I know my fellow conservatives have a problem with Rubio, but I like the guy. It seems the only thing negative you can say about him is Jeb Bush like him and Jeb's not even sure he likes him anymore. If it's his immigration policy, please tell me what you don't like about it!? He is not for full amnesty, so what's the problem? Marco's a strong christian and family man, which means he is a social conservative. He is obviously fiscally conservative, based on this video. So what's not to love!?
I think Rubio is an excellent leader at this time when we need to look back at what made America the great country it once was. He is exactly the generation. He is God fearing.....and puts family first..... Need I say more. Those that dont trust him must love Obama because a pinapple would be a better leader than Obama the Anti Christ.....
RINO Rubio: The true fiscal cliff is coming because you want 12 million illegals to remain in America, take our jobs and send $$ back to Mexico, have their illegal kids in our schools that we the taxpayers pay to build, maintain and staff, have illegals utilize our medical care (Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare) which costs taxpayers hundreds of billions, give illegals public housing, food stamps, welfare, child care, college scholarships, and it doesn't end. Rubio is an IDIOT!
I respect Senator Rubio, but if he manages to elicit such skepticism from Conservatives even without the voting record that Paul Ryan has (which happens to be typical and defensible, although one would wonder if we have the time for listening to reasons, however good they are), I think it'll be the establishment which splits this time. Only question is, does that mean we get a nominee to the left of the establishment?
Of course, Rubio has the image of being a lightweight and the Bushes' boy, which might compensate for not voting for TARP (justified and repaid) and NCLB (an well-meaning effort to raise standards and take on the unions which failed due to micromanagement and timidity) and Medicare Part D (which had good elements which were severely watered down by the RINOs- to the left of Bush!!!).
Good assessment, mostly.
I'm not a big fan of NCLB or Medicare Part D, but TARP was a needed program fully in line with Congress' constitutional responsibility to trade.
Besides the interference of the Treasury into Chrysler and GM's bankruptcies (which were implausibly deemed within the scope of TARP), TARP was a great program which literally saved the US economy.
HERE is what's wrong with our economy:
Massachusetts Taxpayers to pay $700,000. for inmate sex-change: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/12/19/kosilek/w9i6yDzEdbNl1dZLd2NMqI/story.html
Sin and sexual disorder is very expensive. Multiply that times billions for welfare...
And you have EXTREME FISCAL INSANITY!
Funny how the Freshmen get it but the seniors don't.
Time for new thinking and new blood in Washington.
Don't you get it, America? The American people just don't care about the debt. If they did, Mitt Romeny would be the new president. Say what you will about Romney, he at least understood the massive problem of the debt and how it impacted the US economy. And the American people just did not care. They wanted their "free stuff," they wanted their never-ending government checks and government jobs with their government insurance and government pensions, and they had absolutely no problems with socialism. So I really don't know where the Republicans go from here, I really don't. Do they simply become Democrats light, and do the same things Democrats do only spend less on it? Or do they become a real conservative party and give people a real choice on spending and the size of government? If the Republicans become real conservatives again, they may win, but I still think socialism is so entrenched now in this country (thanks to generations of liberal spending from BOTH parties) that now it's almost impossible for Americans to go back to some of the fundimental values and principles that made this country the greatest nation on the planet. Nope, it will take a real economic disaster, on the scale of Greece, to at least get the attention of the "low information voters" out there. Only when people stop getting their government checks will they think that fiscal responsibility is a good idea. Either that, or these same people that voted for Obama will go full communist and demand that "the rich" be taxed at 100%, thinking that will solve all their miserable problems. And, don't worry, you'll always have liberal jerks like Obama saying that sticking it to "the rich" is always the answer.
The Obama-Left, the dems, are still in the thrall of the last century socialist thought: tax the rich until the pips squeak. That was done here in the UK, from the end of WWII onwards, regardless of which party was in government. The economy was stagnant, if not outright ruined, and one Labour chancellor had to go to the IMF, cap in hand, and ask for financial help. It only stopped when a certain Lady got into 10 Downing Street. The economy took off, and in 1997 the Tories handed over a balanced budget, flourishing economy, everything peachy.
The 'New Labour' government went into the second phase, which the Obama-Left hasn't quite got to yet: forget about raising income taxes! Raise taxes by stealth for other things vital to the people: fuel, housing, tobacco, you name it. Raise duties imposed on businesses, which they need to comply with, through regulations and more regulations.
Aaaand: borrow! Borrow and don't call it 'spending', but call it 'investment'. Let the debt increase, hide it, hide the deficit by clever juggling of books.
So here we are, debt sky high, just like yours, deficit unmanageable, just like yours, and taxes - those stealth taxes beloved by the socialists, are going up.
None of our (or your) politicians - with a very few exceptions, of which Rubio is not one! - get it that in order to stimulate the economy people need to pay less taxes, so that they have more money to spend. Why is that so difficult to understand?
I think the man is both intellectually crippled and intellectually honest. He runs his country just about the same way African America runs it own households.
Why should you work and scrimp and save and suck up to some rich, white factory owner when you can get stupid white people, self-starting Mexicans and industrious Asians. all dreaming of wealth and the American dream, to do it for you?
You gotta appreciate where Obama's coming from on this tough issue. Kinda makes you wish you were eligible for a lot more programs.
Racist rhetoric? I'd go with "condescending" or "stereotyping," but I don't see the rhetoric as racist. We have moved beyond racism, don't you know. Open hatred among all the separations -- race, religion, gender and class-- is now the norm.
On other words, after all these many years, we finally have an answer to the eternal question. "Why can't we all just get along?"
Here's what I think is racist: When African America thinks that when Martin Luther King said, "...judge a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin..." he was speaking to white people.
Things are what they are and we can't change the facts by engaging in polite under-statement.
I thank you for your measured response.
You wrote: "He runs his country just about the same way African America runs it own households." - exactly! Absolutely spot on: why should he worry about money when others are happy to give it to him, either by printing it, or by lending it to him? Pay back? What's that?
His economic nous is exactly that of those morons who elected him: like them, he's getting 'free stuff', only on a much larger scale.
It's time we stopped worrying about being called racist, and start pointing out that the brethren and sistahs in Congress and the WH and the meejah have exactly the same attitude to money - other people's money, that is - as those who elect them because of their pigmentation: it'll come from somewhere, no need to worry (or work).
How I wanted to believe Rubio was a 'white hat, white horse' hero. But his association with Romney and the Bushes is a blaring sign that he is not a hero.
The Bushes and Romney types are socialists and big money - global banking, currency and market manipulators, friends of foreign oil interests and that means trouble.
Romney used tax dollars to make his fortune and to bail out the Salt Lake City Mormon Investor-venture Olympics. His policies in Massachusetts were unconscionable and radical left. His campaign tactics were pure Alinsky during the primary and yet, during the real campaign against Obama, he was unable to communicate a coherent and convincing conservatism... because no one wants to trust a man who frequently changes his principles to gain principal and political power.
The Bushes have been Fabian 'wolves in sheep's clothing' socialists for generations.
"Mormon Investor-venture Olympics"
What the heck?
And obviously he was associated with Romney. The latter happened to be the Presidential nominee, and Sen. Rubio, to his credit, actually worked to defeat the Obama agenda in the election.
With respect, the so called "fiscal cliff" that people have been talking about is a politically created cliff, as a result of politicians on both sides of the aisle continuing to kick the can down the road.
To paraphrase Sarah Palin, we went over the real fiscal cliff some time ago under President Obama's leadership. The only question now is how hard the thump is at the bottom.
Rather than having a central bank, congress prints the money supply. In this case, there would be no debt, only inflation if they printed too much. Congress would be directly responsible for the inflation, and the people would know it and keep them in check, if we had legitimate elections.
This scenario would completely destroy the "fiscal cliff", because there would be no borrowing or interest to pay on debt, because the debt would not exist.
Right now, we have a private bank printing the money from nothing and lending it to us at interest, which is nearing $1T per year. It is a scam, and so is the fiscal cliff. This is about shutting down the country, not making the current system work, because it was designed to fail. All easy money schemes do. The creators of the central bank knew that the system would eventually crash. It was inevitable.
If a politician does not want to end the fed, you know that they are a crook, or a complete ignoramus on the subject, and therefor they will never solve anything.
Here in Canada, the government owns the central bank. Actually, the Finance Minister owns it directly in the form of shares in a Crown corporation. In the past, it used to lend money to all levels of Canadian governments at 1%. But these governments (federal and provincial as well as some local) would have huge deficits and inflation was climbing to huge numbers. So it was decided that the government now borrows from banks at the regular rate so as to reduce inflation.
The thing I found interesting is that the central bank in Canada keeps a zero balance sheet. Any profit it makes is given to the federal government in the form of a dividend.
In the US, am I correct to understand that the interest paid back is kept by private individuals who own the central banks? That this is in fact what the IRS is for. In Canada, it used to be this way, but the federal government took over the central bank soon after. I still find it unbelievable that in the US, some private citizens that no one knows control the currency. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the US Federal Government to have all the shares of the Central Banks. That way, any profit goes to the government.
By AIG, do you mean the bailout of AIG by the taxpayers?The Fed may have collected it, but the government spent the money before they received any back.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
I'm still learning about all of this stuff, but, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution declares that Congress has the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".
That is incorrect.
The Federal Reserve is "owned" by the rest of the banks who participate in the Federal Reserve system (i.e. the vast majority of banks).
Profits are generally used to prop up the Fed's balance sheet (i.e. enhance its ability to take action) or given to the US Treasury.
For example, the profits from the AIG transaction were given from the Fed to the Treasury.
Our system is a total scam. People want to make it complicated, when it really isn't. They want to believe that the system is all good, we just need to change the way that it is run, a little bit. That, to me, is like saying "we need mobsters to change the way that they extort money from local businesses".
Disagree with this analysis. We tried "that" (i.e. letting Congress print money, etc.) in our early history and almost bankrupted the country.
There are sound monetary and policy reasons for having a central bank that is a separate agency from Congress.
Whether or not having the Central Bank owned by the financial institutions themselves is appropriate or not is a separate discussion.
For many years under the enabling legislation, the mandate of the Federal Reserve was to maintain a sound currency.
As a result of amendments to the enabling legislation, Congress has given the Federal Reserve two conflicting objectives, maintain a sound currency and promote employment.
Maintaining a sound currency imposes upon Congress the needed fiscal discipline to balance the budget, because it means the Central Bank will not finance deficit spending, such that when Congress wants to run a deficit, it has to have a plan to bring the budget back into balance, otherwise the market will not finance the needed debt (except at exceedingly high interest rates).
In 2009, Bernanke told Congress that he would not allow the Federal Reserve to finance the federal deficits. He has gone back on his word, and many believe that as a result of QE2 -> QE4, the Federal Reserve has lost its independence and has simply become an arm of the Executive branch.
One the other hand, promoting employment may require that the Federal Reserve print money. This runs counter to the idea of having sound money and running balanced budgets.
We keep forgetting that after the First World War, in response to an inflationary slump, the Federal Government slashed taxes and spending, while the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates. The economy quickly turned around.
Right now, we are in a position where we (the American public) are grossly over extended.
To return to a sound position, a lot of the bad bank debt needs to be written off.
We did not do that. Instead, Congress bailed out the banks, which really meant bailing out the creditors of these banks, who should have suffered the losses for their improvident loans.
In addition, a national debt to GDP ratio in excess of 100% hurts long economic growth. We need a plan to balance the federal budget and then start paying down our national debt. Relying on growth to achieve that objective is a shell game.
Until we start tackling the underlying issues we are facing, the ride on the bottom is going to be very rough.
I am sure that you could let the markets set the rates with a central bank, but that power is given to the Fed, so they will use it. The problem is the human corruption factor. If a person believes that a central bank who operates with impunity and secrecy will do the right things for the people, then why not do it? The money/power factor is too great to allow this system to exist.
The partial audit that we got revealed 15T dollars in foreign bailouts that happened without our knowledge, yet we are on the hook for it, ultimately, and we suffer for it due to the global dollar supply increase. This also allows them to fund both sides of wars. This money could be going to banks that trade with, or money launder for people who are killing us overseas.
There are so many things wrong with it that it cannot be fixed without a total reset.
Separating the money creation power from congress sounds good to some, but it makes the whole operation secret, rather than public knowledge that can be used to determine what politicians we want based on what they did with the money supply. The Fed Res system puts the whole issue outside of general public understanding, and therefor can be manipulated without any real political oposition.
Nobody seems to want to address the fact that we have a private bank doing the job of congress in creating money, then spreading "our" wealth throught the world without our knowledge, monetizing our debt and changing us interest on our own money while increasing taxes due to debt that doesn't have to exist, and on top of the inflation tax due to their money creation practices.
We haven't even touched on how they effect our electoral process by giving out free money for banks and corporations to contribute to campaigns, and without full disclosure in many cases. Ultimately, all of that money comes from the Fed Res and their debt based money creation. Currency is only created by debt. The money has to be borrowed for the money to be created, which raises the public and private sector debt levels, and requires that debt levels continue to increase to keep the economy going. That is why the debt will never be paid down. If we quit printing and spending debt, the economy would collapse. You can slow this destructive process down, but you cannot stop it with this system. It will fail. There is no solution to that, just prolongation.
This is a really good documentary. It contains a lot of history and information on what we are talking about. It also gives the best solutions to the problem, and explains why a gold standard is a bad thing as well.
Agreed. Can you imagine if they printed and spent? Oh wait, they direct others to print and they spend it.
The fact one supports the idea of a Central Bank that is a separate agency from Congress does not mean that one supports having a "centrally planned economy."
If one reads F.A. Hayek, the reader will find that economic planning can be beneficial, but it depends on the type of economic planning one is speaking about.
I appreciate your response. I always have to go back to the fact that the Fed Res prints money from nothing, then lends it to our government, which pays interest. That situation is counter productive to any economy.
I understand that our government also sells bonds to gain income, but those bonds are also debt, and all money is created through debt. The selling of bonds is also money creation, which inflates the currency further.
If you desire a centrally planned economy, then I can see where you are coming from. Regardless of having a central bank, we have still had booms and busts. The only difference from the old days is that the booms and busts are artificially created, and only benefit those who are in a position to take advantage of both sides of the boom/bust cycle. Those people are the ones who take our pension money and gamble with it. So we end up taking all of the losses, and they create their own wealth on the other side. Much of that wealth is based on the money creation that comes from our debt.
In the current system, we build debt and pay interest. If we had a sovereign fiat currency, there would be no debt, an no interest to pay. The interest would be the inflation caused by too much money supply, and the inflation would be well known to have been caused by government spending, rather than the ruse they put on for us now with the central bank making excuses.
The Fed only has two options to make the economy better. Which is a false narrative because lowering interest rates and printing money doesn't create wealth, it only promotes bad investment and inflates prices that will eventually crash.
If the market determines the interest rate, instead of the Fed, then you have a natural market based check and balance on investment. If the market sees over investment, it will raise the interest rates to cover the risk, and less people will take the higher risk options because there isn't any more free money to throw around and pin the the tax payers.
We have had one hundred years of central planning, and we are about to lose everything, including our retirements. The stock market is about 80% inflated due to free money and bad investments, and it will crash one day.
Balancing a budget means nothing if it allows for debt spending. Even the balanced budgets of the nineties increased our debt. A budget is just an agreed upon amount, and we are supposed to believe that agreeing to spend 1.6T dollars a year in debt, and sticking with that number is a good thing.
I do agree with you about writing off the debt. We should do as Iceland did, and simply say "it is not our debt". You cannot just write it off and stick with the same system. It won't work. If you write it off, then you have to deal with what you owe other countries, or let them take the fall for us. What needs to be done is create a sovereign currency, then let everyone know, other than the Fed, that you will pay them back with sovereigns, and at no interest. Either that, or they eat it. The Fed gets nothing, because they gave nothing for us to get the money from them.
The only reason that we could bail out the banks and big autos is because the fed monetized the bailouts, which added to the debt, which we are paying increasing interest on. For what? Most of that money wasn't even printed, it was just credits created in a computer and allocated to others. Because of this, Americans grow poorer, and poorer until we lose our homes and our sovereignty to the new world reserve holders when the Fed Note crashes, because we stayed tied to the Fed Note.
Not a good plan, in my opinion.
"Rather than having a central bank, congress prints the money supply.." Gee librtifriend, I don't think congress would go for that. They seem not to like their Constitutional duties.
Well said though.
Thanks. It's not like they wouldn't have money to spend, they just wouldn't be selling us out to foreign banks. Being the world reserve currency would still give them a lot of room to inflate as well, unless the world reserve thing was just a plan from the beginning to dominate the world with a private central bank in control of the world reserve who would fund a huge military industrial complex that would eventually seek to preempt any possible threat that they could sell to the public in the name of terrorism while actually just conquering nations for the purposes of their corporate and dictatorial interests of control while shutting down the industrialized nations and disarming any possible resistance that might arise to threaten their power.
No. Probably not. :)
I tire of these politicians who say things without being specific about a resolution to the issue. Mr. Rubio, just what specifically would you do to turn the economy around? I not only want to hear you say it, I want visual proof. My sentiments about the present condition of things under Zero and our do-nothing Congress:
What would happen if republicans were given a super-majority in the house and senate, and the presidency? Would they solve our financial problems? Would they end abortion? Would they get us out of the treaties that have destroyed the foundation of our economy? Would they restore money creation power to the congress so that we wouldn't have the debt and the interest building up? Would they protect our civil liberties and end the police state? Would they end the massive regulation that is the favorite tool of tyrants?
The answer is no folks, and anyone that this media gives a platform to would not either.
Could you imagine a trillion dollars worth of cuts the first year? No more Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan conflicts? Could you imagine 100k troops from the wars on the southern border? Could you imagine having five regulatory agencies shut down immediately? What about an executive order establishing a sovereign currency that we wouldn't have to borrow or pay interest on? If congress passed a bill to get rid of the IRS and implement a sales tax instead, we would see this country boom like never before in our lifetimes.
I guess there is one good republican, for another couple of weeks.
Who said I "trusted government to solve our problems". During my last 15 years in the workforce I worked for the federal government at the USACE a part of the DOD. I know first hand that in many instances the govt will mess up a 1 car parade. I witnessed it daily. The truth of the matter is that I do not trust the govt. or politicians. They are not in the business of helping to solve the country's problems and for the most part never have been. As a chemist, I approach practically everything from a problem solving propspective. I thought that Romney was the least political of the whole lot running including repubs and dems and would make a far better president than Obama. Incidently I agree with 90% of your comments.
I certainly understand your perspective. I was much closer to it a few years ago. My view of Romney is simply that he was a false choice, in more than one way. He was a false choice because our election system is electronically rigged, and we no longer choose our president. Romney was never meant to win. There are four companies that provide the voting and counting machines, and eighty percent of the votes are run through those machines. There is no verification of the programming of the machines or the storage cards that are sent out for each election.
He was a false choice because he is an insider who knows the big players who fund and control elections. Those players are primarily the big investment companies, the big banks, and their corporate buddies. He was also a very liberal candidate who clearly stated that he believed that the fraudulent currency system we have is a good thing. Everything trickles down and is ultimately controlled by the people who make and distribute the money, and it is not the US government. Our presidents are just puppets who ultimately work for the banks, insurance companies, chemical companies, and oil companies. Romney stood to carry on the Bush/Obama agenda, which is actually a corporate crony agenda. Obama has only continued and expanded the Bush era.
Our financial system is coming to an end, as all financial schemes do. The Fed can only help the economy if we have a productive industrial base and they can only help by lowering interest rates and making cheap money for people, and the government, to go into debt. All money is created through debt, and if we quit building debt, the economy stops. When economic prosperity is dependent on debt, you have a system that will inevitably fail eventually. The only reason that our system has not fallen yet is the fact that we have the world reserve currency, and other countries have been forced to use it for trade.
Republicans and democrats both ensured the end of our industrial base with treaties from the nineties, and with their regulatory and tax tyranny. Without real wealth creation through productive trade, there is nothing to hold up a "real" economy. What we have been left with is a service sector economy, which produces nothing in real wealth, and is only funded by debt.
Socialism has never proven to be sustainable, and never will be. Our social systems have ensured the destruction of our economy, currency, and future independence by causing the people to become dependent rather than productive, building an entitlement debt that is ten times more than the official national debt, and giving government more and more power to control the population to the point of having a full on tyranny.
What conservative understand that many people don't is history. History is very telling of the nature of man, and governments. The nature of man is to want something for nothing, and the nature of governments is to grow and become tyrannical. We understand the lessons of the 1930s Germany. We know that when government starts to target people, (such as the rich which were the Jews in those German days) that government is in the first stages of a full on tyranny. Another sign of this is the disarmament of society. Tyrants do not like competition to their power in the use of force.Tyrants take away the people's ability to defend themselves before they start to mass murder the populations.
For the last ten years, our government has been taking away many of our rights. They are now seeking to disarm the people, and are targeting the "rich". They are also targeting people who are preparing for bad times, because they want everyone to be dependent on them, for control. If they have enough control, they can starve people, deny them health care, take their livelihoods, take their land, take their food, etc, etc.
Thinking that a huge powerful government will ever be a force for good is a really bad thing to do, because those who hold onto that idea will not be prepared for reality, and may very well die at the hands of their government masters and providers.
I wish you well, and I hope that you will decide to open your mind to the sad realities of this world and quit trusting government to solve our problems. If you do this, you will not be interested in their compromises that are leading us right into a time of hell on earth.
What was he supposed to do? Not endorse the republican nominee? Not try to help get him elected? So every republican who tried to help Romney is damaged goods in your eye sight? Leave the field entirely to Obama? Is Obama what you wanted for the country? Well you have him. As I have said many times on this site, I am a 67 yr old AA and former democrat turned independent, seriously trying to understand republicans and their obsession with perfection There was only one perfect man according to God and that was JOB. Even on a fixed income I supported Romney to the tune of around $500. I wanted to put up or shut up because I knew what a terrible person and president Obama was and would continue to be. I think Romney was a kindhearted, intelligent, and knowledgeable man who knew what it took to get the country back on the right track. It is a shame he did not get the opportunity to try and we are stuck with this fool for another 4 years.
It is good that he is there, but he isn't taking the principled stands that his father took. He recently voted for the 2013 NDAA, which has it problems, and he campaigned for Romney. Sorry, but I just don't see these compromises helping when we are this close to going down. He is playing it to stay in office, not to stop government. He is the best thing going after his dad leaves the congress. It is what it is, but we need major reforms that are not even being discussed, and the house and senate leaders are making sure that nothing gets close to touching Obama's agenda. Endorsing Romney really killed my enthusiasm for Rand's future.
Were you talking about Rand Paul. I don't see his go along attitude in anything he's been doing. He seems to be the only one calling out Democrats on many of their stands. Don't get me wrong I'm praying with all my might he doesn't run for president but as a Senator I think he's doing an outstanding job. I sure wish he was my Senator instead of that creep Sherrod Brown.
I don't think that anyone could replace him. Rand seems to be going along to get along. For me, that party dies with him. He was proof that anyone who refuses to compromise will go nowhere in the house, and Boehner just proved that the republicans will kick out anyone who doesn't go along with the RINOs.
It's the end of an era. (and most likely this country)