That's like finding out the cute girl you have been talking to all night has a penis.

You are missing the federal reserves role in the economy. with this regulation they control the price of money (interest rates), and always keep it low, which looks like it helps in the short run but causes malinvestment and bubbles. monopoly regulation of the money supply is the most harmful thing that can be done to an economy.

an argument against regulating leverage by insurance companies is it raises the price of insurance.

yea basically. Fear of loss is the best control against greed. Govt needs to stop trying to remove that fear.

he said he doesn't support an amendment. his views on this are well documented. he doesnt want the government defining marriage, or issuing marriage licenses. thats his way of solving all the drivel about this. let everyone do what they want and call it what they want.

that's what I was thinking... yeah it sounds good to the choir, but whoopdie do. RP didn't do poorly, but I think his best line was from the first debate when he said "I think the American people are going to vote with their bellies."

the problem is you can't get into too much detail about econ without losing your audience, and running out of time.

On monday's debate RP said that the economy could grow at 10 or 15 percent in a true free market. I'm not 100 percent sure he wasn't using that as a hyperbole, but if he thinks that that is a realistic prediction I lost a lot of respect for him.

I was really hoping someone would call pawlenty out for his 5 percent rgdp growth number and rhetoric on why we can compete with developing countries in terms of growth. RP had a chance and he just inflated the number even more to prove a point. Anyone else disappointed by that?

Loved the 10-15% comment, he has a great political mind, sugar coat the good while burying the bad. ooops, he's not supposed to be a lieing politician though.

Free market, the guarantee of a boom today and a bust tomorrow.

why is that unrealistic?

with no corporate or income taxes, very little regulations, and extremely open trade, opening up to industries like drugs, gambling and prostitution, growth rates could easily be that high and sustainable (not saying those growth rates will continue forever, but certainly are possible from where we are today). think about how much potential growth is lost to the existence of trade restrictions, taxes, difficulty of starting a business etc.

Tony Soprano agrees wit you on this one Ron. We wit you on de maximum value.

Which would be fine, if going bankrupt only caused harm to the company that goes bankrupt. That is not the case here.

So insuarance companies can collect premiums on insurance plans that they would never be able to pay back all at one time. This would be fine for say, life insurance, where you do not expect the vast majority of the title holders to die at the same time.

When it comes to something like credit default swaps on CDOs though (AIG obv), it was (should have been) obvious this was going to happen. Im failing to understand how it could be a good idea to let something like this happen again (by 'let', i mean, imposing no regulation to prevent it), and them simply allowing them to fail and not bail them out.

I'm with Ron on the whole 'open up the markets and reduce subsidies / distortions' thing, and I do think there would be a major increase in growth if his economic policies were implemented. The problem is the assumption that charity will take care of the losers. History shows otherwise and it's really naive to think it.

does history show that politics will take care of those most in need?

even if you believe in democracy, most people must be for charity for the government to do it, if we assume the government is run by the majority of people as its designed, so why wouldn't they do so in their private lives. the other problem is, everyone has different idea of charity and its priorities. some people think israel is the most in need of money, others think african aids, others think malaria, others think homeless in america, etc. everyone has a different ranking scale, so how do you sort this out without letting everyone direct their own resources to what they feel is more important, rather than forcing some to give to anothers choice?

Ron Paul will be on Cavuto on FOX within the next hour.

What history are we talking about? The value of a human life has probably never been higher than in today's modern society -- if you are talking about history prior to the 20th century, there may have been less "taking care of the losers" because there wasn't a moral incentive to do such a thing.

People give quite a bit to charities already, and this is after having a large amount of their income gone to taxes of which some of what is to take care of the poor. Let's just say hypothetically everyone gets to keep the money that would have paid their income tax -- I think many people would start giving a lot of money because they don't need all of it.

I am sure there will be people who will just get a bigger house and another BMW. Who knows if the amount given to those in need would be greater or less in a free market. But it would not be a travesty.

And less money would go to "bad charity." Like foreign aid.

Yet only a small fraction of the cash raised is used for charitable purposes. By the time the professional fundraisers take their cut, there isn't much left to do much good. The Red Cross is one of the few who do good work.

From the debate on Monday, excluding RP, who do you guys think is the least bad?

Me thinks Bachmann but I literally know almost nothing about anyone in politics besides RP and that president of ours.

Let's hear the fan boys defend this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...in-laden-raid/

Here's my favorite quote of the article:

"What if he had been in a hotel in London?" Paul said on Newsradio 1040 WHO. "So would we have sent the ... helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out? No, you don't want to do that."

Great quote. Cause there is no difference between the UK government and the Pakistani government.

<-- Fan boy.

There isn't a difference when making that choice based on his reasoning for getting permission first.

I think the problem is with "his reasoning".

Do you think Obama was wrong to raid Pakistan to get Bin Laden? Do you think he should have called Pakistani authorities and notified them that Bin Laden was living in their country? What do you think would have happened if Obama had done that, as Paul suggests?

did you read the rest of the article about how he would have done it?

it seems like you are being, to use a poker term, results oriented.

government admits there was what like a 60% chance he was there? it might have been 50%. what if done another way, he was captured earlier...etc etc. pretty dangerous never to question your own government, even when it achieves a result you like. the reason no one else is critical of this, rep or dem, is that Ron Paul is Ron Paul. and for better or worse he will ask these questions that make him look bad in the mainstream (which also make his positions more consistent)

they could continue to monitor the situation while still informing pakistan. If the US does not believe pakistan is a capable ally, why would they offer their financial and moral support?

furthermore, ron paul said for years bin laden was likely in pakistan, so why did the US never make the move in there going back to bush years if their sovereignty never mattered. its not like this time they had certainty bin laden was there until identified on the ground.

what i dont understand is why they had to kill bin laden unarmed. capturing him would have been much more interesting.

Actually i think Paul is being results oriented. We got KSM that way... it'll work this time also!!! And given where the compound was, it makes the chances of some higher ups in the Pakistani military/government being complicit higher. What the US should have done if he was in London is totally irrelevant. Even if OBL being there was only 50%, the chances of it having a high level Al Queda operative were close to 1. Asking questions is good, poorly thought out answers are not.

do you admit the US was mistaken in all the past instances they refused to look for known high al qaeda operatives in pakistan?

what about giving assistance to al qaeda operative in libya?

clearly there is more to this, then hooray obama took the necessary risk at the necessary time. there were tons of equivalent risks before, and if they were willing to be taken, why all the waiting time?

I agree with this, but it's hard to say how big of a "mistake" killing him was without more info on the level of danger the seals were in and thought they were in