Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Fact Checking Ron Paul

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Congressman Ron Paul made an all too cutesy point about inflation and the price of silver in tonight's debate. So cute, he thought, that he fought to get in the punch line:

"Did you know that you can still get a gallon of gas for a dime?"


Drum roll, please....."a silver dime!" He went on to try to make a point about inflation.

Okay, but can you really buy a gallon of gas for the cost of a silver dime? I checked two different sites,and found the price of silver in a silver dime to be between $2.97 - $3.01.

I bought gas this afternoon, and in my area, gas was going for $3.859 to $3.97.

Like his performance in the debate, Ron Paul's dime comes up a little short. Like a good politician, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Cross posted at Say Anything

20 comments:

  1. wow what a douche you are so he was off by .80 to .90 cents. i think your the one coming up short in your half ass attempt to make a joke. i swear we need to do away with public education all kids from the slow classes think they run the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He was making a point about inflation and the Federal Reserve and it was well put.

    In 1964 a silver dollar was worth the same as a paper dollar. Then we went off the gold/silver standard and now the paper dollar is worth 1/32nd of what it was worth (a silver dollar is worth $32).

    Inflation is the result of the fiat currency being circulated as real money, which it is not. Bernie Madhoff would blush at the shear scale of wholesale theft being perpetrated by the Central Banks.

    To us it shows up as $3.85/gal gas.

    That was Ron Paul's point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Poor baby! Your candidate makes a mistake, and you start calling people names? Just for having the audacity to point it out? What a sweetheart you must be!

    "so he was off by .80 to .90 cents" So, you're saying you know he had his facts wrong? That's progress. Now take a look at his foreign policy!

    If your candidate is so piss poor that he cannot stand a little honest scrutiny, then you must not have a whole lot of faith in his ability to win. You know what? I'm right there with you, Nonny!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris said: "In 1964 a silver dollar was worth the same as a paper dollar. Then we went off the gold/silver standard and now the paper dollar is worth 1/32nd of what it was worth (a silver dollar is worth $32)."
    Not sure where you're getting your facts from Chris. I went to one site that pegged inflation at about 7 to 1. (A 1964 dollar would buy $7.09 in 2011.)

    http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

    The fact that the price of silver has inflated beyond that of other goods and services is interesting, but not indicative of our currency as a whole. A retailer in this area over the weekend was selling new, 42" HD flat screen LCD TVs for around $50.00 1964, adjusted for inflation.

    If you're old enough, tell me what kind of TV you could have gotten in 1964 for $50.00? Is that the result of fiat currency as well?

    Perhaps a better measure would be, how much of your life do you need to trade, in hours, to buy the same goods?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Proof, your gas is more expensive than Texas gas. The average price in Texas is $3.46 a gallon. That's the average. If you shop at the cheaper gas stations or at the large warehouse discount gas stations than you are in the zone for a dime buying a gallon of gas.

    In my part of the USofA buying gas at one of the warehouse stations takes the some of the sting out of filling up.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  6. "wow what a douche you are so he was off by .80 to .90 cents."

    Math obviously isn't part of your skill set. He was off by $.85 to $1.00, not $.008 to $.009.

    "i swear we need to do away with public education all kids from the slow classes think they run the world." (sic)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now, now, Spart. Be nice! (Being snarky is MY job!)

    ReplyDelete
  8. A 1964 dime is made of 90% silver and 10% copper. Based on bid prices from an hour or so ago, the melt value of a '64 dime is $3.41.

    According to AAA, the average price per gallon of gas in Texas is $3.48.

    In the world of trading, Paul was spot on. But let's take a closer look at his analogy.

    If we compare the price of that dime in today’s currency, a gallon of gas would cost $10.23, yet a gallon of gas averaged only 30 cents in 1964. Therefore, we can see that, obviously, the price of gas has actually gone down (thanks to advances in productivity). Yes, gas is cheaper today (even though we pay more).

    Looked at the other way, if we were still using silver, a gallon of gas today would only cost 12 cents.

    "how much of your life do you need to trade, in hours, to buy the same goods?"

    That's an important question. Assuming you work for dollars (like most of us do), aren't you tired of watching the purchasing power of those dollars disappear?

    Do you think you'd have more time for family, friends, church, charity, etc., if you were paying only 12 cents per gallon instead of $3.41?

    If we were still using silver, how much would that 42" HD flat screen LCD TV cost? You have to trade a lot less of your life to acquire it, wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paul was spot on? In Texas. If he's running for president of Texas, he might do less damage.

    "Do you think you'd have more time for family, friends, church, charity, etc., if you were paying only 12 cents per gallon instead of $3.41?"

    Irrelevant. How much more time would you have to spend with your family if gas were free? Rent? Groceries??

    If Paul has a plan to restore the value of our currency, let him be specific. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like Obama's unicorn rainbows.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Paulistinians keep using the price of gas in Texas as the logic behind R.P.'s statement. The problem is R.P. made the statement while in California addressing a national issue. The price range of gas 3 days ago in Manhattan, New York was $3.95 to $4.77 per gallon, making his statement wildly inaccurate. According to AAA the national average price of regular today is $3.66, still making R.P.'s statement inaccurate. Face it, the guy was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Proof and Spartacus don't get out very much and are really up tight. The dime and gas issue was correct on both the price and on inflation. If you don't agree you don't agree.

    Paul put forward legislation to restore our currency. If you remember the bill to audit the Fed was voted down by the remainder of the establishment that enslaves you and tells you that everything is OK. His ideas to restore our financial stability are not unicorn rainbows but are instead solid direction to allow Americans to live well again.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  12. "R.P. made the statement while in California addressing a national issue." Spart: My thoughts exactly! And you'd think he would have passed at least one gas station between the airport and the Reagan Library. I'd bet that gas is more expensive down there than northern California.

    You'd think he'd look at that and say to himself, "Holy cow! You can't buy gas for a "dime" in California!"

    Dave: Speaking of legislation, in all the years that Paul has been in Congress, has there ever been one law that he himself has authored that ever passed? Has there ever been one law that he himself championed to be repealed that was repealed?

    Then talk to me about leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just drove back from Charleston this Labor day weekend, and gas is $3.30/gallon. In suburban ATL, gas can be bought for 3.40 or 3.50. So your use of your neighborhood price is dishonest.

    Furthermore his point wasn't that prices, using a silver standard, are fixed. Rather that prices are more stable. Because prices are more stable, investors are less exposed to risk from price fluctuations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous Redux: It is curious to me, that of all of the people who have written me to tell me what Ron Paul's point really was, that all this would have been unnecessary, had Ron Paul himself made whatever point he was trying to make, clearly and succinctly, without resorting to obscure, (and inaccurate facts, at least as far as the national stage), as a means of doing so.

    Maybe we should expect more from our next president?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Irrelevant?

    Tell that to the retired folks on fixed incomes who can't buy as much as they could just last year. You know, those same people who remember as clear as day how much cheaper everything used to be because their money had more value.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Proof, getting something passed is more than just asking pretty please. If that were the case Obama would be in political heaven. Paul showed great leadership in the Congress with his attempt to audit the Fed. He had supporters from both sides of the aisle and got that bill to the floor for a vote. That never would have happened without great leadership. As it was the establishment canned it because such an audit would show the true nature of our fiscal state forcing many of our politicians and officials to walk in front of mad Americans carrying pitchforks.

    Why are the Republicans pushing Newt, Mitt and Rick? Because they are status quo, don't rock the boat men. They are more of the same that we have had for the past 60 years. Remember Newt abandoned us after two weeks of his Contract With America.

    Paul's leadership is apparent because the other candidates and the talking heads are using his points to bolster their weak positions on the economy.

    Paul is the only candidate who attempts to correct the destructive path that America is on. He leads but the establishment is unwilling to follow. The others are in the palms of big business and special interest groups. It is time to get out of the rut America is in.

    I'm sorry that you didn't see the economic connection in his comment because those of us who are scraping by immediately picked up on it.

    All the best to you,
    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  17. "(Being snarky is MY job!)"

    Hey, if the batter misses that slow ball right down the middle of the plate the coach will send in the pinch hitter!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Irrelevant?" Yes. You were talking about buying a gallon of gas for 12 cents. Under what set of circumstances would that come to pass?

    I did not say that inflation or its effects are irrelevant. The was a leap to conclusions you made all on your own. You asked "Do you think you'd have more time for family, friends, church, charity, etc., if you were paying only 12 cents per gallon instead of $3.41?"

    Again, outside of fantasy and science fiction, how does that apply here in the real world, other than "inflation is bad"?

    Are you Ron Paul's speech writer? One can be against inflationary trends without speculating about 12 cent a gallon gas.

    Would you propose that the government go back to putting three dollars worth of silver in a dime? Would the government sell them to you at ten for a paper dollar? Would they make up the loss by borrowing more money from the Chinese??

    Or they could put three dollars of silver in a coin, and call it a "Three dollar silver piece". Three paper dollars would get you one. That and a few dimes would get you a gallon of gas.

    if we were still using silver, a gallon of gas today would only cost 12 cents. No. I'm pretty sure that if silver were backing our currency today, a dime would be worth...ten cents.

    However, you could take six Mercury dimes and put them in a vending machine and get an $18 candy bar, if you'd like?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Proof, getting something passed is more than just asking pretty please...Paul showed great leadership in the Congress with his attempt to audit the Fed. He had supporters from both sides of the aisle and got that bill to the floor for a vote. That never would have happened without great leadership. As it was the establishment canned it

    Yes. More than asking pretty please. But after TWENTY PLUS YEARS as a legislator, don't you think some time he might...legislate?

    And you say his "great leadership" ultimately went nowhere? The operation was a success, but the patient died?

    Again, is the only example you can give of his "great leadership" is yet another example of getting nothing done, but looking good while doing it?

    "He leads but the establishment is unwilling to follow." Um, I hate to break it to you, but when someone "leads" and no one follows, it ain't leadership. It might just be kvetching from the sidelines.

    What on God's green earth leads you to believe that a man no one has followed in the past, who has never come up with any proposed legislation on his own that even his own party is inspired to join him on, has never rallied anyone to anything but a few failed votes is going to be a great leader in the White House?

    If he cannot even persuade 217 of his closest colleagues that any of his ideas are any good, how will he persuade 300 million?

    You and I have far different ideas as to what constitutes "great leadership". BTW, Churchill (Winston, not Ward) was a great leader. At many points in his career, "the establishment" was against him. And yet, he still managed to go down in history as a great leader.

    Ronald Reagan was a great leader. The establishment was against him, too. You need to find better excuses for Paul's failures than that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Do you mean the Winston Churchill who was responsible for the failed Dardanelles and Gallipoli campaigns? That's the campaign that did nothing except spend young men's blood and taxpayer money. Do you mean the Churchill who waged war in the same manner that America wages war today?

    The Audit the Fed bill had 120 sponsors before going to vote. Some of those same sponsors voted against their position for some unknown reason. Massive bribes made the difference not leadership. Paul is the only man running for President who is not in big business' pocket. He is the only candidate who does not toe the party line about Republican policy lies.

    If Paul doesn't have leadership qualities why do so many of our military support him?

    My job entails travel and on the road men that I don't even know volunteer the fact that they are supporting Paul because they are fed up with being raped by the usual politicians. They are fed up with paying for healthy individuals to live on their backs. They are fed up that their kids can't get jobs. That is why Paul has backing. You poke fun at the ones that vote in online polls and run political blogs. I see men who are working hard and are barely able to take care of their families.

    If you want American business as usual with the political sell outs and the destruction of the middle class, just say so.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.