June 24, 2007

The second quarter is coming to a close. Watch Ron Paul shock the GOP with the amount of $$$ he raised...

Of course, if you'd like to get that total up even more, you can send RP a few bucks here

Beauty of the internet. A million $10 donations is a lot more effective than parties with fat cats and NAR lobbyists any day

My guess - RP is gonna be #4 in GOP fundraising (assume Fred's #s won't be in Q2), potentially coming close to DOA McCain at #3. And watch for McCain and a few others to be dropping out by September

RP gets to #3 in fundraising and the media will have a cow!


Anonymous said...

here in minneapolis, we're getting ready for a great ron paul meetup and on the 30th, we're driving down to Iowa and, rumor has it, he's going to be there to say hi!

Anonymous said...

If Paul outraises McCain last quarter, McCain will drop out immediately

Anonymous said...

James Carville predicts that the GOP's nominee in '08 will not be any of the media darlings currently considered "front runners". He also said the Dems could only lose through some miscalculation or gross error, and they are perfectly capable of both! Funny guy.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

by Jes Black
Editor & Publisher FX Money Trends
June 20, 2007

In our weekly reports, we often take the classical view on money. While we admit that monetarism may fail as an easy policy approach, from a fundamental standpoint, the supply of money will ultimately decide the long term rate of interest.

The classical view holds that interest rates will adjust to the equilibrium level between savings and investment. The prevailing Keynesian view is that interest rates will adjust to the supply and demand for money.

When we speak of money supply, we are talking about money and credit created. But what is conspicuously missing from this classical versus Keynesian view is the effect of interest owed to national debt which is the purely Keynesian phenomenon.

Consider that the current national debt is $8.4 trillion dollars, which amounts to roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. In 2005 there were approximately 113,146,000 households, which means each household’s share of the national debt is $74,000.

In 2005, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $46,326, or just 62% of the total owed by each family.

While this does not seem daunting, the fact is that because of this ratio current income taxes collected by the IRS pay off only the interest on the debt owed. This is part of the reason that the government continually spends more than it receives – because tax receipts pay only interest owed on the debt.

However, if the US government were to follow GAAP accounting rules the net present value of future unfunded liabilities approaches $50 trillion dollars or $441,906 per household.

Now consider that the average household income is just 10% of each household’s share of the net present value of future unfunded liabilities. Therefore, at the rate that debt is increasing, eventually we'll reach a point where even if the government takes every penny of its citizens' income through taxation, it will still not collect enough to keep up with the interest payments.

As we said in our regular weekly report last time, “Googlers, we might call them, by an overwhelming majority have voted for the libertarian minded Paul, to the point that the results are so far skewed from a normal distribution bell curve that organizations like MSNBC, CNN and others have questioned the validity of their own polls.”

One of reasons we think netizens are seeking out more information on Ron Paul is that the debt burden is a future problem that will have to be dealt with primarily by Generation Xer’s. As a proponent of ‘sound’ money, Mr. Ron Paul is generating the most interest of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, according to mainstream online polls.

In the financial markets, the main pillar in government backed securities is the ability of the said government to tax citizens or send them to jail. But if debt reaches a point where even taxing every cent made only covers the debt, then any net new borrowing will not be able to be paid for. At this point, the basic supply and demand function of either classical or Keynesian theories will succumb to the reality that the government needs more money and that while there may be willing lenders, the risk premium attached to that lending must be higher.

We have harped on this point for a number of years and is the main pillar of our contention that U.S. interest rates will rise, regardless of a “savings glut” or whatever other moniker they ascribe to this imbalance. As such, we think that long term yields are breaking out and after a needed pullback, the next big move in yields is higher. Much higher.


Anonymous said...

we are all getting together in the tampa bay area and posting Ron Paul signs everywhere for July 4th :-)

Anonymous said...

I have thought of making bumper stickers "Ron Paul - Last Chance for America" (and I truly believe this is our last chance).

Unknown said...

I'm at $200 sent in, and my father has sent $1000 so far. Let's get those numbers up!

Anonymous said...

For the first time in more years than I can remember, I am not only proud but galvanized by a candidate running on one of the two party tickets: Ron Paul. I was just inspired by this recent Housing Panic Blog message to contribute $100 to Ron's Campaign, so thank you.

The Fourth Estate (ie mainstream press) continues to fail us because the corporations who run them decide what people will hear and read. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but the internet offers the opportunity to redress this balance. Most of what I know and trust about Ron Paul I obtained through the internet. I hope that maybe there is a chance to "kick-start" Ron Paul's campaign to the fore front.

Anonymous said...

$1000 to Ron Paul's campagin.

Since Im an renter, and saving so much money, Ill contribue a $1000.

So happy NOT to be a homedebtor !

Anonymous said...

While I like Ron Paul for what appears to be his unfailing honesty and truthfulness, I looked at his site and see he's strongly pro-life: he says he's overthrow Roe V. Wade?

Now that seems a bit odd to me: I thought the guy was a libertarian candidate in the past, and professed that government shouldn't intrude on the lives of citizens. I'm not sure why women aren't supposed to make decisions pertaining to their bodies?

I'd love for Paul to be given attention: other than the pro-life stance, I think he's exactly what we need to provide a ray of hope during what may be dark times.

blogger said...

I disagree with Paul on Roe but understand his view - that the federal government should get out of this and the states should decide

Very consistent with his states-rights stance

here's an article

Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action. Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.

Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle. There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to surrender important moral and political principles.

Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.


blogger said...

I also think anyone needs to think long and hard about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' when thinking about what to do with the abortion issue

life - whose life?
liberty - whose liberty?
pursuit of happiness - whose pursuit?

You have two people - the baby and the mother - with very different need states, thus the inherent conflict that will never be resolved


Anonymous said...


I think you are wrong on the abortion issue. It has been resolved in the arguably most catholic country on the planet, Italy. It is legal and used.

I think our country is full of whack jobs when it conmes to abortion and evolution and state's rights. Ron Paul is one of the wackos. I seem to remember fighting a war about state's rights...hmmm who won that one? Oh yeah the ones who said the feds trump states. This is just Newt Gingrich rehash and his BS history nonsense. Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

I sent $100 today. I am forwarding Paul's youtube clips to my friends and family.

The Thinker said...

Why don't you all find a more deserving candidate to support. Ron Paul may seem like a breath of fresh air because of how awful the Bush administration has been, but Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. No, not because he doesent get main stream media, but because his ideologies are not practical. We need a leader who is principled yet practical, someone who will point America in the right direction.

R.P. is just capitalizing on public disappointment for Bush, but any vote for any Republican would be an undeserved reward for a party that has failed us.

The next American president should be a Democrat. I'm voting for Hillary.

blogger said...

I didn't state my position on abortion - I gave you ron paul's thinking

however, here is my position on the abortion issue

there is no "right" position, except all would likely agree that abortion is a bad thing

so first you work on the supply side of the equation - condoms in schools, massive sex ed, adoption incentives, etc. to reduce unwanted pregnancies

next you tackle it from a demand side, and legal perspective. you must start with what does the constitution say (although our leaders don't do that)

the constitution says "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

if it's a woman's desire to have an abortion for her liberty and pursuit of happiness, then per the constitution, she is entitled to do that, even if we don't want that. it is her decision.

however, it is her decision up to the point where the unborn child could live outside the womb, because then it is a life and has constitutional rights. this is not a state issue as the constitution trumps any state desire.

if a woman wanted to kill her father, she can't do that, as the father has constitutional rights. if she wants to kill her baby, she can't do that if the baby would equal a life outside of her

so.... ugly as this is, my legal position is that abortion must be legal, under the constitution, in all states, up until the point that the unborn life could be sustained outside the womb

I think most would agree that a woman should not be able to get an abortion 9 months after conception. 8 months? no. 7 months? no. keep going down the scale, and at one point there is a threshold that would be agreed to by general scientific principal. that is your limit. and this limit will continue to shrink as science for newborns gets better and better.

to put this into law is tricky. but that's what has to be done.

and that is my position. which does not agree with Ron Paul's

blogger said...

as to the thinker - ron paul is a credible candidate, a 10 term congressman, and a champion of the constitution, low taxes, low spending and limited government.

the fact that you think he is not credible shows how serious the problems facing America are

meanwhile, hillary has no shot of winning the presidency. she is not a serious candidate for the job

and that's my take.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is going to need people - as many people as love liberty - in Ames, Iowa Aug 11 for a "shock and disbelief" sandwich. This sandwich is to be served to the mainstream media on that date or shortly therafter.

Anonymous said...


Nixon with a skirt.

RP is a credible candidate, and this election is up for grabs as the next generation weighs in.

Anonymous said...

Abortion, gays in the military, pick-your-wedge-issue, who cares? These are just red herrings to keep people from basing their votes on real issues.

The current abortion laws are not going to change; states already have some variety of abortion policy, don't they?

As far as the constitution, this applies to human life. The notion that human life begins at conception is pure religious speculation. Our humanity IMHO is defined by self-awareness.

Like you said Keith, we don't need to allow 3rd trimester abortions. You know you're pregnant, decide right away, or stick it out for 9 months.

The biggest joke is the conservative Christians. No condoms, no sex, and no abortion. Oh, but unless you wait till you are 27 and have your graduate degree and your career on track, you are going to have to work for the slave wages of illegal labor. Oh, and I hope your wife can stay home with the baby in your 500K starter home with 4000 dollars in monthly payments/taxes. And we wonder why whites don't have kids.

God developed humans to want sex starting in the very early teens. People from the ages 10 thru 30 focus 95% of their energy on the mating dance in some way or another. These are anthropoligical realities. Let's start with what nature intends and develop social policy from that. Now, that is respecting the will of the LORD.

By the by, I was raised Catholic/ currently Buddhist, am conservative, totally support Ron Paul, 38 years old, white, no-kids and no plans to have any. I still can't stop looking at girls half my age and feel no guilt about it.

The Thinker said...

Keith said, "the constitution says 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' "

Actually Keith, that is from the Declaration of Independence. While that is also an important document, it has no legal standing.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution holds that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.

But back to the abortion issue, there are really two issues here: (1) should abortion be legal, and (2) does the Constitution mandate that abortion should be legal.

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade came to the bizarre conclusion that the Constitution protects the right to an abortion.

Therefore, I am strangely for protecting women's right of choice, but I think the court in Roe v. Wade was inappropriately interfering in the democratic process.

Anonymous said...

m reynolds, the populace of Italy is about as Catholic as an ACLU convention; the country just happens to embrace Vatican City, and produce a lot of cardinals. Italians don't go to Mass; they don't get married, and don't have kids.

Ron Paul is right on abortion. Having federal courts decide the issue uniformally for every single American actually takes away our right of political choice. Maybe people in Utah want no abortions, and maybe Massachusetts wants to legalize any abortion on demand, and maybe Virginia wants some middle ground.

Shouldn't states be able to decide, especially as the feds have no constitutional power to make a decision on the matter?

You've got to remember, if federal courts decide that they have jurisdiction over a particular issue, they control the outcome -- not you.

Republicans and Democrats are just the same on this point. As long as the federal government happens to be advancing their agenda, they are happy to endow it with whatever powers may be expedient to that end. They are in favor of surrenduring to the feds the rights they don't care about: right wingers endowed the federal government with unconstitutional powers to conduct military police actions, and to conduct a war on drugs; leftists have endowed the federal government with the unconstitutional powers to engage in social engineering, and to create abortion laws.

Remember, if the federal government has the power to regulate abortion, it has the power to legalize it OR to ban it.

No matter where you fall on the issue substantively, everyone should agree that the feds have no place in the abortion debate.

Anonymous said...

Keith, methinks you've been in the U.K. too long. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" comes form the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution; these words are therefore of no legal effect.

blogger said...

You are correct folks - dec of independence of course. My bad

But I believe we are a country based on the fundamentals of that document, and that phrase. The US is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No better words have ever been written.

Legally, I do believe the 9th amendment of the constitution, fundamentaly the right to privacy, does protect the woman's right to an abortion. But the right of the fetus to life, assuming it is sustainable life, with rights, is also thus covered by the 9th amendment. And the 14th - due process.

Messy issue, no good answer, and RP's idea of leaving this one up to the states is not the right one.

Anonymous said...

>> The next American president should be a Democrat. I'm voting for Hillary.

Funny how she's on the cover of Fortune magazine - "Business Loves Hillary." Even funnier how she's never run her own business, sweated making a payroll, etc.

Yeah, she's YOUR perfect candidate: the clueless leading the ignorant.

anon said...

The interesting thing about the abortion debate is that when God is taken out of the equation, then yes, legally, there isn't a right or wrong answer. Of course, not everyone is Christian, and that's fine. But for those of us who are Christian, there is that Command "Thou shalt not kill."

blogger said...

That's just it - the abortion debate from a legal or government perspective should NOT have religion intermixed. Anytime someone's personal religion gets mixed up with politics or social policy or government, it's a mess.

Plus, of course, there's this small little matter:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Anonymous said...

Old family saying:

Just follow the money


Anonymous said...

This was a discussion of RP not abortion. Just like the media you have turned the whole debate about his candidacy into Pro Life Pro Choice debate.

What about the issues that really matter? Like ending the illegal war in Iraq, monetary policy, and a defunct federal social security system...

Lets talk about these issues and how RP was and still is right

Student Archaeologist said...

For only the second time in my 18 years as a voter I have sent money to a campaign -- $200 to Ron Paul, and I consider myself a Democrat.

He seems to be the only candidate on either side that is willing to point out what the real problems are (and we don't agree on everything, but I'm not going to be a single-issue voter).

Even if he doesn't win, he's talking and raising awareness. That's worth the money to me.

And if he wins...


The Thinker said...

Here is the text of the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Their is a fair amount of debate among Constitutional scholars as to the meaning of this Amendment, however, it is difficult to imagine how this Amendment confers any new substantive rights such as a right to privacy.

The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution, however, the Supreme Court is not entitled to enact new law under the guise of Constitutional interpretation. By reading a right of privacy into the Constitution, the Supreme Court was actually (in my opinion) trampling on the Constitution's mandate that laws be passed only after ratification by both houses of Congress (bicameralism).

Anonymous said...

...just sent in $100. my 1st political donation.

this guy is the real deal!

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't states be able to decide, especially as the feds have no constitutional power to make a decision on the matter?

I agree that in principle, yes. If it were regulated as "abortions not legal in states X,Y,Z" and "legal in A,B,C" then that's the end of it. But it wouldn't be the end of it.

In practice, the extreme anti-abortion states will do things like

* make an abortion illegal as first-degree murder.

* make it a felony to cross its state lines if you have an abortion, equivalent to accessory to murder.

* make certain forms of birthcontrol as equivalent to abortion (IUD, pill), and therefore imprison dispensers thereof as accessories to murder.

* make any woman applying for state colleges have to sign upon penalty of perjury and imprisonment that she had never had an abortion.

* same for state employees (e.g. all teachers)

* ban all websites which provide any information about how to get to states or abortion providers outside the state.

* make it a felony to help to pay for abortion services rendered in any state, with punishment equivalent to solicitation to murder

blogger said...

Yes, I hijacked my own thread on RP to move to abortion, but I think it shows that this issue will always be a litmus for many

For me it is not. I support RP but am against his abortion position

But I understand his abortion position. He wants the federal government to take a back seat, and a severely limited government. I'm down with that in almost all cases.

Anonymous said...

While that is also an important document [The Declaration of Independence], it has no legal standing.

Thinker, I have to disagree with you on that. It is actually a much more important document because it sets forth that the power of government emanates from those to be governed, who possess the inalienable right to form and/or dismantle a government, if necessary.

Anonymous said...

I also think anyone needs to think long and hard about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' when thinking about what to do with the abortion issue

life - whose life?
liberty - whose liberty?
pursuit of happiness - whose pursuit?

You have two people - the baby and the mother - with very different need states, thus the inherent conflict that will never be resolved


Add in the fact that fathers have no choice as to whether they get ass raped for child support but the woman has an option, well you get the idea. Let's make it fair all around, not just for women. If men can't decide, then maybe women shouldn't be allowed to decide either.

Anonymous said...

"[B]ut I think it shows that this issue will always be a litmus for many

For me it is not. I support RP but am against his abortion position"


Amen. I disagree with RP that we can stroll right out of Iraq without leaving behind a catastrophe, but I still support him. I hope people will not throw the fetus out with the bathwater.

Anonymous said...

I guess my point was twofold:

A) Is abortion really an issue? It has been discussed as one of the primary election issues since Roe V Wade. This is Supreme Court stuff and therefore the connection to the president is once removed and, depending on seats available in the court, mostly irrelevant.

Now, if the life of fetus was currently sustainable at no cost to the mother and could be safely removed, who would object? Abortion would be irrelevant.

B) The far right has nowhere to speak on this issue. Just like immigration, if you want to stop young people from having unwanted babies, you have to stop them at conception (or the employer/ border). This is their primary biological imperative.

Also, as far as states rights causing many problems, couldn't this be true of almost any states rights issues? This is another thread in and of itself. My assumption is that after states rights were more or less defined, and after subsequent generations, people would have voted with their feet and left these states altogether.

Back on thread - GO RON PAUL !!!

Anonymous said...

I won't support Ron Paul because of his stance on gay issues. It doesn't matter whether the collapse hits or Ron Paul gets elected and avoids the collapse -- either way, he and his supporters are willing to hand me a big fat tax bill for it while telling me that I must be excluded from the "benefits."

At least if things collapse, I won't have to worry about paying for all the "family values" of people who had kids and homes they couldn't afford, insisting they're more "moral" than I am because they got their spouses knocked up 5x too many.

Anonymous said...

While I like Ron Paul for what appears to be his unfailing honesty and truthfulness, I looked at his site and see he's strongly pro-life: he says he's overthrow Roe V. Wade? Now that seems a bit odd to me: I thought the guy was a libertarian candidate in the past and professed that government shouldn't intrude on the lives of citizens. I'm not sure why women aren't supposed to make decisions pertaining to their bodies?

+++++I'm a woman and this is the "deal-killer" for me. Women have enough problems getting through life without having control of their bodies taken away from them and being forced to bear children they don't won't and can't afford to raise. And don't give me this crap about "it's their fault." What about rape? What about incest? What about failed birth control because no method of birth control is 100% effective? THERE IS NO WAY IN HADES I'M VOTING FOR A PRO-LIFE, ANTI-ABORTION CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT!

gregoryw said...

Just donated $175 on ronpaul2008.com

Anonymous said...

I love Ron Paul, but he just isn't mean enough. I can't believe all this time has passed and he still hasn't called Guillani out on that 9/11 comment in the debate. Because the truth is that if a presidential candidate sincerely doesn't understand that the muslims have damn good reasons to hate us (the creation of Israel and the propping up of brutal dictators all over the middle east) then that guy has no business being president.

Why won't Ron Paul get offensive? Because if he doesn't have it in his character to fight, then he really shouldn't be president.

joonjoon said...


It's appalling to me when people take a candidate and decide whether or not to vote for the person based on one single issue like abortion. ESPECIALLY when he recognizes that it's not a federal issue and it should be left to the states. It doesn't matter what he believes because it's not something he should or can decide. What's wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

I am a woman and have no problem with his pro-life stance. He makes a good point that the state has no business deciding who and who is not worthy of protection.

Abortion makes it too easy for the 'Wham -Bam thank you ma'am". It also pits generations against each other.

No candidate is perfect - He is the only one who believes in the Constitution and he wants to get us out of these wars.

Lagwagon631 said...

f u keith, sorry i had to say it

if you want to discuss abortion create a thread. then we can discuss all the candidates position on the subject not just ron pauls. What about mitt romney? Lets compare him to Kerry he is a flip flopper. He was initially pro choice now he's pro life? Why ? My guess he wants the republican nomination and he knows he has to be pro life to get it? At least ron paul is pro life on principal and not because of publice opinion polls. The kind Doctor has delivered babies as an air force doctor. Maybe he has a unique perspective on human life that you and I dont? its possible he is right man.... Not matter what you say about RP at least he stands on his principals and you know exactly where you stand with him.

McCain? what kind of bs is that immigration bill? are you ready to make a thread about that yet? pls do!

Ron Paul Revolution

Anonymous said...

meanwhile, hillary has no shot of winning the presidency. she is not a serious candidate for the job

and that's my take.

June 25, 2007 12:00 PM


You're right she's not a serious candidate for the job. That doesn't mean she won't win.