Jeff Bell - U.S. Senate candidate in New Jersey

[Truth-Bringer]

I heard this guy on the radio last week and was impressed with how well he explained the current economic system as crony capitalism. His primary issue is returning to a gold standard and he says he's "a one issue candidate."

The RNC and the establishment crowd aren't supporting him at all, so he must be doing something right. He's certainly not a perfect liberty candidate as I believe he supports interventionism, but I definitely think he's worthy of support just for how articulate he is in describing how the Fed is destroying our future. He would definitely support the Audit the Fed bill.

Here's an article on his campaign.

Main website is: http://bell2014.com

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

The RNC and the establishment crowd aren't supporting him at all, so he must be doing something right.

Or because he's running against the well-liked, well-funded and well-known Cory Booker and stands absolutely no chance. Lonegan didn't and neither does this guy.

 

[Smart3]

Cory Booker is a massive improvement over his predecessor.

 

[devil21]

Supporting interventionism while criticizing the monetary system are logically incompatible positions. One requires the other.

 

[TaftFan]

Supporting interventionism while criticizing the monetary system are logically incompatible positions. One requires the other.

Technically, they aren't. The numbers don't require it.

 

[MichaelDavis]

Supporting interventionism while criticizing the monetary system are logically incompatible positions. One requires the other.

A candidate can support the gold standard and interventionism. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Vanguard101]

Supporting interventionism while criticizing the monetary system are logically incompatible positions. One requires the other.

no

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Supporting interventionism while criticizing the monetary system are logically incompatible positions. One requires the other.

If we're back on the gold standard, interventionism will be virtually impossible.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Or because he's running against the well-liked, well-funded and well-known Cory Booker and stands absolutely no chance. Lonegan didn't and neither does this guy.

Booker is now below 50% in the polls. I admit it's a long shot, but something to consider. Give money/support to other candidates first, but if you have anything left over, a pick up in New Jersey would be a big gain.

 

[devil21]

A candidate can support the gold standard and interventionism. They are not mutually exclusive.

They are logically incompatible positions in modern times. Printing money out of thin air indefinitely requires military force to enforce other nation's cooperation. Massive military force requires the ability to print money out of thin air. It's why neither monetary policy nor foreign policy ever changes, regardless of which party is in power or who the President is. Candidates can support whatever positions they want but that doesn't make their positions logically sound. It just makes them politicians.

(yall are so predictable)

 

[Primbs]

Bell wants smaller Government.

Reagan's "$90 Billion" Speech

In 1975, Bell was responsible for a speech given by Ronald Reagan when he was running against President Gerald Ford in the Republican presidential primaries. In it, Reagan proposed a "systematic transfer of authority and resources to the states - a program of creative federalism for America's third century. Federal authority has clearly failed to do the job. Indeed, it has created more problems in welfare, education, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, community and regional development, and revenue sharing, to name a few. The sums involved and the potential savings to the taxpayer are large. Transfer of authority in whole or part in all of these areas would reduce the outlay of the federal government by more than $90 billion, using the spending levels of fiscal 1975. With such a savings it would be possible to balance the federal budget, make an initial $5 billion payment on the national debt and cut the federal personal income tax of every American by an average of 23 percent."

Bell's speech was intended to provide Reagan with a philosophical edge over President Ford. The Ford campaign, however, seized on it as evidence that in primary states like New Hampshire, which pay no state sales tax or income tax, that the state would have to come up with its own funds for programs. Reagan lost the New Hampshire primary to Ford, and the Bell policy was interpreted by some as a contributing factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bell