JulieB Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Just dropped in & noticed this thread is still going. Ron Paul' final retirement speech after 30 years of being a US Congressman to the House Representatives was worth 48 minutes out of my life Methinks he hits nail on head on alot of matters regarding the world's economic woes and he asked 30 very pertinent questions of the US legislature, They say when America coughs the UK sneezes & with the impending 2nd downgrade of the UK economy in the new year drawing close - you might hope that his words might ring a chord in high places both sides of the Atlantic.....somehow I fear not. Here they are in the order he asked them: Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison? Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk? Why can't Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp? Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution? Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane? Why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold? Why can't Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy? Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air? Why should there be mandatory sentences--even up to life for crimes without victims--as our drug laws require? Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes? Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ? Why haven't we given up on the drug war since it's an obvious failure and violates the people's rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem? Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US? Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch? Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes? Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth? Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty? Why can't people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty? Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a "kill list," including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination? Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong. Why is it is claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them? Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people? Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties? Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren't they the same? Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty? Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands? Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world's great religions. Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it's the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there's such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do? Meanwhile the toxic, off balance sheet, shadow banking world that bought the whole pack of cards almost completely tumbling down in 2008 - grows ever bigger by the day - unregulated and unchecked....a staggering $67 Trillion - dwarfing the entire global economy... Bloomberg - Shaow Banking Grows to $67 Billion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Ron Paul is an economically illiterate idiot. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Ron Paul is an economically illiterate idiot. Good riddance. Amen, brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Estimates of UK government expenditure next year Total £676 billion Pensions £138 bn Health care 126 bn Education £97 bn Defence £46 Bn Welfare £116 Bn £53bn of the spending listed above goes to Scotland Some interesting tables and graphs here chart of the interest payment on our public debt The real risk from government debt is the burden of interest payments. Experts say that when interest payments reach about 12% of GDP then a government will likely default on its debt. Chart 5 shows that the UK is a long way from that risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 How does one default when the debt is issued in their own currency? Default would be completely self-inflicted in the UK's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Estimates of UK government expenditure next year Total £676 billion Pensions £138 bn Health care 126 bn Education £97 bn Defence £46 Bn Welfare £116 Bn £53bn of the spending listed above goes to Scotland Any idea how much of that the government is likely to raise from taxes etc. and how much they'll need to borrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Estimates of UK government expenditure next year Total £676 billion Pensions £138 bn Health care 126 bn Education £97 bn Defence £46 Bn Welfare £116 Bn £53bn of the spending listed above goes to Scotland Some interesting tables and graphs here chart of the interest payment on our public debt The real risk from government debt is the burden of interest payments. Experts say that when interest payments reach about 12% of GDP then a government will likely default on its debt. Chart 5 shows that the UK is a long way from that risk. There's about £150Bn not accounted for there which I presume is made up of a shed load of minor items. For me, I'd shave a good bit off defence and arts and pay down some debt. Health needs a full and lengthy debate on what health is for, are we happy to give everyone everything? Is it ok to go to a doctor and get a prescription because you've got a cold? Is it ok for childless people to get IVF? Is it ok to give gender swaps? etc etc Please note I haven't expressed a view on those...we just need to realise that if we doubled health spend it would not be enough for every grazed knee and cancer cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 For me, I'd shave a good bit off defence and arts and pay down some debt. If you cut defence spending entirely you'd still need to find another 80bn before you could start "paying down some debt", else you'll just be paying debt with debt, and if you're playing that game, why bother cutting at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 There's about £150Bn not accounted for there which I presume is made up of a shed load of minor items. For me, I'd shave a good bit off defence and arts and pay down some debt. Health needs a full and lengthy debate on what health is for, are we happy to give everyone everything? Is it ok to go to a doctor and get a prescription because you've got a cold? Is it ok for childless people to get IVF? Is it ok to give gender swaps? etc etc Please note I haven't expressed a view on those...we just need to realise that if we doubled health spend it would not be enough for every grazed knee and cancer cure. Yeah health comes under the same banner as Europe to me , it's a very emotive subject and you never really get a proper discussion on the subject Apart from the fact that a vast majority of our MP's are going to profit from any health care reforms I'd like to see a proper case for and against , rather than just " the NHS is the best in the world " (it isn't) and " the Torys have killed the NHS " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I would increase Defence spending and put a few extra billion into the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2012 I would increase Defence spending and put a few extra billion into the economy. It's obviously not universally popular, and there are parts of the population who just look at defence and say "evil", but one thing with defence is that it is genuine industry - engineering, invention, technology, making things, R&D from defence filters through to all kinds of wholly benign industry and activity. That isn't true of some of the other sectors. And that's before you look at whether defence actually is "evil". The same bleeding hearts who "abhor" the defence/"Arms" industry will often be among the first to say "we should do something (militarily)" when Libya occurs, or Syria, or wherever. The other point is that while the Gov't asks the military to do what it does, it has to both pay for that action and has a duty to provide the military with the kit it needs to do the job as safely and as effectively as possible. It's hardly likely to be popular or a vote winner, and therefore won't happen, increasing defence spending, and nor do I think it should, but cutting it further would be folly, in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 How about taking some 'defence' money and spending it on genuine new technologies that will employ people making things with transferable exportable skills and knowledge base. Oh, I don't know, things like energy self sufficiency and food self sufficiency. We can double the number of troops, invent invisible aircraft, smart bombs, drones, clones and lasers. If Russia and the middle east turn off the fuel and war means we can't get food from the far east and south america or the Chinese jam satellites we won't be lasting that long. But i could be wrong, our proud record of military interventions and armament clients probably negates the need for food and electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ending exports of instruments of repression to brutal dictatorships would be good. Or perhaps, when demonstrators in Bahrein are being tortured with electric batons, it makes us feel better to think that at least they're our electric batons. After all, if we didn't sell them the stuff, someone else would, so that makes it all right. As for public spending, it needs to be increased significantly. This is another of those little differences between a firm and a government. If a firm borrows to invest, it doesn't increase the demand for its products. If a government increases investment, it does increase demand, and the overall level of economic activity. And the lack of demand is currently the biggest single problem facing businesses, and is the reason why they are sitting on cash instead of investing. Investing in things which increase our self-sufficiency and make us more resilient to the coming energy crises is so obviously a good thing, I wonder how many people outside the Cabinet don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ending exports of instruments of repression to brutal dictatorships would be good. Or perhaps, when demonstrators in Bahrein are being tortured with electric batons, it makes us feel better to think that at least they're our electric batons. After all, if we didn't sell them the stuff, someone else would, so that makes it all right. As for public spending, it needs to be increased significantly. This is another of those little differences between a firm and a government. If a firm borrows to invest, it doesn't increase the demand for its products. If a government increases investment, it does increase demand, and the overall level of economic activity. And the lack of demand is currently the biggest single problem facing businesses, and is the reason why they are sitting on cash instead of investing. Investing in things which increase our self-sufficiency and make us more resilient to the coming energy crises is so obviously a good thing, I wonder how many people outside the Cabinet don't see it. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ending exports of instruments of repression to brutal dictatorships would be good. Or perhaps, when demonstrators in Bahrein are being tortured with electric batons, it makes us feel better to think that at least they're our electric batons. After all, if we didn't sell them the stuff, someone else would, so that makes it all right. 100 % Absolutely, but what's that got to do with Defence spending? That's export policy, not UK Gov't spending on defence. As for public spending, it needs to be increased significantly. This is another of those little differences between a firm and a government. If a firm borrows to invest, it doesn't increase the demand for its products. If a government increases investment, it does increase demand, and the overall level of economic activity. And the lack of demand is currently the biggest single problem facing businesses, and is the reason why they are sitting on cash instead of investing. Investing in things which increase our self-sufficiency and make us more resilient to the coming energy crises is so obviously a good thing, I wonder how many people outside the Cabinet don't see it. Public spending on the right things - the example of self-sufficiency and energy are blatantly obvious examples, as you say - needs to be increased, and it's utterly baffling why (well it's not, it's ideology) the tories won't do it. Equally public spending on the "wrong" things needs to be reduced. [Every party and every person will have (different) views on what's "bad" spending] - whether it be Trident Submarines, National and local Gov't spending on foreign cars for the Police or MPs, Aid to (now) wealthy countries, layers of beaurocracy that add no value, some Quangos, or whatever (delete or add as per personal preferences). So, some re-shaping of the way money was spent was necessary, we're never in a perfect place with that, but what's gone on has been madness, in large part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Mark Carney, former Goldman Sachs crook, is now governor of the Bank of England, will be interesting to see how he uses he's extra regulatory powers on his mates in the City, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Seems across the parties people seem to think its a good appointment, seems to have done a good job in Canada. Certainly a different appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Seems across the parties people seem to think its a good appointment... That's the bit that really worries me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepDish Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm not gonna jump into the debate wether the countries who has lived far beyond their means should extend and pretend some more. But every person should do their part in difficult times and cut their personal spending and pay down on debt. Don't be a modern slave, pay down as much debt as you can and do not fall for the temptation to buy stuff you don't need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm not gonna jump into the debate wether the countries who has lived far beyond their means should extend and pretend some more. But every person should do their part in difficult times and cut their personal spending and pay down on debt. Don't be a modern slave, pay down as much debt as you can and do not fall for the temptation to buy stuff you don't need. That's a great way to grind an economy that is primary based on consumption to a halt. I guess increasing the rate of unemployment is a great way to do ones 'part' right. Although to be fair, we are already seeing deleveraging taking place anyway, at least, that's what the data shows. But to advise it isn't exactly the smartest thing right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts