DeathCab4LU wrote:ToTheLeft wrote:El Scorcho wrote:I don't think Huckabee will be the last candidate we hear from.
Zomgosh Ron Paul?
I got a msg today through Liberty Students For Ron Paul on facebook that Falwell Jr's assisted has formal sent an invite for him to speak...I could only hope
One can only hope. I would like to see the RP camp accept that invite. Oh, and by the way, the media at large (AP by way of the Virginia Pilot) is reporting Jr.'s endorsement as final, even though the write-up on the Liberty Journal site (excellent visual layout; kudos to LU and Jr. on that) reported it as a conditional endorsement that could change as the Election season gets closer (presumably after hearing more candidates in convo. Savvy lawyer skillset.)
Liberty Journal:
http://www.liberty.edu/libertyjournal/i ... 8&artid=42
“He’s my top choice,” he said. But, he added, “That could change as it gets closer to the election.”
AP (by way of Virginia Pilot):
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/ ... TION=STATE
Jerry Falwell Jr. said after Huckabee spoke at a Liberty University convocation that he would back the former Arkansas governor for president. Falwell became chancellor of the school after his father died in May.
"He's my choice," Falwell said, adding that four of the school's trustees and the dean of the law school also are Huckabee supporters.
>I am glad that the endorsements are being reported correctly as individuals affiliated with the school and not the school itself as evidenced by this quote in the Liberty Journal:
The university as a whole stopped short of endorsing Huckabee, but Falwell gave his personal endorsement in a news conference after the service.
>Additionally:
Knucklehead wrote:...He is as sick of the current system and the IRS as we are.
Seems his close proximity to RP on the podium during the debates has served him well.
TallyW wrote:...I never went public with my support of Thompson and I've never campainged for any Presidential Candidate but Huckabee is hitting on all cylinders for me. At the end of the day he's where I am on the issues and with our support he can win.
As in the LU community or Christians in general? Either way, the candidate who will win (Rep or Dem) will be he/she who can swing the independents and pull people from the more center fringes of the opposing party. Right now, many of the purely fiscal conservatives are irritated and frustrated with the purely values voter block of the Republican party for the two trick pony litmus test (abortion and marriage) and for not emphasing economic policy enough in their voter rubric. The realist observation here is that those folks will likely abandon the party and go third party if a guy like Huckabee gets the nod as it will be seen as an extension of the last 8 years (whether that is a deserved impression or not.) Huckabee will have to work long and hard to divorce himself from this perception in the minds of that significant block of republican voters in which case he will inevitably, by default, borrow much of Paul's platform minus Paul's foreign policy and position on the war.
>Also:
RagingTireFire wrote:JDUB wrote:RagingTireFire wrote:
That actually demonstrates part of the problem I have with it right there. Again, not with the Fair Tax itself but with how it would be implemented by the government and then perceived by the Average Joe Schmuck. The Fair Tax would encourage foreign investment -- which is ordinarily good -- but if the tax rate is set too high -- which it would be -- it would discourage domestic spending along with creating a sizeable "duty-free" black market for everyday items. The imbalance would devalue the dollar exponentially more than it already is and basically make America an economic third world.
you lost me on that. even though i've had two economics classes i don't understand that stuff, but I do know that they had a bunch of highly respected economists help when developing this and I asked my economics teacher and he said it would work great. I'm going to have to go with the opinion of highly respected economists on this one, unless you have some letters after your name i don't know about
I couldn't give either side of a rat's jerk if you take my opinion or not. Like I said, I love the Fair Tax as a theory and, simply based on numerical data, it's fantastic. However, it fails to take into account human behavior. Economists don't study that and that's where the theory breaks down.
Couple of things:
1. The looming economic problems stem from so much more than prefunctory partylines about taxation (although alleviating some of the tax burden on the middle class is important.) You need someone in the White House who understands the ins and outs of economic policy instead of relying solely on advisors; i.e. someone who has made it a lifelong hobby to understand it. Out of the candidates, whether you love him or hate him, that guy is Ron Paul (aside from his indepth knowledge on economics, he is a ranking politician on the following Committees:)
*
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
*
Member, House Committee on Financial Services
*
Member, Joint Economic Committee.
*
Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
*
Member, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
There are so many factors that are already chipping away at the economic foundation of our country (the silent thief of inflation-which is why milk is $4.50-but most won't notice or care about that one until it costs $10 for a chic-fil-a value meal; the declining dollar-which is further debased by the current Fed Rate cuts to alleviate the governmental debt obligations yet erodes the value of the dollars you save and are in your wallet, i.e. see above; the flood of international funds snapping up large chunks of American businesses and the management seats that come along with it--although Rep. (D) Shumer has stated they are watching it so that Middle Eastern nations can't come in and buy controlling positions in flagship American companies, however how long will that logistically stand? See Dubai currently owns a 20-30% stake in the Nasdaq and while it is a more liberal Middle Eastern nation, other nations in the region that are not so cosmopolitan have lots of cash which is pegged to the dollar with which to buy ever increasing interests in American business since it so cheap as our dollar declines; the epic lending industry and it's offspring housing/mortgage collapse--it's already unravelling, but the magic talking box hasn't told you yet, although the print media is showing the beginning signs of coming around.
As much as I wish it weren't going to play out this way, the evidence points to the next century as one of Chindia influence not American. We may likely play second fiddle (much as Britain with us today.) Something to keep in mind that the geopolitical capital we have enjoyed as a society is due to the residual effects of 20th century developments (industrial and information revolutions.) It could be strongly argued the 20th was a decidedly American century much as the 17th-19th centuries were decidedly European in nature.
When examining our foreign policy, a couple of things come to mind as an interesting exercise: As our economic situation weakens so does our ability to enforce our current foreign policy. As our geopolitical clout wanes, others will ascend to pick up that mantle (probably a Asian/Eurasian influence.) What foreign policy moral capital will we have left to decry a Chinese base in Texas or Norfolk because the Liberals/Conservatives or Atheists/Christians aren't getting along and it's negatively impacting China's/India's economic bottomline? Remember, Sun Tzu's admonition about resources...and remember that China has 20% of the world's population (manpower) with another 20% of the worlds population next door, they are actually manufacturing (see good ol' Ben Franklin's expanded definition of GDP) while we have contracted our manufacturing base and output. Further, regarding geopolitical influence and logistics, they are geographically closer to the political quagmire that is the Middle East. As Paul's platform states, we should encourage free trade, but we've got to regroup as a nation economically and take the necessary and possibly painful steps (to some, i.e. the speculators, by way of avoiding
moral hazard) to clean up our economic house at large and put it back in order...or our foreign policy debate quickly becomes a moot point.
2. As an aside, there is an emerging field of economics that examines the correlation between economics and human behavior. It is dubbed,
Behavioral Finance, kind of a hybrid between strictly econometrics and the more intangible and difficult to measure human element of the markets, the psychology of the players. Many of these guys are the ones who are being dismissed out of hand as Angry Bears in spite of past indicators of prescient market calls. (For those inclined to expand their understanding, see: Robert Shiller (Yale Economist who wrote
Irrational Exuberance, which correctly called the tech bubble demise and has since amended it with the "Froth" analysis/commentary on the current housing bubble problems; also publishes the widely regarded Case-Shiller index to track the real fundamentals of housing) Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, et al and disregard the bombast of folks on the magic talking box like Jim Cramer and cronies.)
For the two people who made it thus far or who skipped to the shortest sentence, in the words of the Philosopher Forest Gump, "And that's all I have to say about that."
?
- By ECC29
- By Purple Haize
- By LU Armchair coach