Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
Where is Sarah Palin when the world needs her?
Yeh, one of the 2 most powerful countries in the world run by an idiot, that would be really great .... If that happens it might be better for all of us to change the direction of the earth directly towards the sun right away ;P
(edited)
Yeh, one of the 2 most powerful countries in the world run by an idiot, that would be really great .... If that happens it might be better for all of us to change the direction of the earth directly towards the sun right away ;P
(edited)
Yesterday I watched the movie Man of the Year, the candidates should watch that movie ones and learn from it ;) In fact, a lot of people in this world should watch it and learn from it :D
Where is Sarah Palin when the world needs her?
Admiring Russia from her house in Alaska.
Admiring Russia from her house in Alaska.
Seems part of where the discussion with Romney is going, he seems to know ppl who are good with taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/pf/romney_kids_trust/index.htm?iid=Lead
Also interesting:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm?iid=HP_LN
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/pf/romney_kids_trust/index.htm?iid=Lead
Also interesting:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm?iid=HP_LN
I have been living in the US for 5 years now. I have to admit things look better with Obama, at least on the West Coast.
Its complicated, people were expecting a revolution, and that hasn't happened. But it is tangible that there was a steer in direction and things are more aligned. I would definitely give him another 4 years.
Its complicated, people were expecting a revolution, and that hasn't happened. But it is tangible that there was a steer in direction and things are more aligned. I would definitely give him another 4 years.
If the Unemployment rate in the US keeps improving as it is, Obama has a good chance to be reelected.
I think with how the republicans are running their campaigns, Obama doesn't have to do a lot to get reelected. Unfortunately. Especially if Ron Paul would run for office as a third candidate. Then Obama would be the laughing third.
Ron Paul is not an alternative in nowadays economical circumstances. He has some good ideas, but several that could bring our world economics to the verge of destruction.
I disagree. We have to get rid of our nanny states and install real liberty. If that would cost us some welfare (which I seriously doubt), I'd be willing to pay that. The concept of a state is a construction (that is necessary of course) that must serve the people living within the border of that state. Not the other way around. And here in (continental) Europe, it's even way worse than in the States.
Do you actually know what he wants exactly.
Well you probably say yes.
So, how do you like that:
Health care costs
Paul says that contrary to what most Americans believe, access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market.[236][237][238] In his view, government has no business in the delivery of health care. When government becomes involved, he says, costs rise and quality of care falls.[239][240][241]
Paul calls for the eventual elimination of Medicare (federally-funded health care for the elderly and disabled) and Medicaid (health care for the poor, jointly funded by the federal and state governments),[242][243] and he has been a staunch opponent of the Affordable Care Act health insurance reform law that was enacted in 2010.[244][240][245] He says that federally-funded healthcare is “unconstitutional” and that the costs of the programs are unsustainable and are bankrupting the government.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[63] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[64] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
this is vague, and btw the gold standard, or fixing the money to gold, or the dollar (Bretton Woods) did not work once in history. We have to find new ways, to deal with the inflation and the economics I agree, but imo this is not the right one.
There are more things, but I am lazy.
Well you probably say yes.
So, how do you like that:
Health care costs
Paul says that contrary to what most Americans believe, access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market.[236][237][238] In his view, government has no business in the delivery of health care. When government becomes involved, he says, costs rise and quality of care falls.[239][240][241]
Paul calls for the eventual elimination of Medicare (federally-funded health care for the elderly and disabled) and Medicaid (health care for the poor, jointly funded by the federal and state governments),[242][243] and he has been a staunch opponent of the Affordable Care Act health insurance reform law that was enacted in 2010.[244][240][245] He says that federally-funded healthcare is “unconstitutional” and that the costs of the programs are unsustainable and are bankrupting the government.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[63] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[64] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
this is vague, and btw the gold standard, or fixing the money to gold, or the dollar (Bretton Woods) did not work once in history. We have to find new ways, to deal with the inflation and the economics I agree, but imo this is not the right one.
There are more things, but I am lazy.