Newt Gingrich

My best guess is a near draw in Iowa between Romney and Paul in Iowa, a landslide in NH for Romney, a close win for Romney in SC where even the Tea Party is coming out for Romney, and then Romney pretty much runs the table from there, building steam through the rest until Super Tuesday.

I just realized newt is a Virginia resident. That means he didn't even make the ballot in his home state.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:
I just realized newt is a Virginia resident. That means he didn't even make the ballot in his home state.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That's because he cheated on his wife too much there. Wives be talking, and husbands be plotting his murder.

This is almost worthy of a this just in bulletin . . .



Mitt says watching Gingrich not getting on the ballot in the early states (VA and MO) is like watching Lucille Ball in the chocolate factory. Newt then challenges Mitt to tell him to his face. Get ready for a throw down in Davenport.

http://www.e-forwards.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Newt-Gingrich-ethics.jpeg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:
The fractional reserve system is underwritten by the US government (they set the reserve requirement and insure deposits) so it is not a free market phenomenon. Like other government interventions resulting in monetary expansion it contributes to the boom and bust cycle of the economy because it misleads individuals who subsequently pay the wrong price in terms of interest rates, misallocating scarce resources into less efficient investments.



If you don't read anything else Ron Paul has to say about foreign policy or anything else read what he has to say about the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking. This article would be a good place to start on the problems with a government-backed fractional reserve banking system (I think some form of a fractional reserve system could certainly exist in a free market system).

You're right that the reserve system is not a free market phenomenon-- it's the forbidden market interventionists at work!



Joking aside, I'm glad you can see just that liquidity and credit are absolutely vital. Both come from banks. But wait a minute. This is one of those "the market needs help" devices that you condemn Romney and Gingrich for in an earlier post. And yet you support some form of this interventionist banking system even with a President Paul scenario? Are you admitting that the free market may not be its most efficient on its own? GASP. (I might have to take your Ron Paul supporter card away! )



and yes, it is part of boom and bust; but so is capitalism itself. Boom and bust has been an inherent characteristic of capitalism since day 1 and the whole point of these interventionist measurements and safety nets is to reduce the length and impact of the bust cycle. Adam Smith's invisible hand, unregulated, is a giant fist of doom. Efficiency is a wonderful thing but it comes at a terrible individual cost. We use it because it creates booming economies, but just as quickly it wipes out communities, industries and families. Do you really think the "mild" recession we just had would have been the same or better if the government had let the entire US banking system collapse?

CougarClaw wrote:

The fractional reserve system is underwritten by the US government (they set the reserve requirement and insure deposits) so it is not a free market phenomenon. Like other government interventions resulting in monetary expansion it contributes to the boom and bust cycle of the economy because it misleads individuals who subsequently pay the wrong price in terms of interest rates, misallocating scarce resources into less efficient investments.



If you don't read anything else Ron Paul has to say about foreign policy or anything else read what he has to say about the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking. This article would be a good place to start on the problems with a government-backed fractional reserve banking system (I think some form of a fractional reserve system could certainly exist in a free market system).

You're right that the reserve system is not a free market phenomenon-- it's the forbidden market interventionists at work!



Joking aside, I'm glad you can see just that liquidity and credit are absolutely vital. Both come from banks. But wait a minute. This is one of those "the market needs help" devices that you condemn Romney and Gingrich for in an earlier post. And yet you support some form of this interventionist banking system even with a President Paul scenario? Are you admitting that the free market may not be its most efficient on its own? GASP. (I might have to take your Ron Paul supporter card away! )



and yes, it is part of boom and bust; but so is capitalism itself. Boom and bust has been an inherent characteristic of capitalism since day 1 and the whole point of these interventionist measurements and safety nets is to reduce the length and impact of the bust cycle. Adam Smith's invisible hand, unregulated, is a giant fist of doom. Efficiency is a wonderful thing but it comes at a terrible individual cost. We use it because it creates booming economies, but just as quickly it wipes out communities, industries and families. Do you really think the "mild" recession we just had would have been the same or better if the government had let the entire US banking system collapse?

Cougarclaw, I was getting ready to post something about Newt in this thread but I came upon this post, so just a quick response. When I say a fractional reserve system can exist in a free market what I mean is that individuals should communicate to banks what they believe is the correct reserve requirement and the government should have no part in that process. The free market needs no help.



When government intervenes it prolongs and deepens malinvestment. As I said previously you need only look at the stock market drops of 1921 and 1929 to see what happens when government doesn't intervene (1921) with a quick recovery and what happens when it does intervene (1929) with a depression that lasted 17 years.



So to answer your question about a "mild" recession, the evidence points to the fact that the recession has been much longer than would have occurred without government intervention.

Newt just got another $5 million from his casino friend. If Mitt doesn't win Florida I think he'll lose every state in the south.

IowaCougar wrote:

declocoug wrote:

Well I am sick of politians after what they have done and not done this year. I am voting for any incumbents.

Maybe you should consider voting for anyone BUT incumbents? ;)



The problem with Mitt for me is that he thinks that running a government is like running a business. It's not. The government should not be used to control the economy, which is what Obama has been attempting to do, and is what I'm afraid Mitt will try to do.

I think if a candidate has private-sector experience and actually knows how the economy works, they are much more able to position government to help an ailing economy, which I don't see as trying to control it-which is why Obama is failing miserably.

I agree. The problem with career polititians is that they're generally ignorant in how real economics work, and live in a fantasy, zero-sum wealth world. They think that the solution to inequality is taking from those who have and giving to those who have not, rather than finding ways to create more wealth for those who have not.

This is made quite clear by the way they run their financial lifestyles when in Washington. They all seem to quickly become millionairs when they get there, and They get Cadillac everything, yet they can't seem to cover their checks or pay their bills.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/newt-gingrich-family-values.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

bigbluepuma wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

scott715 wrote:
Well I am sick of politians after what they have done and not done this year. I am voting for any incumbents.

Maybe you should consider voting for anyone BUT incumbents? ;)



The problem with Mitt for me is that he thinks that running a government is like running a business. It's not. The government should not be used to control the economy, which is what Obama has been attempting to do, and is what I'm afraid Mitt will try to do.

I think if a candidate has private-sector experience and actually knows how the economy works, they are much more able to position government to help an ailing economy, which I don't see as trying to control it-which is why Obama is failing miserably.

I agree. The problem with career polititians is that they're generally ignorant in how real economics work, and live in a fantasy, zero-sum wealth world. They think that the solution to inequality is taking from those who have and giving to those who have not, rather than finding ways to create more wealth for those who have not.

This is made quite clear by the way they run their financial lifestyles when in Washington. They all seem to quickly become millionairs when they get there, and They get Cadillac everything, yet they can't seem to cover their checks or pay their bills.

There is a great line early on (first 25 pages or so) in SuperFreakonomics where the authors say (paraphrased) "the problem with politicians is that in their desire to do the right thing, they fail to account for how real people respond to real incentives in the real world."

3 wives only weigh as much as 1 on the moon!



https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2a9imK2he0k_EP-HOF-mcZ_9iJNOKcpVriEtnNXEwYbg8LAlVMg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">