Realcent.org

It seems to me that if Obama wins re-election then it will probably be business as usual and the government will keep kicking the can down the road and continue to print money as the national debt grows. And I guess this will be a good thing for those buying gold & silver.

But what if the Romney/Ryan ticket wins? Political analyists say that this team will take the opposite road and cut way back on government spending and entitelments. Quantitative easing will stop as they will focus on shrinking the national debt. And will the dollar rise in value against foreign currencies thus pushing down the value of PM's? Is it possible that the "fear factor" of our economy someday falling off the cliff will start to fade and investors will begin pulling away from PM's for the long term ? Could a Romney/Ryan victory mark the beginning of the end of this great bull run on gold & silver?

Any thoughts???

I anticipate that if Romney/Ryan win there will be a short term pullback in commodities until the markets see that there were just not enough differences between the policies of Obama and those of Romney, and those differences being mostly a matter of degree, not general policy. Long term, I anticipate that commodities will continue the march up while the Dollar continues the march down. No, I do not have evidence to back this opinion.

pennypicker wrote:Political analyists say that this team will take the opposite road and cut way back on government spending and entitelments. Quantitative easing will stop as they will focus on shrinking the national debt.

Very doubtful. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=17105

JP Morgan and friends are heavy into Romney.
Shorts will rule, if he's elected.
At the very least another 2 1/2 years to stack at a "good" (subsidized?) U$D price.

More importantly, from my perspective is whether R&R can pull us back at all. If they have a willing Congress, that have a chance to regain some semblance of order to the federal mechanism. If they do, it will mean austerity, which will mean street riots. Street riots mean good things for PM, but not good things for a bruised and battered country. Can the American rule himself again as we did years ago? I sincerely hope so. The slide into a dependant society is horrible. Don't we have any pride anymore as a people? Are we really so willing to accept a handout that we'll trade our liberty for it?

Romney/Ryan cannot heal the underlying problem that we've become drunk and lazy. It has to be a change in the mind and heart of the American people. R&R with a willing Congress CAN make conditions easier for a wholesale change of heart.

Not an exact quote, but Ben Franklin said, "Make the poor uncomfortable in their poverty, and they will lift themselves out of it." Since the 1930s we've made the poor more and more comfortable, to the point that It's easier to be poor and comfortable than it is to work hard to get ahead.

PMs. I don't think it matters who's in the figurehead seat. The underlying problem is Fiat currency in general. That said, we can be a great nation, we can be a shining beacon on the hill, we can be the hope of freedom loving people all over the world, if we can make a decision to stand on our own two feet again.

Very well said, OneBiteAtATime.

It's also crucial to remember that although PM prices have risen, there has been an accompanying drop in purchasing power of the US$. So it may feel nice knowing that dollar-cost averaged price is $6 or $14 or whatever, but if one were to cash those PMs in, what could he buy? That's why I think most here have core holdings that will never get converted to Federal Reserve Hiney Wipes.

In God I trust. Romney/Ryan? Not so much.

Personaly I would be willing to lose some money on my PM's just to get obama out of the whitehouse. To me the survival of our Country is more important than profits. Dont get me wrong I would like to make some money on my PM's but as a veteran my country comes first. If we dont get this Country back on track then our existance as the best Country in the world will be deminished. Money is not everything but it sure helps.

Political anal-cysts are paid propagandists. Romney/Ryan are just puppets like Obama, there will be no difference in economic or foreign policy. All the kiddies will be kicking the can as far down the alleyway until they reach the dumpster.

The first answer the to OP's question would be "what bull run?"

Down for 2 nearly straight years is not a bull run in my opinion.

Totally agree with blackrabbit, if you think things will change your nuts. Both parties bad mouth each other and when they do get into office, what changes?? The right complains about welfare, but it was Clinton who came up with some welfare reform, not enough, but he did something. Bush was in office for 8 years did notthing, except ruin this country and make a joke of the white house. By the way, Romey/Ryan are not getting elected. Worst possible choice for VP except for Palin that Romney could make.

I agree with blackrabbit as well. The last republican president devalued the dollar, increased the size of government and tripled the national debt. Obama or Romney makes no difference.

This is a special place. The common threads that bind us and provoke us to do the things we do are probably stronger than the differences that separate us. I do not mean what I am going to say as personal affront to blackrabbit, dave, or PP. Merely as an affront of the concept itself.

The concept that it doesn't matter or makes no difference who is in office is convenient and LAZY. One can make this claim and accept no responsibility for the outcome. I for one will be damned before I give in to this philosophy. I cannot, and am unwilling to accept serfdom for my posterity. I have a responsibility to my family and my country to at the very least try to see the better man in office.

Mitt Romney is a puppet of no man. He has made his millions and retired. He is a puppet only to what the history books will say about him. And he's not a Marxist.

Paul Ryan is a great choice. It frames the debate around the budget.

There are those who have so little interest in the direction of this country that they lazily pull the lever for the party their parents taught them to. There are also those who have become so unsatisfied with the direction of the country that it is more EASY to say it doesn't matter than to try to do something about it.

Again, the fight must be won in the hearts of the American people. We must as a people decide we want to govern ourselves rather than be subjects of the state. The Republican party has much less distance to travel in its political concepts than the Democrat to reach the concepts of the American Revolution. I will work within this party to try to change hearts to our founding principals.

I'm gonna vote, but don't expect much to change if Romney wins. It would take a sweep of the presidency, house and at least 60 seats in the senate (by either side) to spur substantive change in Washington.

http://dailybail.com/home/busted-watch-tarp-republican-paul-ryan-begging-congress-to-v.html

Paul Ryan: "Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles. But I'm gonna vote for this bill -- in order to preserve my principles."

OneBiteAtATime wrote:Mitt Romney is a puppet of no man.

Mitt Romney shares many of the same corporate and Wall Street backing as Obama, and as Bush before him, and Clinton, and...you get the point. Could he be different and stay above the influence of such supporters? I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't bet any of my hard-earned money on it.

OneBiteAtATime wrote:Paul Ryan is a great choice. It frames the debate around the budget.

Every time I hear a reference to Ryan's budget, and how it was "revolutionary" and made "unprecedented cuts," this pops into my head:



His budget reduced proposed spending increases. It did not cut any appreciable amount of existing funding. His plan still calls for overall increases in the federal budget every year except two, and would take until 2040 to actually balance the budget (assuming tax revenue grows as much as expected).

Ryan voted to expand Medicare. He voted for No Child Left Behind. He voted for housing credits. His fiscal conservatism is greatly exaggerated.

I don't think our economy will do much better under Romney-Ryan than it will under Obama-Biden. They will both spend money we don't have on things we don't need or shouldn't be doing. I do think less of the over-spending would be directed toward welfare under Romney-Ryan, and that the Second Amendment would be better protected under Romney-Ryan, but that's not enough for me to want Romney as president, it just makes me not want him a little less. I'm not going to vote for somebody "I don't want to be president less than the other guy I don't want to be president." I'll vote for somebody I do want to be president, and then I'll sleep with a clear conscience.

Ryan had A budget, which should be separation enough to show there's a difference.

Nate, we all know where you're coming from. I have a lot in common with the Paul camp. I wonder though if you can find me a cute little cartoon with someone pointing and screaming, "You're an unelectable distraction! A skinny little distraction!"
you cannot see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but It's there.

Trying to move my family to a new house, shouldn't have gotten into this without the time.

When you play chess do you always go for mate in 4 moves? You try, but it doesn't really work that way. You have.to take the board one piece at a time. The revolutionary left is better at chess than we are.

99.999% OF ALL POLITICIANS ARE CROOKS, LIARS, AND CHEATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THIS MESS IS TO PULL THE PLUG AND START THE GAME OVER!
WHO SPENDS MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS TO GET A JOB THAT LAST ONLY FOUR YEARS AND ONLY MAKES $500,000 A YEAR?
NO POLITICIAN SHOULD EVER BE ABLE TO VOTE THEMSELVES PAY RAISES. YET I AM PRETTY SURE CONGRESS HAS DONE IT SEVERAL TIMES!
CUT THEIR PAY!! GIVE THEM $45,000 A YEAR. NO FREE TRIPS. GIVE THEM THE SAME BASIC HEALTH CARE THAT JOE SCHMOE MIGHT HAVE, AND ONLY GIVE IT TO THEM FOR THEIR TERM WHICH SHOULD ALSO BE DRASTICALLY CUT! THEN LETS SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE REALLY "LOVE" THEIR COUNTRY ENOUGH TO GIVE UP THEIR HIGH PAYING DAY JOBS TO PROPERLY "REPRESENT" AND NOT "RULE" THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT, YET DECAYING COUNTRY. OH YEAH ONE OTHER THING, IF THEY REALLY WANT TO HELP THIS COUNRTY, THEN THEY SHOULD MAKE ALL TAX FILINGS AND BANK ACCOUNT BALANCES PUBLIC FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR TERM!
THESE JOKERS ARE ALL WALKING ON THE BACKS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!!!!
JUST MY TWO CENTS....

So your solution is to make sure that no one wants the job?

Do you think that would yield more good candidates or less?

What we really need to do is make the job of Congress and the president like that of a successful company. Give them incentives for making things better, etc.

Reducing their incentive to zilch certainly won't work. And will yield even more corruption (assuming more corruption is possible).

OneBiteAtATime wrote:Ryan had A budget, which should be separation enough to show there's a difference.

I could copy and paste a previous year's budget, put my name on it, and then I would have A budget too. Ryan's plan is the same-old same-old with slightly lower spending increases. If that's what he thinks is "right," fine. But let's not pretend it's anything more than a band-aid for a gunshot wound. It doesn't deserve to be called a "conservative budget" by any stretch of the imagination, and it certainly doesn't garner the libertarian / Tea Party support the media is pretending Ryan gets.

OneBiteAtATime wrote:Nate, we all know where you're coming from. I have a lot in common with the Paul camp. I wonder though if you can find me a cute little cartoon with someone pointing and screaming, "You're an unelectable distraction! A skinny little distraction!"
you cannot see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but It's there.

Ryan is a distraction. Or maybe a misdirection would be a more accurate description. The Romney campaign will trump him up as a fiscal conservative and attempt to reel in libertarian-leaning Ron Paul type sector of the party, but truthfully, Ryan has been on the big-government (left) side of almost every fiscal issue to date, and there's nothing to indicate he'll suddenly change his path if he moves to the executive branch.

Here's a nice little summary.
http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.

Anybody pretending he isn't just another clown in the GOP circus is setting themselves up for a big disappointment. As is Romney, because Ryan probably won't fool enough of the libertarian / Ron Paul voters to get elected. Hard to win when you can't even get your own party on board. Romney could have had the election in the bag with the right choice of running mate, but that would have required a big change in his lets-go-bomb-them foreign policy. By refusing to compromise there, he has set himself up for a much more difficult race.

OneBiteAtATime wrote:When you play chess do you always go for mate in 4 moves? You try, but it doesn't really work that way. You have.to take the board one piece at a time. The revolutionary left is better at chess than we are.

Chess is particularly difficult when your opponent keeps changing the rules mid-game. Or like they are now doing in Maine, they just get frustrated and knock the board to the ground

natsb88 wrote:

OneBiteAtATime wrote:When you play chess do you always go for mate in 4 moves? You try, but it doesn't really work that way. You have.to take the board one piece at a time. The revolutionary left is better at chess than we are.

Chess is particularly difficult when your opponent keeps changing the rules mid-game. Or like they are now doing in Maine, they just get frustrated and knock the board to the ground

Not enough people will understand what you're talking about. You should provide a link.

barrytrot wrote:So your solution is to make sure that no one wants the job?

Do you think that would yield more good candidates or less?

What we really need to do is make the job of Congress and the president like that of a successful company. Give them incentives for making things better, etc.

Reducing their incentive to zilch certainly won't work. And will yield even more corruption (assuming more corruption is possible).

barry, i agree on incentives not insanity! these fools are so over paid it is mind boggling! and "ZILCH"????? i dont know what you make a year, its not my business, and im sure you work hard for the money you earn, but like so many americans, i am unemployed and would jump at the chance for a job paying $45,000 a year!!!!!!!!!

shinnosuke wrote:

natsb88 wrote:

OneBiteAtATime wrote:When you play chess do you always go for mate in 4 moves? You try, but it doesn't really work that way. You have.to take the board one piece at a time. The revolutionary left is better at chess than we are.

Chess is particularly difficult when your opponent keeps changing the rules mid-game. Or like they are now doing in Maine, they just get frustrated and knock the board to the ground

Not enough people will understand what you're talking about. You should provide a link.

Two prominent Mitt Romney supporters in Maine filed paperwork challenging the legitimacy of almost all of the Ron Paul delegates in Maine. Then the Maine GOP Chairman offered a "compromise:" he would drop the challenge and allow the delegates to attend the convention if they signed a pledge to vote for Mitt Romney if Ron Paul was not on the ballot, if the delegation chairman stepped down from his duty to speak (announce Maine's votes) at the convention, if they all promised not to say anything positive about Obama, and if they all promised not to say anything negative about Mitt Romney. So essentially the GOP is attempting to throw out Maine's delegates if they don't agree to become Mitt Romney drones. The GOP says Ron Paul had to win 5 states to be on the ballot at the convention. He did, unless they throw out Maine...

The delegates did not agree to the compromise, so now it will go to hearing of GOP officials. Wonder how that will go

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Ron- ... looms.html

OneBiteAtATime wrote:More importantly, from my perspective is whether R&R can pull us back at all. If they have a willing Congress, that have a chance to regain some semblance of order to the federal mechanism. If they do, it will mean austerity, which will mean street riots. Street riots mean good things for PM, but not good things for a bruised and battered country. Can the American rule himself again as we did years ago? I sincerely hope so. The slide into a dependant society is horrible. Don't we have any pride anymore as a people? Are we really so willing to accept a handout that we'll trade our liberty for it?

Romney/Ryan cannot heal the underlying problem that we've become drunk and lazy. It has to be a change in the mind and heart of the American people. R&R with a willing Congress CAN make conditions easier for a wholesale change of heart.

Not an exact quote, but Ben Franklin said, "Make the poor uncomfortable in their poverty, and they will lift themselves out of it." Since the 1930s we've made the poor more and more comfortable, to the point that It's easier to be poor and comfortable than it is to work hard to get ahead.

PMs. I don't think it matters who's in the figurehead seat. The underlying problem is Fiat currency in general. That said, we can be a great nation, we can be a shining beacon on the hill, we can be the hope of freedom loving people all over the world, if we can make a decision to stand on our own two feet again.

Not a fan of Romney/Ryan, but I have to agree with your statement here.