How did a post about appointing judges turn into an economics debate?

Sorry, Jay. Didn’t mean to threadjack. Ya shouldn’t have dangled that tangent, though.

I don’t know what Romney’s record on vetoes is. Did actually veto many or did he just use the line item veto liberally?

The line item veto is just a bad bad idea. Good intention, but the unintended consequences would screw us worse than ever. We already have two branches legislating; you want the executive altering the law too?

We’ve already let the executive branch have waaaaay more power than it was ever intended to have. No doubt Hillary will usurp even more. I’m not about to give any of it willingly.

So what? So has Paul Krugman. Utterly meaningless defense. Whatever Ron Paul knows from “studying economics” Romney knows from actually putting strong American economic principles into practice over 25 years.

Micro-economics != Macro-economics. Very little of the experience he gained would be of any assistance as president. I’m sure he learned plenty of macro on his way to earning an MBA, but that was a long time ago and it was all the same Keynesian economics that got us into this mess.

I’m not saying Paul is some world-reknowned expert with unique insight, but you’re talking about a guy that earned Greenspan’s respect in a decade’s worth of banking committee hearings versus a guy that took some macro-econ classes back in school.

More importantly than that, though, is that Paul recognizes that there’s a structural problem. Mitt’s selling nothing by happiness and sunshine.

Our monetary policy depends on a strong dollar. If the dollar falls below a certain threshold, the central banks of the world will begin divesting their massive reserves of dollars. They’ll all come back here resulting in a crash of the dollar and insane inflation.

Yet, everyone just says “Yay! A weak dollar helps our exports!”

how is Ron Paul going to save us all?

Step 1: Allow gold and silver to compete as currencies. No, I’m not talking about your grandpa’s gold standard.

Just some competition to keep the Fed honest. We’re in a precarious position because they inflate money supply at a rate of about 18% each year. The only reason that we don’t see a CPI increase of 18% is because most of the dollars disappear overseas. We’ll be ok as long as they don’t come back, but it’s senseless to continue that policy. Create some fair competition and the Fed will be forced to restrict the money supply to a more reasonable growth rate.

Step 2: Use the bulk of his political capital to restrain the growth of government.
- Veto new programs
- Freeze the growth existing programs.
- Set in motion plans to phase out existing programs, allowing the states and/or private sector to get involved as appropriate.
- Chip away at the $9 trillion debt that sucks up 20% of the entire budget (or HALF all personal income tax revenue) in annual interest.

That’s tough medicine, but that’s what it’ll take. No one, not even Romney, is talking that seriously. They all know it’s easier to win elections by singing happy songs.

False. It is ONE idea he has mentioned and it is not even close to a cornerstone of his economic plan. I don’t know that I agree completely with a pure line-item veto, but there should be ways in which a president may eliminate certain bad portions of otherwise decent bills. I agree with you about deep-sixing bad bills. But as you mention, the president already has veto power, so how it is a bold position to demand that he use existing power?

Veto? Have you checked Romney’s veto record as governor of MA? Obviously not.

Are you being dishonest Jeff or do you just not know Romney’s positions?

“Spent his life studying economics.”

So what? So has Paul Krugman. Utterly meaningless defense. Whatever Ron Paul knows from “studying economics” Romney knows from actually putting strong American economic principles into practice over 25 years. What you are saying is kind of like saying that since someone’s grandfather, who never served, has studied the military all his life, he should be made into a general over a decorated full-bird colonel. Makes no sense.

What exactly would Ron Paul do to prevent your gloom and doom scenario (collapse of the dollar and runaway inflation)? If everyone else is so yoked with kryptonite here, how is Ron Paul going to save us all?

Like I said, I’ll refer you back to this post when the house of cards falls.

That’s his strength. He continuously asks, “Where does the Constitution authorize this?” He would unquestionable only appoint judges who would also ask that question.

I think McCain would only appoint judges who agree with him — including his opposition to the first and second amendments.

I think Romney would appoint judges as political favors and paybacks.

No, I don’t believe you Jeff. Ron Paul, while he and I agree on some things, is a kook.

What about his record makes him superior?

I’ll refer you back to this post when the dollar collapses and inflation is beyond Fed’s weak grasp.

Regardless of what you think of him, if you want a glimpse of the future, start learning some monetary policy.

It’s not pretty.

Oh, and Mitt’s big plan to end wasteful spending: the line-item veto. I don’t think so, chief. It was a bad idea when Clinton wanted it and it’s still a bad idea now.

Man up and veto a bad bill like the Constitution empowers you to do. The President doesn’t need more “tools”, he just needs the cajones to take Congress to task (and vice versa).