I wonder if RON PAUL worked for a state that offered pensions if he'd take that money because it isn't from the federal government.

Kudos to Paul. None of them need the money, but most would never turn down a free government handout.

Subby, you giant cockgarbling douche, your partisan hackery is blinding you:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 64, isn't eligible for a state pension, having served only four years in his post and declining to take a salary.

Is the Fark support of Ron Paul because of his drug policies? Because anything he says is pure insanity

If you think everything Paul says is insanity then you're really not paying attention.

socodog: If you think everything Paul says is insanity then you're really not paying attention.

Yeah, it's generally the stuff that he's not saying, but still thinking about that's the problem.

lennavan: Subby, you giant cockgarbling douche, your partisan hackery is blinding you:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 64, isn't eligible for a state pension, having served only four years in his post and declining to take a salary.

Read the headline again. Subby makes no mention of Romney taking the pension.

/not subby

Obiwontaun: lennavan: Subby, you giant cockgarbling douche, your partisan hackery is blinding you:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 64, isn't eligible for a state pension, having served only four years in his post and declining to take a salary.

Read the headline again. Subby makes no mention of Romney taking the pension.

/not subby

Plus, how is it partisan hackery if Paul and Romney are both Republicans?

DubyaHater: Is the Fark support of Ron Paul because of his drug policies? Because anything he says is pure insanity

The fark support falls into two categories: mocking and Crazy. The crazies support everything he says and believe he is going to save America. The mocking pretend to support him to get the crazies to say dumber and dumber things.

Frothy Rick is not collecting yet so it is sorting of staining his record to include him in with the likes of Gingrich.

lennavan: Subby, you giant cockgarbling douche, your partisan hackery is blinding you:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 64, isn't eligible for a state pension, having served only four years in his post and declining to take a salary.

Subby may have missed the direct connection between salary level and pension cushyness. Since Romney took no salary he also opted out of any pension.

Mittens is still a greedy guy who has gotten very rich exploiting artificial monopolies. The very first thing he would do if elected would be to transfer the Social Security trust fund, in its entirety, to his "wealth creating" backers. See, there is $2.5 trillion at stake in this election and Romney and the GOP want it all and they play for keeps.

DubyaHater: Is the Fark support of Ron Paul because of his drug policies? Because anything he says is pure insanity

To keep things in context, we're living in a crazy world right now. A lot of the most basic assumptions of society, that hardly anyone even bothers to question, are completely and utterly absurd.

Take, for example, Fractional Reserve Banking Banks quite literally make money appear out of thin air. Every year, even when there aren't any special money-printing programs like quantitative easing, money becomes worth less and less, while wages stay stagnant. We really on a collision course here. People are struggling to make ends meet, and it just keeps getting worse. The trends of the past few decades cannot continue much longer without catastrophe.

mrshowrules: My impression is that Fark leans slightly to Paul being a nutjob.

Yeah, but he supports the end of the drug war, which for most farkers, is nice. They really do want to hate him since he is an R, but sometimes cats and dogs can live together.

imontheinternet: DubyaHater: Is the Fark support of Ron Paul because of his drug policies? Because anything he says is pure insanity

To keep things in context, we're living in a crazy world right now. A lot of the most basic assumptions of society, that hardly anyone even bothers to question, are completely and utterly absurd.

Take, for example, Fractional Reserve Banking Banks quite literally make money appear out of thin air. Every year, even when there aren't any special money-printing programs like quantitative easing, money becomes worth less and less, while wages stay stagnant. We really on a collision course here. People are struggling to make ends meet, and it just keeps getting worse. The trends of the past few decades cannot continue much longer without catastrophe.

So the answer, of course, is to massively deregulate corporations, privatize the money supply and destroy the social; safety net.

Delay: The very first thing he would do if elected would be to transfer the Social Security trust fund, in its entirety, to his "wealth creating" backers.

Really? I am going to need a source on that. The SS 'trust fund' is not a pot of money, but a pot of intragovermental debt in the form of T bills. I don't see any way that these can be tranferred to any private entity. That money has been spent a long time ago.

Now if you are talking about investing any SS surplus money that would normally go into the Trust Fund, that is different, especally since that is pretty much a thing of the past.

/SS is currently in a deficit

HeadLever: Delay: The very first thing he would do if elected would be to transfer the Social Security trust fund, in its entirety, to his "wealth creating" backers.

Really? I am going to need a source on that. The SS 'trust fund' is not a pot of money, but a pot of intragovermental debt in the form of T bills. I don't see any way that these can be tranferred to any private entity. That money has been spent a long time ago.

Now if you are talking about investing any SS surplus money that would normally go into the Trust Fund, that is different, especally since that is pretty much a thing of the past.

/SS is currently in a deficit

If only someone a decade ago would have foreseen the SS deficit and proposed putting the surplus in some kind of lock box.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the answer, of course, is to massively deregulate corporations, privatize the money supply and destroy the social; safety net.

Not if we can help it. However, there is no doubt that the debt problem is going to make all of these 'problems' trivial by comparison. If we don't get our financial house in order soon, we won't be able to afford a safety net or effective regulation, or any of the many other government perks that we have all become accustomed to

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: So the answer, of course, is to massively deregulate corporations, privatize the money supply and destroy the social; safety net.

Not if we can help it. However, there is no doubt that the debt problem is going to make all of these 'problems' trivial by comparison. If we don't get our financial house in order soon, we won't be able to afford a safety net or effective regulation, or any of the many other government perks that we have all become accustomed to

RON PAUL doesn't consider those things "perks", he considers them Tyranny.

lennavan: Subby, you giant cockgarbling douche, your partisan hackery is blinding you:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 64, isn't eligible for a state pension, having served only four years in his post and declining to take a salary.


the warble garble is strong with this one...

1. subby doesn't say Mitt takes a pension

2. Mitts comment about his $364,000 income being "not very much" when it is 7 times the national average

3. and yet Mitt is on record saying he only paid about 15% in taxes

4. Mitt is a huge douchebag who will do and say anything to make his daddy (who failed in his own presidential bid ) proud - as my daughter pointed out Santorum is the worst jerk ever except for Romney at least you know where santorum stands Mitt will say and do anything.

Carth: If only someone a decade ago would have foreseen the SS deficit and proposed putting the surplus in some kind of lock box.

There was never a lock box. Algore's allegory was a myth to start with (the trust fund has been in existence for decades before).

Anyone that knows anyting about the 2.5Trillion SS trust fund knows that it is nothing but another government liability. SS surpluses are nice because that money is used to buy T-bills and then converted over to the general fund where it is spent. In this circumstance, public debt is offset by intragovernmental debt. When SS is in a defict, this process is reversed. You decrease the intragovermental debt by increasing the public debt. It is basically a shell game and that is why most folks add public debt and governmental debt together when discussing the finanical shape of the country.

/The term 'trust fund' should be abolished when describing this mountain of IOUs

Philip Francis Queeg: RON PAUL doesn't consider those things "perks", he considers them Tyranny.

Maybe so, but that does not change my point.

imontheinternet: Take, for example, Fractional Reserve Banking Banks quite literally make money appear out of thin air. Every year, even when there aren't any special money-printing programs like quantitative easing, money becomes worth less and less, while wages stay stagnant. We really on a collision course here. People are struggling to make ends meet, and it just keeps getting worse. The trends of the past few decades cannot continue much longer without catastrophe.

What? Banks are required to keep some fraction of their money as secure liquid assets, cash and treasury bills, on their books. In the case of a depositor comes in and requests a withdrawal, the bank stays solvent. The bank in theory makes loans from the rest of their money and generates a profit from the interest.

The trend of the past few years has been high unemployment, which hurts wages, and the large banks have received about $2 trillion from the Fed at no interest, which they have not been lending. Instead of writing loans the banks have parked the $2 trillion "excess reserves" in interest baring US treasury securities which has been netting them something like $60 billion every year directly from tax payers.

That $2 trillion adds nothing to the US money supply, so the US dollar is not "worth less and less" as a result. As soon as a bank uses its US treasury security to pay back the money it received from the Fed, the money disappears.

say what you want about Ron Paul, but the man walks the walk and has integrity

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: RON PAUL doesn't consider those things "perks", he considers them Tyranny.

Maybe so, but that does not change my point.

And your point doesn't relate to RON PAUL the subject of this thread.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the answer, of course, is to massively deregulate corporations, privatize the money supply and destroy the social; safety net.

There is no answer for the banking problem yet, because we have no way of knowing its extent. The Federal Reserve is incredibly secretive. The one, limited audit that passed not long ago showed QE money going all over the world, even to Libya a couple years before the war.

The first step is a full audit of the Federal Reserve. We need transparency to figure out the extent of the problem before we even start getting into which solutions are viable.

As for the concerns you raised, we need entitlement reform to get the debt under control We also need tax reform. As for regulation issues, the regulators are in the pockets of the firms they're supposed to be regulating. Having more or less regulation is not even an issue when the basic function of regulation has been captured by industries.

That said, deregulation could possibly work if the government no longer acts as a shield for private corporations. Let people sue on their own behalf, and companies will be facing jury verdicts of pissed off citizens, rather than slap on the wrist fines.

DubyaHater: Is the Fark support of Ron Paul because of his drug policies? Because anything he says is pure insanity


Because that's why...he's a Farker in every sense.

imontheinternet: That said, deregulation could possibly work if the government no longer acts as a shield for private corporations. Let people sue on their own behalf, and companies will be facing jury verdicts of pissed off citizens, rather than slap on the wrist fines.

Yep, after a company poisons your water supply, a lawsuit will fix everything. After you child is killed by an unsafe product, the settlement money will be a completely acceptable substitute. Especially when the Corporation you sued pays you in their own private currency.

Philip Francis Queeg: And your point doesn't relate to RON PAUL the subject of this thread.

Nope, but it does relate to your false dichotomy.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: And your point doesn't relate to RON PAUL the subject of this thread.

Nope, but it does relate to your false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy, it's a statement of Ron Paul's proposed policy solutions to the stated problems.

Philip Francis Queeg: it's a statement of Ron Paul's proposed policy solutions to the stated problems.

And mine is a statement that we are headed in that direction anyway, unless we get our shiat together, financially.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: it's a statement of Ron Paul's proposed policy solutions to the stated problems.

And mine is a statement that we are headed in that direction anyway, unless we get our shiat together, financially.

So vote RON PAUL?

Delay: What? Banks are required to keep some fraction of their money as secure liquid assets, cash and treasury bills, on their books. In the case of a depositor comes in and requests a withdrawal, the bank stays solvent. The bank in theory makes loans from the rest of their money and generates a profit from the interest.

The bank takes a deposit, then makes loans at a value several times higher than that deposit by pressing a button and having the cash magically appear out of thin air. Banks are given the power to constantly create money, which continuously inflates the currency.

The trend of the past few years has been high unemployment, which hurts wages, and the large banks have received about $2 trillion from the Fed at no interest, which they have not been lending. Instead of writing loans the banks have parked the $2 trillion "excess reserves" in interest baring US treasury securities which has been netting them something like $60 billion every year directly from tax payers.

That $2 trillion adds nothing to the US money supply, so the US dollar is not "worth less and less" as a result. As soon as a bank uses its US treasury security to pay back the money it received from the Fed, the money disappears.

Having $2 trillion in "interest bearing reserves", i.e. interest owed by the US taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, does nothing to the value of money or the economy as a whole, simply because the banks refuse to lend it, like they were supposed to? That's ludicrous.

Quantitative easing and inflation by design are methods of wealth redistribution from the people to the banks and their cronies.

imontheinternet: DubyaHater: Is the Fark support of Ron Paul because of his drug policies? Because anything he says is pure insanity

To keep things in context, we're living in a crazy world right now. A lot of the most basic assumptions of society, that hardly anyone even bothers to question, are completely and utterly absurd.

Take, for example, Fractional Reserve Banking Banks quite literally make money appear out of thin air. Every year, even when there aren't any special money-printing programs like quantitative easing, money becomes worth less and less, while wages stay stagnant. We really on a collision course here. People are struggling to make ends meet, and it just keeps getting worse. The trends of the past few decades cannot continue much longer without catastrophe.

Living with stagnant wages is cool according to Farkers, it is hip to be fat, lazy, and poor living off welfare. Heaven forbid people have to really work and provide for themselves when the fed can just print money and government pays it out. Its no wonder why Paul is called crazy because most people are too stupid to be able to comprehend anything more than Playstation, Xbox, and beer. After a night playing Call of Duty half these farkers are military experts that want to come to Fark and say that war and military policing is needed as long as they do not have to go.

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, after a company poisons your water supply, a lawsuit will fix everything. After you child is killed by an unsafe product, the settlement money will be a completely acceptable substitute. Especially when the Corporation you sued pays you in their own private currency.

Corporate behavior is all about risk aversion. To quote Fight Club, they apply the formula. A fine from a regulator will often be much less than the profits realized, but a jury verdict is a question mark. It could come back extremely high, making a company less likely to take the risk of doing something unethical.

Of course, I'm talking about the system functioning perfectly, which could not possibly happen in real life. Ultimately, regulation is a balancing act- too much government interference without adequate oversight, and you get regulatory capture. Too little, and you have to put too much trust in the court system.

Philip Francis Queeg: So vote RON PAUL?

Vote for whoever can get our deficits under control. Sadly, neither party seems to be much about doing anything signicant. The problem with Ron Paul (sorry, RON PAUL) IMO, is that he wants to use the deficit as means to his end.

I don't approve of that tactic, nor do I approve of non-functioning government. There needs to be some amount of social saftey net and there needs to be goverment regulation. However, goverment also need to live within its means. The best way to do that is to have small and efficient goverment.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: So vote RON PAUL?

Vote for whoever can get our deficits under control. Sadly, neither party seems to be much about doing anything signicant. The problem with Ron Paul (sorry, RON PAUL) IMO, is that he wants to use the deficit as means to his end.

I don't approve of that tactic, nor do I approve of non-functioning government. There needs to be some amount of social saftey net and there needs to be goverment regulation. However, goverment also need to live within its means. The best way to do that is to have small and efficient goverment.

The problem is you have politicians that don't want to do actual work in their local district, so creating larger government and funding towards new gov't projects keep them busy.

I'm curious on your statement on Ron Paul's agenda with the deficit. I've read Farkers talking about both sides using the deficit to their advantage, and I guess I just need someone to dumb it down for me. With a financial strain that big, how do they take advantage of it other than using it as a tool to cut spending on other projects they deem are useless?

imontheinternet: Take, for example, Fractional Reserve Banking Banks quite literally make money appear out of thin air. Every year, even when there aren't any special money-printing programs like quantitative easing, money becomes worth less and less, while wages stay stagnant.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/09/ron-pa u l/did-fed-create-15-trillion-during-bailout-and-send/

The other missing piece is the current status of those loan programs. Also not cited by the Paul campaign, the GAO reported that after all that lending, the total amount still outstanding is $13 billion dollars. The money was created out of thin air, but when it was repaid, it no longer existed. This is where the Federal Reserve is different from any other bank in the US.

"I think you're creating money, because you're certainly loaning it out," said Calabria. "But I also think you're extinguishing it later.

The guy being quoted? Yeah, he's a director for Cato. When the director of Cato calls bullshiat on Ron Paul's argument, then it's a pretty good sign that Ron Paul is bullshiat.

imontheinternet: Quantitative easing and inflation by design are methods of wealth redistribution from the people to the banks and their cronies.

Where did you learn your economics? From 1982 to 2008 Americans went on a borrowing spree. Household debt as % of personal disposable income increased from 65% to 130%. There is an enormous overhang of private debt. It is the result of the largest asset bubble in the history of the world. This debt weighs heaviest on working people. The wealthy shoulder essentially no debt.

Inflation helps people in debt because they pay back more cheaply. The argument usually made is that inflation would increase the cost of new loans because inflation would be matched one-to-one by higher long term interest rates. But, that is in more normal times. Long term interest rates reflect expected short term rates. As long as short term rates are forced to remain low, long term interest rates can not match inflation.

Most US folks could benefit from inflation right now.

schrodinger: The guy being quoted? Yeah, he's a director for Cato. When the director of Cato calls bullshiat on Ron Paul's argument, then it's a pretty good sign that Ron Paul is bullshiat.

Apart from anything Paul said, it is true that the Fed has created about $2 trillion. But that's not what we're assessing.

The figures he was citing were the official figures from the balance sheet. An in-depth look later showed that "only" 2 trillion were actually created, because the rest was the result of chicanery, like revolving door loans. In the end, it's still money being printed and distributed, with much of it going overseas.

Also, The GAO study tells us nothing definitive about where the money went. The only people who would know would be officials at the banks themselves.

The Federal Reserve can print an outrageous amount of money, which we think is around $2 trillion, then use confusing techniques to turn it into $15 trillion temporarily, then back into 2, and we have no idea where any of this money ultimately went. Do you not see something wrong with this picture?

RON PAUL might be crazy on multiple issues, but at least you have to admit, he is probably the least corruptible politician you will find.

If only he would back off some of those social and economic issues.....


/we could really use his foreign policy right about now.

Delay: Most US folks could benefit from inflation right now.

Not even remotely true. What you're leaving out of the equation is that, since Reagan and the supply-side turn, wages have remained stagnant. People make roughly the same amount of money each year. The payments on the debt they've already accrued are roughly the same. What changes is the cost of necessities like groceries, gas, and food. With their paychecks worth less and less, people are having to incur more debt just to make ends meet.

If the money people make does not keep up with the inflation of the currency, the net result is people having to incur more debt. The fact that high inflation would make it easier to pay off the entire debt, if they already had the money to do so, is irrelevant.

Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: That said, deregulation could possibly work if the government no longer acts as a shield for private corporations. Let people sue on their own behalf, and companies will be facing jury verdicts of pissed off citizens, rather than slap on the wrist fines.

Yep, after a company poisons your water supply, a lawsuit will fix everything. After you child is killed by an unsafe product, the settlement money will be a completely acceptable substitute. Especially when the Corporation you sued pays you in their own private currency.

Your trolling is borderline annoying. I don't know if I should slap you for being blatantly ignorant, or to cheer you on for showing us how dumb the liberal arguments are...

Obiwontaun: Read the headline again. Subby makes no mention of Romney taking the pension.

/not subby

pope183: the warble garble is strong with this one...

1. subby doesn't say Mitt takes a pension

2. Mitts comment about his $364,000 income being "not very much" when it is 7 times the national average

3. and yet Mitt is on record saying he only paid about 15% in taxes

This article is not about Mitt paying 15% taxes. This article is about none of that. I get you're really pouty mad about that. Hey, I am too. But there is a separate thread dedicated to just that.

This article is about the hypocrisy of Republicans who want to reduce government wasteful spending yet take large unnecessary pensions. Mitt does not. Mitt is an example of a Republican on the correct side of this discussion.

Put another way - the points you make are all good and true but are off-topic. Same goes for subby's headline. Stretching that hard to attack Romney makes you look like a partisan hack.

Delay: Mittens is still a greedy guy who has gotten very rich exploiting artificial monopolies.

He sure is. This is not a "yay, vote for Mittens" comment. This is a "Mittens does a lot of douchey things but taking a wasteful pension while crying about wasting taxpayer money? That is not one of them."

Put another way - the points you make are all good and true but are off-topic. Same goes for subby's headline. Stretching that hard to attack Romney makes you look like a partisan hack.

At least give them an "E" for effort?

FinFangFark: With a financial strain that big, how do they take advantage of it other than using it as a tool to cut spending on other projects they deem are useless?

To really do anyting signifcant we are going to need to piss both sides off. Spending will have to be cut and taxes are will have to be increased. This mess is way to big to cross a few of your 'I have mine so fark you' programs off the list. To get out of this, we are all going to have to give up a little.

Those that use the deficit for an excuse to slash programs that they don't agree with have thier head in the wrong spot to be effecitve in tackling this problem.