Who are you voting for in 2012?

[curltron]

Paul Ryan isn't running, and I don't see Ron Paul winning a primary.

Sad days.

 

[Abdel]

Meanwhile, Obama is endoctrinating the youths with socialism:

 

[Abdel]

When spending money on infrastructure is one of your main economic engines, you're screwed.

All the billions spent on education with what result? A total desaster, so sure, keep spending money on governement runned school and don't let in competition (vouchers etc.)

 

[euroazn]

OH THE HORROR PLEASE NOT INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION INVESTMENTS!!!

...

When the Federal government builds bridges/etc to nowhere, you call that infrastructure investment?
Also, our educational investments are going to waste. In the case of my local high school, for example, all the grant money was used to a) make a new stadium
and b) buy smart boards for every classrooms, despite the fact that most teachers use them as blackboards anyway.

 

[euroazn]

So don't vote for Sarah Palin? Isn't she the Tea party sweetheart? Or did she get replaced by "crazy-eyes" Bachman (I'm taking bets on how long it takes for her to explode and shower us with intestines Palin style...)?

Absolutely, I'd never vote for her! Why does this have to be so party based? I'm only discussing this based on political philosophy.

 

[DStahl]

Oh, sure, but you presented an episode perpetuated by Sarah Palin (the "bridge to nowhere") as an example of why infrastructure investment is bad...

So are you saying that bridge to nowheres are good? Because all the "infrastructure investment" I have seen from the stimulus package is exactly that. I used to live in Grand Rapids and the stimulus package funded the repaving of a road that needed no repaving. Plenty of other roads needed repaving, but they didn't bother with those.

When I lived in Europe, it was the same deal. Useless projects intended solely to employ people. They weren't even encouraged to do a good job because otherwise their efforts might not be needed next year when their projects wore out.

Just because Sarah Palin said something does not automatically make it incorrect. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, etc.

 

[curltron]

No, I'm saying it's a singular episode brought upon by an extraordinary individual that should not be used to gauge neither the national use of "infrastructure" funds, nor the need for infrastructure investments.

I know the bridge near my house recently lapsed its expected lifetime. While it's holding up pretty well, I cannot help but wonder what will happen in 10 years. Oh, and that bridge is the Tappan Zee Bridge, one of the nation's busiest toll bridges (being just north of NYC has its demand...).

The argument has never been that infrastructure and education investments are bad, that's ludicrous. The hilarity of that video is that, besides being tailored for elementary kids who have no hope of understanding the message at all much less critically (obvious attempt at brainwashing), it's built upon the false premise that government will today invest in education and especially infrastructure more efficiently than the free market would otherwise via entrepreneurs pursuing profit (the gap between demand of a good/service and the corresponding supply of resources).

I don't know whether or not you had the chance to experience the state of the US public school system, but the difference between a public high school here and a private high school here is absolutely night and day as far as the quality of education, and I've been to both. These politicians are funding/subsidizing, twisting incentives, based off rhetoric and self interest, not based off the collective demand of students and their parents with respect to our constraint of resources.

Here's a great example of some the "infrastructure" that came out of that last "stimulus":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfLQGCbfu4U

And here's some added context on the Salton Sea: (Some infrastructure investment...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otIU6Py4K_A

Here's the take home message of the Salton Sea's infrastructure:
The private sector spending its own money learned from its mistakes. The government spending your money didn't.

Let the private sector keep their money to spend on infrastructure we actually demand and can supply before you waste it brainwashing uneducated children.

 

[boneil]

No, I'm saying it's a singular episode brought upon by an extraordinary individual that should not be used to gauge neither the national use of "infrastructure" funds, nor the need for infrastructure investments.

I know the bridge near my house recently lapsed its expected lifetime. While it's holding up pretty well, I cannot help but wonder what will happen in 10 years. Oh, and that bridge is the Tappan Zee Bridge, one of the nation's busiest toll bridges (being just north of NYC has its demand...).

Q4 - Is the Tappan Zee Bridge safe?
Yes, the Tappan Zee Bridge is safe. The New York State Thruway Authority operates a regular program of scheduled maintenance designed specifically to ensure that the bridge is safe for travel. The bridge also receives a detailed inspection every two years by qualified engineers.

http://www.tzbsite.com/about-study/about-study-index.html

Lulz, the tappan zee blows man. I'm an animagus so when I need to cross the hudson I just turn into a bird and fly over.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

That video of the kids disgusts me. Why? Because they're just parroting things. They have no hope of understanding it, when the rest of us can't make heads or tails of it very well, either. The idea that a tiny tax per trade on Wall Street would be good is ludicrous. It would destroy entire businesses, make liquidity dry up, and create massive volatility in the markets. That said, corporations indeed are not people.

 

[curltron]

I thought the GOP debates tonight were extremely disappointing. I really can't find a candidate I can stand behind. Ron Paul is absolutely spot on on many, many things, but completely off on others in my opinion, gold standard, destroying our defense.

As dangerous as the Fed is potentially, I think the source of it is deficit spending, and Ben Bernanke's incompetence. This is a poor time to be experimenting with "Quantitative Easing"/Money Printing. But we certainly need the Fed to stabilize inflation, contrary to the business cycle which Bernanke seems to be interested in. The gold standard, while nice that it keeps incompetence out, leaves the door wide open to unexpected inflation if say a huge gold deposit is found. Keep in mind this could happen at anytime, also dangerous but now less predictable and controllable.

 

[Noko]

I thought the GOP debates tonight were extremely disappointing. I really can't find a candidate I can stand behind. Ron Paul is absolutely spot on on many, many things, but completely off on others in my opinion, gold standard, destroying our defense.

As dangerous as the Fed is potentially, I think the source of it is deficit spending, and Ben Bernanke's incompetence. This is a poor time to be experimenting with "Quantitative Easing"/Money Printing. But we certainly need the Fed to stabilize inflation, contrary to the business cycle which Bernanke seems to be interested in. The gold standard, while nice that it keeps incompetence out, leaves the door wide open to unexpected inflation if say a huge gold deposit is found. Keep in mind this could happen at anytime, also dangerous but now less predictable and controllable.

He doesn't want to destroy our defense, he wants to destroy our bank-breaking offense and nation-building foreign policy.

 

[curltron]

He doesn't want to destroy our defense, he wants to destroy our bank-breaking offense and nation-building foreign policy.

Well, in all honesty, I don't think either of us know how much of a cut he actually wants. I also think if you cut enough offense, you potentially add net costs inefficiently rebuilding in the event you need to take serious action or retaliate.

 

[Abdel]

He doesn't want to destroy our defense, he wants to destroy our bank-breaking offense and nation-building foreign policy.

It's more simple than that.

If you don't follow the constitution = you're not an american.

if you don't love freedom (economic and personal) = you're not an american.

RP only defends the constituion and freedom. So unless you're unamerican, how can someone go against him?

 

[DStahl]

If you don't follow the constitution = you're not an american.

if you don't love freedom (economic and personal) = you're not an american.

So most Americans (and all American politicians with the possible exception or Ron Paul) are not American?

 

[Abdel]

So most Americans (and all American politicians with the possible exception or Ron Paul) are not American?

Yup.

A constitution is a social contract. If one party doesn't respect it, then the deal is off =)

 

[groy]

Economically I'm a moderate and socially I'm a libertarian. I thought Gingrich was the best the other night. I'll probably be voting for Obama unless someone like Bloomberg steps in as a third party. Maybe because its the primaries, but all the Republicans seem so far to the right its hard to take them seriously. Not raising the debt ceiling would have been terrible and I have a hard time believing Romney or Gingrich would have let that happen if they were in office. Other than Paul all of these candidates scare me on social issues, but it's definitely not as important to me as the economy right now.

 

[curltron]

We're not dealing with one dimensional problems. There are an infinite number of ways to solve them within the bounds of the constitution while protecting freedom. RP is right on many, many things, but he's certainly not the way, truth, and the light-- far from it in my opinion.

But to groy, I still think that any of the poor candidates in that debate the other night are better for this country than Obama.

 

[Abdel]

You're not an American. You've likely never visited, and if you ever did it was for a very short time. What gives you the right to call an actual American (me) not an American? The gall some people have...

Once again, due to your lack of valid arguments, you answer me with personal attacks based on no facts.

If you intend to continue on this path, please do no quote me anymore.

As I said, once you become a citizen of a country, it means you ''sign'' a contract and that contract is THE CONSTITUTION.

And guess what? You have to RESPECT and OBEY the contract. If you don't like the contract, move to another country.

 

[DStahl]

Because he's hypocritical and just another politician trying to get somewhere with a suddenly-hip "don't tell us what to do" agenda that resonates well with rebellious teenagers and college kids?

He hasn't really changed his beliefs in the over 30 years he has held public office, so to say he is merely riding a sudden tide is unfair.

Because he wants to run the country based off of tenets made in the 1700s with no update for modern times?

Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard are all 20th century figures. Austrian economics is newer than Classical economics. That said, bringing time into a debate is fallacious...the time at which a statement is made is irrelevant to its accuracy.

Because he is against tariffs and taxes and plans on paying only his own salary in the government?

He is against income taxes, not taxes in general. We did quite well without an income tax for ~135 years.

Because he doesn't acknowledge that sometimes you have to make people/corporations do things they may not want to do, and this is the basis of civilization and what sets us apart from apes.

Force is the basis of civilization? Now you sound Fascist.

 

[Abdel]

I remember becoming an American. Nowhere did anyone make me pledge or say anything even remotely resembling or that can in any way be interpreted as "you must endorse Ron Paul and his ideas or leave". Sorry.

Here is a 'passage' of the pledge:

''I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution...''

And guess what Ron Paul defends? The CONSTITUTION!

Please, do not quote me anymore.