Ron Paul has been placed in charge of the House subcommitted that oversees the Federal Reserve.
Those of you following along at home are probably already aware that Ron Paul would like to completely dismantle the Fed. Let's sit back and watch the fireworks.
Further reading: http://goo.gl/y2yxY
Dr. Paul's arguments in this area have traditionally been quite compelling.
The Fed plays outrageous games with money with no accountability, and essentially feeds the irresponsible fiscal policy of the government. Reining in this house of cards would be a good idea.
Appointing Mr. Paul seems like a quixotic act by a curmudgeonly, newly-elected Tea Party base. We have now entered the Twilight Zone of American politics.
Not sure where to put this:
Good site. Should push a few political buttons.
Appointing Mr. Paul seems like a quixotic act by a curmudgeonly,
newly-elected Tea Party base. We have now entered the Twilight Zone of
Isn't that kind of the point? The reason Tea Party patriotism became popular this year is because a portion of the mainstream has finally become fed up with politics as usual.
I doubt Ron Paul will succeed in shutting down the Fed, but a shakeup and a reality check would be healthy.
He probably won't be able to shut it down. But he will be able to shine a light on a few things. The freely flowing printing presses for one. May get rid of the Humphrey-Hawkins bill for another. The fed has two basic charges: keep prices stable (low inflation) and promote full employment. They are not very good at the employment part. I don't think it's possible to influence employment through monetary policy very much. Very easy to screw things up though. The potential for runaway inflation is very high. They've been printing a lot of money for a long time.
Typically, the two mandates of the Fed are in tension. At the moment, not so much.
The job market will improve when we reinvigorate the market sectors that actually produce something. One way to do this would be to break up all of the unions so that the products of American labor can be competitive with the products of non-unionized countries.
Unions have their place. Having worked in a publisher's house that was operated like a sweatshop, I think every place of business needs a union. they just shouldn't all be united with each other. A union should be able to work as a team to get raises where people are underpaid, better terms where needed, etc. If all 300 workers agreed not to work until terms were met, the place couldn't have been run like a sweatshop. As it was, everyone was uniformly paid a non-livable wage, people were yelled at publicly, etc. It was a terrible place to work, but in a bad economy, nobody will stand up for themselves alone, and a few people having the guts to get up and leave... doesn't do the trick.
good point. we're a place to which some jobs are offshored. College grads will work for $25K/year here.
The problem is of course China and other Asian nations whose manufacturing sectors are basically made up of slave labor. That's hard to compete with.
"Special Report: Is America the sick man of the globe? ... talks about the effects of globalization and the decline of the manufacturing sector.)
I realy like his fazit:
So. Bottom line (and that is what conservatives like to think they are all about): Cycling saves money, saves lives and makes us stronger as individuals and as a nation. Spending money to support cycling is like putting money in the bank–it pays big dividends at low risk. It’s as all American as Mom’s apple pie. How much more conservative can you get?
and this one comment:
Yeah, I'm too lazy to shovel out the car.
whew. this one is outright awsome:
The Pentagon (what conservative doesn’t care about national defense?) has released a report that the poor fitness of our nation’s youth is negatively affecting our ability to recruit suitable candidates into the military. One solution? Make it easy for kids to ride bikes and walk to school.
well, you have to have enough people you are able to motivate to fight in the army; new york bicycle couriers might have a good health & fitness, but most of them won't choose the army ;-)
so, make cycling a common sense, to get the less educated ones fit enough to serve your country..
So Dez 19 2010 19:29:20 EST von IGnatius T Foobar @ UncensoredHow does one even begin to start with the assumption that conservatives are anti-cycling? That's about as completely lacking in a plausible starting point as that "study" they've been passing around that claims FOX News makes you stupid.
I guess thats not "if you meet a conservative guy on a bike, what do you say" Its rather if you meet a conservative at some tea party, and you want to start some talk about bikes, what could you say, and what shouldn't.
The assumption is that you're talking to a guy that didn't even sit on a bike in the last 20 years.
As one of the commenters mentions, these might also be the right arguments to mention when talking to a democrat.
In general its a list of arguments for talking to somebody who doesn't even like _you_ to bike.
the political thing about it is:
- where are you allowed to cycle (road? in .de for example you "have to" use cycle lanes if theres a sign, even if they don't suit your needs)?
- what about bike facilities like parking lots?
- way hints (you might not want to take the highway... or step hills...)?
- Like there are special ways for cars, should there be special ones for bikes?
- If bridges are build, should you be able to cycle them? (i.e. a train bridge or a highway bridge..., while stairs might be ok for pedestrians, its not as cool for cyclists)
- what kind of requirements are there for lightning etc.
- even, in some forrests its strictly regulated where you are allowed to cycle or not.
so you see, theres lots of politics involved in cycling.
Governor of Hawaii says, in essence, "Give it up already."