03/26/2009 04:26:32 PM EST

Ron Paul "Awesome"? Are you out of your mind?

posted by Tarheel88

Ron Paul interview "Awesome"? Ana, if you mean by that, that you will be critically evaluating this hard-core, right wing reactionary congressman's views (kinda like Jon Stewart did with Crazy Cramer on "The Daily Show"), then GREAT. I look forward to it.

But if you mean you think Paul is awesome, then I would have to say, "what the Hell is wrong with you"?

Isn't this supposed to be a website for Liberals and Progressives? Critical analysis of the Right, sure, absolutely, but embracing them?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
"Awesome Interview"? Whats going on here?

Ah, do you people even understand who Ron Paul is? Libertarians are nothing but hard-core Republicans who like drugs. They are ARCH reactionaries, to the far RIGHT of the Republicans. Libertarians make George W. Bush look like a liberal.

 Ron Paul's program is basically hard-core free marketeering. No government interference - ie, MORE deregulated than it already is (if such a thing were possible)! If you think things are bad now, let Ron Paul and his Libertarian wackos have their way, it would mean even exploitation of working people by Corporate America than we've already seen in the present disaster.

 If this last terrible tragic year of corporate criminal swindling should have taught you anything, its that we desperately need much GREATER regulation of our financial sector, in fact, what we need is a new and complete systemic change and overhaul of our economic regulations, strong enough so that "too big to fail" will never happen again and that Wall Street will never be able to rob America blind the way it has with the current deregulated system.

Now, Ron Paul of course will say, "we should just let em' fail" of the big banks, and how he favors small business ad nauseum, etc, etc, and that might sound good to you. BUT, what he will critically leave out, is that this needs to be done through a structured takeover of the zombie big banks through temporary Nationalization. To just "let them fail" without nationalization, and the flushing out of bad assets that that would entail, the way FDR did in the 1930's with his Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In other words, the Swedish model.

Make no mistake, nationalization (what Liberals and Progressives want) is NOT what Paul advocates for the financial crisis. Simple Bankruptcy without nationalization would be disastrous, as it would stop banks lending for a decade. The economic system would totally collapse. Nationalization flushes out the bad assets while at the same time allowing lending to resume, because the government would temporarily control them until the recapitalized bank could be resold. Yes, the bailout money is wrong, but Nationalization is the answer.

 So, if the point of your interview is to critically evaluate Ron Paul's ideas and policies from the standpoint of Liberal and Progressive politics (like Jon Stewart did with Crazy Cramer), GREAT. I look forward to it!

But if your point is to grandstand Ron Paul's views and taut this reactionary Right-winger as some kind of great leader, I would have to agree with a famous quote of Homer Simpson:

"WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU"!

Haven't you learned anything from the last 10 Years of Wall Street DEREGULATION? And the unprecedented disaster it has left us with? It was Liberatarian "free-marketeer" principles that caused this!!!

Again, quoting "The Simpsons"

Marge: "Well Homer, did you learn anything from all this?"
Homer: "NO! I haven't learned a thing."

 

Remember, we are Liberals and Progressives who want a better and more just America for average working people, not right-wing reactionaries who would give business more power to run rough shod over everyone with their so-called "free markets". Because what they are really advocating are slave markets, where the American people are the slaves.
< Cenk's 'Shared Sacrifice' Tax Plan (W/ Poll) | Trophy Series >
 Display:
Ron Paul "Awesome"? Are you out of your mind? | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden)
Why does it bother you so much? (4.50 / 2)
There's no point in living in a bubble and only associating with people whose opinion you agree with already. Or only bringing people of differing opinions on to do a Jon Stewart style beat down on them. The fact is sometimes people with a different opinion might be right on some matters. And I don't agree with a lot of Ron Pauls stances but he has some interesting views on foreign policy for instance. There's absolutely no harm in listening to someone else opinion because at the end of the day what's the worst that could happen? you still don't agree and you move on. And in some cases you might actually learn something.

by 0f course on 03/26/2009 07:14:00 PM EST

Awsome (none / 0)
Thats the key word you missed in the orignial point


by Chinese Democracy on 03/26/2009 08:33:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny (4.50 / 2)

 

Progressives = Neo-Liberal

Democrats = Neo-Conservatives

It's not a left/right scale as you think.  The political spectrum is more like the following:

 

|------left----------middle --------right-------|

 

Left = Communist/Socialist/Fascist

 

Left/Middle = Democrat/Progressive/Neocon servative

Middle = Classic democrats/Republicans

Right/Middle = Paleo-Conservatives/Small (l) libertarians

Right = Minarchists, Anarcho Capitalists, Autarchists, Anarchists

Unfortunately, most people don't understand what freedom truly is.  Your post is factually incorrect and not objective.

There was nothing "Libertarian" about the last 10 years of the market.  You are missing the point.  Who signed into law the deregulation of wall street & the CDO market?  Clinton.  Who was one of the architects of it.  Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and all the Repubs & Democrats that voted for it.

You complain about the financial mess we are in now.  Ask yourself one question.  "Where did they get money?"  One answer - The Federal Reserve.  If the FED didn't create the money in the first place, then none of this would have happened.  

Ask yourself about regulation when the current administration does away with "mark-to-market".   The same loophole that allowed Enron to hide all the illiquid assets.  They are working on that right now.

You also mentioned that Ron Paul is a Reactionary.  Not even close.  He's been the lone voice in the wilderness regarding ALL of the problems we are facing today.  He's been speaking of these things for 30 years.  I think what is reactionary is throwing Trillions of Dollars at something the Bush & Obama administration know nothing about.  Too much credit, borrowing and spending was part of the reason we are in this mess.  It's good to continue with the same failed Keynesian  policies.

Ron Paul seems quite progressive if you ask most people.

No unnecessary wars - Check

No corporate welfare - Check

No Fiat money/central bank - Check

Streamlined government agencies - Check

Balanced budgets - Check

Ending War on Drugs - Check

No patriot act - check

No FISA - Check

No personal income tax - Check

No Crony Capitalism - Check

No Afghanistan War - Check

Sounds like he does pretty well on these issues.  How do the other politicians stack up?

by sdczen on 03/26/2009 08:02:50 PM EST

Well stated, sir... (3.00 / 2)
Very nicely done - These liberals on this site are looking for their rebuttals as we speak - lucky they won't find any, because there isn't any there! :)

by bobo1 on 03/26/2009 10:38:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not that funny (none / 1)
Libertarian whack job- Check


by Chinese Democracy on 03/26/2009 08:31:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 1)
and yet another of your predictions

sorry tiny isnt here

Im sure he would get as big a laugh as I did


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 12:24:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Im smart enough to know (none / 1)
that you should probably go with him


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 12:26:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you are really this fucking nuts (none / 0)
arent you


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 03:19:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Those labels are (none / 1)
gibberish

Progressive? NOT EVEN

  • Ron Paul is for the government making health care decisions for pregnant women.

  • Ron Paul wants to end birthright citizenship.

  • While he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, he is a key supporter of Defense of Marriage Act, and the chief sponsor of a legislation that would remove from federal courts the jurisdiction to even decide if DOMA is Constitutional.

  • Ron Paul was one of the only 33 members of Congress to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, and believes 1964 Civil Rights Act violates the Constituton.

  • According to Ron Paul, the separation between Church and State has "no basis in the Constitution..." As the title of that article BY RON PAUL indicates, he also believes there is a "war on religion" in America.

  • Ron Paul opposes the Kyoto treaty.

  • Ron Paul believes all tax cuts are good.

  • Ron Paul would drain out social security by cutting the money collected on social security taxes, so that "young people can invest" it elsewhere.

  • Ron Paul wants to repeal the Brady bill, introduced legislation to repeal the assault weapons ban even before it expired in 2004, thinks you should be able to carry handguns on national parks, and end our membership in the Untied Nations, because the UN somehow wants to get your guns.

  • Ron Paul believes parents ought to be able to home school their kids and that those kids should get diplomas without ever having to adhere to pretty much any public standards.

He impresses conservatives because he is one of the few far right wingers that is actually articulate.

GIVE ME FREEDOM FROM RON PAUL

Im sure young people are abandoning their ideals and flocking to him as if he where David Koresh .

CHECK


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 12:46:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
uh no (none / 1)

Abortion is such a bs issue.  RP does not want the Fedgov involved in legislating life or death.  He also does not want taxpayer money spent on abortions.  Why should someone in Arizona pay for an abortion of someone in Maine?  I'm prochoice, but when a baby can survive anywhere after 24 weeks, it makes me raise an eyebrow when people can still go through an abortion.....Dr. or patient.

Birthright citizenship? Oh please.  By all means when a government has free healthcare & welfare, who wouldn't drop anchor babies to get all the freebies?  You realize this is an actual, habitual thing that happens.  Being indirectly involved in the healthcare industry, I can tell you it's quite the mess.  Something the founding fathers probably didn't think about when they drafted that part of the constitution.  By the way, keep the birthright clause and eliminate welfare for the anchors and it will solve the problem.

He believes government shouldn't be involved in legislating marriage of either/any sex.  He doesn't care who gets married to whom.  He, as many people don't think that the government should even be involved in marriage.  

You're going to hang your hat on the voting rights act?  Which was packaged full of other suspect provisions.  It was an overreach of the fedgov, as usual.  Do you really think that if that act wasn't passed, that the states would try to prevent people from voting based on racial lines?  I highly doubt it.  Those problems have been resolved years ago.

The civil rights act was unconsitutional.  Not to mention that most of the southern democrats opposed it as unconstitutional as well.  These were states rights obligations and would have been handled through free association of people, without any of the quotas.  If you are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the USA, why would you complain about people that vote to uphold it?

The separation of Church & state.  Wow, you're really digging now.  Because I'm sure we would have a Baptist sermon before each congressional meeting.  Funny thing, isn't there a prayer at the beginning and end of most of these political functions?  Who said the prayer at Obamas inauguration?  Being an Atheist myself, I could really care less.

Any country that believes in sovereignty would oppose the Kyoto treaty.  There is no reason to sign on to a globalist pact, when we will be the country paying for all of it.  Environmental issues can be handled within the US, not at the behest of the UN and lobbyists.

All tax cuts are good.  We should eliminate ALL personal income taxes.  If we did that, we would still have the same amount of money coming into the US Treasury as we did in 1999.  Think about that for a minute.  If we were able to streamline and reduce spending back to 1999 levels we could eliminate the entire personal income tax and still fund our government operations, including the military by other means (tariffs, surcharges, fuel taxes etc...).  I say that would be a good stimulus program, don't you?

RP would not drain the Social Security system.  In fact he's stated many times that he would reduce the spending from overseas imperialism & military adventurism and use the money to stabilize the SS program.  You realize that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will be practically bankrupt in 10 years, right?  That's before all the other trillions of dollars have been added to the deficit.  What are you going to do when the SS program bankrupts itself?  I for one, would like my own money to invest my own way.  

Another note aboug Social Security.  If the government established a personal account for each of us for our SS, and provided a fixed 5% return on Treasury bills, we could then finance our own SS program, while paying for the T-bills at the same time.  Novel idea eh?  The government couldn't touch our accounts & drain them for their "For the public good" mentality.

How does the Brady bill & the assault weapons ban improve our lives?  It did absolutely nothing for violent crime and murders.  besides, it's unconstitutional.  The 2nd ammendment was established to protect the people from the government.  Somehow, this is always overlooked.  

Who needs to be in the UN?  Are you kidding?  What benefit does the UN do?  Oh wait, unless you mean UN's involvement in Rwanda?  I believe there was 1 million people killed and the UN just sat by and watched.  What else has the UN botched?  We could be here all day.

Who cares how people educate their kids?  If they can pass the competency tests at the end, why does it matter if they attend a public indoctrination school?  You realize the home schooled kids test much higher than the public educated kids, don't you?  

 

by sdczen on 03/27/2009 02:07:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
All that typing you did (none / 1)
and all you really had to type was.. yes he is a right winger.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 02:24:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cutting to the chase... (none / 0)
Unfortunately, most people don't understand what freedom truly is.

So, for your new mancrush(s) , KenTX and Bobo, please explain what, in your estimation freedom, truly is.

You could have saved us all a great deal of time by simply stating that from the beginning.

 

 

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 10:08:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah right (none / 0)

Ken, you are a full blown Neocon. There is almost nothing libertarian about you.

I looked through the list and I can find at least 100 posts by you supporting these things.

Unnecessary wars - Check

Patriot act - check

FISA - Check

Afghanistan War - Check

Probably a few others if I think about it.

Plus there quite a few posts by you that said only liberal moon bats would vote for Paul for president.

by z1p101 on 03/27/2009 05:51:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So Ken? (none / 0)
You are saying that you would have voted for him for president?

by z1p101 on 03/27/2009 06:54:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No Civilization - Check (none / 0)
Ron Paul's way would lead to anarchy, and complete collapse. I do agree with some of his stances on the wars and the drug war, but he really has not thought through any of his economic stands.

by jrolsen on 03/27/2009 05:54:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
politely applauds (none / 1)

Im pretty sure that Cenk does not think R Paul is "awesome" in any way shape or form.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/26/2009 05:14:55 PM EST

She said the interview was awesome, not Ron Paul. (none / 1)
Cenk's had conservative and libertarian guests on his show before, so no need to worry. He'll ask Rep. Paul tough questions (hopefully).

Hell, if Limbaugh ever gets booked for TYT, I'd definitely listen. (Rush would of course be PWNED.)

by LudwigVan on 03/26/2009 06:28:43 PM EST

Anarchy Lite (none / 1)

(and/or old people)

by OneHitKill on 03/26/2009 09:01:06 PM EST

Deep Thoughts (none / 1)

and little thinking. The government no more controls your life than I do.

The the fact that you cant run roughshod over the backs of your fellow citizens isn't a lack of freedom, it is the mores of the society in which you live.

Conceding to your statement for the purpose of making a point; if by some miracle a libertarian government is elected in these United States, you will simply be trading one form of control for another.

Every system has its controls.  Personally, I'd rather turn the nobs than wait for an "invisible hand" .


 

 

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 10:29:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedom = less government (none / 0)
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Give me liberty, or give me death." - Patrick Henry

The entire ideal of libertarianism is freedom, which means limited government.  This concept is what our country was founded on, and why we broke away from the tyranny of the Brittish.  If you read the words of many of our founding fathers, then you'll find how similar they are to those of Ron Paul's and many libertarians today.  We don't want to control others.  We want people to run their own lives however they want as long as it is not taking away the rights of thers.  It's that simple. 


by bandito on 03/27/2009 11:08:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Simplistic (none / 0)
entire ideal of libertarianism is freedom

"Ideal" being the operative word.

Out of context quotes from the founders aside the question is still pertinent.

How, exactly, does the government control your life?

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 11:35:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedom no longer popular? (none / 0)
Wow, I guess I'm not surprised that freedom is no longer a popular idea. 

How does the government control our life? Hmm, let's see:

Our body - we can't choose what we want to put into it due to prohibitions by the FDA and the government's War on Drugs.

Our money - Can you say the IRS? The income tax? You can "choose" not pay taxes if you don't want, but of course the thugs from the IRS will come ruin your life.

Our property - Think you own your land?  Have you ever tried NOT paying property taxes? 

Our guns - Dictators love gun control, check out China, North Korea, Russia during Stalin....

Our right to travel - Drivers licenses

Our partner - Marriage licenses

Our privacy - Patriot Act, FISA

Our Habeas Corpus - Military Commisions Act of 2006

Our LIFE - The selective service? The Draft? Now we have the Civilian National Security Force.  Very Orwellian and scary IMO.


If you keep redrawing your line, allowing the government to take away more freedoms in exchange for "safety," eventually you'll find yourself cornered up against the wall.  It always starts out so innocently and seemingly harmless....

"...first (they came) for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up." - German Pastor Martin Niemoller, about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power.


by bandito on 03/27/2009 01:01:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Save the high school debating tactics (none / 0)

and your list of horribles for Bobo.

The question was simple and to the point,

How, exactly, does the government control your life? 

Not one of the things you listed meets the standard you established

We don't want to control others.  We want people to run their own lives however they want as long as it is not taking away the rights of others. 

Reasonable arguments could be made for each and every point meeting the  "as long as it is not taking away the rights of others. " criteria.

Take drugs. Your body is and remains your problem.  "Drugs" assuming illegal drugs, ,is a societal control codified by law. This is a "Christian Nation" after all and when drugs were declared illegal an overtly racist one. Drugs were perfectly legal until we, meaning the older white folks discovered those ever so crafty black folks using them at in the early 20th century...and they moved to the whites kids , who just had to have fun too. Then the Temperance types, who were beating the drum for years held sway.

You have a problem with drug laws...go after the Focus on The Family.

Your guns? No one I am aware of is restricting you right to own guns. If so which guns? Where? Not in Florida where a cop was shot yesterday with , among other things, 50 cal sniper rifle...does that meet the not taking away the rights of others part yet?

Has FISA personally impacted your rights? If so how? When? IF you talking privacy right there are many constitutional strict constructionists who revere Patrick Henry that would argue it doent exist.

 

So could you give us examples of how the things you listed directly impact your freedom?

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 01:55:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Grade school debate tactics (none / 0)
You have a problem with drug laws...go after the Focus on The Family.

Focus On The Family did not break down the door of Mayor Cheye Calvo's home and shoot his dogs to death. It was the government that controlled the life and death of those dogs and the lives of their owners during that drugs raid.

by Twba on 03/27/2009 03:30:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TWBAs grade school memories... (none / 0)

Indirectly they did. The government executes the policies of its elected leadership.

Organizations like Focus on the Family and other evangelical political action groups use their political influence to block any meaningful reform of the US drug laws  They view drugs as further evidence of the "moral decay" of the USA. A perception that is absolutely essential to them to continue to build their political movement. FOS and other connected groups insist instead on , yes even here, "abstinence" and of course getting "tough" on crime.

The real crime here, besides animal cruelty, was that to date, no one on the police force has been disciplined ( that I can find on the intertubes)

So, tell us TWBA, in your grade school Thanksgiving pageant, were you Myles Standish...or the turkey?

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 07:49:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, we cannabis (none / 0)
Organizations like Focus on the Family and other evangelical political action groups use their political influence to block any meaningful reform of the US drug laws

And they also use their political influence to keep abortion illegal. Oh, maybe their influence isn't very great.

Since FOTF didn't support Obama and probably never will, why doesn't Obama support marijuana legalization? Who is he afraid to cross?

by Twba on 03/31/2009 11:20:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the complement... (none / 0)

about.

Thanks for the complement.

But I would  have done it even without the benifits...which are grossly overstated by the way. 

There is nothing remotely cradle to grave about it.

I only lived in Govt housing once...and they forced me to do that. At the time the civilian overbuilt in that particular town...houses were cheap.  When you do, you forfeit your housing allowance...basically rent.

I had health care...but you cant expect a fighting force to be effective without that capability.

My family had what amounted to work provided health insurance. After 1972 they never saw another military doctor.The difference is that your work provided health insurance was much better. Ours paid at the the Medicare rate and only to approved doctors. We had to carry supplemental coverage.

I don't get free health care as a retiree contrary to popular belief. I pay about 3500 a year now...still not as high as some...but not free.

If you think there is job security in the military...think again.  Officers and enlisted men are forced out at the tune of about 1/4 of the force very year due to tenure and promotion policies, that can be changed by decree of the force Secretaries.

On the up side, I had big, complicated machines to play with. Cant beat that. Nothing better than watching  a 1 billion dollar ship head down the channel based on your work.

 

Back to the subject. I am amused when I hear a citizen grouse about how the 'government " controls his or her life. When I ask , exactly how the "government" controls their life I usually get some nebulous description of what the founders said...overwrought descriptions of "freedom", quotes from Braveheart and other stuff.

So Ken If you please, tell me how the goverment controls your life.

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 07:07:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get real (none / 0)
Our privacy - Patriot Act, FISA

Sure, that was a real concern when Chimpie McChimpler Bushitler was president, but now that the right man is in office, you have nothing to fear. If you haven't done anything wrong, why are you so concerned with privacy? What do you have to hide?

by Twba on 03/27/2009 03:33:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bullshit (none / 0)

and that wasn't question.

You, as expected, you delivered the typical exaggerated Republican political diatribe against the Democratic Party, and dodged the question.

Thanks for playing. Your parting gifts are copies of Das Kapital and The Fountainhead. You might want to read them.

You simply are after a tax cut...doesn't matter from whom.

The question was;

How, exactly, does the government control your life? 

You claim "the goverment" controls your life, that your freedom has been somehow compromised. How so?

by MRFred on 03/27/2009 01:19:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes - Think Somalia (none / 0)
There are places on this planet where government has collapsed, where there is no law. They are not pretty places. Only idiots do not want government where there is more than 100 people.

by jrolsen on 03/27/2009 06:04:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Socialism (none / 0)
Socialism

by bandito on 04/05/2009 05:12:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ron Paul opposed the repeal of Glass-Stegall Act (none / 0)
http://www.house.gov/paul/c ongrec/congrec99/cr110899-g lb.htm


"Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach."-RP




I just got the impression he was being thrown in with Phil Gramm when in reality he was one of the few republicans opposing Phil Gramm and a lot of Democrats too.



by Invalid10 on 03/26/2009 09:55:29 PM EST

Well (none / 0)
Well I should say he opposed Phil Gramm's partial repeal of it. If he could repeal the whole thing along with some drastic changed to our banking system along with it, he might have been for it but those are my words not his.

The point is he was one of the only republicans against Phil Gramm's version of a partial repeal, which was essentially a special interest group bill.

by Invalid10 on 03/26/2009 09:59:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Foreshadowing? (none / 0)
Thanks for posting this Invalid10.  In the middle of this speach, you'll see how Dr. Paul is foreshadowing our current economic crisis:

  • The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.

  • Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
This pretty much explains how our bubble got started and why it is now bursting.  Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and many other Austrian economists have been warning about this for years if not decades and now we are starting to see the results. 

by bandito on 03/27/2009 11:17:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont know where you cut and pasted (none / 0)
that from but if you really want to know about the global economic crisis read this

The Big Takeover


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 11:42:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're at a 10. (none / 1)

Ya need to be at a ... three.  As an earlier poster pointed out, Ana meant that the interview was awesome, not necessarily Ron Paul or his views.  I think that the interview (what I heard of it) was great.  It is at least nice to hear someone give reasoned arguments for their positions.  Not like all of the RW pundits out there putting out blather that is only calculated to cast the other side in as negative a light as possible.  This is the first real time I've heard him speak, and I have to say, he didn't go the same route that I would expect from other far right politicians.  I disagree with most of his views, but at least he's not an insufferable twat like Sean Hannity.

-aidbo

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 03/26/2009 11:54:00 PM EST

Let's put Ron Paul into perspective (none / 1)

We just saw the effect of tax cuts on the rich gone wild.  Bush might be the first President in American history to make tax cuts unpopular.  The Republicans just released a "plan" that includes not only continuing the Bush tax cuts, but reducing the tax rate on the richest Americans a further 10 percent! You would have a hard time finding a credible economist who recommends this right now.

What would Ron Paul say about this?  He would be outraged of course.  Because the proposed tax cut ISN'T GOING FAR ENOUGHT.  IF RON PAUL WERE ELECTED PRESIDENT HE WOULD ABOLISH THE IRS.  Pretending he is anything other than extreme right wing is insulting the intelligence of those you speak to.  Supporters of Paul like to pretend that any critics must not know anything about him.  It's a great way to prevent having to defend his crazy ass philosophy.

by richardshort2001 on 03/27/2009 01:54:19 AM EST

ENOUGH (none / 0)
where's my edit comment feature?

by richardshort2001 on 03/27/2009 01:55:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 1)

As I stated in a previous comment.  We should abolish the IRS.  There is no need for a personal income tax.  You're being railroaded into believing that "we need it" to fund our government.  Well, that is only partially true.  Here are the facts:

  • Personal Income taxes are approximately 1/3 of the revenues that the Treasury takes in each year. 
  • If we abolished the personal income tax, we would still have the same amount of money (revenue) as we did in 1999.  That means, we would have to cut spending and streamline bloated departments (I think we can all agree on this).  

Seriously, do you really think we can't run our government on the amount of money we had back 1999?  Maybe there could be an additional surcharge or tariff to compensate for the difference.  The bottom line is we need to cut spending drastically.  This is just another wedge issue that is constantly dividing.

 

by sdczen on 03/27/2009 02:18:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The bottom line is (none / 1)
You have taken the conservative cut taxes mantra to the extreme.

You must be guzzling  that libertarian koolaid by the gallon

Do you have a television? There is this little thing called a depression going on. BushCo. dug a really deep hole and we need to climb out.

We already have 3 trolls  we dont need any more.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 03:02:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Agrees (none / 0)
I agree with KenTX. 


by bandito on 03/27/2009 11:19:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The fact that (none / 0)
you agree with a right wing nut ball like KenTX doesnt help you in the credibilty department.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 11:28:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ad hominems (none / 0)
More personal attacking eh Chinese Democracy?

by bandito on 03/27/2009 12:06:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you view it as an attack ? (none / 0)
You must think KenTX is a right wing nutball too?


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 03:24:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
1999 vs 2009 (none / 1)
Its a intriguing idea to cut the income tax but to go back to 1999 spending wouldnt you need to go back to a 1999 population. In 10 years you have a much larger population and govt spending wouldnt match the population demand. You would also have to cut from the budget any increases in technology from 99-09. Also im guessing when RP came up with these figures the markets were topped out and unemployment was around 5%. I would assume you would need to take a chainsaw to cut the spending. The guy seems a little to idealistic but i do like sincerity.

by getupheights on 03/27/2009 08:55:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
slap yourself (none / 1)
what the hell is wrong with liking drugs. Smokeing weed and having sex is living life, not spending time complaing about people who do.

by riosricky on 03/27/2009 03:36:27 AM EST

THATS RIGHT (none / 0)
Here here there is not one thing wrong with somking weed , Its the hard drugs that are bad for ya, And then there is the booze ,That is way worse than weed , Way worse.
At least weed can com you down and help deal with hard day we all have at work.

by tuna on 03/27/2009 09:34:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh Oh! Here come the Paulbots! (none / 0)
Oh wait, I guess I'd consider myself one of them.  I'd have to wholeheartedly agree with everything sdczen has said so far.  And Chinese Democracy, I'd vehemontly disagree with.  It's YOU who is the troll sir.  You've been personally attacking any dissenter on this message board.

People who think the current economic crisis was caused by free market (Austrian, Libertarian, whatever you want to call it) Capitalism, should read my blog I posted last night on the subject. 

I'll have to warn you, it's quite "radical" if you are progressive or liberal:  http://libertyportal.wordpr ess.com/2009/03/26/do-we-ev en-have-a-capitalist-econom y/

by bandito on 03/27/2009 10:19:45 AM EST

Oh you disagree? (none / 0)
What a surprise. Disagreeing with right wing nutballs on a liberal site is not that radical. I dont really need to read your link.

you call it dissenter I call it troll

I agree with you .. you are one of them


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 11:35:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought Tiny was from texas? (none / 0)
Did you also explain how Spencer is Dave?

Or RobRob is someone else who is going to "turn to their old nic "?

Exactly how many mysterious "sock puppets" are there in the forum again?

Im all for European style socialism

If we had a parliamentary system  Bush wouldnt have lated a year.

The Republic party trotted out their 19 page alternative plan yesterday ( IE 19 pages of tax cuts with no explanation for anything) and it looks like the freedom revolution sorta fizzled out.

and yes I might be GAY

Im surprised ,no die of aids jokes this time?

I mean you did have all your posts deleted  just a couple days ago but I figured that wouldn't stop you cuz you are such a militant.

Oh btw you also said bobo1 was a smart guy at one time. Are you ready to take that back?


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 03:32:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Party affiliation (none / 0)
Ron Paul has no party or political agenda. He chose the Republican party because he understands that he has little or no opportunity to make a significant change as a Libertarian and his views and government philosophies lean toward the Republican stance. To be a participant, he had to chose a party affiliation. At his moral core, I believe he does not care what party he is in, he just wants to be heard.

by schwagle on 03/27/2009 02:28:41 PM EST

since his (none / 0)
views and government philosophies lean towards the Republic stance. It makes sense he would call himself a Republican.

Karl Roves views and government philosophies lean toward the Republic stance and he calls himself a Republican as well.

In fact all the conservatives views and government philosophies lean toward the Republic stance. They also call themselves Republicans.

Isnt that interesting.

R Paul can run as an independent any time he feels like it. Ever hear of a guy named Joseph Lieberman?

Btw you better inform your buddy KenTX he is under the impression that libertarians are conservatives. I dont know why?

 


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 03:40:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
None (none / 0)

Once again, as in many of your replies I have read, you are reactionary. Do you exist here only to rebut and oppose? Or do you have a purpose?

Until today, I have never posted here and have no "buddies".

My observation and "stance" was simply, to be effective in government a politician MUST chose a party. Pigeon hole it however you want. 

I would prefer a non-partisan democracy, based on facts and ideals. 

by schwagle on 03/27/2009 04:17:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes Im reactionary (none / 0)
I react to right wing bull shit with a reply.

Lieberman seems effective

There is no such thing as non partisan in this country as long as the conservatives are so divisive.

I have no idea why I exist thats above my pay grade.

Oh you haven't posted here before. Sorry all you R Paul people cut and paste exactly the same stuff I got confused.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 04:24:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NONE (none / 0)
Thanks for making my point.

by schwagle on 03/27/2009 04:38:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NONE (none / 0)

Ok DH.

Lieberman only solidifies my point.

You assume I'm a Ron Paul supporter because you are reactionary.

How many independents have even scratched the ass of a presidential election?

Idiot.


by schwagle on 03/27/2009 05:14:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gosh whats with (none / 0)
the Ad hominem attacks?

:)

I assume that your post was moronic and I felt compelled to reply because Im a reactionary. I dont know what you are other than that.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/27/2009 06:23:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ron Paul "Awesome"? Are you out of your mind? | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: