IGemini

First of all, I should point out that the question really doesn't stand a large chance of eliciting the answer your wording seeks. There's something called an ingroup-outgroup bias that's particularly strong when it comes to political parties.

The gold standard was a major player only from 1850-1930 only as far as America is concerned. It wasn't officially adopted until McKinley (Republican), and started downturn during the Great Depression sandwiched between Coolidge and Hoover (both Republican) made worse by World War II with everyone crunching resources on war materiel. No one uses the gold standard now.

There have been three Democratic Congressional majorities since FDR, so it's not the first. Someone already mentioned how the recent Republican majority bombed, so no need to go into that.

I wanted to type more, but I'm not spending that much time basically using the same argument. McCain's stance on economics at this point frightens me far, far more than Obama's. Especially since he, by his own admission, doesn't understand it very well. My belief is that we'd solve a lot of our economic problems by actually deflating currency and reducing our debt, which doesn't seem to register with a lot of people. You simply cannot keep producing tender indefinitely without consequence, which has been the MO for the past decade.

vvicked0471

Gotta love the party system...

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this? Are you saying that the gold standard is/was a bad thing?

I am aware that no one uses one, I am also aware that with a fiat monetary system the gold standard (or really anything backing the currency) is the only control on how many notes can be printed. One of the bad things about a fiat system that is backed by anything of value is that countries that use them are slower to rebound after times of economic crisis, especially when that crisis is in major part due to a lack of available credit.

Though I still believe that, for all its faults, a fiat system backed by something of value is the only way to escape the ravages of inflation and the very real danger of hyperinflation.

I can also tell you that it was FDR who was the beginning of the end of the gold standard. I can go into more detail if necessary,
You're right, there is no need to get into that as I already stated that I believe giving any one group control of our federal government is a bad thing.

Personally I think one of the major flaws of government thinking, as it pertains to the economy, is the idea than an economy can be "run". This is an idea that both McCain and Obama share. I also think that this idea demonstrates both candidates true lack of understanding of economics. Too much regulation and taxes on the part of the government will choke a given economy to death. To little regulation and monopolies can also choke the life from an economy.

There needs to be an equilibrium (which is something that politicians don't seem to understand), a balance of regulation and free trade. I tend to think that an equilibrium will be reached with very little regulation, though that is just my opinion.

I completely agree that you cannot continue to print tender indefinitely without consequence. Though I would say it has been the MO of the FED since the days of FDR.

As the economy slowly to begin its rebound after the great depression there was still a problem. The total money supply had shrunk by almost 1/3rd because of people saving, and not spending their money. As a result of this there was a lack of credit available as no one had the money to lend. So FDR confiscated all privately held gold in the US, placed it in the vaults of the various branches of the Federal Reserve and ordered that the Fed print more notes.

Before this any citizen could take $21 and some change in to a federal bank and get 1 ounce of gold. After this that number shot to $35 an ounce, so with the availability of more money yet no change in the amount of goods to purchase, we started an inflation curve that as of yet has not showed any signs of slowing. The more currency we print, the less our money is worth.

In times of recession, when the Fed should have done nothing and allowed the market to fix itself, it instead lowered interest rates to artificially "fix" the problem. This lead to bubbles which had to burst, the latest of which is the housing bubble and before it the dot com bubble. To be sure, there are more factors than just the FED, though the fed seems to me to be the culprit most responsible for the state of our economy, and as a result I believe we should abolish it.

I also think that it is worth noting that the idea of a central bank was brought before congress twice before the Federal Reserve act was passed in 1913, and both times it never made it past the house with the majority declaring the idea unconstitutional. Seems to me that, constitutionality aside, they were on to something...

__________________
Sic Vis Pacem Parabellum

If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

joshpackr

Obama and McCain both scare the fuck out of me to be honest. I think if McCain gets in there he will continue us all down the path to a great depression that will pale in comparison to the 1930's.

On the other hand, if Obama gets in there I don't know what hell might be unleashed.

I'm at a loss and think we might as well go ahead and bend over now because we're fucked.

BigGun1

The biggest results of either being president will be from the supreme court justices put in place because they are the ones who interpret the U.S. Constitution.

commonsense

Obama has promised to call off the feds in medical marijuana states. McCain won't do that. On drug war issues in general, Obama would be better than McCain.

On the economy, I see no reasons to believe McCain would be better. I like the old Republican ideals of smaller government and lower taxes, but that has become nothing but rhetoric in recent years. Our current crop of Republicans have spent like drunken Democrats.

Republicans need to get spanked in this election. It will do them some good. Maybe they'll go back to their roots, and ditch some of these nutty social conservatives. In my area down in the Bible Belt you'll actually hear people say you're going to Hell if you vote for pro-choice Democrats. That's all it's about to them, abortion and gays and other silly nonsense. These people that the Republican party has woed are killing the party. They are not fiscally conservative. They just want to get in everyone's business and tell them what to do. They love big government and nanny state laws. Until their influence is diminished, I won't vote for another Republican.

troublemaker_42

Actually, its WORSE than the OIP stated. Not only would Democrats be controlling both Congress and the White House, but its entirely concievable that Obaam, if elected, would be in a position to appoint 3 new SC justices, effectively giving the Democrats ALL THREE branches of government. Considering that the recent Supreme Court Decision regarding private owership of firearms, and the fact it was only a slim majority who felt that it was indeed an individual right, one can see the kinds of impacts allowing this to happen would open the door to. Had there been 3 more liberal judges sitting in the Supreme Court that day, our Constitution could have been revised. Am I the only one who finds that scary as hell?

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

Buzzby

That might be a problem if they President made the laws. He doesn't. That's the role of Congress and congresspeople know full well what happens if they support gun control legislation. That's how we ended up with Republican control in both houses. The Dems won't make that mistake again.

And President Obama won't be able to do a damned thing about it.

__________________

troublemaker_42

Yes, he can...he can easily be in a position to appoint like-minded judges to the SC. Did you forget the Heller case was decided by a very slim margin? When in control of all three branches of the government, the Democrats would be in a position to pass items that would potentially have been political suicide in the past. I can't believe how many gun owners are perfectly OK with electing Obama/Biden to the White House. Anyone remember the days when Obama said he'd surround himself with people of different opinions? Does anyone realize he picked Biden to be Vice President, and that he has always been at the forefront of the Democratic gun control movement? Real opinion variences there, huh? People can downplay the issue to whatever degree they want...however, I've seen nothing at this point that reassures me Barack Obama is going to be friendly with the gun owners of this nation.

Murdock

Conservatives
Scalia - 72
Thomas - 60
Alito - 58
Roberts - 53

Liberals
Stevens - 88
Ginsburg - 75
Breyer - 70
Souter - 69

Swing
Kennedy - 72

Obama would potentinally be replacing liberals with liberals with Stevens and Ginsburg being the most likely canidates. As such it wouldn't effect the overall ideology of the court.

ITG

Yes, a government in which democrats control both the legislative branch and the executive branch does not sit well with me. It's not my primary reason for not voting Obama, but it is one of them. I'm the old stick in the mud who's gonna vote for Ron Paul anyway, because in New Hampshire all write in votes count, as long as it's for someone who meets the requirements to be president, such as age and born in America. Yes, yes, I know that he won't win, but at least I'll be voting for who I want to be president. Besides, Ron Paul himself has several times been the sole vote saying nay on bills in the House. No matter if it's hopeless, I have to vote for what I believe in- in I just vote for "the lesser of two evils," then how can I ever hope for the system to change?

Of course, looking at the ballot here, I also doubt that I'm going to vote for any democrats, though I might for Shea-Porter. Still on the fence on that one. But she's in the house anyway. No way am I going to vote for Shaheen to go to the senate.

__________________

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.