And crazier than a shithouse rat

Well, it looks like you guys behind Romney are in luck. He's got this in the bag. I seriously doubt that he ever hasn't, but still. It's been an entertaining show, in any case.

Can anyone justify why Rick Perry is still in the Race? If he got in to stop a Romney nomination, the best thing he can do for that cause right now is to get out. Mitt only won Iowa because the vote against him was split in 5 different directions, and his staying in won't help that.

Really, I don't understand any of them anymore. Gingrich seems to be the only one who understands that if they don't go after Romney, they don't have a prayer. Santorum had a chance to prove himself, but spent all weekend going after Paul instead of Mitt, as though Paul was ever going to be anything but inconsequential. It seems like Romney's the only one of these guys who can run a campaign.

phantasmzombie wrote:

I'd like very much to debate and discuss how Ron Paul is crazier than a shithouse rat. I think his positions on a non-interventionist foreign policy and sound money are resonating with a lot of groups of people who decide elections, young people, independents, cross over voters ect.

I would apply that label to any candidate who supports the dissolution of the FAA, the return to the gold standard (which is just completely unsustainable in a modern economy) and a complete removal of almost all business regulations, down to the FDA, crazy. I'll call any candidate who attacks the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional crazy.

As for his electability, I think you're mistaken. No candidate who advocates ending Medicare and Social Security will play well to independents. Young people would vote against him when they found out that he'd cut federal student loan guarantees (which is the only reason student loans go out as often as they do). Paul does alright now because he's never had mass exposure, or scrutiny. Expose what he really thinks about all those programs that people support and depend on and I think you'll find that he's much less successful than you think he is now.

whoo...this could take a while. Be prepared for a long post, because this is a complex issue.

Quote:

I was taught that Nixon did a good thing in getting us off of the gold standard, but the more I think about it, I remember how after he did this, the 70s was full of unstable monetary policy and high inflation until Reagan came to power (or should I just blame OPEC & Carter for those problems?).

Nixon moved off the gold standard because of financial instability, not the other way around. Essentially, when the oil embargo hit it spiked gas prices to then unheard of levels (we're talking a 600% increase within a year) and it sent prices of goods skyrocketing. The idea of the gold standard was that all of the US dollars were backed by gold and could be exchanged for it at any time. Well, when the dollar itself started to be worth less, other nations who tied their currencies to the dollar (particularly European) demanded the exchanged, which would have devalued the dollar even further. Nixon just decided to bail on the system and adopt a floating currency.

Quote:

Without the gold standard to backup the greenback, the dollar seems to just become a piece of paper that can be deflated or inflated at will by the printing press in this shared illusion of value

The US has a floating currency. This means instead of being tied to a commodity (gold) or another currency, the value of the dollar is entirely dependent on the state of trade and the economic output of the United States as it compares to other countries. It's extremely complicated, but it allows prices and the dollar to adjust to rapid changes in the economy. It's theoretically true that the US could print a ton of money and create its own inflation crisis, but that never happens because the FED is ultimately in charge of the printing. They can't exactly set the value of the dollar, just print more of less of it to change the supply. The reason the FED's never acts recklessly with the privileged is that the FED itself is a congregation of the bankers, who are in the greatest position of vulnerability if sudden changes in the dollars value happen. They act carefully because they depend on stability.

It's funny you bring up Reagan. Reagan inherited the worst hyperinflation crisis since the Great Depression (in the current crisis, inflation has been a non-issue, even if unemployment has been high). To combat it, he ordered the FED to jack up interest rates so that unemployment would be artificially inflated. Businesses couldn't get loans because they were so expensive, and people/businesses who saved benefited from the high rates, so there was essentially a hiring freeze. Because of the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment, driving the employment down drove the inflation down. Once prices were under control the economy began to recover, he lowered the rates to normal levels and unemployment normalized.

I bring this up because Reagan used monetary policy, which is almost impossible to do under the gold standard. On a commodity standard, interest rates and currency values are based on the amount of gold that's available and the current price of gold which fluctuates just like everything else. If prices had gone up because of oil prices, nothing could have been done about it. On top of that, there are times (and admittedly, not at the moment with the economy being so bad) in which the US economic output, in dollars, can't be sustained by the amount of US owned and market circulating gold. Trade becomes a great deal more difficult under a commodity standard because any outgoing USD needs to be backed by a specific amount of gold, and with trade across the world exploding, that's not always possible. Under a fixed standard, if the price of the standard drops, the currency changes and inflation happens, and there are no measures to fix it. Also, if once country decides to buy up huge gold stocks to drive down prices, they can (as we did to the British silver standard back in the 19th century) and there's nothing the US can do about it.

To sum it up, there are a lot of reasons that we left. No major, 1st world economy operates on a fixed exchanged system, which is telling of the limitations it forces onto countries trying to participate in the international market.

Thanks. I studied a lot of international finance for my econ minor. It did me a fat lot of good, as I'm now working as campaign staff, but I did at least learn how to talk about the issue in a way that people can actually understand.

Quote:

I've always liked the Fed, as it provides stability & regulating of the monetary supply & banking system, but the QE stuff lately has been unsettling for me, so I've been somewhat susceptible to that audit the fed propaganda

The way I feel about the FED is that they really are the best people to do the job they're tasked with. They provide stability to the currency because they depend on it. They are the least likely to fuck it up because they're the ones who will hurt the most if they do.

And the idea that the body that values currency should answer to the public is absurd. One thing you learn very quickly in political work: this "public" that everyone thinks so highly of doesn't know jack about technical issues. Some things should just be left to professionals, because the public is panicky and constantly asking for the government to "do something" even when that's a bad idea.

Quote:

Ah, cool. Are you working for Obama, or some local politician? I think you're from Illinois like me, but I don't think there's any major local election for us in 2012, is there? Edit: Although, there is the congressional races after the redistricting. (I really wish a non-partisan committee did that. Illinois is gerrymandered for the dem party even worse now, just how the GOP has terribly gerrymandered Texas and the like. It's a real, national problem.)

I refuse to work on presidential campaigns. It's just too hard to distinguish yourself.

I'm on a Congressional Democrat's campaign. We're going to lose, as we're in really Republican suburban Chicago, but it's a job, it's in my field and the guy writes a good check. Considering that I'm only 23, and I'd been stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart before this, it's a good position to be in.

But yeah. We totally fucked you guys on redistrict. And it was actually a Republican law that allowed them to do it, since they passed the law thinking that they would have the majority to do it to us. Gerrymandering is shitty, no matter who's doing it.

I remember that Illinois, at one point, had a "pterodactyl district", which was a state senate district shaped exactly like that. It had wings, a head, a beak and little feet.

Quote:

Congrats dude, you've gone farther than I was able to in the field. I did some volunteer work in Indiana through Jerry Weller from the old 11th district fresh out of college in 2002, but wasn't able to get a full-time job with them. After the campaign they asked for my resume for some openings they had, but I never heard back from them. The volunteer work didn't leave a good taste in my mouth anyway, so maybe it was a good thing. It's a dirty business, sadly. (I still wish I was a part of it though, heh.)

I like it, and I've been at least volunteering on various campaigns since I was 16. This is my 3rd campaign as paid staff and I'm actually hoping to move to a job managing my own State Senate campaign come March. For now, though, I work for a private consulting firm.

It's exciting work. I like the game of politics, and it's always been the hobby I've followed in lieu of sports. If you ever want to hear some wild drinking stories, ask campaign staffers about election parties...