RON PAUL Interview on economics - part 2

RON PAUL Interview on economics

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• RON
• PAUL
• mccain
• romney
• hillary
• clinton
• obama
• giuliani
• election
• 2008
• liberty
• usa
• youtube
• google
• yahoo

[ShionShinRa]

I USE to laugh at people who told me America was losing their rights Since they never explain how or why we are losing our rights I would laugh because to me it sounded like they didn't know what they were talking about. It was as if they heard someone said it before and now they just believed it.

BUT Ron Paul is the FIRST one to explain how and why we are losing our rights. I do not laugh now.

I back Ron Paul 100%

[takadi]

First off, if we cut the personal income tax, our revenues would go back only 2000 levels. Second, the military ISN'T going to be sitting on their thumbs, they are gonna be patrolling the border for illegals and terrorists like they should instead of patrolling Iraq and Syria. Third, the LEAST we need to do is cut back programs and departments back to 2000 levels, mostly the ones Bush set up, because we don't NEED them

[maj1kninja07]

@takadi English your 2nd language? also how about 1900-1910 ish?

[ronpaulplz]

to ananiasacts: gold shouldn't be money because I or Ron Paul says so, gold arose out of the market. You need to take a class in Austrian economics and learn a little bit about marginal utility and why money must be a commodity. I don't appreciate lames like you acting like you even commenting on Dr. Paul. You are uninformed at best.

[ananiasacts]

The reason that the taxing authority of our government is a better store of wealth than gold is because it is the government that enables us to use any currency--that prevents others from just taking if from you by force or fraud. If the government fails your gold won't be of much use. The taxing authority of the federal government came early in the 20th century. Before that it wasn't possible to back a currency with anything except a commodity (tobacco, silver, then gold.) Mr. Paul is wrong.

[beancube2008]

Think deeper if you will. What he wants is going back a century. Paper money is a good failure. The detachment of the old possession scheme using money management is an evolution. When can gold and money not take over necessities for majority of population? The market failed good so we would see a new light of the brilliant basic life. Look at our taxation and wars, economy should fail so we can reason to the corrupted authorities for owing lesser to our children. Change that is the way to go.

[jbs4life1]

Nicely said

[unmovedbydeath]

Reply to CILDLEFTBEHIND PART 2- More schools, with better budgeting abilities and lower per course fees would crop up. They would do so to take advantage of the potential capital. Unsubsidized they would have to also step up the education, finding new ways at a low cost, or succumb to extinction at the hands of another school which offers a better package

[unmovedbydeath]

Reply to CIlDLEFTBEHIND- Not to mention, if society became like you said (which it won't) in regard to college- would schools not lower their prices so that they could maintain the same amount of enrollment? Wouldn't they stand to seriously hurt by schools which have lower tuition costs if they did not? That is competition, and thats what polices a free market.

[unmovedbydeath]

When people have more money because they are not being taxed into the dirt for unconstitutional programs and mismanagement of funds, and when the value of the dollar goes up driving prices back down, funding for education will be more plentiful in a family.