May 16, 2007

Ron Paul on the US Dollar and the Central Bank

Anyone see the Faux News GOP debate last night? I assume they didn't give Ron Paul much time, and when they did I assume they tried to sabotage him pretty good. Nice to see he finished 2nd in the Faux News poll though. That must have pissed 'em off right good.

Hopefully there'll be some youtube video clips late today. For now, enjoy this discussion of our friends at the Fed, and our ever shrinking dollar.

Subscribe to the Ron Paul YouTube channel here

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Look out everyone, there's a fed monster hiding under your bed!!

Anonymous said...

Does anyone want to go back to 1971 US standard of living? I don't.

Benjamin Franklin said...

Regardless of the truth of what he says, the guy is talking over 99.9% of people's heads....

Anonymous said...

1971 had a better standard of living... real jobs. real families. real equity in things. college tuition at harvard was 5grand.

I'll take 1971 over this Twighlight Zone of 2007 anyday.

Anonymous said...

I'd take 1971 too. I'm only 25 yrs old but I can tell you that the sense of community amongst my parents friends and neighbors is nothing like lack of community found in these suburbs built in the last 20 yrs..

Now, everyone is competing to be better than everyone.. and when you finally snap to it.. You've realized you've wasted days on the internet and days workings.. only to have stuff in your house but nobody but blogs to talk to..

Anonymous said...

1971 was the MUCH better standard of living. We didn't yet have the government making policy that caused manufacturing jobs to go overseas and eliminate decent wages.

The housing bubble exists for one purpose only: to make us forget that there is no manufacturing base in this country anymore. We have temporary "riches" from our equity debts, but that is fast running out.

When that is gone we will realize that we have no jobs except service "industry" jobs, where we shuffle McBurgers to each other.

1971 was the far better year.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 1971 was terrible, I mean, many middle class families had decent manufacturing jobs and could afford a median priced home with the median wage they made using a 30 year fixed mortgage. Truly terrible- douche

Greg said...

Let's see:
Real wages less today than 1971.
More debt today than 1971.
Fake jobs today, real jobs 1971.
Higher cost of medical care today than 1971.
People more polite and friendly in 1971.
Infrastructure crumbling now but good in 1971.
Take me back!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
1971 had a better standard of living... real jobs. real families. real equity in things. college tuition at harvard was 5grand....

Yes. Anon is correct. My dad, worked and supported three kids, was able to pay for a 4 bedroom home with a pool on a small lake with a small outboard boat. He was able to send the three of us to private school and put two cars - pontiac grand safari wagon and a chevy nova (both new) in the garage. Mom stayed at home.

nobody can do that today.

Tuition at Notre Dame? Today is 40,000 a YEAR!!

Little by little, american have been F'ed by the POWERS THAT BE.

Anonymous said...

You know, i hear shills on the radio saying we dont need those lo tech manufact. jobs. BS! we are now outsourcing the Hi-tech jobs, so what is left?

Everyone hear about the Pasadena Cali news wanting to outsource its local news reporter to India?

WTF!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I'd take 1971 too. I'm only 25 yrs old but I can tell you that the sense of community amongst my parents friends and neighbors is nothing like lack of community found in these suburbs built in the last 20 yrs..

Now, everyone is competing to be better than everyone.. and when you finally snap to it.. You've realized you've wasted days on the internet and days workings.. only to have stuff in your house but nobody but blogs to talk to..

+++
Very insightful, especially for a 25-year-old.

I was 12 in 1971. What a simple time that was! I would take 1971 back in a heartbeat.

Anonymous said...

I would take 1971 with its 190 million people (instead of 300 million) but with the technology of the past 30 years (which isn't due to the "Fed" so it's not hypocritical).

Times were nice back then, but cars didn't last as long. No cable, 4 TV channels, no internet, computers? None.

Mostly I just wish there weren't so many people, traffic, congestion, strip malls, knocking down trees to put up more crap, etc.

Anonymous said...

If you think 1971 was better than today you are bigger crackpots than I thought.

Anonymous said...

Only people who wish to go back to 1971 are racist middle aged white men who can't compete against women/minorities and blue collar slobs who can't do anything other than work on an assembly line.

For the rest of us, we'll take 2007 thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

Another Louis T. McFadden, watch out for those mysterious deaths.

Anonymous said...

I guess in 1971 someone with a 10th grade education could live a middle class life. Today he can't, ergo the success of HP, a home for $9 an hour renting tools.

I hope you're all replacred with illegals soon enough.

Anonymous said...

1971 rocked:

$3 a minute long distance calls, Vietnam, cars that got 8 MPG, no internet, no cell phones, no such thing as a home computer, E. Europe held hostage by communism, abortion was illegal....oh yeah a great time!!

In 2005 dollars:

2006 Median income: $46K
1971 Median income: $37K

In current dollars:
1971: $9000
2006: $46,000

Sounds like the bitter renters here are also bitter they're still making 1971 wages.

Suckers!!

Anonymous said...

I'd rather go back to 1929 right before the stock market crash. Everybody was making money. The 1998-2000 dotcom era was good too. The NASDAQ was at 5000 and HTML coders were making $150K. These days an HTML coder would make $20K

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons health care costs so much more now than then is that they can actually treat diseases like cancer instead of letting you die. You were also a lot more likely to die in a car crash than have expensive injuries to treat. I'll take 2007.