Gyroscopic Investing

There's nobody left to give Newt the nod.  They've already given that 'nod' to Romney, and we've yet to see how much value there is left in the 'nod.'

As to Wonk's post: I have a hard time seeing gold ownership outlawed, with gold being advertised non-stop on CNN and FoxNews.  The idea of telling the American public that they're forbidden from buying something ... rarely works.

murphy_p_t wrote: RP supporter here.

I predict that Mitt is NOT the GOP nominee. I'm guessing Newt gets the nod.

Well things have certainly taken an unexpected turn.  If someone had asked me last week who was going to be the GOP nominee I would have said (after gagging) Romney.  After tonight I honestly don't know.  Romney didn't just lose in SC, he lost badly.  He broke only slightly over 25%.  That is a major repudiation in a conservative state.  Thus far he has only been able to win one state, that being New Hampshire which borders his own.

This is not over by a long shot.  Romney has the money and organization to carry on for a while.  But there is no way to describe tonight as anything other than a devastating blow to his campaign.  My guess is that social cons will coalesce around Gingrich as the anti-Romney.  Santorum is done.  You can stick a fork in that boy.  He has neither the money nor the organization to carry on a national campaign.  Whether he sticks around for Florida or bows out now makes no real difference. 

We now have a two man race between the tea party social cons on one side and the more moderate establishment types on the other with Ron Paul and his small but loyal band of libertarians likely to keep winning somewhere between 10-20% in the various primaries to come.  If Romney and Gingrich each show up at the convention with less than a majority of delegates, Dr. Paul could become a far more important person than his detractors would like.

Stay tuned, this election just got very interesting.

Republican Party needs to be blown up and then rebuilt.  These Chicken Hawks gave us guns and butter funded by reduced taxes and deficit spending.  Now, they want to go to war with Iran.  How about they finish the other wars and pay for them, before starting another adventure? 

South Carolina Republicans are wacky.  They boo the golden rule offered by a medical doctor who is a veteran with a 54 year marriage (Paul) and give a standing ovation to an ethically challenged -draft deferring - serial philanderer (Gingrich) ? 

The optics of Obama versus Gingrich would be interesting.  The youthful and fit Obamas happily married with a beautiful family versus the corpulent Gingrich and his harem?  Can you say landslide? 

-

The Republican Party is just fine. Are they perfect? No. But they are by far the best alternative. The other choices would decimate this country. And that includes Ron Paul, who profited from a newsletter in his name that was racist in nature.

stone wrote: Does the US have anywhere near enough reserves of gold or foreign currency to acheive such a peg? Is the idea that the sales tax and the government spending cuts would stall consumption of imports and so cut the trade imbalance to the point where the USD stopped devaluing?

Ft. Knox hasn't been audited in over 30 years and there are rumors the gold is gone.  Check this episode of Decoded out (its in 3 parts):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an0FPJyUrpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKLKQrAWuSk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKFnZvuGgXM

As an aside, I find it really interesting that even under the so-called gold standard, all that would happen is grunt workers would move the gold bars from one country's gilded cage at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to another country's gilded cage at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to credit/debit accounts.  How silly.  Nowadays we are all fancy schmancy and just use electrons.

MG

The Republican Party is just fine. Are they perfect? No. But they are by far the best alternative.

Reub,

I see things a little differently. Gingrich's big victory in SC primary represents to me nothing less than the totally bankrupt nature of the modern Republican party. How the party of family values and small government backs a serial philanderer and beltway insider who makes his money off of lobbying and shady govt kickbacks is stunning. What you are witnessing is a political party in crisis mode. Their methods of garnering votes by appealing to ignorance and selfish desires has ended up creating a party where a political antichrist is the leading candidate.

By the way, what exactly is conservative about the modern Republican party at all? When it comes to the environment or national resources they want to "conserve" nothing at all. When it comes to our way of life, they only seek to conserve the radical perversion of selfish overconsumption and waste that it has turned into over the last 50 years.  

Whether it concerns foreign policy or constitutional freedoms, this party's positions are at the polar opposite of the founding fathers.

My condemnation of the Republican party is by no means an endorsement of the Democrats. But if you were voting for the lesser of two evils in the next election, I think the choice is pretty obvious.

I don't think it's "obvious" at all.  How are the Democrats any less morally bankrupt than the Republicans?
You've got to be kidding.

Reub wrote: The Republican Party is just fine. Are they perfect? No. But they are by far the best alternative. The other choices would decimate this country. And that includes Ron Paul, who profited from a newsletter in his name that was racist in nature.

Paul has disavowed the racist garbage that was printed under his name by a ghostwriter (suspected to be Lew Rockwell of lewrockwell.com) used to attract right-wingnut subscribers back in the early 90's when all that militia, anti-government, anti-Clinton crap was fashionable.  Why do you feel is that is inexcusable compared to Gingrinch's sordid reputation?

MG

Reub wrote:

The Republican Party is just fine. Are they perfect? No. But they are by far the best alternative. The other choices would decimate this country. And that includes Ron Paul, who profited from a newsletter in his name that was racist in nature.

Republican party is just fine if you are into unnecessary wars and huge domestic spending.

You are making an attack on Ron Paul's newsletters, but not on his policies.  How would they decimate the country?  

doodle, Reub & Coffee,

I find most democrats helplessly inept just as republicans are... unfortunately, the economic condition we're in right now doesn't lend itself to an Austerity-driven recovery.  Republicans are in a position of trying to argue that it does, not because they actually think it will, but because austerity fits with their ideological perspective... their moral beliefs on government-spending.

Though I disagreed with the war in Iraq, I thought the Democrats were utterly pathetic and obvious during the worst parts of the war in the mid-2000's.  They voted for it, but wanted to use it as a tool against a Republican president (baffoon that he was).  It wasn't that I didn't think they had some good points to make... it was the obvious convenience of it all, and application of 10 lbs of criticism for every ounce of solution.  They should have come out, like Harry Browne did, after 9/11 and said things then, not after voting for a war and simply attemting to subsequently undermine an admittedly poor president.  They are of the same ilk... they'll do the same things republicans are doing now when it is convenient.

Right now, though, the economy lends itself to democrats IMO... the ones NOT arguing for harsh austerity, and spewing economic fallacies left and right to undermine a sitting president and for other political purposes.  The ones NOT pushing for high-income tax break extensions for 2 years but then later claiming they don't like "temporary fixes" when a payroll tax cut is on the table.  The ones NOT arguing that with tax cuts, spending cuts and deregulation that somehow the US will have a massive recovery.

Give it a few years... I'm sure things will change.  Maybe it's just me, but on a level of both charisma and who will more-likely bring about economic recovery, Obama appears the better choice.  The Republican choices are incredibly bad this time around.

moda0306 wrote: Give it a few years... I'm sure things will change.  Maybe it's just me, but on a level of both charisma and who will more-likely bring about economic recovery, Obama appears the better choice.  The Republican choices are incredibly bad this time around.

Really?  Everyone always seems bad compared to Barry Goldwater!

MG

Barry Goldwater is a bleeding-heart  liberal by today's standards. 

I for one am frustrated with the Tea Party and Fox network rewriting history by falsely connecting the Christian faith to the Founding Father's and the formation of our nation. There was another rally in my city today by retired religious right Tea Partiers in their tri-corner hats railing against the government that pays their medicare bills and social security checks. If eliminating these entitlement programs means these types of folks succumb to the harsh laws of nature, maybe it is best to do away with them after all.

For the unfiltered truth about what the Founding Father's really thought about the Christian religion, check the link below.  

http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-f ... anity.html

smurff wrote: Barry Goldwater is a bleeding-heart  liberal by today's standards. 

This pretty much says it all:

"By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as gay rights and the role of religion in public life."

MG

And JFK is a radical, right-wing extremist by today's standards.

JFK believed we should lower taxes... from 90% on the top bracket.

I don't think the majority of people on the left would agree today that 90% is an appropriate tax rate on anyone.  Defending a 15% rate on the ultra-wealthy is quite a different matter than calling for the end of a 90% marginal tax rate.

What other almost-evidence is there that he'd be right-wing today?

I believe he was for "universal healthcare," though I'm not sure what his specific prescription was to accomplish that.

He also came up with the consumer bill of rights... leading me to believe he'd be for, not against, today's consumer protection agency.

Other than what some would argue was hawkery towards Communism, I don't see where there's evidence that he'd be a right-wing extremist, today.

smurff wrote: Barry Goldwater is a bleeding-heart  liberal by today's standards.  ;)

What I would find humorous if it wasn't so depressing is that Ronald Reagan himself could not win the Republican primary in 2012 - he's too damn liberal compared to today's candidates.  Does anyone else find it troubling that in order to win a primary for both Republican or Democratic parties, you have to be such a radical left or right wing freak that you can appeal to an increasingly lunatic fringe base?

Want to win the democratic primary?  You have to appeal to some radical left-wing people and talk about redistribution of wealth, shutting down oil production, taxing the rich, etc.

Want to win the republican primary?  You have to talk about banning gay marriage, outlawing birth control, killing the department of education, and not wasting money on silly socialist programs like roads, fire, and police.

I find it offensive that they pander to the least common denominators in both parties, but it seems to be effective.

Storm,

The idea of a relatively simple tax code with the mid-to-upper end containing a 26% flat tax on ordinary AND investment income would absolutely terrify today's Republican candidates.

Storm wrote: What I would find humorous if it wasn't so depressing is that Ronald Reagan himself could not win the Republican primary in 2012 - he's too damn liberal compared to today's candidates.
...
Want to win the republican primary?  You have to talk about banning gay marriage, outlawing birth control, killing the department of education

Perhaps it's just a Rorschach test, but I think that if anything Reagan would be considered too "anti-government" and insufficiently focused on social issues.  Just look at how poorly Gary Johnson (who was my favorite) polled.

Incidentally, Reagan did try to eliminate the Department of Education.  He promised to do that in the State of the Union address but wasn't able to pull it off.

Storm wrote:and not wasting money on silly socialist programs like roads, fire, and police.

Aren't police and fire local issues?  I always find it strange to be discussing such things at the national level.

I'd like to see less "national policing".  I get tremendously more value out of my local police force than I do the DEA and their War on Drugs or the ATF and their secret funneling of firearms to Mexican drug cartels.  We're IMO better off viewing police and fire fighting as the local issues that they are.

I wish that the current crop of Republican candidates talked more like this but apart from Gary Johnson and Ron Paul I just haven't seen it.

Lone Wolf wrote: I wish that the current crop of Republican candidates talked more like this but apart from Gary Johnson and Ron Paul I just haven't seen it.

Very few modern national politicians seem to grasp the concept of a function being fully appropriate for the government to perform, but wholly inappropriate for the federal government to perform.

Lone Wolf wrote: Aren't police and fire local issues?  I always find it strange to be discussing such things at the national level.

I'd like to see less "national policing".  I get tremendously more value out of my local police force than I do the DEA and their War on Drugs or the ATF and their secret funneling of firearms to Mexican drug cartels.  We're IMO better off viewing police and fire fighting as the local issues that they are.

I wish that the current crop of Republican candidates talked more like this but apart from Gary Johnson and Ron Paul I just haven't seen it.

Amen.  I really think we could cut a good 10-20% of government spending just by eliminating the unnecessary national police like DEA, ATF, DHS, etc.

Storm wrote: What I would find humorous if it wasn't so depressing is that Ronald Reagan himself could not win the Republican primary in 2012 - he's too damn liberal compared to today's candidates.  Does anyone else find it troubling that in order to win a primary for both Republican or Democratic parties, you have to be such a radical left or right wing freak that you can appeal to an increasingly lunatic fringe base?

This is likely the consequence of so-called "campaign finance reform" (as usual, it was Nixon's fault) that took away the collective power of the two parties and gave it to third-party independent groups as an unintended consequence.  So there's been less cohesion, moderates and more extremists over time.   For instance, the Republican party is currently split among the capitalists & military-industrial complex (Romney), free market libertarians & neo-survivalists (Paul) and red neck, religious bigots (Gringich).

MG

I'll take the capitalist, military industrial complex guy anytime!