill the Federal Reserve WITHOUT going back to the gold standard. Personally, that's what I favor, because the gold standard is simply unworkable for the current economy. For those who have the patience to educate themselves on this issue more deeply, The Money Masters is a good documentary:

            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-158315456 ...

        • Rhino2, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1I agree with this, but one thing that has to be consider is 'who' owns all the gold? Currently it's all the banks, so switching over might be painful at the start... unless of course your a banker.
        • rwinograd, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1there is a very simple reason why the value of gold would be stable when the american gov't pegged its currency to it:
          an american dollar is X ounces of gold
          gold is $1/X an ounce

          is this rocket science?
          Of course if you don't peg the value of A to B, the value of B is going to change relative to A.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3What you don't understand is that when the government was backing currency with gold, that meant putting a genuinely useful metal in vaults where it was completely wasted. What you also fail to understand is that currency is "backed" by the economy as a whole. The money you have represents whatever it is you choose to spend it on next. To *also* tie that money to lumps of gold (or anything else) locked away in a vault is both redundant and wasteful and ultimate illogical.

          You have been lied to if you believe our current currency is based on the government's promises. Put that idea completely out of your head. The reason currency works and what it is backed by is THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. The only purpose money serves to to temporarily represent whatever asset or service you want to trade. People mine and log and grow food and perform services... that is where actual wealth comes from. We only create money when there are such goods and services that need to be represented in a trade. *Money* is created out of thin air because what it represents *already exists*. It's the hours I work or the coal someone mines or the shirt someone sews together.
          • Fordi, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2Except, what happens when the government requests more money from the federal reserve than is available in american wealth?
        • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1@WhiteRaven: If the federal reserve only printed the money in proportion the amount of new coal or shirts that have been produced why do prices keep rising? If the printing of money was simply because we were producing more and more shirts or coal wouldn't the price remain the same, or even decrease because of the increase in supply?
    • MoneyShot, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6I stopped reading after you said that the "dollar is worth four cents in gold". You might want to alert the commodities market of your economic research. They're under the moronic impression that a person can buy a dollar's worth of gold for... a dollar.
    • zephyr42, on 01/10/2008, -4/+1I'm moving to canada, or anywhere else... switzerland sounds really nice, no wars.
    • trevorjez, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2"We are currently spending 62% of the government budget on Social Security and Medicare. I just don’t understand where we’re going to get the money from to pay for health care for everyone."

      where are you getting this 62%? i can't find any data that shows anything high than 21% on social security and 12% on medicare. the sum of that is half of what you're spouting off.
    • theholyraptor, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2well, whether or not universal health care is a good idea or covered under the constitution, if the United States cleaned up it's BS foreign policy and stopped policing the rest of the world, we'd have a lot more money to spend on other things. There would also be far fewer amputees needing treatment amongst other things.
    • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1You know, your response is mindblowingly selfish... The government is in an unfathomable amount of debt never before heard of on the planet earth... Your response: "Let's make money worth something concrete such that they can't possibly hurt my financial standing internationally!" (ignoring the fact that in reality, the fed strictly controls inflation for the moment) Think about this, we owe 12.45 trillion dollars (set to reach a clean 14 billion before Bush leaves office). Even with today's record gold prices, that is 479138 tons of gold. That equates to a sphere about 117 feet in diameter of pure gold...
      • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Note: This is also 176 years of global gold production.
      • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1"ignoring the fact that in reality, the fed strictly controls inflation for the moment"

        The fact is, the Fed is responsible for CREATING the inflation. They just print money whenever the banks or the government needs it. I don't care if they back our currency with anything, they just need to stop printing it more of it whenever the want.
  • themonkman, on 01/10/2008, -6/+77We are totally screwed as a nation if we don't cut every unnecessary government program, bring our troops home from all places overseas, and reel in pork barrel spending to be a bare trickle. We were warned of this sort of thing hundreds of years ago. Now we are living it.
    • PHiZ187, on 01/10/2008, -19/+3Actually wer're doomed if we dont' increase government spending where it counts, investing in higher education to create globally competitive workforce, investing in our physical infrastructure, investing in basic research in enviornmentally sound technology, and lastly we need leadership to tackle the realities of the global marketplace. Sorry, your isolationist crap isn't going to cut it.
      • ThomasPaine23, on 01/10/2008, -3/+8Actually you are smoking crack. Each and EVERY person owes roughly 30 thousand dollars on the "official" nation debt of ~9 trillion dollars.

        Estimated debt with entitlements is between 40 to 70 trillion dollars, or between 150 thousand to 240 thousand dollars per person. Remember this is on top of the taxes you already pay. There are only two ways out of this, cut the programs or print money. We are beginning to see the results of the second one. There are no free lunches......
      • Nosnevets02, on 01/10/2008, -3/+6I can see the government should be investing in our own infrastructure instead of rebuilding what they blew up in Iraq.

        Private schools and private companies would be a 1000 times more efficient at improving education and researching environmentally sound technology. Why you ask? That would be because if they fail, they go bankrupt and its their ass on the line. Whenever there is risk to themselves, people work there ass off and try to do the best they can to create a better product.

        Whereas if the government takes that role it is uninspired because if they fail, they can always go to the tax payers for more money, there is no risk if the government does it. This leads to wasted money on illogical ideas/products, slow production and is basically an unending sinkhole of money.
        • PHiZ187, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Privatization is not the answer. Unfettered privatization doesn't make lean, productive companies. It makes companies that do the bare minimum, screw consumers, and enrich themselves. I'm sorry, I have no faith in allowing Exxon, Comcast, Verizon, or Halliburton to run critical infrastructure without oversight. We need leadership that puts the country first, not corporate interests. Your faith in the free market is misplaced. The majority of new business flop, correct? Well I'm not prepared on taking that kind of gamble by turning over our governance to private industry.
          • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1The only thing that has unfettered control is the government, and they are neither cheap nor efficient. The beautiful thing about the market is that it sorts itself out. Just look at Nextel, it had ***** service and terrible phones, and because it was an unsatisfactory company, another company took it over and made it much more reliable.

            A ***** company is going to fail because the consumers vote through their money and influence a companies decisions because of those dollars. A company is not going to do something that is not profitable, and the most profit comes from satisfying the people. Corporate interests are* to satisfy the most people (the country) because that leads to greatest profits.
        • PHiZ187, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1That is the orthodox view of the market, and it is false. We are not talking commodites like corn here, we are talking about the complicated goods of the 21st century. Even your example highlights the failure of the free market. So what, Nextel is now Sprint. Try getting a cellphone in America without signing a 2 year agreement, and relinquishing your right to sue the company for fraudulent or defective service. You can't. Why? Because the cellphone providers operate as cartels and use market power to distort the free market. Seriously. Take Economics 101, and then use that at a lens to look at real life. You'll see the failure of the market time and time again.
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1I can get a dozen different phones with different companies without signing a damn thing. What planet are you living on?
        • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1@PhiZ: You talk as if there are no companies without 2 year agreements and such. Look at Pay As You Go, or even Cricket. Both offer alternatives. If you don't like 2 year contracts you can go to somewhere else. Where there is profit or more options, there will be a company to fill that void and offer services to customers.

          All I see is the failure due to government intervention, time and time again, sorry.
    • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -1/+18@PHiZ187,

      The US spends more per capita on education that almost any nation in the world, yet the education is crap. The Constitution does not permit the federal government to provide education. The federal government has sole control over the education of one city: Washington DC, and that city has the worst schools in the country. It is time to stop trying to micromanage and homogenize the lives of 300 million people from Washington. Each locality should control its own domestic policies, as the Constitution intended.
    • didiman, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3I agree with cutting the wasteful spending. The federal government only has a few basic obligations. If they stuck to those then the country would be much better off.
    • dmadip, on 01/10/2008, -10/+2themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul=themonkman=Ron Paul
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -4/+2You are wrong about our troops over seas. Only if there is order in the world can we hope to maintain a modern lifestyle. And sadly, America is forced to be the leading in this because no-one else is willing to.

      Ron Paul is right on the *budget* and constitutional law. He is dead wrong on monetary policy (in part because he confuses it with the budget and in part because he doesn't understand currency) and he is dead wrong on foreign relations.

      In the last few days I've discovered one of the most stunning pieces of serendipity I have ever encountered. Terry Pratchett's most recent Discworld book is "Making Money". I got the strangest sense of... I don't know... surreal coincidence... as I was reading his understanding of money. We was closely echoing everything I've been saying here on Digg in response to Ron Paul's mistaken beliefs with regard to the nature of money. In the book, the protagonist realizes that money needs no backing because it is in fact backed by the the entirety of the economy. "A dollar is worth a dollar because we say it is". The city [nation] *is* the bar of gold. People value paper currency because everyone has a stake in the smooth flow of wealth. It represents and is backed by whatever you choose to next spend it on.

      It is unbelievably stupid to tie up any kind of wealth stuck in some metaphorical hole because you think currency needs to be backed by something other than what people are choosing to spend it on. *Money* does in fact come out of thin air. It is created to represent the growing economy and all the new goods and services being introduced. *That* is it's justification for its existence. If you are looking for a currency that is backed by solid and reliable wealth, look no further than the US dollar and the possessions and industry of the American people.
      • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1 "A dollar is worth a dollar because we say it is"

        Why isn't the dollar today worth as much as the dollar of 1950?
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2Because there are a lot of people that don't *understand*. Unfortunately, the same people who are stupidly clinging to assets like gold *believe* that the dollar has lost value and so behave accordingly.

          The "we" is the entire population... and some of that population has been misinformed and believe that the dollar has lost value. That's a self-fulfilling bias.

          There are only two things that need to be done to avoid currency inflation (which is a different phenomenon than an actual increase in costs... such as when oil gets more expensive). First, you need to police the currency to insure that it is not being forged and that it is only "printed" to meet legitimate demand. The Fed does an excellent job of the later. Second, you need to educate people so they are not prone to falling for the Big Lies that people like Ron Paul tell.
  • phoobaar, on 01/10/2008, -4/+46I've seen Walker on a few other programs and really admire his candor. We need more government officials like him.
    • mdlestat, on 01/10/2008, -9/+4We'll have a PRESIDENT like him if we pull our collective heads out of our arses and vote RON PAUL.
    • minox, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3Walker told me I have AIDS.
    • Beevo, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1The problem is he isn't an elected official. He doesn't have to pander to special interest groups to get elected, he was appointed. As long as the election system is a ***** as it is currently, you won't likely ever see someone willing to change things in a position of power.
    • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I like him better when he was played by Chuck Noris.
  • Yeshuas, on 01/10/2008, -31/+65Our economy will destroy us before any terroist will. Wake up America we need Ron Paul now!
  • airiox, on 01/10/2008, -13/+40WAKE UP AMERICA! This election matters more than any other election in the history of our nation. If we elect the wrong person to the office this year. There will be no turning back. Rome will fall! You cannot elect patsies like Hilary, McCain and Rudy, otherwise we are doomed. I will leave this great country. Anyone have any recommendations for an alternative that is founded upon what America once was? Civil Liberties, Right to Arms, Low Taxation, Freedom of Religion, Right to Property, with a solid legal system?
    • sprash, on 01/10/2008, -9/+4Well do what you want but please stay out of Europe. Thanks.

      "....Right to Arms,..." phew...
    • BabyWookie, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7I'm curious: where would you go, if you do leave? All the rest of the civilized world is pretty much social democratic, the system which you "libertarians" seem to hate so much. They embrace such "evils" as universal health care, nationalized industries, welfare, etc.
      • Nosnevets02, on 01/10/2008, -3/+6Ok, let's step back, I am by no means a historian, but I'd say during the 1800's our system was fairly libertarian. During that time we went from 13 colonies to one of the world super powers by the early 1900's. After we started the social programs and getting involved in other countries' politics the gap between our country and the other countries in the world has shrunk. Hell, our economy was renowned for its power and now it is crumbling.

        No country can support all these social programs, along with a worldwide military presence. Every single country that has attempted a worldwide military presence has fallen, just look at the Roman Empire.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3Will you acknowledge that the march of time has in fact shrunk the world? What would have once been wasteful, unnecessary foreign entanglements with lands very far away... weeks or months of arduous, dangerous travel... has become a very necessary interest with our close neighbors. "Entanglements" are impossible to avoid because we are living on top one another and need each other as partners in the modern world. We can not stand aloof because there is no longer a safe perch to retreat to. Fortress America has become little more than the next street over.
          • Nosnevets02, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2I completely agree that we need other countries in this world as partners. However there is absolutely no justification for us going around getting rid of certain leaders of certain countries just because they don't agree with OUR countries' agenda. That's like China coming over here and saving us from the genocide of thousands of unborn babies each year. People might not agree with our choices, but they have no right to come over here and build military bases and enforce their lifestyle on us, so how do people justify us doing it to other countries.

            We should trade with other countries and if they engage in activities we do not agree with, hurt them financially by stopping trade and other things, not invading the country.
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/11/2008, -2/+3@Nosnevets02
            Actually, getting rid of leaders we "don't agree with" is the justification. It is the same sort of justification people always use for their actions.

            If nations or other interests with serious disagreements about our actions thought they *could* install their own leaders or impose their own rules in America, they would. After all, that is the point of terrorism.

            And don't speak as if "invading the country" is the only thing we ever do. We do in fact use the entire spectrum of methods of persuasion, from friendly talk to harsh rhetoric to sanctions to invasion. We choose what we believe to be the most effective and least disruptive methods. The middle east is such a mes, invasion is the most effective and least disruptive method. Iraq was invaded because it was vulnerable both militarily and politically. Saddam's past bad acts and untrustworthiness made him easy to topple, giving us a foot-hold or point of leverage in the region. The fact that the traditional home of Islam is acting as engine of hate and violence infecting the entire world makes the need to fix it desperate. If we do not act now, the decades to come will bring globe-spanning violence in the name of Islam that will kill tens of millions. Every corner of the globe is already infected. Populations all around the are falling deeper into the embrace of violent, theocratic influences every day. We are fighting for the future of the human race... a future of liberty and progress rather than a future of chaos and subjugation.
          • Nosnevets02, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2"If we do not act now, the decades to come will bring globe-spanning violence in the name of Islam that will kill tens of millions. Every corner of the globe is already infected. Populations all around the are falling deeper into the embrace of violent, theocratic influences every day. We are fighting for the future of the human race... a future of liberty and progress rather than a future of chaos and subjugation."

            I'm sorry, but that is some of the worst warmongering statements I've ever heard. I think you meant that we are "fighting for the future of the American race, a future of liberty and progress for Americans, rather than properly paying someone for the natural resources their country possesses."

            Al Qaeda specifically told us why they attacked us:

            "He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders."
            - that is per wikipedia. But the 9/11 Commission reported the same thing, I didn't feel like finding the source/page in the report.

            That specifically states that the reason we were subject of the terrorist plot because we were giving aid to the Israelis, had militarily occupied the Saudi peninsula, and politically manipulated their country to hoard their oil.

            Don't you think that the middle eastern people would have welcomed our money in exchange for their oil. Everyone wants to profit, and they just happen to be producing the most valuable asset that the world has at the moment. I'm pretty sure they would have gladly made a trade agreement with us, without us having to invade and occupy their land. By the way, Iraqi oil exports were double what they are currently as a result of our invasion of our country.

            Our occupation of foreign countries just furthers the agenda of the Islamic extremists, and puts everyone in danger of future attacks.

          • WhiteRaven, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2@Nosnevets02
            al-Qaeda is smart enough to understand that one way to weaken their opponents is to appear reasonable. By claiming specific, rational grievances , they weaken our resolve. But those grievances are a smoke screen. Al-Qaeda *also* talks openly of creating a world ruled by Islam through any means necessary. They are simply using plausible grievances to lull you into complacency. To the world medial, they speak of grievances . To their followers, they speak of forcing the world to bow to Allah's will.

            "Don't you think that the middle eastern people would have welcomed our money in exchange for their oil. Everyone wants to profit, and they just happen to be producing the most valuable asset that the world has at the moment"

            No, I don't. Or rather, there is small but vocal, powerful and intimidating minority of middle eastern people that couldn't care less about money except to the extent that it can serve their holy purpose. They are fanatics. This is a matter of religious faith, not reason. And history has shown time and time again that it is small, dedicated groups like this that cause the deaths of millions. Avery slaughter and genocide in history had at it's core people like this.

            You call my speech warmongering. Does that mean it's not a true picture of the world? Are you truly convinced that the world is not in danger? Or is that just what you want to think. Which of us is in denial?

            I honestly don't know why you even mention Iraq's oil exports. How is that relevant when the subject is the fight against fanaticism?

            How can any sane person look at all the various Muslim rebellions, separatist movements and theocratic regimes around the world and claim that there is no danger? You are being willfully blind. From Malaysia to the Sudan to Paris, people are losing rights and freedoms and basic safety to the cult of Militant Islam... and you refuse to acknowledge this reality.
      • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -4/+4Have you ever wondered why all "social democracies" are suffering from shrinking populations? It is because they are contrary to the nature of life. Without struggle and genuine competition, humanity goes the way of so many caged zoo animals. It wastes away in apathy.
        • BabyWookie, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3Social democracies are not exactly communist utopias, you know. Also, what is wrong with shrinking populations? By the way, have you ever wondered why all "Third World" countries suffer from over-population? I completely disagree with the objectivist (and Satanist) notion that we require strife (and chaos) in order to progress and thrive as a species. In fact, I believe that, without strife and the need for constant struggle, more humans will be able to fully unleash their creativity, talents and accomplish great things.
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/10/2008, -4/+2Wow... wrong in so many ways.

            What is wrong with a shrinking population? It will eventually reach zero. That's what's wrong with it. It is a symptom of sickness.

            Why do third world populations suffer from over-population? You need to evaluate the question you are asking. What you really mean is, why do third world countries have trouble supporting the populations they have? At the very abstract and generalized level, the trouble stems from a lack of social tradition in "investment"... and in this case what I mean by investment is building for the future.

            Hey, the developed world certainly suffers from a good deal of "do it cheap, do it now and worry about the future later" but those failings camouflage a lot of basic striving in the name of providing for future generations. While natives of third-world countries certainly care for their children and wish the best for them, they have no faith in the future and there is very little work done towards providing for it. You can't really blame them for their lack of faith given the waves of violence that sweep across such lands. So much gets destroyed so often... which of course is the real problem plaguing the third world.

            "In fact, I believe that, without strife and the need for constant struggle, more humans will be able to fully unleash their creativity, talents and accomplish great things."

            All evidence ever collected on the subject contradicts your belief. A lack of struggle brings idleness. Decadence is a perverted form of creativity, a last gasp before collapse.

            Necessity if the mother of ALL.
          • BabyWookie, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2"What is wrong with a shrinking population? It will eventually reach zero."

            ...or it will reach optimal levels and level off.

            “All evidence ever collected on the subject contradicts your belief.”

            What evidence? Don’t give me any of this pseudo-intellectual Ayn Rand *****. It’s a twisted, evil, anti-human world view that assumes that people need to be enslaved by their unfortunate circumstances and whipped into action. I don’t buy it for a minute. I think that we are a lot better than that and are only going to get better. Excess, combined with ignorance and amorality bring idleness and decadence, not the lack of struggle.
          • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2Note: Please stop using "Satanist" to describe anything you don't like, it's biggotry. I'm okay with people using the term when it's appropriate, but the people are ***** hedonists, they want to avoid strife more than anyone else if anything.
          • BabyWookie, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1@Tiak:

            I meant the LaVeyan Satanism and it is appropriate, in this case. If you compare the philosophies of Objectivism and LaVeyan Satanism, it's easy to note the similarities. In fact, LaVey openly admitted being heavily influenced by Nietzsche and Rand.
    • texpundit, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2I don't know a whole lot about the country, but Costa Rica has a pretty liberal (as in closer to libertarian) society, from what I hear. Belize is pretty nice, too.

      *heads off to the CIA factbook and Wikipedia*
      • nosecohn, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Whoa... you better check that again. I lived in Costa Rica for a while. It's far more socialist than libertarian. The government has monopolies on telecommunications, insurance, electricity and more. As such, depending on where you live, it can literally take MONTHS to get a phone line, and every few years, they literally RUN OUT of cell phone numbers. They're also the only Central American country not to ratify CAFTA. You may be against free trade agreements, but realize that Costa Rica is against CAFTA solely because they want to protect their government-funded monopolies and pension programs. The whole system is centered around entitlements and state control. It's far from Libertarian.
  • stutteringp0et, on 01/10/2008, -4/+30When I talk about the economy and fiat money and the problems that are coming up from not only the failing housing market but the out of control spending, I'm argued with and berated but I never give up. Now I have some proof to show that I'm not just being paranoid! We have some hard times coming and it's about time that someone is coming forward with some sanity!
    • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -3/+2"I'm argued with and berated"

      That's because Ron Paul's monetary policy is retarded.
      • brad3378, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Can you be a little bit more specific than the word "retarded"?
    • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Note: This is an argument FOR fiat currency, not against. Paying China 15 billion in make-believe money is easier than paying them `15 billion dollars of a non-manufactured commodity... Even assuming we suddenly stopped having to pay interest, it would take 173 years of global gold production to reach enough to pay off our debts... With interest, it is impossible, literally.
  • Nitesmoke, on 01/10/2008, -19/+11Wake up!!! *****, I overslept, only 8 people commented that I should "Wake up!!" Damn I'm late for work!! Crap, I need an alarm until they make the comment section able to be read in audio.
  • edstate, on 01/10/2008, -11/+11This isn't left or right. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or Cons... er, wait. It actually is a Liberal / Conservative issue.
    • Tiak, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Not quite, neigher traditional liberal nor tradition conservative positions offer much help... Conservatives want lower taxes, but less spending, which nets out being the same as regular taxes, and more spending... Over the last 25 years, we've had one Liberal president, and he left us without a defecit.
  • zackmario, on 01/10/2008, -5/+55S T O P . T H E . S P E N D I N G
  • chessmasterjoe, on 01/10/2008, -16/+23Gold is $890.00 an ounce. Silver is at $16.15 an ounce. If you have money in the bank it is losing value every day. Invest in gold or silver or donate to Ron Paul. This video needs to go viral. Help spread the word. In 1971 gold was $35.00 an ounce.
    • TherealObadiah, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4That $35.00 in 1978 would be the equivalent of $178.28 today. Gold has indeed increased in value, but not quite as dramatically as you suggest.
      • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Shhhhh don't let logic get in the way of their gold fever.
        • Trykt, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1There honestly isn't much logic in that comment, so I imagine you're just being a troll.

          However, if TherealObadiah can provide more information and maybe a source that would be very helpful. I for one would like to know as much as I can about the value of gold if I'm going to endorse the idea of going to it as a standard currency value.
          • TherealObadiah, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1My bad, I meant $178.28 in 1971, not 1978. That figure is based upon the CPI index.
      • musicbear, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1In a perverse way, I'd like to see Ron Paul elected just so it wouldn't be ironic or sarcastic to say, "and hilarity ensues".
    • fuzzmeister, on 01/10/2008, -7/+3Gold doesn't have interest, however, so you would actually probably make more money leaving it in the bank.
      • pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6not if the interest is lower than inflation.
      • funkywood, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Actually in todays system it does, it's just low. Google "gold lease rates"
      • bsmang, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Maybe it's not technically called "interest", but if you bought an ounce of it 7 years ago, it might've cost you like $275 or something... Now it's nearly $900 for the same piece of gold. Not even credit card debt generates so much income, let alone socking away $275 in a bank for 7 years.
    • WhoDoneIt, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Why would you invest in gold right now. Chances are it won't rise much more. In fact if anything it will drop in price over the next 5 years. It's best to buy things when then are at the lowest, not the highest ever.
      • wayzup, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Gold will always be worth more than paper which is what US$ in any bank is.
      • funkywood, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah. Sell, sell, sell >:)
      • ThyLabyrinth, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1People often confuse the *reasons* to own gold.
        You can invest in gold to sell it again while making a profit, no?

        Another thing is invest in peace of mind; to have possession of gold (and hopefully pass it on to the kids) for those days when all hell breaks loose and your bank closes shop, taking your bank account with it and turning your paper dollar to sheets of tough toilet paper.
        When a day like that comes around, anyone selling anything will most probably accept precious metals for trade.
    • BabyWookie, on 01/10/2008, -1/+9Donate to Ron Paul? Am I missing something here? From what I know, he already has more money than most other candidates and yet, was completely irrelevant in the primaries thus far.
      • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Well, donating wouldn't be bad, but the most important thing is getting educated people to vote. People who actually know about the issues, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE. And I can tell that hasn't been happening so far, simply by looking at who "won" in New Hampshire and Iowa.
  • nathanaver, on 01/10/2008, -10/+39The easiest solution nobody is talking about (except sort of Ron Paul) is to cut military spending to about $120 Billion a year from the current level of $720 Billion. At $120 Billion we would still be spending double that of the next closest country. We can no longer afford to be the world's police and I don't know why we would want to be in the first place. The only people we really hurt by cutting military spending that much is the military-industrial complex, and unfortunately that probably the reason it will never happen.
    • BabyWookie, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4Uh... Kucinich does talk about this. It is a great idea too.
      • nathanaver, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I like Kucinich, but I've heard him talk about a cut on the order of 15%, not 83%. Apparently Richardson has talked about cutting defense spending as well.
      • ThyLabyrinth, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Yeah, OK, fine, but Kucinich also hates the 2nd amendment.
        Taking away the right to bear arms will make SURE Americans can never stand up to tyranny from Washington DC.
        THAT'S the reason it exits. To protect your rights and liberties (in the first place) from gov't encroachment.
        The fact that a firearm also protects life and limb is of secondary importance to the the first IMO.
        Without the 2nd, Bush-Clinton could steal another election in plain sight, laugh in your face and you couldn't do jack about it.
    • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3$120 billion a year!? What about research and development on new military technology? Other countries are not standing still on weapons development, and neither should the US.
  • bohemianowl, on 01/10/2008, -11/+14Looks like Glenn Beck is starting to wise up some. This is so important, please don't bury this bury brigade!
    • spyd3rweb, on 01/10/2008, -6/+8He mentioned Ron Paul once, do you expect the bury brigade not to bury this into oblivion?
    • Wiinii, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2WTF are you talking about, is this the first time you have watched him? This is one of his main talking points!
      • musicbear, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Oh, I thought Glenn's main talking point was to merely keep saying outrageous things on the air to keep his ratings up and thus to keep his job as a marketable talking head. He's a character you know. Like Stephen Colbert? A character. He's a performing talking head. Buy his books, support his talking head. He's sure to thank you personally. Because he's oh so right... because he's on TV and he really GIVES it to those cooky unamerican liberals out there... because he's so smart... and how does he use such a gift of smartness and being so knowledgeable about how the US should conduct its business? By running for office, being involved in civic affairs? By being a party spokesman? NO! By being a loud mouth with enough charisma to keep enough sheep paying his bills by saying those so outrageous, but GOSH DARN TRUTHY THINGS that make REAL Americans just shake their head in agreement! Because he's so real and so honest and so on TV... that makes him so right! Just what is his party affiliation? MOSTLY libertarian? So he can't get cornered one way or the other? Because he's just so cantankerous and ornery that way! You speak it, Glenn! You, Dr. Paul and me... to the promised land!
  • brjohnson789, on 01/10/2008, -3/+14I think people need to realize that it is almost a certainty for the US dollar to eventually be totally worthless due to inflation from overspending. There is no way an elected official is going to want to raise taxes enough to pay for this, not if they like their job. The alternative, cutting spending, would require such massive cuts that special interest groups (I'm looking at you military industrial complex) would complain enough to get the elected folks fired...and on top of that massive cuts in gov't spending would lead to a recession (just in the short term, long term its better for the economy) and people are too dumb to realize that its a good thing and they'd fire the guy then too. So, from an elected person's point of view, if they want a short career they can try to stop this thing. Otherwise, they can just talk about it to get elected, and continue to borrow money to cover the shortfall each year, until our money supply has runaway inflation and there's riots and chaos and bears, oh my!
  • NickSpinner, on 01/10/2008, -23/+14WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU, JUST VOTE RON PAUL
    • JoelBakan01, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3Apparently it doesn't matter how you vote - the election has been decided already. I think people don't understand that most fascist states are "corporatism" and they almost all have glorious elections. It seems most people don't understand what "fascism" really means. I wish this wasn't true but it is and hiding your head in the sand isn't going to solve anything.
    • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2He's a terrible candidate and keeps worse company, no.
      • JoelBakan01, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1No. As an outsider he looks like the one shot you have.
    • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1chaosium is going to vote in some idiot who is not going to do anything about the government over-spending, because he doesn't care about America.
  • PHiZ187, on 01/10/2008, -35/+11Buried because Glenn Beck is a right-wing apologist.
    • Wiinii, on 01/10/2008, -14/+17Buried you because you are an idiot.
    • stalman, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1buried for simplification, a la Glen Beck.
      • deutscher09, on 01/11/2008, -1/+0Buried you because you probably didn't realize that he was interviewing someone who was giving their opinion on the situation. You and your prejudices. Ron Paul would be ashamed of you.
  • Wiinii, on 01/10/2008, -19/+12I saw this live, and the first thing I thought was that this should be on Digg, and POW!, there it is.

    Scary *****!

    Glenn Beck is one of the only people in MSM who tells the truth IMO.
    • davidwasman, on 01/10/2008, -8/+7Your first mistake was admitting you watch this numbskull's show.

      Your second? Thinking he tells the truth.

      You, sir, are the real 'Scary *****'.
      • Wiinii, on 01/10/2008, -6/+5Enjoy your Kool Aid while you read your New York Times. I hate politics.
        • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5"Enjoy your Kool Aid"

          Says the Paulsy cultists.
  • jayfarer, on 01/10/2008, -16/+9Glenn Beck wishes he was Bill O'Reilly.

    He is to O'Reilly as Michelle Malkin is to Ann Coulter.
    • awhiteflame, on 01/10/2008, -6/+5Can you back any of that up? All this hate toward Glenn Beck is pretty incredible; the guy tells it like it is.
      • davidwasman, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5Beck is a jackass. He's a Bush apologist, a hate monger, a liar, a dumbass, and is clueless about history.

        He makes the 'Worst Person in he World' segment so often for his assault on reason and intelligence that he is second only to Bill-o.

        I don't care if he likes RP-- he's a douche and a rat fink bastard. There are reasons people don't like him and if you ar too ignorant to see them as plainly as 99% of us do, then I feel sorry for you.
      • pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -2/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY
        interviewing the first muslim congressman keith ellison
        "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies"
        • awhiteflame, on 01/10/2008, -4/+2Did you even WATCH the video? Did you not hear his full 60 second introduction before he said that? Did you not see Sen. Ellison smiling at the question and understanding what he was saying with no problem? Way to take it out of context. Good job.
          • pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1so he did a 60 second "i'm not a bigot but.." intro. ellison was smiling because he was a class act and didn't sink to beck's level.
      • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2"the guy tells it like it is."

        Why is it that the only idiots who say things like this are those who watch talk radio and looooove TV pundits?
        • awhiteflame, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1"Why is it that the only idiots who say things like this are those who watch talk radio and looooove TV pundits?"

          Prove me wrong.
      • awhiteflame, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1@davidwasman:

        .. You've just called him names, made extremely vague and unclear terms and then proceeded to attack me. How strong do you think that makes your claim seem? Not very at all, to let you know.
    • rex84, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1You mean slightly less obnoxious?
  • Dhalsim007, on 01/10/2008, -10/+4Amen.... STOP THE SPENDING! Only raising the retirement age into the 70s will fix this, to account for our increased life expectancy.
    • airiox, on 01/10/2008, -3/+7Ending Social Security for anyone under the age of 30 and anyone else who wants to opt out. Then cut all social welfare spending. Pay off the debt and work to abolishing the income tax will solve this.
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 01/10/2008, -5/+29I appreciate Social Security. but people need to start saving their money. People have become so dependant on the government for everything that they have no self-accountability
    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4You won't be appreciating Social Security that much when it leads (or is it already happening) to the destruction of our economy and country.
    • jivecjedkin, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Yes, what a novel idea. People taking responsibility for their own lives. We should pitch that idea to all the liberals that want the government to pay for the numerous programs they come up with. I'm pretty sure at least 95% of America has the ability to take care of themselves. But a lot of them would just rather be lazy and wait for their check to come in the mail. I'm sure SS would be nice, sadly I don't think I'll ever be able to experience it. I'm saving up now.
    • AntiClimacus, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2So I am responsible for being in debt to this country misusing its citizen's money on unnecessary foreign entanglements and rampant spending? This seems odd coming from an (apparent) Obama supporter, as he and the rest of the democrats run campaigns promising us that the government *will* take care of us with social programs we don't have the money to afford. We would be accountable for voting platforms like that in to practice.
    • xXRUSHXx, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3If they save they must save in gold or silver. the us dollar is going to be worthless, in a 2 to 3 years time. Sorry people that is the truth.
    • txgentleman, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3the problem is I am forced to pay social security, give me that money and let me use it the way I see fit and invest it the way I want and I wouldn't worry about my retirement
    • brad3378, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Don't get me wrong - I totally agree with you, but I'm shocked to see an Obama supporter endorse not being so dependent on the government. Isn't Obama pushing for government sponsored health care?
  • katorga, on 01/10/2008, -12/+6The 19th century welfare state does not work in modern "productivity" economies. Too few workers are forced to fund too many benefit recipients. You require 7-10 workers per recipient and today we have 2.7. Since the economy is based on consumption, if you increase taxes too much, you kill the economy, and lower your tax revenues. Income taxes don't work in today's economy (especially since the very highest incomes are exempt); you really need a consumption tax.
  • stalman, on 01/10/2008, -13/+1Certainly a topic requiring more attention, but Glen Beck does little to earn my trust by repeating "it's simple" or "the truth". Sorry Glen, but you have no privileged direct access to simple true universe that somehow the rest of the media wants complicate and lie about. Cut the hype and stick to the facts.

    Still dugg because this is important.
    • Kishoba, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1This is very important and we shouldn't be focused on a couple of words he is using.
  • DasCrackbaby, on 01/10/2008, -21/+14The next person that mentions Ron Paul or says "WAKE UP AMERICA" is going to get a swift kick in the balls.
    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4Why? Is Obama even addressing this issue? I don't think so. I don't think he is even aware of it. If so, how in the hell does he plan on having Universal Health Care?
      • rexblade, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1"Please dont interrupt my Brittany updates or any other ignorant bliss"
    • faskippy, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1Kick this, simpleton! You whine and bitch that nobody does anything, then whine and bitch when someone tries. What do ya have, 50 first dates syndrome, or what?
  • fartbuttes, on 01/10/2008, -3/+19NOT dugg because he mentions Ron Paul, but dugg because it's the truth no matter what! If anyone knows what they're talking about it would be the Comptroller General, and here he is saying what logical people have been saying for years, what Al Gore was made fun of for talking about: this country is royally ***** pretty much any way you look at it. Things might seem great for the average American right now (personally I don't think they are and it's more of an illusion than anything) but in 25 years and maybe sooner the ***** is seriously going to hit the fan and this country WILL have a major collapse in financing and probably society in general. Protip: Get your money out of US dollar-based capital and into foreign investments and currencies or precious metals.
  • Sithseth, on 01/10/2008, -12/+16This just refueled my passion for Ron Paul. For awhile there, I was thinking about voting Obama, but after this, I couldn't help but donate another 25 bucks to the Ron Paul campaign.

    We need to ***** do something people! - Change right now is good, not bad!
    • LeadOffMan, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5Obama is not a reasonable replacement for Ron Paul, Obama will trash the economy with his tax increases. But he is a great speaker and has dreamy eyes /sarcasm
      • joosebuck, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3he's also interested in the occupation of pakistan/iran/other middle eastern countries. and hasnt taken military preemptive strikes off the table.

        paul, kucinich, huckabee are the only non-cfr members running for pres. and huckabee is a war pres. that leaves you two real options.
        • ThyLabyrinth, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1The Huckster is CFR.
          Happened like a month or two ago... around the same time his presence in the media skyrocketed (no joke) out of nowhere.
          Huck was an also-ran in the beginning just like Tom "the tank" Tancredo and Richardson.
      • jivecjedkin, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3Don't forget Hilldog. She wants to raise taxes like a *****. I mean, 5000 dollars for each newborn that finishes school sounds nice... but I don't wanna pay for it. Let them work their asses off like I did, they'll appreciate it more. That's just one example.
        • LeadOffMan, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2every 8 month pregnant Mexican will be heading north to get their anchor babies a lifetime's worth of savings (that is for the average Mexican). This is why we need to repeal the 14th amendment asap
    • minox, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5If you can't decide between Ron Paul or Obama it seems like you have no real thoughts on the issues themselves. They couldn't be farther apart on the issues.
  • Frostman3D, on 01/10/2008, -12/+10Ron Paul is right. Wake up people. Vote for Ron Paul, he's really our best hope to get out of this mess and get our country back. What do you think will happen to our country WHEN not IF our economy collapses? Martial law. The fema camps are set up for dissidents. They can legally keep you forever without charging you by calling you an enemy combatant. Wake up America! Please, before it's too late.
    • minox, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Is this Alex Jones himself or just one of his nutter listeners?
  • xobarbarian, on 01/10/2008, -17/+6Universal healthcare will save the country $.

    You Paulites, are wrong to think that his plans will fix all of this. He is right that monetary policy is F'd up the A, but his solutions will not create a USA that I want to live in. I know a lot of you have a romantic nostalgia for the wild west, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to have lived then, and my guess is that you wouldn't want to either.

    • 0nslaught, on 01/10/2008, -4/+11If things continue as they are, it won't be much longer until all social programs collapse for all people anyway. You're the one being unrealistic.

      "The fact is that I’m the only one trying to save Social Security and Medicare. The current administration has stolen all the funds to pay for the war. There’s nothing left. When I end the war, those funds will be returned to our social programs. And I’ve introduced a bill in Congress that would guarantee that those funds can never be taken again." -- Ron Paul

      By the way, what's so horrifying about his plan? The real horror is how many people think we can continue on the same path.
    • leodavinci, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2I dugg your comment up even though I think you are absolutely wrong.

      If our economic policy doesn't change, we will be living in a Mad Max world in 30-40 years. Government spending needs to be cut by like 80%... really, it does. Universal healthcare would SUCK, and healthcare IS NOT A RIGHT. Maybe once we have robots that can do everything it will be, until then you need to realize that healthcare = Doctors, and good Doctors deserve more money. Universal healthcare will make healthcare like our education system, where good teachers go elsewhere or stop trying because going above and beyond is worthless.
    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2You're right. I wouldn't want to live in a free America. Who wants freedom anyway? I'd much rather live in a bankrupt America!
    • brokencrystal, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3"Universal healthcare will save the country $"

      Who will be paying for this? Oh yea, we can just print some more money. No problem.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I call *****. The Federal government cannot manage social security or Medicare or Medicaid what the hell makes you think they can manage health care? Go to a VA hospital if you want to see what your health care future looks like. On that note not everyone needs health care but we all need food so why not have the government give us free food as well? Don't worry about the cost the Fed will just order up some more from the treasury.
  • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -1/+14The only way to save America is to dilligently educate every American so that they don't fall prey to opportunistic politicians and their 30 second sound-bite lies. Cut spending and keep spending low. The government CANNOT be in charge of providing services for people. It inevitably leads to debt, pork-barrel spending, higher taxes, lobbies, opportunistic politicians promising to solve everyone's problem with the wave of a government wand and, ultimately, economic collapse.
  • SiNN4R, on 01/10/2008, -2/+10Economic collapse is hands down the greatest threat to our freedoms. If you think the government is being oppressive now wait until our spending catches up with us. The scariest part is people will welcome the oppression as their saviour from starvations.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6Exactly, just like during the Great Depression when FDR took advantage of America's weakness to implement many of these programs and offices.
  • clickx, on 01/10/2008, -11/+6And this is why I watch Glenn Beck every day. The guy is awesome yet everybody seems to hate him. He doesn't play the liberal/conservative game. He just wants to do what is morally right.
    • jstohler, on 01/10/2008, -4/+4Like supporting the Iraq war? :snort:
    • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4Glenn Beck is an idiot who supports the very war-mongering policies that are bankrupting America, it's just that he's shown some good judgement lately in his choice of guests, and he does deserve credit for that.
  • pintomp3, on 01/10/2008, -2/+8glenn beck wants to cut spending, just not war spending. he's been an avid war supporter from the start.
  • darladoon, on 01/10/2008, -4/+11gee, glen, perhaps you shouldn't have been cheerleading for those trillion dollar wars these last 7 years!
  • detlefsj, on 01/10/2008, -5/+19Ron Paul has been talking about this for 30 year!
  • wayzup, on 01/10/2008, -5/+21Um, Ron Paul and others like him have been aware of this problem for years. Welcome to the party, Mr. Beck....better late than never.
  • jask0, on 01/10/2008, -6/+20Even though I am for Ron Paul...... Ron Paul or not, NO ONE else is talking about this deficit. People are retarded.
    • greenamp, on 01/10/2008, -1/+8Instead they are discussing ways to spend more money, ie, universal healthcare. I could not ***** believe my ears when I heard Fred Thompson ridicule Ron Paul for saying the diminishing American dollar is the real problem and gov't is making it worse by printing money when they need it.

      And yet the rank and file keep trucking on. This country is *****.
  • greenamp, on 01/10/2008, -4/+20Option 3: Kill all the baby boomers.
    • SiNN4R, on 01/10/2008, -2/+9I've been waiting to hear those words all my life.
    • ThyLabyrinth, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1It's not *their* fault!?
      The gov't couldn't keep their grubby hand out of the SS money pot and now it's empty or pretty much near empty. Kill THEM.

      I know, a few hundred won't make a dent like a few million old fuggers would but check this out:
      I'm pretty sure most retired folks will not want their children to suffer or have a worse life than they enjoyed.
      If you explain to them Q-tips that SS entitlements is killing their children financially, I bet they'll relinquish SS to spare their offspring. Any normal parent will give its life to save its child.
    • rexblade, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Im sure the government is considering this in one way or another. On an unrelated note think well see that cancer cure this year?
  • JoelBakan01, on 01/10/2008, -6/+1The world needs to change to the Euro if America can't recover its democracy and soon. Sorry folks but there really is no other option for us "non Americans." The Euro isn't ready yet and is controlled by the international banking cartel which is responsible for destroying the USA, however, the US dollar is completely hooped. Unless the US can grow its GDP at unheard of rates, stop its spending, or start WWIII (which isn't a great option) the world is going to go down with the US.
    • Sidonas, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Please don't say 'Start WWIII' too loudly. They'll hear you.
      • JoelBakan01, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1It's already on the table I'm afraid and inevitable IMO.
    • rexblade, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1So let me make sure i understand. You are aware of IBC and what they are responsible for and you are actually suggesting we let them win?
  • LeadOffMan, on 01/10/2008, -1/+10"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury."
    -Alexander Tyler
    Universal (socialist) Health Care, Social Security, entitlements I'm looking at you
    • JoelBakan01, on 01/10/2008, -4/+2The Economist has been touting the merits of poverty for some time now claiming poor people are happier (provided they have rich people to compare themselves to), proclaiming happiness studies that show people are happiest if they "know their place." The latest issue has an expose on a slum where they show how happy everyone there is. The Economist is a neo-con rag and worth reading to peer into the minds of the corporatist governments mind set. I have been reading it for a while now and it is obvious that the "elite" intend for the USA to become a third world country and in true totalitarian form they want everyone to be happy about it.
    • jbird71, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Funny, I live in Canada... land of entitlements like social security and health care. We run federal budget surpluses of $5+ billion each year.

      I'm not pretending we're perfect or we have no financial problems. But we seem to be doing ok with these "Entitlements" of which you speak. Its about priorities... we get health care and you get war.
  • Pedwidget, on 01/10/2008, -10/+3The only people who are crazier than Ron Paul are the fanatical freaks that support him. And that's a fact.
    • brjohnson789, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4Here's a real fact: you are a douche.
    • rexblade, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Its a fact cuz he says so. LOL Funny he watched(?) the whole clip full of facts and not 1 penetrated his skull. Now douche? Probably. Moron? Defiantly. Its gonna ***** suck if we all end up with the biggest "I told you so" because of people being so arrogant and programmed. I feel sorry for you If you watch this and all you can see is a reason to take a swing at the man who tried to save your pathetic ass.
  • Infowarmachine, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2better invest/save in something besides stock, and FRNs
  • dagoonmaster, on 01/10/2008, -1/+0so who else will come with me to new zealand away .....
    • AntiClimacus, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1If we start looking more and more like the British Empire, I would be tempted to escape to another former colony.
  • jlbarber, on 01/10/2008, -1/+12wow. People are burying this story. Perhaps it's making people too uncomfortable. The truth hurts so lets try to sweep it under the rug.
    • rexblade, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1The neocon machine is just simply running as it has for 50 years. Call it the" I wonder if im in America still and are people still stupid meter"
  • baproamerican, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7VERY INTERESTING!!!! Watch Glen Beck closely when he mentions the name Ron Paul.. He looks away from the camera 2 times as if someone was telling him to shutup about Ron Paul.. the only true economic conservative we have running.
  • BuzzFriendly, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5If you are for "free" health care you need to ask yourself who is going to pay for it. Then you need to visit a VA hospital to see what your are going to get. Then you need to look at how the government runs social security, Medicare and Medicaid they do a great job with those socialist programs I am sure they will do even better with your "free" health care. And while you at it why not free food? I am healthy and really don't need medical insurance but we all need food so why not have the government give us free food? Myself I am a free individual and do not need or want the government to do my part to take care of myself.
  • Swift2, on 01/10/2008, -9/+3What a huge pile of dishonest crap this man is. The money has been put away. The Reagan tax rise (yeah, he did that!) that raised thee payroll deduction has tons of money in it, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Will you be able to retire on that? Not very well, unless you've been saving money. But Social Security isn't a retirement fund, it's insurance. And it will keep paying out on the current level until at least 2040, and probably beyond unless we collapse as a country. It was calculated in the '80s, with the retirement of the huge population bulge of the whole point of the exercise. By the time Gen Y starts retiring, the Boomers will start a massive die-off. Don't worrry so much, and don't follow these snake oil salesmen.
    • thecoolestguy, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Wtf would the comptroller general know right? Your analysis is obviously more credible. [/sarcasm]
    • rexblade, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1It was put away? Phew! And here i thought we were borrowing from China cuz were broke! thanks man I was worried. That must be what all that gold that used to be in Fort Knox is. You know the gold the fed is holding for us. Again I am relieved.
  • baproamerican, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3There is an answer, we can have a, (Hopefully peaceful), revolution and tell all our international/domestic debtors that the american currency is no longer the greenback and that we are bankrupt. Tell all foreign governments we are seizing all american property in order to maintain our national soverignty.Dollars only accepted in America until we get gold and silver coins back in circulation. Basically tell our debtors to go &*^^&$ themselves. Then we can start fixing things again.
    • rexblade, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1Aww but what about the poor globalists theyve tried so hard those poor little powermad soulless traitors.... I hope they wont put up to much of a fuss when the 60 + year plot gets yanked out from under them. They actually should be tried as traitors. But its hard to even get evidence in this country as the Bush administration mocks us daily regarding accountability.
  • Chahrlie5, on 01/10/2008, -2/+5Can we just get rid of ***** medicare and social security already.

    christ
    • rexblade, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1can i get like a 2-4 yr hiatus on that? my grandmas using it at the moment. Actually If our country was allowed to pay what other people do for meds and service like other countries it would be attainable without socializing it. I'm willing to bet no ones medical plans address the price gouging that goes on in us medical market.s Its the whole reason it takes Insurance to pay for anything because there's no way an average person can afford anything w/out getting credit involved which magically benefits the fed/bankers again.
      • Chahrlie5, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1government meddling in healthcare is the biggest factor in high drug prices to begin with.
  • nosecohn, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4This is a VERY important video for everyone to see. David Walker is a true American hero, standing up and saying what everyone needs to know, but nobody wants to hear. Unfortunately, history punishes the prematurely correct.

    The one potential solution that the chart of options doesn't include is the one that the government is most likely to use. They'll force inflation by printing too much money, thereby being able to make the payments to the beneficiaries in the promised dollar amounts, but those amounts won't be worth anything close to what it takes to live in the US.

    The country is facing a serious financial crisis, and nobody wants to talk about it. Americans need to wake up and educate themselves so they can vote responsibly and plan for their future.
  • zyko, on 01/10/2008, -1/+0How can he support the war then bitch about debt?
    • YoHowdy, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1The war isn't the reason we are in debt. It doesn't help, but it's but a fraction of government spending. Interest on the debt is the problem at this point.
    • TanahC, on 01/21/2008, -0/+0How are we cont. to pay for the war if the US is in the red as it is?
      If you are in the red ... do you continue writing hot checks like we are?
      We need to borrow more money from China while they are sitting on gold and we are sitting on....?
      It is cause and effect...Ending war is a start to cut govt spending...:)
  • tokabowla, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2I love all this impassioned "VOTE FOR RON PAUL!" "END SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE" crap. Folks, we can' t even get people to stop beating their kids, being racist *****, eating/talking on a cell phone/putting on make-up while driving, etc. You really thing ANYBODY'S going to do thing-one about this? Hell no. America's fuct. Bottom line.
    • rexblade, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2So do you say this to justify Ron Paul bashing and going to the slaughter while on your cell phone? Or???... If you don't give a *****? Or have the strength of character to take a stand against what you by your own admission know to be wrong. Maybe you should sit down and not disrespect those that do care and are trying. Or grow a pair and exert some positive energy.
    • faskippy, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I personally think that what was promised to those people should be delivered. I also believe that in order to get people off of relying on the govt. for their security in later years, we shou