I like how Ron Paul says that with Clinton as Sec. of State nothing dramatic or big will change with our foreign policy, because of the Republican and Democrat influence on the policy.
So for all those hoping for a change in foreign policy there probably won't be much of one even though Obama is President. For foreign policy to change we need a third party in the presidency that is not laden with republican and democrat platforms and influences.
So closing Guantanamo in a year, including all overseas CIA detention centers for terror suspects, isn't a change in foreign policy? Banning harsh interrogation methods, withdrawing troops from Iraq in 60 months, and appointing two new Middle East envoys, these don't represent a change in American foreign policy?
Just because Ron Paul thinks there won't be any change in foreign policy doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. Little does Mr. Paul know, but our nation's foreign policy is dependent on more people than just Hillary.
As for the banks, yes, they took the bailout and ran. Nothing happened. But we've known for awhile that banks control the world, so what's new?
As for inflation goes, it is currently nonexistent. I disagree with their economic forecast. Inflation is dependent on the money supply, just like they said. But what money supply? The money supply in the whole economy, not just the supply of money the banks are hoarding right now.
Obviously supplying the banks with billions isn't enough to cause any inflation. In fact, economists are currently fearing deflation!
Beck says there's too much money out there? Give me a freak'n break!! I don't see any, neither does the 5000 Microsoft employees that will lose their jobs, not to mention the 6000 Intel employees now without a job.....oh yeah, don't forget the 3000 IBM employees. All of this announced today. Yeah ....lots of money out there!
Besides, even if there were some merit to there being too much money out there, we're not the only country bailing out their banks. China issued a $500+ billion bailout recently, not to mention Europe's $700 billion.
Heck, if everyone is bailing themselves out, no one's currency will become devalued. We're all increasing the money supply at the same time so our currency will continue to rise and fall normally against the currencies of other countries.
Let's not forget that an increase of the money supply is only due to the dramatic decrease in that supply. So in reality, we're only filling the massive whole that was created by the housing crisis.
Beck is pretty effective in getting people all riled up on incomplete information. Yes, bailing out banks is bad, but does he have a better idea?
It's easy to criticize - less easy to constructively initiate a productive plan of positive change, which I might add, the Obama Administration has undeniably done within the first 48 hrs on the job.
The nice thing about them shutting down Guantanamo and Gitmo is that they are going to be moving all detainees to the U.S. and put them in prison on our soil!
I don't know about you but I certainly don't what these dangerous enemy combatants in our country near our homes!
Some of what you say is right Chris but some of what Paul and Beck say is right also. I found the clip interesting and yes we have to glean the facts from the nonfactual.
You are right about deflation and Beck has talked about it. But this is only going to stay like this until the Banks no longer hoard cash and once it is let out then BAM baby inflation.
The problem with the bailout is that it is a disease like Paul said, once you give it to one entity then everyone wants in on it, not just the banks but the auto industry, retail, the porn industry, everyone wants a handout and if political correctness rules the day then the government can't deny them because it would be discriminatory.
As for Hillary Paul didn't say that because of her foreign policy wouldn't change he said the even though she was appointed and that she and Obama want to change many things the larger more dramatic parts of our foreign policy will not change due to never changing republican and democratic influence and power over them.
Sure Obama says that his administration will be one that doesn't torture and yadayadayada... but that doesn't mean that they won't. Plausible deniablity. Under how many Presidents has the U.S. Policy been that we don't assassinate? For many many administrations but that doesn't change what still happens in the field. How will we know that torture will not be practiced?
He is only withdrawing our troops from Iraq to focus them somewhere else, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to continue the War. So really the overall objectives don't change it is only the facade that is place over the policy that changes.
Yes, I agree with everything you've said. Just a few additional comments:
We may not feel safe bringing Gitmo inmates to prisons on our soil, but at least we will then be responsible for them and be bound by our own law of incarceration. The whole point behind Guantanamo was to escape the law - hence having the prison in Cuba, and Eastern Europe, and who knows where else. We're the ones who captured them, tortured them, and held them illegally, so bringing them onto US soil is a punishment the US will have to live with now. I think the law of the harvest aptly applies to our unfortunate situation.
Yes, I do believe inflation will be a concern in the future. But what annoyed me was how Beck likened anticipating our future economic situation to the hyperinflation era during the Weimar Republic in Germany. Honestly now. That's like when people compared Bush to Hitler. Give me a break. Bad comparison (kind of like mine, hahaha).
Yes, the bailout is a disease ...just like the disease that got us into this mess in the first place...greed, corruption, irregular deregulation. When I heard about the "Adult Entertainment" industry wanting bailout money a few weeks ago, I got really upset. These people are disgusting vultures.
I disagree with the Obama administration's foreign policy overhaul being no more than a "facade". They aren't trying to cover up the problem. That's why they've made all the changes they have so far. Iraq isn't the biggest threat in the world now. It's Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both are deteriorating at an alarming rate, which was completely denied by the Bush Administration even on the day he left office. We beat the Taliban in 2002 then we jumped ship and haven't been back, and our govt won't admit it.
Obama's foreign policy change is not leaving Iraq (we'll be there indefinitely), but moving the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I mean, anyone who thinks about Pakistan for more than 1 minute will recognize the potential threat this very unstable country poses for the rest of us. Corrupt govt, rioting citizenry, Kashmir, Indian terrorists, mix all of that with 100 nukes....yeah. Need I say more? At least Iraq doesn't have nukes.
The Middle East and torture has recently been the larger more dramatic parts of our foreign policy. Paul is lumping Bush/Obama foreign policies together not because it makes sense, but because Paul is a third party and third party people think everyone else is all the same. Bush.... Obama..... Democrat/Republican.. who cares....it's not third party.
In reality, whether openly acknowledged by third party people or not, there are fundamental differences (large and dramatic) between the aspects of Bush and Obama foreign policies.
4 comments:
I like how Ron Paul says that with Clinton as Sec. of State nothing dramatic or big will change with our foreign policy, because of the Republican and Democrat influence on the policy.
So for all those hoping for a change in foreign policy there probably won't be much of one even though Obama is President. For foreign policy to change we need a third party in the presidency that is not laden with republican and democrat platforms and influences.
So closing Guantanamo in a year, including all overseas CIA detention centers for terror suspects, isn't a change in foreign policy? Banning harsh interrogation methods, withdrawing troops from Iraq in 60 months, and appointing two new Middle East envoys, these don't represent a change in American foreign policy?
Just because Ron Paul thinks there won't be any change in foreign policy doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. Little does Mr. Paul know, but our nation's foreign policy is dependent on more people than just Hillary.
As for the banks, yes, they took the bailout and ran. Nothing happened. But we've known for awhile that banks control the world, so what's new?
As for inflation goes, it is currently nonexistent. I disagree with their economic forecast. Inflation is dependent on the money supply, just like they said. But what money supply? The money supply in the whole economy, not just the supply of money the banks are hoarding right now.
Obviously supplying the banks with billions isn't enough to cause any inflation. In fact, economists are currently fearing deflation!
Beck says there's too much money out there? Give me a freak'n break!! I don't see any, neither does the 5000 Microsoft employees that will lose their jobs, not to mention the 6000 Intel employees now without a job.....oh yeah, don't forget the 3000 IBM employees. All of this announced today. Yeah ....lots of money out there!
Besides, even if there were some merit to there being too much money out there, we're not the only country bailing out their banks. China issued a $500+ billion bailout recently, not to mention Europe's $700 billion.
Heck, if everyone is bailing themselves out, no one's currency will become devalued. We're all increasing the money supply at the same time so our currency will continue to rise and fall normally against the currencies of other countries.
Let's not forget that an increase of the money supply is only due to the dramatic decrease in that supply. So in reality, we're only filling the massive whole that was created by the housing crisis.
Beck is pretty effective in getting people all riled up on incomplete information. Yes, bailing out banks is bad, but does he have a better idea?
It's easy to criticize - less easy to constructively initiate a productive plan of positive change, which I might add, the Obama Administration has undeniably done within the first 48 hrs on the job.
The nice thing about them shutting down Guantanamo and Gitmo is that they are going to be moving all detainees to the U.S. and put them in prison on our soil!
I don't know about you but I certainly don't what these dangerous enemy combatants in our country near our homes!
Some of what you say is right Chris but some of what Paul and Beck say is right also. I found the clip interesting and yes we have to glean the facts from the nonfactual.
You are right about deflation and Beck has talked about it. But this is only going to stay like this until the Banks no longer hoard cash and once it is let out then BAM baby inflation.
The problem with the bailout is that it is a disease like Paul said, once you give it to one entity then everyone wants in on it, not just the banks but the auto industry, retail, the porn industry, everyone wants a handout and if political correctness rules the day then the government can't deny them because it would be discriminatory.
As for Hillary Paul didn't say that because of her foreign policy wouldn't change he said the even though she was appointed and that she and Obama want to change many things the larger more dramatic parts of our foreign policy will not change due to never changing republican and democratic influence and power over them.
Sure Obama says that his administration will be one that doesn't torture and yadayadayada... but that doesn't mean that they won't. Plausible deniablity. Under how many Presidents has the U.S. Policy been that we don't assassinate? For many many administrations but that doesn't change what still happens in the field. How will we know that torture will not be practiced?
He is only withdrawing our troops from Iraq to focus them somewhere else, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to continue the War. So really the overall objectives don't change it is only the facade that is place over the policy that changes.
Yes, I agree with everything you've said. Just a few additional comments:
We may not feel safe bringing Gitmo inmates to prisons on our soil, but at least we will then be responsible for them and be bound by our own law of incarceration. The whole point behind Guantanamo was to escape the law - hence having the prison in Cuba, and Eastern Europe, and who knows where else. We're the ones who captured them, tortured them, and held them illegally, so bringing them onto US soil is a punishment the US will have to live with now. I think the law of the harvest aptly applies to our unfortunate situation.
Yes, I do believe inflation will be a concern in the future. But what annoyed me was how Beck likened anticipating our future economic situation to the hyperinflation era during the Weimar Republic in Germany. Honestly now. That's like when people compared Bush to Hitler. Give me a break. Bad comparison (kind of like mine, hahaha).
Yes, the bailout is a disease ...just like the disease that got us into this mess in the first place...greed, corruption, irregular deregulation. When I heard about the "Adult Entertainment" industry wanting bailout money a few weeks ago, I got really upset. These people are disgusting vultures.
I disagree with the Obama administration's foreign policy overhaul being no more than a "facade". They aren't trying to cover up the problem. That's why they've made all the changes they have so far. Iraq isn't the biggest threat in the world now. It's Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both are deteriorating at an alarming rate, which was completely denied by the Bush Administration even on the day he left office. We beat the Taliban in 2002 then we jumped ship and haven't been back, and our govt won't admit it.
Obama's foreign policy change is not leaving Iraq (we'll be there indefinitely), but moving the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I mean, anyone who thinks about Pakistan for more than 1 minute will recognize the potential threat this very unstable country poses for the rest of us. Corrupt govt, rioting citizenry, Kashmir, Indian terrorists, mix all of that with 100 nukes....yeah. Need I say more? At least Iraq doesn't have nukes.
The Middle East and torture has recently been the larger more dramatic parts of our foreign policy. Paul is lumping Bush/Obama foreign policies together not because it makes sense, but because Paul is a third party and third party people think everyone else is all the same. Bush.... Obama..... Democrat/Republican.. who cares....it's not third party.
In reality, whether openly acknowledged by third party people or not, there are fundamental differences (large and dramatic) between the aspects of Bush and Obama foreign policies.
Post a Comment