Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

[c1ue]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

The best policy is to re-examine all of these 'statistics' in 4 or 8 years.

I think it is quite clear by now there will be a historic expansion of the federal budget, and a strong possibility of a return to historic inflation rates.

After all, one reason the statistics are so seemingly positive for Democratic presidents is that there have been only 12 years of Demos since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971.

Think about it. It means 2/3rds of the years in which the US dollar has precipitously fallen in real purchasing power (hence increased in number) are Republican, and more importantly the last 8 years.

It is exactly like that scene in one of the Austin Powers movies where Dr. Evil comes out of a multidecade deep freeze, puts together some scheme where he can extort the world, and asks for ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Of course, he amends it to a larger sum, but now just this past year has seen the Fed + US Government shovel out TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

I can't wait to see how much Obama shovels out.

[jdv]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

I'm just wondering to what extent the Dem numbers are skewed by the FIRE economy go-go days under the administration of Bill Clinton, the best GOP President we've had in decades.

Perhaps. But in that case, why was the growth of goverment larger under Republicans? Why was spending larger under Republicans the last 50 years? Why is it that every Republican president I can remember in my lifetime was a deficit spender?

The key difference is between a limited government formed by free, responsible men for specified purposes, and a government viewed by its citizens as the source of last resort for their well being.

Sounds wonderfull. But when I visualize a limited, free, responsible goverment... The United States of late does not match. That doesn't mean we can't be again, but surely a limited goverment freedom loving guy like yourself has to be concerned about where some members of your party have steered us.

[Shakespear]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

But in that case, why was the growth of goverment larger under Republicans?

Because Republicans talk from both sides of their mouth and the Joe and Mary 6P buys it :-)

[Judas]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

I'll be glad after the election season passes and I can stop reading about how "my Great Leaders are better than your Great Leaders!".

Back to the topic, I'm bullish on gold– because our electorate is so wrapped up in the idiotic pseudo-choices between bought-and-paid-for robofaces that we are most certainly headed for the scrapheap.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

"my Great Leaders are better than your Great Leaders!".

I think that the discussion has devolved more into one of how "my Great Leaders suck less than your Great Leaders!".

I'll be glad after the election season passes and I can stop reading about ...

You're an optimist. What makes you think the passing of the election season will stop such comments? ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

I'm sorry, jdv, but that you continue to ask such questions of one party, but not the other, suggests to me that in addition being rather off topic for this forum, our little side thread is unlikely to bear fruit.

I shall do my best to resist responding further. Take care.

[jdv]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

I'm sorry, jdv, but that you continue to ask such questions of one party, but not the other, suggests to me that in addition being rather off topic for this forum, our little side thread is unlikely to bear fruit.

I shall do my best to resist responding further. Take care.

To the contrary - I ask that about all politicians. I have equal scorn for the current democratic congress.

But above all I hate hypocrisy & hype.

But I would suggest that the Republican party needs to figure some of this out if they want to recapture true independants like myself. You sound like a true believer with strength in his convictions and belief in his party. I'm not. I'm a swing voter. And I am greatly disappointed there is not a party that truly believes in small goverment, and limited spending. It's just right now I'm hearing a lot of hypocrisy from this current batch of big spending republicans. And I'm sick of it.

Ron Paul I'd vote for though....

Be well. Thanks for the limited discussion.

[Mundaily]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Thanks jdv for detailing some facts for consideration. I have never posted on this site because I find many of the comments off-putting in a condescending "we know best" way, often without any facts presented to explain the point of view offered. Frankly, this site tends to be information-impoverished except when Eric Jansen writes one of his long pieces, which is quite unfortunate because I believe that there is a wealth of information available that could be shared if users shared their knowledge more openly. As far as the economically-saavy itulipers who think McCain is wonderful, how do you justify his "summer holiday from the gas tax" gimmick or his "I'll eliminate earmarks" proposal to solve the deficit problem? How do you justify his choice of Ms. "I can see Russia from my house"? Or his choice of Mr. "the recession is all in people's minds" Graham as his financial advisor (Graham, who was the key player in rescinding the Glass-Steagal act)? I could go on, but how much evidence do you need that McCain subscribes to the same flawed economic approach that got us into this mess? I'm not saying Obama can get us out because probably there's no exit at this point--check out the new doc film IOUSA for some depressing evidence of just how much of a basket case we've become. I'm just saying do you really think it's rational to keep digging a deeper hole?

[lurker]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Regardless of who wins I hold out a hope that after the victory the victor will be somewhat emboldened to be able to tell the electorate how it really is. They cannot do this while campaigning, because the ugly truth would be the death of their campaign, and being a principled loser doesn't achieve much.

The Frontline documentary of the two candidates showed both in a positive light, and there's some reason to hope that McCain or Obama could be much better for the country than the odious bunch of thieves currently in office.

Finally I'd like that whoever wins offers the loser a position in the new administration, because partisan bickering, as fanned by Faux news Hannity, O'Rielly and similar losers is more damaging to this country than anything that either party can do individually.

There are many aspects of politics on which intelligent people can disagree. However when the disagreement descends to schoolyard name calling then we all lose.