DanG

Sounds great. Unless you sell cheeseburgers for a living. - Dan G

I think you're thinking about this in the wrong way on a number of levels. First of all, if the dollar is tied to gold, why would you think your 401k would grow at all? It would only grow if you put more gold into your vault. Your response to that seems to be that the value of gold will increase even if the quantity remains the same. That doesn't make sense. If each dollar represents one gram of gold (or whatever) the only way the value of gold can increase is if each dollar actually represents less than one gram of gold. But then you're not really on the gold standard. On the true gold standard, which is what Ron Paul seems to want, the value of a dollar is fixed and no growth is possible without adding more gold into the system. Start doing that, and you're back to what we have now. As far as economics being a zero sum game, you couldn't be more wrong. On the gold standard you're right, but if economics really were a zero sum game, the world standard of living could never improve. The increases in efficiency that you mention allow everyone to win, which is the opposite of a zero sum game. - Dan G

You must not have been paying attention. Obama promised to get us out of Iraq. He also promised to expand our effort in Afghanistan, not end it. And that was one of the reasons I voted for him. - Dan G

I'm no econimist, but here's a very simplified analysis. If every dollar requires a little piece of gold at Ft. Knox, how can the ecomony grow? The US economy would become a zero sum game. For every dollar I made, it means someoe else would have to lose a dollar. The only way the economy can grow is if we find more gold. That's ridiculous. Fractional reserve banking can be dangerous and lead to financial bubbles, inflation, and other economic troubles, but without it the economy would stagnate. I might be able to get behind a scheme to increase controls over cash circulation, but going back to precious metals is out of touch with reality. - Dan G

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality. Anyone who thinks eliminating the EPA and relying on private lawsuits to stop major polluters would be anything other than an ecological disaster is completely out of touch with reality. Ron Paul is completely out of touch with reality. - Dan G

I realize your ODS is advanced, but are you really equating the war in Iraq to the war in Libya? - Dan G

So the "South" (I'm Virginian, by birth and choice, BTW) can't get over the fact that their great-great grandmother was forced to marry her rapist? Negro, please. - Dan G

You're obviously pulled the CNN transcipts (or, more likly are quoting another website that claims to have pulled them) so you can easily answer this question: Was, "The latest Gallup poll, the tracking poll, he’s down around, what, 40%? Some say 39, 40, 41%…” (laughing)" the only sentance Wolf Blitzer uttered regarding Obama's poll ratings? How did the audience know what he was talking about if that's the only sentance uttered regarding the subject? - Dan G

Who is "he"? - Dan G

I don't think you should need a permit for that, either. As vain as the wish may be, I'd like to keep this thread on track, so I'll leave it at that. - Dan G

What I object to is the requirement to have a permit to exercise your 1st amendment rights. - Dan G

I know you didn't. I had to reply to someone, so I replied to the OP. It's something to watch, for sure, but since it hasn't happened yet, I think it's a little early to start blaming Obama for it. Your thread would probably be more interesting if you'd commended on the types of pardons being made. None of them appear to be politically motivated. It looks, to me, like Obama is making a statement about the war on drugs, but I'm not sure. - Dan G

This thread is an excellent example of why we'll never move forward as a country. "Obama did something" "Bush did it first" "Clinton did it before Bush" Everyone's rooting for the little letter after the name. It's very frustrating. - Dan G

We've been through the conservative charity thing before. Your only source for your claim is that Brooks book. The fact that Reason (which is libertarian, not leftist) did an article about the book doesn't count as multiple sources. - Dan G

Irony meter: pegged. - Dan G

That would work on me. - Dan G

I'm going to play a little Devil's advocate here, so before anyone gets too upset, I'm replying to this because I think the ensuing conversation might be enlightening. Here's my admitedly loaded question: if the stance is that guns don't kill people, and are only a tool, why were people so upset about the Fast and Furious scandal? It seems the most damning aspect of that debacle was that some of the guns may have been used in the murder of a US LEO. But to be consistent, the fact that guns were used, even those specific guns, shouldn't matter. After all, the Mexican drug runners could have done the same thing with bats, or knives, or cars. How can a person say that guns are only a tool in one breath, and get upset that Mexican drug runners used US guns to kill a LEO in the next? And please remember, I don't necessarily believe the two views are not consistent, I just want to see what our more strident posters have to say. - Dan G

Fuck if I know. - Dan G

Those who don't give a fuck about the past are doomed to repeat it. Or something like that. - Dan G

Source, please. - Dan G

Yep. But some people have decided that it must, simply must, be the cause of those damn liberals. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. It's usually pretty simple: follow the money. - Dan G

I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. - Dan G

I did read it. Did you? I doubt it, so I'll summarize: Your article claims that the Federal fair lending intitiative, started under Clinton, coerced banks to reduce their lending standards to combat perceived racism in lending pratices. It goes on for three pages without much in the way of evidence, but a lot of opinion. The real "smoking gun" in the article is buried at the very end of the last page, where it says: It's the, "although it certainly played a role after the fact," that opens up a huge hole. It's a weasel line from the author. I agree that the Feds forced banks to reduce their lending standards for minority applicants. What I disagree with is the proportional role that had in the ensuing crisis. The banks started lending indiscriminately to everyone, minority or not, when they found they could make just as much money off the bad loans as the good. That happened because they packaged the loans up, got the ratings agencies to sign off on them, and then sold them to third party investors. The banks now had no financial interest in the bad loans, so they kept reducing their lending standards until anyone could get any loan they wanted. The Feds didn't mandate that. A reduction of standards for minority applicants by itself would not have created the large scale crisis we had. There just aren't enough minorities. - Dan G

Huh? Are you trying to "gotcha" me? My explanation is not refuted by your article. - Dan G

It is not at issue whether the banks were lending to unqualified people. No one argues that they weren't. The question is why. Some people believe the reason was government mandates and threats, and these people often point to CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). That may have been part of the reason for the bad lending practices, but it doesn't explain the collapse. In fact, CRA loans on average outperformed other subprime loans. I believe the overiding reason for bad lending practices was the money. The banks who made the original bad loans would package these loans into bundles, often with a mix of bad loans and good loans, and sell the bundles to other investors. Normally, if a bank makes a bad loan, they end up losing money on it in the long run. Using newly developed financial instruments involving bundling, the banks no longer took the risk themselves, and made just as much money off bad loans as good ones. When the bad loans started going bad, people realized that all the housing related investments weren't the AAA rated goldmines they thought they were, and the housing bubble popped. Simply put, the government didn't force banks to make bad loans. The banks made bad loans because there was great financial gain and little risk. - Dan G