How will the Ryan VP nomination affect precious metal prices?
Bayard1908
Posts: 4,059 ✭✭✭✭
Ryan seems like something of a wildcard for the precious metals market because he's going to talk about unsustainable government spending.
0
Comments
"Before the last presidential election Shilling said that whoever got elected then wouldn't get re-elected because the economy would still be weak with high unemployment. Now Shilling says he'd like to see one party in control in Washington because it increases the odds of cuts for entitlements and could help "restore confidence in Washington." But even then he says it will take five to seven years to complete the deleveraging that's already underway before the economy recovers."
Deleveraging Will Take 5-7 More Years
Exit bunker, enter Matrix. LOL
<< <i>it won't. no turning back.
"Before the last presidential election Shilling said that whoever got elected then wouldn't get re-elected because the economy would still be weak with high unemployment. Now Shilling says he'd like to see one party in control in Washington because it increases the odds of cuts for entitlements and could help "restore confidence in Washington." But even then he says it will take five to seven years to complete the deleveraging that's already underway before the economy recovers."
Deleveraging Will Take 5-7 More Years >>
I'm not naive enough to think that Ryan can save this country from itself; however, if this country had a serious discussion about the national debt, I believe the price of precious metals could be affected.
<< <i>
I'm not naive enough to think that Ryan can save this country from itself; however, if this country had a serious discussion about the national debt, I believe the price of precious metals could be affected. >>
It's an interesting scenario, but think of it this way. What if all the red states decided to cut like heck, and all the Chris Chrsitie governors of this world cut in the red states.
Then you had all the blue states refuse to cut, because of their ideology. How do you think the red states would feel as their salaries and benefits got cut while the
other states got raises and such.
You would really need all three branches controlled by the Republicans before any possible scenario could take place. And you would need a Chris Christie Republican.
I think G. Bush raised our debt limit a lot too, but a lot of that was war expenses.
That will only be accomplished from unyielding outside forces. When those forces arrive, they arrive. A VP candidate is certainly not going to have any
effect on Fed, Treasury, and TBTF banking monetary policies.
has enough approval in this Democratic controlled state that he will win again if he runs.
I think that the budget familiarity that Ryan brings to the public debate is sorely needed. Whether or not the politicians actually engage in any real debate is questionable.
When the budget process is so corrupt (and even Ryan's own plan) is such that a slowdown in the growth rate of government programs is referred to as a "cut", I don't see Ryan as having much impact on spending or anything of significance.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>When the budget process is so corrupt (and even Ryan's own plan) is such that a slowdown in the growth rate of government programs is referred to as a "cut", I don't see Ryan as having much impact on spending or anything of significance. >>
Bingo !! Baseline budgeting increases spending each year a certain percentage. The govts idea of cutting spending is just decreasing this percentage increase, not actually cutting spending.
Ryan's budget plan didn't even balance for 20-30 years IIRC. There is no LOGICAL reason why this country does not have a balanced budget amendment.
<< <i>Chris Christie has cut like heck here in New Jersey. He has taken on the powerful teachers and police unions, and he
has enough approval in this Democratic controlled state that he will win again if he runs. >>
Easier for a state since they have to work within a balanced budget or suffer the consequences. They also don't have to worry about taking on the TBTF bankers and lobbyists.
How long has the federal govt been running along without a budget?
Disclaimer
The new republicrat nominee for vice-president paul ryan is a wholly owned subsidiary of TPTB inc.
and now for some easy listening music
meet the new boss
Exit bunker, enter Matrix. LOL
That will do more to gold prices than a VP pick. (which may be negative for gold prices if he can trick the markets into thinking they will actually reduce debt and deficits and increase revenues and american business all at the same time.)
[personally I don't think either party has it in them to do it all, especially a one person presidential office.]
Weighing In on Paul Ryan
By Vedran Vuk
In this presidential election, I lost hope a long time ago. The choice of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice president candidate hasn't restored even a twinkle of that hope. Honestly, I don't think either the Democrats or the Republicans will change a thing for the better. I know that's a fashionable thing to say - for libertarians, especially - but at least in 2008, there might have been some differences between the candidates. McCain likely would not have passed Obamacare, but then again, who knows what else he might have done -especially regarding foreign policy?
Despite my apathy at this point on presidential politics, I am very concerned about Paul Ryan's portrayal by the media. At moment, he is being praised as some sort of free-market intellectual. It's a funny label for the person described in a Politico article, from which these quotations are taken:
"In the fall of 2008, Ryan voted for TARP [the $700 billion bank bailout]. Later that year, he voted for loans to help rescue the auto industry, making him one of just 32 Republicans to do so ....
"All in all, Ryan's congressional voting record reveals a standard, loyal Republican. He has voted at least 90 percent of the time with his party since he came to Capitol Hill in 1999, according to The Washington Post's votes database. ....
"In 2003, Ryan also voted to create the Medicare prescription drug benefit, whose cost - initially estimated at $400 billion over a decade, according to the Los Angeles Times - so rankled conservatives that House Republican leaders had to take extraordinary efforts to pass the legislation by a razor-thin majority.....
"Ryan, like many Republicans, also voted to raise the debt limit at least five times during the Bush administration, when such votes were considered routine and uncontroversial."
Sure, Ryan is good at presenting charts and figures on the budget and Social Security. These charts and figures are cute, but charts do not make one a principled, free-market intellectual. Your voting record does, and Ryan's isn't pretty.
With Romney and Ryan, I'm afraid of the following scenario: The media labels them the "champions of the free market," and then they win the election. After getting into office, the two repeat the same old Republican pattern of spending on wars and their own social pet projects. After four years, the country is in worse shape, and people ask themselves, "Hey, things are even worse now. Whose fault is it? Must be those free-marketeers Romney and Ryan, who've been running the country for the past few years. Let's vote them out for some good old socialism again."
If the average Joe is trained to think that capitalism gets the same result as socialism, why vote for free-market policies? In some ways, I'd rather Obama win another term. That way, the average voter can learn a hard lesson about the policies which don't work. After four more years of Obama, there might be enough political will to actually put some real free-market politicians into office rather than the hypocrites competing for the position now. However, if the average voter becomes confused about what the free market really means, then our chances of ever creating a free market become much slimmer.
I wish Romney and Ryan the best of luck in another entertaining election year, but I also wish that they would stop discussing the free market if they have no intention of supporting it once in office. There's no need to sully the reputation of a good system with their hypocrisies and inconsistencies.
jdimmick;Gerard;wondercoin;claychaser;agentjim007;CCC2010;guitarwes;TAMU15;Zubie;mariner67;segoja;Smittys;kaz;CARDSANDCOINS;FadeToBlack;
jrt103;tizofthe;bronze6827;mkman;Scootersdad;AllCoinsRule;coindeuce;dmarks;piecesofme; and many more
<< <i>It's good for appearances, not much else. No administration is willingly going to risk their chances for re-election and actually cut spending and reign in debt.
That will only be accomplished from unyielding outside forces. When those forces arrive, they arrive. A VP candidate is certainly not going to have any
effect on Fed, Treasury, and TBTF banking monetary policies. >>
wouldn't it be somethin if they really did make some severe sacrifices or at least credibly try to make the cuts. Their seems to be a building push in that direction again by people who are willing to speak up, act up and get activated. This is a good thing.
I expect one vp, in one term, doesn't have the influence to affect what drives the price of PMs, and if they did... Maybe PMs would go down.
(It's going up soon anyway.)