The endorsement you’ve all been waiting for.

Folks, there’s no need to search for a candidate any longer. Ray McBerry has spoken:

“In 2006, I agreed to run for governor upon the constitutionalist platform of States’ Rights. Our campaign theme was “Not Atlanta… Not Washington… But GEORGIA FIRST!”

“With only ninety days to campaign and no campaign war-chest, we received approximately 50,000 votes in the Republican primary against a sitting governor. We faced our greatest opposition, not from the liberal media, but from the neo-conservatives in control of the Georgia Republican Party. Our campaign, though, was enthusiastically embraced by Georgians everywhere tha t we spoke or were interviewed; and that support cut across the traditional lines of party, class, and ethnicity… much to the disappointment of the downtown Atlanta establishment. Our campaign demonstrated that the people of Georgia DO still celebrate the principles of liberty of our forefathers and relish the opportunity to cast a vote for such men today.

“Congressman Ron Paul today faces the same challenge that we faced two years ago here in Georgia… both a media blackout AND a Republican establishment blackout. And he faces this challenge for the same reason that liberty-loving men everywhere face them. Let me say it plainly, ‘Ron Paul is right today, because the Founding Fathers were right in 1776!’

Powered by ScribeFire.


  1. StevePerkins says:

    Wow… the FredHead alumni are really on a roll this week! Don’t blame us for the early-state voters not being dumb enough to jump on a bandwagon for no real reason other than a candidate putting out pretty position papers and being an actor (just like, gasp, Reagan! He MUST be his heir then!). It’s not our fault that Fred jerked you neoncons and Bible-thumpers around and split your vote, so you’d end up handing the nomination to McCain. Why so bitter at us?

  2. StevePerkins says:

    Too much? Sorry.

    I guess I’ve let Erick and Buzz bait me a little this week. It’s not so much that the Paul jabs get to me, it’s more that I’m frustrated with the inability of Republicans to pull their heads out of their rears with the Party’s direction in general. Pretty much everything the Party leadership has been about for the past 10 years, voters are now (rightfully) rejecting. Not only are the Dems on track for a trouncing this November, but even GOP voters are picking the nominee most often accused of being a Democrat as well!

    Ron Paul not winning the nomination outright has become the “Booby Prize” for the people happy with George Bush’s presidency. You haven’t heard much from them on Paul over the past few months, because they were clinging to the hope that one of their candidates (Fred, Rudy, etc) would wind up on top and validate their views. However, since it’s become obvious this week that the nomination is going to the guy who’s given them the finger for a decade or two… the fallback plan seems to be claiming, “Paul’s not winning, therefore my position is still mainstream and people who oppose me are fringe”. McCain’s nomination shows that to be nuts, and the lack of support in the comment sections for these threads illustrates it further, but the fact that we still have these threads makes me sad. Sheesh… what’s it’s going to take to push through the denial, folks?

  3. Jace Walden says:


    Back in 2006, I thought that it might take a trouncing of epic proportions in the Congressional election in order for the party to get the message. But rather than reform, the GOP carried on with business as usual. They put John Boehner, the majority leader of the 109th Congress, continue to lead the party down the path of insignificance. They but Bush goober-smoocher Mel Martinez in charge of the RNC, and gave Trent “I hate Porkbusters” Lott a leadership position in the Senate.

    It is obvious that overwhelming electoral defeat isn’t enough to keep the GOP from trying to whistle across the graveyard. Perhaps spending a few years under President Clinton or President Obama who have majorities in both houses Congress will wake them up.

    As scary as a Clinton or Obama Presidency would be, I am much more afraid of the charlatans in the GOP who pay lip service to “American Values”, and then betrary us once they get to Washington.

  4. Icarus says:

    The problem, Steve, (as I see it),

    is that Ron Paul is, in fact, nutters.

    Actually, he’s really just fringe. Unfortunatley, his most loyal supporters are completely unhinged.

    Do I agree that Republican leadership has failed the party? – yes.

    Do I believe the “establishment” – whoever they are – got too comfortable with the fat cat types and forgot the little guy/grass roots types? yep.

    Do I believe that the Republican congressional leaders suffer from cranial-rectal inversion? yes, yes, and yes.

    The problem with Dr. Paul’s people, Steve, is that they have rather forcefully espoused the notion that if you agree with the above, you must vote for Dr. Paul, and if you vote for anyone else you’re an idiot/traitor/communist. (I’ve been called all three, but I’ve been called much worse for things I’ve actually earned).

    A lot of us realize the above problems, and more. We also realize that Ron Paul as our nominee would cause us to lose down ticket races so badly that we wouldn’t be in shot of getting actual conservatives elected for generations.

    His idea to go to a gold standard is impossible without causing a massive deflation. Elminating the Federal Reserve would cause a complete lack of control of economic cycles. He is on record as wanting to eliminate social security and medicare. Look how pols fare in elections when they just want to cut these programs rate of growth.

    The ideas of wanting a smaller, more controllable government, which doesn’t intrude on individual rights and respects the constituion is noble and just. Using Ron Paul as your vehicle to advance that goal is foolish.

  5. StevePerkins says:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying Icarus (although Jace’s follow-up comment explains why I’m voting for Paul anyway). My point is simply that folks ignored Paul until it became obvious that their picks were toast, and over the past week have taken up Paul-bashing as a consolation for the fact that McCain’s the nominee and they are less relevant. That’s lame.

  6. Icarus says:

    I’ve been bashing Paul from the beginning, for the reasons I summarized above, and many more. I finally swore off of it because I realized it was pointless. Steve and Jace are not your average Paul supporters. They will engage in healthy debate, concede points if necessary, but maintain an intellectual argument.

    But I fully support RedStates restrictions that were placed on RP debates, and I wrote a full RS diary on why I would not participate in any more Ron Paul discussions.

    Paul’s network of online “supporters” made it impossible to have any debate about the underlying issues, and instead represented every negative stereotype that RP has earned.

    I’ll make the same recommendation now that I made months ago. If you want a serious and credible “libertarian” candidate (small l), start pushing Bob Barr. He wouldn’t be my first choice for Pres, but he seems to be walking the walk that you guys are looking for, but without the baggage that Ron Paul has.

  7. Doug Deal says:

    I want to echo Icarus’s sentiment.

    When I was younger, I thought that the whole burn everything and let something better grow in its place strategy was a sound one. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work.

    Politics has become a ride on an elevator with a busted cable. The only thing holding us up is the failing brakes. Every slip downward means we go lower and lower. We cannot ever hope to go up, but we can hope to stay were we are as long as possible. When was the last time that an unnecessary government department has been cut? Despite the promises in 1994, the NEA is still funded, the department of education is even bigger than ever, and the department of agriculture wants to expand subsidies for ethanol. Once you fall a little, you never go back up.

    The Republicans are those busted brakes. People might get mad at them for slipping ever so slightly and sometimes giving up 1-2 floors at a time, but it sure beats free-fall. Advocating releasing the brakes so someone else can get a chance means irrevocably plummeting several stories.

    As bad as those brakes are, we have to strengthen them as much as possible to stave off the inevitable collision with the ground.

  8. Chris says:

    When was the last time that an unnecessary government department has been cut?

    Civil Aeronautics Board. This government agency decided how big of a sandwitch an airline could serve. True the CAB was replaced by the FAA, but the CAB’s role and scope was much greater than the FAA.

    BTW, The CAB died under the watch of History’s Greatest Monster

  9. Hank Reardan says:

    I am working on the Ron Paul Campaign. I am one of those hard core Libertarians. I have not seen anyone from the GOP reach out to those of us you might consider normal. Some of us are radical but some times you need these folks. These are the people who will walk door to door in the rain. Will volunteer to work on the campaign on super bowl sunday.You guys could use the help. I have meet alot of Ron Paul supporters in real life they seem like the guy or gal next door. After Ron Paul is gone I will go back to the Libertarian party but this time I might go back with a bunch of Ron Paul supporters to work on my next Libertarian campaign. The thing is if you meet most Libertarians or Ron Paul supporter on the street you would think that person would be a Republican or a conservative. Most of us just want the government out of our lives, all of it not just part. Most of the Republican want the government out of thier lives but not the guy down the street, he still needs someone to tell him how to live. because he is not smart enough to make the right choices.

  10. joltenjoe says:

    I want to take one small peice of the argument above that Ron Paul is “nutters.” Just take a look at the dollar after 1933, that is after we went off the gold standard.

    What cost $5000 in 1933 would cost $71411.27 in 2006.
    Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1933,
    they would cost you $5000 and $350.08 respectively.

    Did you see the lose of purchasing power over that time?

    Lets look at the U.S. on the gold standard.

    What cost $5000 in 1860 would cost $8453.04 in 1932.
    Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1932 and 1860,
    they would cost you $5000 and $2957.51 respectively.

    Roughly the same years, but there is a HUGE (I like capital letters) difference in the amount of purchasing power lost. The gold standard prevents inflation. Now, furthermore, Ron Paul doesn’t want to get rid of the Fed. Instead he wants to introduce Gold and Silver back currency and let it compete with the Feds paper.

    Gold and Silver do not cause inflation…fiat money does.

  11. Icarus says:


    I’m glad you have pieced together a group of stats that don’t actually support the conclusion you’ve drawn. But if it makes you feel good, and that your candidtate isn’t fringe, great.

    There’s not enough Gold or Silver in the world to cover the amount of US dollars outstanding. How do you propose we go back to fiat money without having a massive deflation that would spark a world wide depression?

  12. drjay says:

    hey why not a platinum standard–isn’t platinum the new gold–its worth twice as much so it would be easier to tote around and stuff–or maybe osmium or rhodium–one of them i forget which is actually worth about 8 times s much as gold–gold is so 19th century–w/ klondikes and 49ers and such…

  13. joltenjoe says:

    Oh come now, you don’t have a “reason” for it to not support my conclusion?

    I gave you very similar years (around 70) one on the Gold Standard, and one off. There is a huge difference between the inflation during those years.

    The fact is inflation MUST (again capital letters) be controled when a country is on the gold and silver standard or the gold will flow out of the country or into the country (although the later might not be too bad).

    As how to replace it all? Its called gradualization. For a time you’ll have dual currencies. What we won’t be doing is sending another T-note to the Fed (to be bought up by China), and thus increasing the deficit.

    Simplist explanation? Sure, but considering the best you’ve done so far is make statments with no true backing, I’ll stick with it.

    For now.

  14. drjay says:

    also in a global economy how do you have an exchange rate w/ currencies not tied to the same standard?–i’m not an economist, maybe there is a really simple answer–i am literally asking the question–not trying to be flippant…

  15. joltenjoe says:

    That is the key of course as towhy it wouldn’t cause inflation.

    If you value it to low (inflation) you’ll quickly run out of gold. You’ll want to keep the value of you currency high, and thus the gold in your vaults.

    It is the Fiat money that can printed without concern (except debt) that causes inflation (as my stats give credit to).

  16. Icarus says:


    Do you think there was anything different about the U.S. economy in the 1800s and the 1900s other than the gold standard? Like the size of the economy? The shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial/information based economy? No, O.K., must be the gold standard.

    I’ll take today’s standard of living over that of 1932.

  17. Icarus says:


    Because Reagan almost did something, but then decided it was a bad idea, you think it’s a good idea to do it now? Great logic.

  18. Carpe Forem says:

    He didn’t “decide it was a bad idea”, those are your words.

    He stated in a Reason interview that “they won’t let me have everything I want.”

  19. joltenjoe says:

    So transforming to a different economic base causes inflation?

    Is that what you are suggesting?

    I am sure there are many “causes” to the dollar’s drop in value through the years. However, the greatest of these is the leaving of the Gold Standard, and the never ending pringing of Fiat money by the Fed.

  20. drjay says:

    also wasn’t the gold standard somehow complicit in the woldwide depression in the 20’s and 30’s–wasn’t the idea of currency being backed by the “full faith and credit” of the nation issuing it a response that weakness of the gold standard??

  21. Icarus says:


    I don’t think I’m going to change either of your minds. After all, you’ve apparently learned everything you need to know about economics from the inside of a book cover and Ron Paul’s website. I don’t think I can compete with such insight.

    I’ll just take comfort from the fact that no serious candidate is advocating a return to the gold standard.

  22. joltenjoe says:

    Actually I learned all I need to know about economics from a 4 year university on the way to earning a Social Science degree, but again I see you don’t really want to discuss, but disparage.

  23. joltenjoe says:

    Actually the Fed. increasing the Money supply by 60ish % in the 1920’s, and then contracting it had more to do with the depression that the Gold Standard.

    The money situation probably would have “Fixed” itself as the Gold Standard is want to do, however, the “meddling” of the Fed did much damage to our finicial situation at the time.

  24. Carpe Forem says:

    Icarus wrote:
    Steve and Jace are not your average Paul supporters. They will engage in healthy debate, concede points if necessary, but maintain an intellectual argument.

    It would be nice if you we’re willing to do the same … and without your backhanded comments.

  25. drjay says:

    the first thing i asked was why gold and not any other number of precious metals mined on earth??

    the second question was how do we have an international currency exchange w/ other nations–not on the gold standard if we tie ourselves to it?

    and 3rd i asked if the gold standard was not somewhat complicit in the worldwide depression between the world wars??

  26. drjay says:

    more so than in the u.s. i was thinking about europe where their gold supplies were “depleted” by the war and they could not print money that was actually backed by a reserve–putting them betwen a rock and a hard place if you will

  27. rugby fan says:


    I believe you suggested people read an entire academic work in a matter of minutes and now you are disappointed that people haven’t. Don’t be.

  28. joltenjoe says:

    1. I believe Dr. Paul has suggested both Gold and Silver. Why are these the metals to be used? They are the ones most commonly traded for. Could you use Platinum, Tin, Nickel? I suppose so, however, the value of some of these is very low and the other very high.

    Gold and Silver standards have been used before and wouldn’t be so “foreign” to create.

    2. Everyone’s money can buy Gold. The trick to being on the Gold standard is making sure that the Value of the dollar isn’t to depressed and thus make it easy for other people to come in and trade in for the Gold and deplete your supply of Gold.

    Thus forcing you to Control inflation.

    3. I believe I addressed this. There were outside influences in the Money supply (namely the Fed) creating unsound monetary policies. Gold wasn’t the cause (although the arguement that you can’t “fix” things as QUICKLY with the gold standard does hold true), it was the unsound monetary policies during the 20’s that did more to cause the depression.

    Of course there isn’t one cause, but Gold isn’t the greatest cause.

  29. drjay says:

    also gold is a commodity traded on the open market–and less likely but still able to be mined on your proerty if you are lucky enough to have a gold mine–how does this effect curency–to have gold that you bought or mined at 400 an ounce a couple of years ago that is now 900 and ounce??

  30. joltenjoe says:

    The reason why gold is worth more now than then is inflation. Inflation caused (primairly) by the existance of fiat money.

    If it (gold) was your Standard you would strictly control your bank not supply (bank notes that you could trade in for gold) and thus keep the price (and inflation) in check.

    I found an article by Greenspan (whoI don’t really like) adressing the depression and how it was the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply and not gold that was the cause of the depression.

    Not gospel of course, but an interesting read none the less.

    “The market cannot be conned” of course (towards the end) is my favorite quote.

  31. joltenjoe says:

    I also hope that after reading the article you’ll begin to grasp why a true, fisical conservative should wish to return to the gold standard.

  32. joltenjoe says:

    And of course he stated above that its Dr. Paul supporters who are alway rude (and for no reason)

    No reason indeed.

  33. drjay says:

    it seems to me that there would still be a potential danger of either another nation or even a very wealthy individual or group manipulating or even decimating an economy by flooding it w/ gold or asking for all there gold at one time if they were so inclined

  34. Bill Simon says:

    Dr. Jay,

    You ain’t thinking long range enough here. What precious metal gets formed into a body part? Your bread and butter.

    You should be pumping the gold standard up a lot! Think of all the access you have to a pile of gold crowns!

  35. Icarus says:

    OK Gentlemen,

    Since you think I was rude when I left before (sorry, had to go to the bank and deposit some of my worthless fiat money), I’ll attempt to at least finish what I started. However, as I have stated previously, one of the reasons I don’t like these threads is because it gets bogged down in minutia over things that I have neither studied nor reflected on for 15-25 years. I’m not willing to put the effort of writing a thesis or even a junk term paper into a freaking blog that I use to amuse myself when I kill time. Thus, I’ll give you a few points of rebuttal, you can ask a follow up question, for each if you like (or not, then I can spend less time on this), I’ll respond once if asked, and then I’m done, last words are yours.

    First, all of your arguments are based on the fact that inflation is public enemy #1. It’s not. Most economists fear deflation to inflation. Inflation is bad when it increases suddenly or unexpectedly. It is my belief, and most economists I’ve worked with, that the most powerful force in economics is “rational expectations”. Deflation and rapid or unexpected inflation both play hell with a consumer’s expectations.

    Inflation that we’ve experienced for the last 25 years, however, has generally been controlled well by a both monetary and fiscal policy. I think most of us are in agreement that we would prefer a fiscal policy that showed greater spending restraint and less national debt. So most of the argument is around the Gold Standard and monetary policy.

    First, Joe compared a period from the Civil war to the peak of the Great Depression to illustrate that there was no inflation. I believe there were actually two major instances of deflation during this period, as well as at least one bank panic (not counting the crash of 1929). This period covered reconstruction, where there was almost no economic activity in the Southern U.S., and there was generally great economic uncertainty and little (stable) economic expansion.

    The inflationary period you cited is comprised mostly of the post WWII boom to the present, including the great economic expansion of the 80’s and 90’s. You will not that this period was marked by relatively steady economic growth and expansion, with most disturbances relatively minor, and brought on by some kind of external shock (70’s oil crisis, first gulf war, etc.). While inflation seems dramatic when looking at it during a 70 year series, it has generally proven to be a relatively stable and managed rate of less than 3%, annually over this time. This is a rate that allows most consumers a comfort level and fits in with stable consumer expectations.

    You will also note that the dollar’s value relative to other currencies has been stable during most of this period, and that it’s rapid depreciation against foreign currencies has a lot more to do with bad fiscal policy and its associated increase in the national debt than it does gold vs. fiat money.

  36. drjay says:

    icarus–would a gold standard make wealth creation a zero sum game–is it even possible for wealth to be created if the value of wealth is tied to a finite commodity or are we just moving the same wealth around in that instance??

  37. drjay says:

    if i make you keep talking about this you can’t artificially inflate that demon thread–maybe huckabee’s chances of winning another primary should be tied tot the gold standard–that would keep y’all away from it…

  38. Icarus says:

    “would a gold standard make wealth creation a zero sum game–”

    I won’t go so far as to say it would be totally zero sum, but I think it makes it a lot harder to generate any real growth.

    At the height of colonialism, England controlled almost all of the worlds gold. Again, been years since I’ve even had to think about it, but I remember this causing great problems for both England and their trading partners.

  39. Paul Shuford says:

    Come on, guys. The point of a Ron Paul Presidency is to keep the Dems from growing government. There is no way that Ron Paul would be able to get his wackier ideas passed, but what would happen is that everything that doesn’t pass constitutional muster, from the Republicans or the Democrats, would get vetoed. That means that the only things that would get passed are things that the Republicans and Democrats both REALLY want, because they’d have to come together to overcome a veto.

    I think our government would be a lot better if they had to get a 2/3 majority every time they wanted to pass a new law, and that’s how things would be, for the most part, under a Paul Presidency. He also would be looking to trade with other nations, not start wars with them. Overall, a much better strategy for our country – pass less laws, and start fewer wars.

  40. joltenjoe says:

    Ah, what a grand rebuttal!

    Lets follow your logic:

    1. Gold creates inflation.
    2. When I show at the very least it causes no more inflation than fiat money you:
    3. Say Inflation isn’t that bad anyway.

    And you say Dr. Paul is nuts.

    Now, it seems you are stuck in the old economic theory. I suppose you ought to write something new, because it would refresh you mind and let you see where we are today in America.

    Inflation isn’t as helpful as it was in the past. Why? We don’t produce as many products as we used to.

    There was a time inflation made our goods cheaper and they sold better…

    These days? There aren’t just enough goods around to justify it.

    Bottom line is the Fed is causing inflation to help banks who used bad lending practices and to boost wall street.

    The effects are $4 gallons of milk (of course not all of that can be blamed on fiat money, but some, if not much, can).

  41. rugby fan says:

    “Now, it seems you are stuck in the old economic theory”

    I believe the gold standard is used by exactly zero countries today as they all moved off it around 70 years ago.

    Perhaps you are stuck in the old economic theories?

  42. juliobarrios says:

    I still remember, after the Primary, when McBerry demanded that Sonny meet with him and make concessions on some issues or he was going to take his 50,000 loyal servants and vote Democrat – throwing the election to Taylor.

    Sonny basically gave McBerry the finger and won in a landslide.

    Every time I warm to Paul, and he does have some good ideas, I see an idiot like McBerry behind him and wonder about the company I would keeping.

  43. joltenjoe says:

    “I believe the gold standard is used by exactly zero countries today as they all moved off it around 70 years ago.”

    The question remains, however, why did they move off of it, and why are we told they moved off of it?

    Even Alan Greenspan suggests that speaking of the gold standard “causing” the great depression is a falicy.

    It causes no more inflation than fiat money.

    What it does is, force the country who is on it to live within its means. That is, no welfare state, no $9 Trillion deficit, and no more T-notes bought up by China.

    I see why one of the fathers of the welfare state (FDR) took the path he took. What I don’t see is why present day so called fisical conservatives don’t see through the smoke and mirrors of fiat money…and push for the Gold standard.

  44. Icarus says:

    Joe, Here’s a less than grand rebuttal:

    “Lets follow your logic:

    1. Gold creates inflation.”

    Given that my first two comments to you about the gold standard stated that switching back would cause a massive DEflation, I’d say you’re doing a poor job of following my logic already.

    “Now, it seems you are stuck in the old economic theory. ”

    If by “old economic theory” you mean broad interpretations of neo-classical economics that are taught in Universities around the globe, instead of things I read on the inside of book covers and Ron Paul’s website, you are correct.

    “There was a time inflation made our goods cheaper ” – Not sure you grasp the concept of inflation at this point.

    “The effects are $4 gallons of milk (of course not all of that can be blamed on fiat money, but some, if not much, can).” Let’s overlook the dramatic price increase of oil and corn over the last three years as a supply demand issue, and immediately conclude that the price of milk has gone up because we have fiat money.

    But, as always, the nutters line shines through in this jewel:

    “Bottom line is the Fed is causing inflation to help banks who used bad lending practices and to boost wall street. ”

    Bottom line is, Ron Paul’s entire platform has, at its roots, conspiracy theories. Ususally involving “the bankers”.

    In sum, I was having a perfectly enjoyable conversation here with Steve and Jace, and you decided to inject yourself and your nutters theories about gold, aided by Carpe’s oh-so-friendly interjection of “Read and Learn”. Then got pissed when I didn’t immediately recognize and bow to your brilliance.

    I then took the time to give you a broad outline of my objections, centered mainly on the theory that deflation is a bigger evil than inflation, deflation happened several times when the U.S. was on the gold standard, hasn’t happened since we’ve been off of it, and a return to the gold standard would cause a massive deflation.

    Your response was that I belive Gold causes inflation, I need to understand “new (unspecified and undefined) economics”, and that the fed is in a conspiracy to prop up the bankers.

    Great talk fellas, I’m done here.

  45. IndyInjun says:

    Since 2002 look what investments in gold have done versus the DOW and S&P, then get back to me on that “nutty” gold standard.

    Never before has the entire world been on a fiat money system. For a while, it seemed to work OK in the hands of fairly sane central bankers, but around 1998 the ability to make economies “recession proof” by inflating money supplies and slashing rates was too great a temptation and now all sanity has been removed from the money markets.

    The Japanese and Chinese have used the fiat money ‘system’ to practice reverse tariffs in a latter day mercantilism that is sucking the lifeblood out of the USA.

    More recently the financial institutions mass bankruptcy has meant that the Fed, Treasury and other GSE’s have gone into overdrive slashing interest rates below inflation, transferring $100’s of billions in liability from the busted financial institutions onto US via the GSE’s, creating the TAF whereby the Fed can send $tens of billions to bailout banks with no disclosure of whom is being bailed out, and suspending accounting rules to hide losses. This is corruption on a grand scale.This portends enormous inflationary pressures in the future as inflation is the chosen tonic for the wild imbalances in place.

    Spring wheat futures in October were $8. This week they are $13.27. All over the place massive price hikes are manifesting themselves.

    Ron Paul is in favor of a metal backing for the currency, but anyone paying attention to him knows that he advocates letting gold and silver compete with paper money in a transition phase.

    Dr. Paul has been warning folks for years of what is upon us. Raising $25 million for him has allowed his message to get out about the INFLATION TAX and no amount of ridicule from small people is going to change it, especially when people see their bread rise to $5 a loaf and milk heading toward $10 per gallon.

  46. joltenjoe says:

    “There was a time inflation made our goods cheaper ” – Not sure you grasp the concept of inflation at this point.”

    Inflation makes the dollar worth less, and thus on the global market makes our goods cheaper.

    That shouldn’t be such a hard concept to grasp.

    So the the theory USED to be that inflation COULD be a good thing. However, without the capacity to produce things as we used to have, this can be quickly thown out the window.

    Inflation in today’s America is a bad thing.

    The Gold Standard would reduce inflation (the hidden tax).

    Sadly, if you think the fed is reducing the interest rates for ANY other reason than to help banks and wallstreet at this point, you are the one who is a little nutters.

    Even the economist admit this.

  47. IndyInjun says:

    “if you think the fed is reducing the interest rates for ANY other reason than to help banks and wallstreet at this point, you are the one who is a little nutters.”

    The headline of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal read “Fed Cuts Rate to Soothe Markets” The subheadline read “Decision Pushes Gold to New High, Sends Dollar Even Lower.”

  48. IndyInjun says:


    It was the WSJ headline for Thursday 1/31.

    The antiPauls would like everyone to THINK that Ron Paul has not had an impact, but even ABC mentioned that the rate cut would create inflation.

    As the price of everything necessary for life explodes Ron Paul will come to be seen as a Prophet.

Comments are closed.