Peter Schiff for Senate?

Schiff in DC to Assembly Team for Senate Campaign

http://politicsmagazine.com/blog_post/show/393

…At first, Schiff was reluctant, noting just how hard it would be to take down a five-term senator, especially as a Republican in a blue state. Now he sounds all but convinced. He’s got a team of consultants in place—who are working on a “month-to-month” basis as he considers the choice—and he had to dash out of our interview so he could meet with NRSC chair Sen. John Cornyn….

I do believe the next political phase in America will be that the Bush/Obama economic agenda will be challenged by those advocating the replacement of a financial system based on government-sponsored crony “capitalism” with a system based on a free market and genuine currency, as opposed to the counterfeit money currently churned out by the Federal Reserve.

I noticed the Rasmussen poll showed most Americans want to end any more spending from the stimulus program.

The times they are a changin.

Democrats and Republicans who have created our corrupt economic system had better watch out.

Genuine Currency? Do you even know what would happen if the FED went away? No, you RonPaulBots don't think that far in to the future…… If the FED doesn't control interest rates and the currency, who or what will? The private bankers……. So you would rather turn our economy into authortarian? Where the rich few can control the currency of all…. Don't you wonder why not one country uses Austrian Economics….

Ron Paul knows nothing about fiscal responsibility. His district gets more earmarks then they pay in taxes. Which means some of my tax dollars here in PA are going to a district in Texas…… O MY GOD. That is socialism……. Say it isn't so.

The times are changing. Just not the way you would like to see.

As for Schiff running for senate. He'll only get it if he goes for a hard right district. Liberals wont accept his anarchy economic views. I mean the guy said the other night that there is to much regulation in the financial sector and thats a big part of the problem we have today…….. Right……….. Those Mortgage Back Securities had just to much regulations……. Problem with this statement? There was no regulations for MBS's……..

But it isn't what you know that gets you into office. It's how many people you can scare to the polls.

After 30 years of NEO-CON's, I would think Americans would have had enough uneducated idiots taking there tax money and giving them nothing in return.

At least the liberals want to spend my tax money on me.

Dude, you need to read more about some of the things Peter Schiff believes. Less regulation in CERTAIN parts of the financial sector should definatly be on the table. The Legislation we currently have, leads to the type of “regulation” we currently have. Because there's no genuine oversight for the FED, there can be no true “regulation”. They are the ones who opened the flood gates for “Those Mortgage Back Securities”. Then you have FDIC (another monster of the FED) A.K.A. “the banks wont fail because they have a blank check from the government”. My question is (Peter's as well), where's the incentive for these banks to invest your savings wisely? The answer, as it stands now, suggests there is none. So, of course this will lead to reckless spending and malinvestments. Who cares if an annual earning $120,000-a-year broker is scamming a bunch of people (or a Madoffin a greater example), when our own government is doing the same to EVERYONE. How do they get away with it? The government and its arms are the ones lacking true regulation. I say, “Run Peter, Run. I can't wait to see Peter run…”

Rofl at the ones calling Schiff a Neocon. Thats right keep voting Dodd in, he's a real honest type of guy cant really go wrong there haha. I like Schiff, he speaks his mind and hes been right more often than not, I can't say the same thing about Dodd but at least he knows where to get his home loans at.

Earmarks are allocated by the Federal government in the first place. If they are not spent, they go into a government account that is then allocated elsewhere. They don't give it back. So, why would he not spend ALL of it on Americans (HIS constituency) instead of letting the government waste it in the various efforts to have more of us (Americans) killed in the Middle East or recklessly spend it on yet ANOTHER bailout? He spends all of it, because he knows all this. He hopes and expects his spending to draw outrage and negative attention from all kinds of people. Earmarks of any kind are nothing more than a hand-out, which Ron Paul is inherently against. But, being that he hates the war push and the federal reserve so much, he'd rather not see them get the money back. As you stated, that money belongs to the tax-payer in the first place.
While I don't agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul says, he's as principled a person as you'll ever find in Washington. I admire that about him and always give him a chance to explain himself. Given the opportunity, he always expands on what he actually means. Also, if the FED were to be abolished, there would not be chaos in the sense that the world would fall apart. The responsibilities would simply be entrusted BACK to the Congress like it had been for all the years America's existed before 1913 (FED's creation). In 1920 (I think), the FED first started actually imposing monetary policy.
And as far as Austrian economics goes, most of it is comprised of natural laws used in conjunction with rational economic theory. Hard currency is used in many economies. Well, not MANY, but in alot of the areas Mr. Schiff likes to invest in…

YES! I hope Schiff Wins!

“Throw away your Keynesian textbooks! You don't understand economics” – Peter Schiff

Daniel, in the words of Peter, throw away your Keynesian Textbooks! You don't understand economics!

Why is an economist who was laughed at for his predictions, and proven to be 100% correct, controversial? Controversial is more those economists that have all predicted a rosy future, including Ben Bernanke, but have proven to be 100% wrong.
Schiff is a very strong candidate and he would even be able to self-fund his campaign plus he is much better known than a three term GOP congressman throughout the years with appearances on Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox Business and various other media and TV outlets. Simmons would have no chance against Dodd as someone who voted for the war, while Schiff has been against the Iraq war from the start and is a civil libertarian as well, e.g. a lot of attractiveness to Independents as well as disillusioned Democrats apart from Republicans and Libertarians.

Daniel, I agree with your 30 years of Neo-con's and I see you include Clinton-Democrats as well.
Some people on the left are already tired of Obama's false promises on the war and civil liberties and higher taxes. Schiff will wipe the floor with Dodd, on economics and everything else and he will offer a lot of attraction to the middle, Independents as well as an amount of Democrats. Dodd will probably win his primary bid, but he will be further weakened by it. I agree with you neither a moderate nor a “hard-right” Republican can win against Dodd, even with the latter's fraud. Guess what, Peter Schiff is neither of the two.

If you think liberals want to spend you tax money on you, you are quite mistaken. Let us assume for one second that would be true, well would it then be not better that you keep your tax money and you can spend it yourself how you see fit, instead of wiring it to the govt. and them “wiring” something back? Most of the tax money is used for war BTW.

Hey, if the Fed doesn't, let me.
Why me?
Why not?
Why the Fed… a bunch of banker cronies who answer to nobody? And look where their expertise has gotten us.
Let me print money at-will. Like the Fed I have my conscience to keep me from abusing such power. I wouldn't give out a trillion secretly to my friends.
Heck maybe a million each,.wouldn't you?
Nobody's looking. Nobody. And a million is pocket-change.
Thank god the Fed isn't evil like me.
Trust the central bankers, they mean nothing but well.
Give them their secrecy, just take a deep breath and trust them with your money.
Trust, lol, Trust….

Dam shame Lonegan lost. We desperatly need more Liberatarian republicans in this country. The Liberatarian message of individual liberties and restraint of government is sounding good to many Americans. And the Message from Ron on fiscal restraint beginning with the Fed in HR1207 and continuing with S604 should be supported by everyone. Go to Campain for Liberty
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/index.php study the constitution and reclaim your rights through peaceful assertion of what was once yours.

What would happen if the Fed went away? Well for starters I wouldn't have to worry about the money I make now being worth 20-30% less when I retire. There wouldn't be decades of rampant easy credit that blows up in our faces because the interest rates were being kept artificially low for too long. Oh andf The Fed IS a private bank, numbskull.

What would happen if the Fed went away? Well for starters I wouldn't have to worry about the money I make now being worth 20-30% less when I retire. There wouldn't be decades of rampant easy credit that blows up in our faces because the interest rates were being kept artificially low for too long. Oh andf The Fed IS a private bank, numbskull.

Sarah Palin is moving to Illinois so she can get into the US Senate. Too bad she has to run against Mike Ditka in the GOP primary. Alan Keyes will run as Constitution Party and Jesse Jackson Jr as the Democrat. You heard it here first.

Finally someone worth supporting…

interest rates on a free market are like prices, (The history of price controls in the 1970s has hopefully ended the chance of any more government attempts at dirrect price controls) Competition between bankers will force the rates of loans down to the 'market rate', which is equal to a level that is high enough for banks to charge and to stay in business if it turns out that some of the loans go bad (And a certain portion of them do) but generally not much higher.

The same is true for prices, if i charge 1000 dollars for a shirt that only costs 20 to produce, which includes paying the costs of machines and workers, (With a loan, interest is charged both to incentivize the banker to make the loan and to generate revenue to cover the costs of potential loans that go bad) someone can still undercut me by charging 900, i either go out of business or charge the same or lower, so i charge 800, he is now in the same condition. The price cutting continues until it get's fairly close to about 20 dollars.

This doesn't work for all prices but for interest rates, since you can have any number of banks in a given area, it is the case.

Without a federal reserve, interest rates would fluctuate not based upon the random assumptions of a board of bankers, but by the intersubjective relations between the number of savings of individuals and the number of loans demanded for whatever reason. That kind of market relationship forms itself out of the behaviours of every single individual in society, it's the only rational and democratic way in which production and distribution can be based upon.

I dislike all politicians, though i dislike Ron paul the least of all of them. His Earmarks are rather strange, he justifies it by saying that he's winning back the money that was taken in taxes though if this is true it shouldn't exceede the ammount they pay in taxes, unless Ron Paul is actually calculating any potential money that is lost or taxed indirrectly from government. (There are other ways to tax besides simply taking people's income or charging a particular percent sales tax). Compared to other republicans, however, he pays more than lip service to the principles of an economy based purely on intersubjective relations between individuals, not the arbitrary whims of some righteous hand from above, which is what you scornfully call the evil free market.

What you're trying for was expressed by Heinlein in 1973:

“Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.“

I hope Peter Schiff would run for President of the United States. He is very gifted in his thought process. He makes so much since. I feel he is one of the only people that nows the truth about our financial system and would be able to fix this most important issue.

Chris Dodd is an insult to the people who voted for him. This guy is an absolute criminal, Greed,lies and has no concious whatso ever. He does'nt answer to anyone and thinks he is above the law. If peter Schiff could take his chair in office of the Senate I would be Delighted.

Never met him, myself. Read his stuff for years. But since the economic slagdown, it's impossible to escape his talks on television, and friends have been emailing me to archives of his appearances kept on YouTube.

He seems personable enough, but I doubt that he's either interested in the Presidency (the candidates for which must be utter prostitutes) or capable of stamping up the funds necessary for such a run. The Senate in Connecticut against a truly hateful rat-sucking bankster criminal like Dodd?

Might could do it.

“What would happen if the Fed went away? Well for starters I wouldn't have to worry about the money I make now being worth 20-30% less when I retire.”

Wow, you must be retiring in 1-2 years.

For most people, the concern is whether the money they save for retirement loses 90-95% of its value by the time they retire.

Regarding Ron Paul, someone said:

“His Earmarks are rather strange, he justifies it by saying that he's winning back the money that was taken in taxes though if this is true it shouldn't exceede the ammount they pay in taxes, unless Ron Paul is actually calculating any potential money that is lost or taxed indirrectly from government.”

That is entirely correct. So long as you have an earmark based system, any politician who fails to see his or her share of earmarks for his/her constituents is simply rewarding those politicians who created and thrive off the corrupt system.

If Paul supported the abolition of earmarks but refused to seek his own district's share of earmarks under the current system, the technical term for him would be “blithering idiot”.

It's similar to term limits. I have heard some morons say that a politician that supports term limits should set term limits on themselves in the absence of term limits being in force. The end result is that those politicians who do not support term limits wind up proliferating while those who do support term limits become an endangered species.

Unilateral disarmament is idiocy.

“Why is an economist who was laughed at for his predictions, and proven to be 100% correct, controversial?”

Well, because he's a crackpot. After all, isn't Keynes' economic philosophy obviously right, that the way out of a recession is for the government to pay people to dig holes and then to pay them again to fill them back up?