Forum Post: Ron Paul
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 8:10 a.m. EST by meg
(30)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Did anyone watch the debates last night. I don't think I would ever vote for Ron Paul but a lot of what he says is so true. We are basicaly borrowing money from China and giving it to other nations as foreign aid. Where is the logic in that? We have borrowed way too much money. Can a country go into foreclosure?
So let me get this straight, meg -- You agree with much of what he said, but you could never vote for him. Why is that? There is no logic in what you said.
His comments on the banks were 100% in line with what OWS has been protesting. He wants to cut defense spending. And he wants to end all the wars we're in, even the one Obama started in Libya. How is this not directly in line with OWS?
My response exactly. I've heard this from numerous people. "That Ron Paul has some great ideas, and he's right about a lot of things, but he's a whacko". WTF?
There was a huge smear campaign against Ron Paul, which I think explains prejudice towards him. I am leaning towards voting for him myself (I am part of the "apathy vote"). He is amazingly well-informed about the state of things, which is apparent when you listen to him.
There is. The GOP paints him as a nutjob, and the Democrats paint him as extreme right. He threatens the establishment, which is why both parties demonize him.
I was quite against him until I found out his stance on federalism, the constitution, the drug war, and the federal reserve. I wonder what is stance is on corporate corruption and lobbying? Can he possibly put that in his platform? His campaign would actually benefit if we put a cap on campaign donations, since he gets small ones from many people.
His budget would include him only taking 39k a year for his years in office, and includes him refusing his yearly pension as POTUS for life.
Any president who is willing to make less then the average tech call center phone jockey is stepping in the right direction for me. We can not do it alone, but as Ron Paul himself says, neither can he.
We have to work together to get the retards out of congress, just as he has been warning us for 10 years that the housing bubble would happen, and 30 years that the military industrial complex would take over and the banking system would lead to the world economy collapsing, but no one listens to him because they all believe the same media who is vilifying the protests right now..
makes no sense you won't believe your enemy when they stifle you, but all the sudden when they tell you that Ron Paul is the devil you guys listen.
I challenge all of you not protesting on the streets today to set aside an hour and just go to youtube and listen to his floor speeches, not the media propaganda or the right/left wing rhetoric that discredits him, listen to HIM. Then go to the congressional voting history website and look up his votes. THE ONLY congress man who votes EXACTLY how he tells the public he would vote.
You might be surprised how many of some of OWS anti RP are complete made up fabrications just the same as they are doing to us.
Thanks for the info. I am one of the people who fell for the slander on RP, but I have "seen the light" so to speak. The way he talks is just lucid. He is SMART and experienced, and a pro at debate. He literally is the most experienced candidate for president, and I'm going to watch as many of his videos as I can. I have also heard, it may be smart for us to register for the Republican party (OH NOES) in order to vote for him in the primaries.
I am sensing pro-obama trolls here on these boards. But I think they are starting to get desperate. For instance, this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-killed-osama-and-qaddifi/
The only reason RP is republican is because it's the only way he can get on the ballot; another testament to our broken system. He is a libertarian through and through.
There are some elements of the Ron Paul platform I can agree with. There are others I believe would be horrible failures.
Embracing Ron Paul, or any other politician would be a disaster for OWS. The movement is about making known what worries 99% of the people and finding ways to transform the system so those worries can finally be addressed.
None of the politicians is the answer as long as the system is rotten to the core.
Good point, I agree. No political endorsements. But, I do think Ron Paul is closer to the belief system of OWS than any other politicians, and it's not even close. It's readily apparent in how the MSM ignores him, just like the MSM tries to paint OWS as a communist movement led by unemployed hippies.
Yes we must stay unaligned. We must be very very clear about it. No politicians speaks for us. Ever.
Wouldnt ron paul be a massive step in the right direction though.Before we achieve our goal of no politicians.
No it wouldn't.
What would Ron Paul achieve if we kept the same Harry Reid's and Mitch McConnell's in the Senate?
Furthermore how is Ron Paul going to raise $1 billion to even make a chance of becoming president, and whom would he be beholden to if that were to happen.
No one person is the answer, a change of the system is the only answer.
Money is not a measure of a candidate's support, nor is it necessary to have as much a Obama. Ron Paul can get elected through grass roots support. He doesn't take donations from any lobbyists, special interest groups, or corporations. If we were to all make a stand and vote for him, whether he's on the ballot or not, a clear message would be sent. I firmly believe that Ron Paul would set in motion the mindset, and mechanisms for revolutionary changes in government. If you listen closely, the majority of GOPers are starting to repeat his ideas already.
I am not voting for him, don't agree much with him.
Ron Paul schoooooled Cain on last night regarding OWS!
This posting is a Ron Paul political advertisement. If you examine it closely, you'll see it is a confidence trick and scam.
First the writer Meg (he or she) says that he will never vote for Ron Paul. This has the effect of siding with you the people who do not agree with Ron Paul. He is making himself out to be "one of you" to gain your trust.
Next he says, illogically, that a lot of what Ron Paul says is "so true"; ie he thinks Ron Paul is great. This is where you see almost immediately that he is a scam.
Next, he advertises Ron Paul's positions: our current government is borrowing to much money, and doing things wrong.
Finally, he asks a rhetorical question that he wants you to think about, namely the false claim that nation is in so much debt, it could go into foreclosure. This adds primal fear, to try to get you to join his group.
It's propaganda.
Why wouldn't you vote for him? (Not like he will be on the GOP list) Would you rather have Obama again? Or a crazy person claiming to be a TP?
This is why you wouldn't vote for him:
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
Wow, balancing the budget in three years, uplifting overbearing regulations and taxes that sent our manufacturing jobs over to China, auditing the Federal Reserve--a private corporation who operates in secrecy and intentionally manipulates the value of the US dollar, wiping out giant bureaucratic federal agencies and restoring state responsibilities, AND lowering the presidential income to a mere $39,336! These sound like a handful of reasons that I WOULD vote for Ron Paul.
See my response above. Vote for him--if you can. I wouldn't. Eliminating the government isn't the answer. Smarter government is.
And btw, if Paul had been president during the 60s, we prolly wouldn't be having this nice little ones and zeroes based chit chat. Why? Because there prolly wouldn't be a DARPA, which developed the baseline internet technology--a government project.
Cheers.
Peace.
Ron Paul in 1900!
Government will never be smart unless it is controlled locally. Less FEDERAL government is his plan not wiping out government altogether.
And don't give all the credit to the government where it's not due. Individuals are much more capable of managing themselves than we give ourselves credit.
I hear a lot of people railing about government, but I wonder how many people have ever actually worked in government, or know how the system works in general. Ultimately, "government," whether it's run at the state or the federal level, isn't some zombie organization. It's run by people. Now, the federal government makes plenty of mistakes--just as state governments do. Nature of the beast. But to somehow revile it because it's inherently evil makes no sense. Corporations are just as incompetent--of course, the problem with corporations is that, when it comes to providing "human services" or meeting a societal need, it is governed by something that "government" isn't governed by:
The profit motive.
Many countries manage both--freedom and support for individuals and collective support for the many. Germany and Finland aren't what you'd called "marxist states" but they are successful and prioritize social needs at a high level.
It's not either individual or not individual. That's a myth brought on by a very limited mindset in this country, to be honest. It's about setting priorities and distributing resources equitably--they see this is as common sense and believe, rightly, that we're insane.
Peace.
Groobie,
It's interesting, as we discussed yesterday, but most of those reasons are why I would vote for him.
I've read that already. They were pretty good ideas, he could use a few more. But it is a great start and our best choice. Also, he is the only candidate that has outlined his ideas so clearly (not simply). If not him, WHO do you plan to vote for? And WHAT is wrong with his ideas?
Well, I wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to keep the Bush tax cuts intact. 10 years on and they not only haven't done anything to increase employment, they haven't done a thing to help the economy. Although the difference between the most wealthy and the least wealthy did increase a lot, so there's that.
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. --Really? Corporate taxes are already lower than they've been in decades. And the fact is that lower taxes don't make corporations spend. You know what makes them spend? Demand. But hey, we have all these people out of work not spending, so corporations aren't spending or hiring.
No regulations at all, including those on Wall Street derivatives which helped get us into this mess in the first place? Great idea. Lack of regulations on trading risky securities--that's the free market at work, remembers--is what helped lead to the meltdown of 2008.
Block grants to states and tell 'em "Hey, good luck with that!" Good luck too, to the most vulnerable in our society.
Ron Paul has about 5% in common with #OWS. The rest? That's just a conservative retread.
Aside from those obvious 'wrong things," he refuses to increase taxes on the wealthiest, even though taxes are the lowest they've been in decades. One of the reasons the budget deficit increased was because we refused to nudge up tax rates on the 1%. Warren Buffett is right.
If Ron Paul had been president during Hurricane Irene, the many 10s of thousands who were forced out of their homes and towns would, what, have a bake sale to fix things? Sometimes the government needs to help those in need. That's not something he believes in.
" To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker"
LOL. That's pretty funny. As if the current salary of $400k is unreasonable for the most powerful man on the planet. It's not. This is a bad, populist joke.
What I do like:
Cutting defense spending. No foreign wars. "Abolishing corporate subsidies." Line item veto.
Right now he seems to be the best option, unless Dems drop Obama, or Reps find someone else who isn't crazy.
Bush's tax cuts don't work because he didn't cut spending with it. You can't cut taxes, flood the war machine with work then not cut spending across the board.
Of course tax cuts never work because government NEVER stops spending. With Ron Paul cutting spending, tax cuts would actually WORK for once.
wrong. the tax cuts worked really well--for corporations, many of which have record profits! here's the thing: they're sitting on $2 trillion. that has zero do to with government spending. nothing. zero.
you're conflating taxes and spending and it's illogical. you don't understand what they're actually "supposed to do," which is to "trickle down through the economy and create jobs and opportunity.
they haven't done that, and there's no connection between that and government spending. none.
You are trying to argue two different points to prove my point wrong.
How does that work for you? You said that you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he would keep the Bush era tax cuts, yet you fail to see WHY he would keep them.
Taxes are unconstitutional. Simple as that.
Quit trying to misconstrue his message because you don't like the Man, I get it. You think he is a right wing nut job because you actually never taken the time to listen to HIM.
If you are going to hog tie a candidate on issues, at least know the issues as he stands on them, not as some talking head told you he said it.
For those who actually like to research what they hear, and not take everything they read as truth: Do yourselves a favor and research the candidates YOURSELVES. Everything he has EVER stood for can be found in two places:
Youtube and the congressional voting history database. There is no reason to believe anything or anyone else beside those two.
LOL. "Taxes are unconstitutional."
I see. Now, this is what gets me: you guys want to be part of this, yet you spout apocryphal craziness like this. Or maybe you don't want to be part of this, and you still spout apocryphal nonsense. And btw, you never addressed any of my points, but I expect that these days.
"Quit trying to misconstrue his message because you don't like the Man..."
I have nothing against "the Man" -- I just disagree with his policies. I don't believe that Ayn Rand and laissez fairean theory has a successful model or is realistic. I don't believe you'd be having this nice little digital chat if it weren't for the DARPA research program that networked computers together, either--all financed through "unconstitutional" taxation.
I've listened to Ron Paul. I've even read his Plan for America--have you? I did my homework, and yeah, i think he's nuts, with the exception of his position on war. That part I like.
But he's for deregulation--which, ironically, in the Dodd-Frank law, requires in-depth transparency into the workings of the fed. But he'd repeal that law. i guess that's because he'd eliminate the fed altogether so the law would be redundant. Hard to know.
But just because you think I haven't read through Dr. Paul's work--or the web site where, just the other day, he had Rush Limbaugh prominently displayed backing up his fiscal plans (Go Rush your racist bastard!)--I think you're mistaken. Here's what I posted the other day here:
Ron Paul's Tax Policy Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg. (Source: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf)
Sorry, folks, I'm all for accord, but I'm equally interested in doing homework and presenting the truth. And in this case, the truth is that Ron Paul is all about protecting the wealthiest 1%--the front page of his website even says so. But hey, don't take my word for it, it's there in black and white:
Ron Paul's Regulation Policy Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and SarbanesOxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order. (Source: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf)
So, he'd repeal Dodd-Frank, which requires the SEC would regulate credit default swaps: Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act addresses the gap in U.S. financial regulation of OTC swaps by providing a comprehensive framework for the regulation of the OTC swaps markets.
So...Ron Paul would repeal regulation of Wall Street. Nice.
And just FYI: he pulled down that article where his ideas are endorsed by Rush. Oh well.
"Youtube and the congressional voting history database. There is no reason to believe anything or anyone else beside those two."
Um, his own website?
Dodfrank has 4 out of 200 regulations. He wants to remove the 4 they have in place, remove the FED which employs the regulators after their term.
Regulators are often used as pawns to fight against a team of better paid lawyers who actually WROTE the bill. Regulation doesn't work when the REGULATORS are the ones being paid by the companies they are regulating.
Get that point? Good!
Obamacare REQUIRES that you get health insurance. If you don't. Guess what!! YOU ARE FINED.
Obamacare after being fined numerous times, if you do not have insurance you GO TO JAIL!
Yes, Ron Paul is sooooo evil for putting the power BACK into your hands and not into the hands of your controllers.
Wake up, smell the coffee and break away from the same liars that tell you our movement is a bunch of loser hippies, and instead try to listen with an open mind to the ONLY candidate who has been telling us this would happen for 30 years.
So again, as your last line states you didn't do any research. You read a website written by someone else. Do what I asked, then come back here and spout off your none sense.
Read his voting history. Watch what HE says, as it comes out of HIS mouth, not filtered by someone else. You will come back here and change your mind. I did. Voted for Obama, Clinton, Gore....
No More here. Sorry. I am not falling for the right or left wing propiganda machine. Keep on Sheeping, Sheeple. And when you vote in another fake, who tells you he is for change but voted against change in every congressional vote, I won't have to say I told you so because the military boot will already be at your throat.
As for Rush, do you concede that someones personal views on race has NOTHING to do with fiscal responsibility? Are you saying then, that a person who is ignorant in economics is a better economic strategist then someone else because they think blacks should have equal rights?
I don't mind that you are questioning his loyalty to other races, thats fine. It should be questioned as POTUS. But you are trying to tie two subjects together to make him seem like a devil, when the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.
So lets go over his plan shall we?
Obama, your savior because you are obviously liberal and don't vote on the person makes 200k a year, plus will make 200k a year for the rest of his life.
He takes Government healthcare for his family and himself. He promised to end the wars, he promised to stop DEA raids on Medical States that passed Medical MMJ laws.
Obama has been the BEST president for the DEA since Nixon. Ron Paul would end it. The Drug war affects the colored and poor population almost 95% more then white middle class.
So who is the racists?
Also, Ron Paul would take ONLY 39k a year for his terms, and would REFUSE the yearly 200k pension he would have received as president.
He wants to end the IRS because he feels as though once we stop spending like money grows on trees we won't NEED the IRS at a federal level to cover things that should be covered at the STATE level. He wouldn't end state taxes, he would let the people at a local level decide how much they need to run their state.
He wants to end the Department of Education because no child left behind DOESN'T WORK. Our School systems DON'T WORK. We are falling behind in every category compared to other countries that DONT use a federal imposed "testing" system.
Example: In Bend Oregon they had a program that allowed students to find what indfuences them the most, computers, art, argriculture, math and they would base their WHOLE learning system around those interests. The national grade average was higher, the testing was higher and the overall happiness of children tested were higher.
They received NO Federal funding because they REFUSED to put kids in a box, and take a one size fits all test that doesn't take into account the strengths of those children.
You would rather have a system in place that keeps us boxed up and learning how to keep life working on the factory line? No thanks.
re: Dodd-Frank: Read his Plan for America. He says he will repeal Dodd-Frank.
"Obamacare REQUIRES that you get health insurance. If you don't. Guess what!! YOU ARE FINED."
I agree. This was a mistake and wrong-headed. There are other things to like. But in general, it's watered down and pro-industry.
"Wake up, smell the coffee and break away from the same liars that tell you our movement is a bunch of loser hippies, and instead try to listen with an open mind to the ONLY candidate who has been telling us this would happen for 30 years."
I read. Vociferously. I read everything Paul had to say. I read his plan--did you? I have watched his interviews. I have been to his website many times. I did my homework. And again, rather than attack the specifics of my problems with his plan, you attack me. That's just bad polemic and, frankly, it's lazy.
"So again, as your last line states you didn't do any research. You read a website written by someone else. Do what I asked, then come back here and spout off your none sense. Read his voting history. Watch what HE says, as it comes out of HIS mouth, not filtered by someone else. You will come back here and change your mind. I did. Voted for Obama, Clinton, Gore...."
LOL. Yeah, so, are you saying his website doesn't represent his views? Really. That's interesting, because I'm betting if you asked him, he'd disagree with you, because that's really what the whole "this is my website, ronpaul.com" is about.
I really have no interest in going through his voting record--I have listened to the man, and his policy positions are clear. And dude, you really need to calm the fuck down--your tone is arrogant and condescending. I do my homework, and I do it well. I worked on Capitol Hill for 10 years and in the Federal government. I really don't need you or anyone else to tell me what to do to formulate my opinions.
Here's a tip: try to respect the "other side" and maybe you'll get somewhere. Until you do, just ranting into the keyboard is useless for everyone.
"As for Rush, do you concede that someones personal views on race has NOTHING to do with fiscal responsibility? Are you saying then, that a person who is ignorant in economics is a better economic strategist then someone else because they think blacks should have equal rights?"
First, anyone who wants to let people know that they're in sync with Rush Limbaugh is immediately suspect as an idiot. Aside from being a racist schmuck, Limbaugh is also anti-everything government. He is a bloated, hypocritical liar, and if you associate with anything he has to say, any of your opinions are suspect as well. The other day, that shithead said Obama was against Christians because he warned against the Uganda's "Lord's Resistance Army" which, of course, is notorious for using rape as a weapon and child soldiers. Oops.
"So lets go over his plan shall we?"
No. Go away. You're a condescending idiot who only listens to himself. And you're very angry and don't know how to converse. I've wasted too much time on you already.
Peace.
Well.
If he decreases corporate taxes. And increases import taxes...This will force corporations to bring jobs home due to it no longer being cheaper.
I agree with your thoughts on the regulations.
As for the states, If the Federal government didn't collect so many taxes. The state could collect more taxes (like it is supposed to be.
He wouldn't need to raise taxes if he cut all that spending!
As for the salary: The President already gets a free mansion to live in, a free helicopter, security for life, free food, free travel, What is he going to spend the 400k on? Especially when our presidents have been doing nothing but making this world terrible.
"decreases corporate taxes..."
No. They're already incredibly low. Changing taxes doesn't actually do anything. The Bush tax cuts--which Obama continued last December--have done nothing to create jobs or "kickstart the economy." But regarding import tax increases, I actually like that idea. Could be common ground there.
Regarding regulations, cheers.
Check this out: GAO says Federal Reserve should improve transparency (http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/gao-says-fed-should-improve-transparency/)
Today's report is the second part of an audit mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial law. The GAO's previous report, published in July, examined the details of the Fed's emergency lending programs, amounting to more than $1 trillion, during the financial crisis. (See story about what we know about emergency lending and how here.)
Paul would repeal Dodd-Frank, which called for this very study--I wonder if he's aware of this? Anyway, FYI, since the Fed is increasingly dirty (but it's not the highest priority).
re: Federal taxation, I agree that it needs to be completely overhauled. One thing I've thought a lot more about in these discussions, I admit, is that people are really concerned about where taxes "go" and accountability. This is a reasonable thing. Increasingly a direct connection between "need" and "taxation." I'm not sure how that's to be done, but I see that it does need to be done. But be careful here, there are many programs that help people--including people like students, poor people, old people, and medical research--among so many other things. Taxes go to help fund these programs that benefit the greater good.
As for the focus on states, I really see that as a way to "balkanize" and further divide our union. We are not stronger because of states' rights being increased. When two states have massive hurricane damage, the rest of the states shouldn't just "look away and say 'wow, sucks to be you, dude'" which is, in essence, what RP envisions. We need Federal assistance during Irene. As the planet warms up, as I predicted years ago, the weather is getting worse. Natural disasters is but one area that "states' rights" don't really help those in need, because they can't afford it--especially in times of economic privation.
re: Salary: $400,000 isn't much, it really isn't, compared to the importance of the job. Do you know how much a local bank manager makes? Or a common dentist? Or a CPA? These guys make about 1/2 what the president makes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if these folks can make this kind of money, then the president can make twice as much--no problem. Non-issue.
As for presidents making the world worse, hard to argue that point. Although i was sold out by Obama (I think he thought he'd become a republican to "break the gridlock" of DC), he did inherit the worst economy in 70 years. Not that it matters at this point...
I don't think they deserve a tax break. But the reason they outsource is because it is cheaper. If we made it more financially viable for them to have jobs here, you know they would ("made in USA" On a Mac? Extra $500 from your pocket)
As for the state tax thing. That is just how it is supposed to be. The Federal government is supposed to collect taxes to fund national issues. Ie: Defense, interstate infrastructure, and national disasters. As for health care and schooling and medicaid. That was meant to be provided by the states how the states felt would best help their people. If the federal government feels that student loans and healthcare are a human right. They are allowed to make an amendment that dictates all states to follow certain guidelines when it comes to these things. Then the states decide how to best implement and fund them. See? The federal government is only supposed to step in when they feel a state or states aren't offering basic human rights. And even then, they are only supposed to pass an amendment to make that happen (like the 13th)
re: salary
$400,000 isn't much, for a working family of 4 who have bills to pay. Obama (and every president) has everything handed to them, for just about the rest of their lives. That $400,000 goes into a savings account forever. I'm not saying the salary should be lowered (not until athletes and hollywood get smaller paychecks). I just think it is a nice gesture. But $400,000 a year for pocket change? For winning a national popularity contest, then not getting any work done? Does Ms America know about this??
Finally, Our economy would be fine if we just brought businesses home, ended the war based economy, and stopped taxing people out the ass so we can line corrupt Pakistani official's pockets.
He is consistent and has been for 30 years. 100% integrity. Whether people agree with him or not, he deserves respect.
Unfortunately his Plan for America is directly contrary to the #OWS credo and belief system. RP is neo-liberal and bases his views on those of Ayn Rand. Whereas #OWS is very much focused against neoliberalism. Still, there may be some room for common discussion. Just not that much when it comes to the details of policy....
groobie. stop saying Paul is Neoliberal
He is a libertarian (or close to being one)
You dont understand the terms you are using
OWS and RP do have many differences. RP is libertarian and non-interventionist, however. NOT neo-liberal....neoliberals are basically the softer versions of neoconservatives in terms of foreign policy (Clinton pursued a neoliberal foreign policy for instance-the bombing of Serbia)
Okay, I'll bite, maybe I misunderstand the concept. So tell me which of the following Ron Paul is against:
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
"Neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector, under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation.
Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can only have a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes.
Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment
Tax reform– broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Floating exchange rates;
Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth
Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country
Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.
Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
Legal security for property rights; and,
Financialisation of capital."
neoliberals have consistently supported foreign interventions....they sit on the boards of think tanks like the CFR
paul has been opposed to them
Foreign policy is the biggest divide. Neoliberal as a term hasa very definite interventionist meaning
Neoliberals would be totally opposed to things like abolishing the dept of education, commerce etc, things paul claims to want to do. On social issues, neoliberals tend to support "mainstream liberal" values (ie keeping roe vs wade as the law of hte land). We know paul has a very different view
The abstract wiki article doesnt really give a flavor for the actual applications
And really, it's not about labels, ultimately; I care less about that than the core issues that could unite, and most definitely divide. On the issues you mentioned, I'm pretty sure that "smaller government" and "more intervention" into reproductive rights isn't going to receive a warm welcome by the #OWS.
I agree, but we do need a smaller gov in terms of
the military......and more shadowy aspects (dana priest's book)
I agree that the military industrial complex is a very big bad scary machine. And it needs to be overhauled. I once had a poster on my wall in college:
It will be a great day when schools have all the funding they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
I think that sentiment says volumes....
None of it goes far enough for him, is the point - too statist in it's pro-wealth immorality. His pro-wealth immorality is anti-statist. Get it right. :) And I agree with others on the militarism differences between neolibs & Paul - he's an isolationist. Ending the wars = good. The only good thing about him.
Good points. Thanks for that. Although, it's ironic: He'd repeal Dodd-Frank, yet Dodd-Frank is trying to rein in the Fed. Interesting:
Today's report is the second part of an audit mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial law. The GAO's previous report, published in July, examined the details of the Fed's emergency lending programs, amounting to more than $1 trillion, during the financial crisis. (See story about what we know about emergency lending and how here.)
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/gao-says-fed-should-improve-transparency/
he is going back to a 2006 budget - is it so hard to imagine spending that much? and what occupy wall street should be against is crony capitalism - the unfair competition that occurs when corporations and governments collude. he wants the opposite of that.
I would be careful using the term capitalism to describe what has gone on recently in this country. It's been a far cry from capitalism. In fact, capitalism would have prescribed bankruptcies for the large banks, which would have been the best fix in my opinion. Inept bankers would have lost their jobs, share-holders would have lost everything, and bondholders would have faced significant losses. There would not have been any blanket guarantees for derivative holders, either. In other words, the Wall Street types who tout free-markets and capitalism would have been forced to eat some of their own home-cooking. In the future, if we wish to preserve some semblance of capitalism in the US, the bond and equity holders of these banks must absorb a much larger portion of the losses and upper-level management needs to be sent packing.
The current prescription to deal with failed banks by subsidizing them has been the largest transfer of wealth in American history from taxpayers to the wealthy institutional investors who hold the stock, bonds and derivatives of these failing financial institutions, yet no meaningful debate has occurred about how to handle future crises.
The biggest danger facing the markets is the moral hazard created by giving taxpayers’ money to failed banks without any real consequences to upper level management who misguided these companies. The decision to pass the cost to taxpayers rather than to Wall Street where it deservedly should be is stunning, yet nothing is said in the Big Media.
I will repeat, we are not witnessing capitalism. The point of capitalism is to make sure that businesses have to compete vigorously against each other which benefits consumers. This is not good for businesses because they have to work really hard. Most large corporations understand this and they hate capitalism. They are constantly trying to get government to erect various rules, restrictions, regulations, etc. that help them but are not in the best interest of consumers.
agreed
He also wants to eliminate all regulations--including Wall Street regulations included in Dodd-Frank, which are aimed directly at preventing the kind of Wall Street gambling that led to the meltdown in the first place.
As for his budget, well, it's all about cutting--as I stated previously. Taxes are the lowest they've been in many many years, and there's not a single tax increase in his budget.
People like Bernie Sanders want "shared sacrifice" to help the country rebound. People like Ron Paul aren't interested in that, and frankly, the "crony capitalism" you say he's against would continue under Ron Paul. What do you think the logical conclusion of a completely de-regulated environment is? We found out in 2008.
again, i am actually for some reinstatments and i know he is not ideologically, but he needs the cooperation of congress to do these things. i'm not sure how much of the 'oh noes ron is going to cut this' will actually come to fruition. outside that, the dodd-frank bill would doubtfully have done anything to stop this system, which is still structured essentially the same. there was a paper called "no one saw this coming" (google it) on 10 guys who did, and when they did, why they did, and how their ideas were so different than mainstream economics and how that allowed them to see the problem for what it really was. the people are from many schools of economic thought (including ron's). you can google the 10 guys names and dodd frank to get their opinion on it - i am fairly confident that 0 will say it would have prevented this. as far as taxes - this issue should be more focused on correctly as spending. despite the number or % of taxes being low, if i do not think i'm getting my money's worth, then they are too high - correct? who does think they are getting their money's worth? reason.com had a good article you can google too called the 19 percent solution. basically they said however the tax code is twiddled, revenues come in at 19% of GDP, so just spend that and you'll be fine, however you choose to collect it. right now we're running at more like 22% iirc. as far as raising taxes - that is something that should be done in boom times when life is good, not in bust times. the economy is fragile enough as it is, raising taxes is not going to aid in recovery. now is the worst time to actually raise them. the only people that haven't had to share sacrifice are those protected by government. the government is the only one with enough power and force to do these things. the housing bubble did not come from a completely deregulated or free market - it would have been impossible to blow without the air from the fed - the wrong monetary policy that held rates too low for too long. a private system would have never done that. surely other parts of the bubble are too blame in private enterprise, but this is a fundamentally necessary one that the government made. there were also regulations that simply weren't used as well. this is because in every industry the corporations through cronyism eventually take over the regulator, it's called regulatory capture. if you look into any supposedly "free" market today to point out its flaws, 9 times out of 10 if you keep digging you'll eventually find out that the problems were created as responses to government intervention. i'm all for clever and efficient regulation, but a lot of ours is simply the opposite or has been taken over.
" if i do not think i'm getting my money's worth, then they are too high - correct?"
Well, government is inefficient, there's no question about that. Of course, it is, unfortunately what we have. And it's the only thing that prevents corporations from completely taking over the place. More needs to be done on increasing efficiency and return on tax investment, no doubt about that.
"as far as raising taxes - that is something that should be done in boom times when life is good, not in bust times"
--Unless, of course, you have no job and unemployment insurance keeps running out and the right insists that any stimulus is a lie. For those who are doing well, they need to help those who aren't doing well. That's called "Share Sacrifice," and if that's not something you're down with, that wouldn't surprise me. But it underlies a part of what this movement is about.
:the economy is fragile enough as it is, raising taxes is not going to aid in recovery"
This is a red herring. Taxes were incredibly low during Bush--and into the Obama administration--low taxation does not, in fact, speed a recovery. We have the lowest taxation in decades--and it's clearly not helping the recovery. Where are the associated jobs? Increased taxation on the wealthiest--by a few percent--and eliminating loopholes, which even Reagan was for is what's needed. And pls. don't say "over regulation" is the cause, because that's already been dismissed...
"now is the worst time to actually raise them."
The Bush tax cuts have been in place for about a decade now. How's that working out for us?
"the only people that haven't had to share sacrifice are those protected by government."
Really. You mean the people who haven't had a job for years? Those people? Or the richest 1% who pay less taxes as a percentage of income than the middle class? Those people? People like Warren Buffett?
And just who are these people who are "protected by the government"? Enlighten me.
As for the housing bubble, well, Freddie and Fannie were a part of this, no question. But that Free Market you refer to is what led to it. Complete lack of regulation--and Greenspan inspired mortgages and derivatives? And the completely unfettered swap market? All played a role. And all the while, Wall Street was gambling with money and peoples' lives, essentially....
i think you read my post wrong in part? i don't get what you saying "you mean people who haven't had a job for years" - where did i say they haven't sacrificed? buffet has seen his wealth decrease overall, but specifically i was talking more along the lines of people like the finance sector and banksters. their losses were protected by the government - because you and i are paying them. capitalism is a system of profit and loss. when you fuck up, you lose. these banks should have all failed. our crony capitalism, the collusion of government and corporations, allowed (well connected) banks to survive, with the pains of failure spread among the people. these are the people protected by the government. not the only ones of course - you will find crony capitalism like this in every system. there's not just a military industrial complex - there's one in finance too. and real estate, agriculture, health, education, etc. the biggest bubble is that in the cost of education - it is completely enabled by the government guarantee of student loans. it benefits schools. it benefits lenders and the government - and even more if the student defaults. it does not benefit students.
how could a free market lead to the bubble if there was no free market? this is a myth. same with many of the problems in health care, if you dig deeper you can find they are related to government intervention. to have a bubble you need a source of credit easier than the market would make it. that source was the federal reserve. you can't blow up a balloon without air, and all that air came from the fed. a free market doesn't decide monetary policy - men we think are supposedly soooo smart on the economy do. they made a monetary policy that made money too easy and for too long. they spiked the punch with vodka. yes the kids drank it - but it wouldn't have been possible had they not put it out there in the first place; there would have been no money to create a bubble. you have a false confidence in regulation (which crony capitalists eventually take over - it's called regulatory capture) - there were regulations at the time that were simply ignored. fannie and freddie didn't cause the bubble, but they certainly didn't help. the rest of the problems here (abandoning standards, rating agency lies, misuse/mispricing of risk) are indeed private market actions. i can lay blame to the fed sending the wrong signals - but at some point things were obviously wrong and people continued to do them in a speculative mania anyway. certainly the private sector in this case was out of control, but would they have gotten there without the government's role during all of this? in any case, there is certainly nothing free market about men in a room deciding what the price of money should be. that would be like looking at communist russia, with all the government employed mathemeticians, deciding what the price of cheese should be at the grocery store. when wrong and shortages occurred, would it be right to blame the free market for not producing enough cheese then? of course not.
"it is completely enabled by the government guarantee of student loans. it benefits schools. it benefits lenders and the government - and even more if the student defaults. it does not benefit students. - how could a free market lead to the bubble if there was no free market?"
No, this is wrong and not the point anyway. Students are prayed upon in two ways a) through uninsured, unregulated loans provided by wall street companies. (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/03/am-occupy-wall-street-focuses-on-rising-student-debt-in-us/)
and b) by out of control costs that universities levy on students--also completely unregulated.
That's the free market at work. This is not related to government intervention. And your argument, such as it is, doesn't explain how the government caused the student loan bubble even remotely.
how did the fed create the student loan crisis exactly? stop mixing your metaphors, and perhaps consider some decaf. Dude, your words make no sense...
no, you don't get it. there is no free market for student loans. if a student loan is 100% guaranteed by the government, it is not a free market. how can you possibly say it is, if the government says YOU CAN'T LOSE? by what manner of thinking can you possibly conclude that the government telling a lender they can't lose is an example of a free market??? this makes no sense.
why does the tuition keep going up? same as for housing and the fed. if the fed didn't make money available, it would have not been there for houses to go up, they couldn't have gone up. the same situation exists with these government backed loans. the student is borrowing a lot anyway - say a school that is 18k or 19k. the 1k is probably not going to make the difference to them - the lender (sallie mae) will loan them all the money - because the government is not going to let sallie mae lose any anyway - it's guaranteed. the school has no reason to not ask for 20k the next year - and the student is going to put little pressure on them in their buying decision to keep the price down, because the government is going to give them the money anyway. this is the opposite of something with an actual free market, say looking at a car for 20k. the lender is going to look at your ability to pay the loan back. you aggressively go for the lowest price because the lender might not even loan you a higher amount. some people won't even get the money for a car loan. but if you are a mediocre student at a mediocre school getting a degree in art - that's not going to happen. sallie mae is STILL going to give you the loan. the schools can ask for more money because the government simply keeps giving it out. the default rate for these loans is huge, and the debt cannot be discharged (a free market again would allow this - it is the government that does not) - the debt collector and the government actually make MORE money when a student defaults. the debt collector up until recently used to be a sallie mae private sector entity, but under some obama reforms it became a government one. either way it doesn't change the fact that if students default, the government makes even more money. this system is not as complicated as some others to point out how bad the government has screwed it up - in fact i consider it one of the most obvious. there is a ton of research out there on this, and it is a simpler system than others like health care. you need to do some more research if you think the student loan system is anything but a scam, and you need to check some basic economic definitions if you think that
I think I see what you're saying, but a) it's not all government loans (see below), and b) you're exonerating the schools for their role in increasing prices for school That should be regulated and made illegal. In fact, all higher education should be legal. Instead of going to war in Iraq, we could have paid for all the student loan debts in the country--and then some.
Read this:
GREGORY WARNER: Good morning.
CHIOTAKIS: Why has student loan debt become this cry of protestors -- is it just because they're mostly young people here?
WARNER: That's part of it, sure, but student loan debt in this country is now $830 billion. That's higher than credit card debt, and of course there are more credit card holders than students -- so that's a huge debt burden. And students are taking on more of the riskiest kind of debt -- these unregulated private student loans -- where you have the least protection and pay the highest interest rates, up to 19 percent.
So the argument you hear is, "You've bailed out Wall Street, what about us?" Forgive student loans, you boost the economy because you put hundreds of dollars a month back in the pocket of middle-class families, and of young people just as they're entering the workforce.
CHIOTAKIS: What does this have to do with Wall Street?
WARNER: Just as Wall Street helped spur the housing bubble with mortgage-backed securities, they've also spurred the student loan bubble with, as they're called, student loan asset-backed securities.
So, that Wall Street capital has encouraged really aggressive marketing by high-interest private loans to students, and now, student loan defaults jumped 26 percent last year. And just as foreclosed homes drag the economy and limit people's choices, so do private student loans -- which I learned you can't even get rid of by declaring bankruptcy.
CHIOTAKIS: Marketplace's Gregory Warner, reporting for us this morning. Gregory, thanks.
WARNER: Thanks.
(source: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/03/am-occupy-wall-street-focuses-on-rising-student-debt-in-us/)
salle mae is private - the loans are guaranteed. same for these other players. look at any graph and the bubble in tuition has gone on for decades - it is not related to a recent securitization. the consumers don't care about prices, and the lenders don't care about the consumers ability to pay back the loans. the more money they lend the more they get with the government guarantee. this very UNfree market created cannot result in anything BUT crazily rising education costs. graph from 1983 http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/1007/tuition2.gif
i'm not saying taxes are too high because the government is inefficient - i'm saying people feel like taxes are too high because they don't feel like they are getting their money's worth. my money went to fight wars i think are complete wastes and don't make us safer. it went to enforce a drug war that i think benefits no one but cartels and the coffers of those fighting it. it went to expanding programs like no child left behind which nobody likes. etc. even if my taxes for all that were a dollar, i'd be saying damn. i paid too much. it's not government inefficiency that makes me say this, it's federal government doing things it ought not to. and if they are things the government needs to do, why not my state or local governments. what do i need the federal board of education telling my state or school what to do? how much of every tax dollar given to them actually makes it to the school, who actually knows how to improve that school better? taxes should be kept near they level they are spent, to maximize accountability. and actually that efficiency as well.
you don't need to raise taxes now to keep issuing unemployment. the party not in power will complain about the party in power running deficits, right or left, so let's not pretend this is only a game the right is playing now. whereas some people like ron paul truly oppose the deficit, i think most use it as a talking point, and the danger it actually presents economically is of a lower concern at the point we are in. it sounds like you are equating unemployment with stimulus? i would claim it is no such thing at all. my thoughts on stimulus are here - http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-one-stimulus-everyone-can-and-will-get-behind/ unemployment is a mixed bag. it is necessary for some social order during the transition. however it can do bad things as well - incent people to stick around on it. i know people that have/are doing this. denmark had a VERY generous unemployment program (5 years??) and found most people only got jobs when it was running out. they shortened the period (3 years?? too lazy to go look) and found no ill effects. it can keep people from training for new jobs that the actual economy needs, while they may still be looking for fantasy jobs that only existed during the fantasy bubble prosperity. i would rather focus on the ideas i mentioned in my stimulus post about creating an actual environment for which to enjoy real organic growth, in which the unemployment problem will be taken care of by these new jobs and we will not have to worry about twiddling with this or that with unemployment.
i did not throw you a red herring, i was not trying to divert your attention from anything. you are talking about raising taxes. whether you raise them on the rich, or whether you raise them on the corporations (which means it will come from you buying products anyway) i am simply stating the time to raise them is not now. you want to raise them, fine, but you do it during prosperous times. you don't do it while shit has hit the fan and the fan just maybe start spinning again. regarding the bush tax cuts - they appear to have given us a larger national debt. this does not mean they caused problems today, nor that reversing them would fix them, nor that raising taxes is a good idea right now.
wow. slow down there cowboy.
First, the Department of Education. Do you even know what it is? Do you know what it does? Have you ever tried to find out?
The Department of education offers several kinds of grants:
grants to help students attend college. Students can use the Free Application for Federal Student Aid to apply for Pell Grants and other aid for college. formula grants to agencies using formulas determined by Congress. There is no application process. discretionary grants to organizations, agencies, and individuals. These are awarded using a competitive process. Anyone who meets the eligibility requirements can apply. (find out more here: http://www.ed.gov/)
Sorry, your rant is just so chaotic and so random, there's no way to have a discussion with you. I'm guessing that you, like a lot of people, don't actually understand what the government does, or how it works. Do you even know how a bill becomes law or how it is enacted by the government?
You simply rant and rant without actually considering the other person you're supposedly having a discussion with. You never addressed the issue of how cutting taxes hasn't worked. You ignored that point. It has lowered total revenues but has not helped the economy recover--that was the main issue. the people for lower taxes insist that this creates jobs. We know from the unemployment numbers that this is not true.
you need to hone your arguments and address peoples' points one at a time. Not hurl a fusilade of words at them.
Good luck.
Peace.
i never claimed cutting taxes would get us out of this, you are arguing a straw man. you also seem to be aruging for the illogical corollary - that somehow raising taxes would. dur?
the federal dept of education does a lot more than grants, and you could reduce all of its functions down to simply doing that. or, if some day you actually understood the student loan problem, maybe we wouldn't even need them because government induced bubble prices would go no longer exist.
I was simply stating that Ron Paul is in favor of cutting taxes and that's not a good idea. It hasn't helped the economy.
as for student loans: there would be no problem if higher education were a priority for this country like it is for countries in europe.
I understand well enough: it's about priorities. You think the free market will take care of everything and parrot back RP's "state's rights" nonsense. That's fine. Good luck talking #OWS into that, tho...
it's not my fault if this crappy forum software doesn't accept the paragraphs i write into it. back to your own bias, economic ignorance and straw man again. i cannot see through my laissez-faire glasses on education? oops, it is your hand i hand to hold to even show you that the system was not free at all, and student loans are a major problem. if it actually was a more free system, the price would come down and school would be more affordable. remember how just a few hours ago it was your central planning glasses we had to clean up? looks like they've become all smokey again! and yes, you don't understand economics because you just said that countries can and do define their own definition of what is free and what isn't. unfortunately in the real world, no they can't. there are scarce resources, and "free" anything (unless it is a real right like speech or religion) comes at the cost of someone else. germany could charge 0 euro if they wanted, then the entire burden is on the taxpayer. and now you lecture about opportunity cost! i read a recent report that said 20% of customer service reps have a degree. this is not a field that requires one (80% obviously don't have one) - we have similar stats for things like bartending and hell all sorts of stuff. for those 20% of CSRs, that degree was a waste of money. but at least it was THEIR money. now you'd like a system of "free" education, so even more people can go and get degrees they don't use. hopefully it's something like a business degree that would overqualify them but at least be somewhat useful (vs. a art degree or something.) then we can get to a system where 30% of CSRs have degrees, only at which point I have paid for them through my taxes! you want to talk about opportunity cost, i would rather have my dollar go to a road than to a bartender's music degree.
i agree the war in iraq was a waste (and so is afghanistan) - but you are so foolish you think that money would have better gone towards paying for students bubble tution. i have a crazy idea - how about we take the government guarantees out so we STOP HAVING bubble tuition? if it took you this long to get student loans, which hopefully you actually get by now, i don't want to even start a conversation with you on the more complicated issue of inflated health care costs. it is extremely rare that i have ever talked to anyone that even understands basic theories of insurance (although many know how to fix health insurance anyway, forget that minor detail.) geez, you can't even get your own (wrong) health care examples right. you say corps are incented not to provide medical procedures. yet we have problems with overtesting of resources, partially for profit from running more test and partially because of doctors scared of getting sued.
i'm an IT consultant, i've only worked in fortune 500 and 100 companies. one was an insurer (auto) and i know many people who consulted for government. i also have a friend who is a regulatory compliance subject matter expert for drug submissions. do you want me to call them over and tell you about all the other stupid stuff government does, whether by policy or just incompetency? there is a site called the daily wtf which is only about stupid tech and programming stories. the most awful ones are consistently in government. you vilify profit, yet fail to understand that you can't legislate it out of human nature, and the reason i have bread on my table tonight isn't because the baker was feeling nice and just wanted to gie it to me. maybe you think the one part of moore's movie capitalism, where he wasn't pretending crony capitalism is actually capitalism, is something we can all do - the bread factor coop. it is a great idea, the problem is it can only come about by voluntary means of the people talented enough to run that kind of business to set it up that way and run it. no system or regulation or laws could ever create that. hey, i'm an anlayst too! only i don't review data and write about it. i create it, collect it, connect it, slice it and analyze it. i work from sets from megs to terabytes of data. the problem is your analysis is so shallow that you see education and health care and despite your claim about not already having a conclusion - you blame free markets. when if you keep digging, you quickly find things that are market reactions to government rules. from our conversations, your analysis seems to lack some depth.
your utopian view of health care or education as "free" and a right ignores the reality that neither are free in a world of scarce resources. speech and religion are rights and are actually free - it costs something to defend them from time to time, but practicing them costs nothing, unlike your beliefs of what are rights. i have had plenty of conversations with people before who picked up on the student loan thing and didn't start from your default position of vilifying free markets. i was in no way trying to convert you to vote for ron paul, and if you had this much trouble grasping that this market was unfree, certainly you won't get all the nuances that have gone on in things like heatlh care or monetary policy which are much more complicated to understand. maybe you would have received a different tone from me if you had not defaulted to your position of free markets causing all of these problems and seeing me as someone trying to convert you to vote for anyone and spoke back to me accordingly. i am a very pragmatic libertarian and no ideologue as you imply as well. my problem with much of OWS is it looks at the surface of an issue and digs no deeper. the student loan scam is primarily caused by government, yet solutions are proposed by some in OWS without looking. same for any issue. health care is near and dear to you? my progressive friend the other day was talking about how great it was that obamacare would get (small) businesses out of the business of providing health benefits - something he did not think should be tied to unemployment. which he blamed the free market for. but why would a free market enterprise even want to do this? if you actually care to look, you will find how government is the entity that caused this marriage. but why look, if you can just believe your own bias or someone's rhetoric? that's much easier isn't it.
Back to the "Wall of Words" I see.
"your utopian view of health care or education as "free" and a right ignores the reality that neither are free in a world of scarce resource"
No. Wrong. You cannot see through the laissez fairean filters in your glasses. In other countries--successful capitalist countries--higher education is considered a basic right, like, say, Germany:
German universities are now charging 1000 Euro as enrollment charge per year, regardless to whether the students are from EU or from any other countries.
It's a simple question of priorities--countries can and do define their own definition of what is free and what isn't free.
You say I don't understand economics? Well, I do understand this concept: opportunity cost. So, while we spent between $1 - $4 trillion in the illegal lie called the Iraq war, we could have decided to improve the affordability of higher education. Or we could have made healthcare more affordable. Or, like Finland, we could eliminate the homeless problem. These are called "opportunity costs," yes? Yes.
As for your tone, please, take whatever tone you're comfortable with--makes no difference at all. You just come across arrogant and flustered and not terribly convincing. Which is certainly your right, of course.
But I have a question for you: Have you ever worked in government? Have you ever worked in a corporation? Have you ever worked in Congress? Do you have any real-world experience in working with the organizations you seem to have such strong opinions about? Do you understand the regulatory process at all?
Answer those questions. Because if you don't, honestly, you're just reading other people's words and works.
Regarding healthcare: Corporations have a goal: to make money--conceptually speaking, this offers an inherent disincentive for them to provide certain services that are in the common interest. One excellent example is healthcare. Corporations have an incentive to not provide medical procedures. Why? Because it goes against their driving, legally required mandate of maximizing profit. Government entities have no such stricture or profit motive.
Think about that. It's a legitimate issue. Yet, I've never heard a single libertarian utter it. Not one.
As for "my own bias or someone's rhetoric," let me tell you: I'm an analyst. I review data. I write for a living. I get paid to do that. And to be honest, I really have no agenda. I'm not a member of a group of -tarians or -ublicans or -ocrats. I am myself. I assess information and make conclusions. I think of how other countries prioritize their values and execute to meet those values with their limited resources. Many of these countries think we're silly for calling something socialistic or capitalistic, they simply think: people are our most important resource, so, let's take care of them. That makes sense to me. And I think it makes sense to the members of #OWS.
It really is that simple.
Oh, and these countries? They're not wild eyed marxist states with reduced freedoms. They're very successful. We could learn a lot from them--if only we'd take off our blinding ideological and theoretical filters.
Peace.
dude, i tried talking to you reasonably. i'm not trying to convert you to shit, i'm pointing out to you an obvious problem that anyone with a clue should understand. you have none. you act like student loans is a right wing or ron paul thing? it's an anyone that has a clue thing. it is explained quite easily in those images. but don't look - you're more educated that way. please take an econ 101 class. as i said, i can explain it to you, i can't make you understand it. and now i give up.
Dude, first, you threw a wall of nonstop rant text at me; punctuation and flow of thought optional. I acknowledged that I understood--finally--what you were talking about. It wasn't easy. You're not easily understood, sorry. And it's not me, it's you.
"obvious problem that anyone with a clue should understand."
Again, you can't write a statement without attacking me.
Let me explain something to you. Do you know what that statement is? I'll help: it's an ad hominem attack. I'm sure you know what that is. And it's arrogant and demeaning. It is the equivalent of a playground slander. And it's not how people who are engaged in civil discourse treat each other. Also, it undermines your credibility. If you don't understand why, well, you need to give it some thought. You're smart enough, I'm sure, but the way you try to get your ideas across to someone who doesn't necessarily share them is really limited by your tone.
"you act like student loans is a right wing or ron paul thing?"
No. I don't. I have different priorities. Ron Paul believes that the individual and market forces should govern the vast majority of the way we live. I disagree. I believe that the greater good should be served by a transparent government that provides services to those in need. That's a fundamental difference. He believes that government shouldn't regulate--I believe it should. I believe that higher education should be provided by countries that value its people. He doesn't. It's a very great difference of opinion.
I don't know who taught you how to engage in discourse, but if you and your people want to be part of this movement, you really have to do better than shrugging your shoulders and flipping people the verbal equivalent of the middle finger.
Okay?
Oh, and really, you never addressed any of my points. Not really.
Best of luck.
Peace.
the only problem i have is in talking to people like you have no idea on earth how economics work. priority will do nothing. the government broke the system. it's one of the most obvious places they did it. if you don't get this you're just another one of the mindless idiots in this movement who can't understand a problem and have no value offering up a solution. i give up, try these infographics, maybe some pictures will help you understand. i can explain it to you, i can't understand it for you.
http://www.thebestcolleges.org/higher_education_bubble/educationbubble.jpg
http://consumerist.com/studentloanschemescheme.jpg
http://www.healthcareadministration.com/wp-content/uploads/student.jpg
Well, thanks for the condescending response. The only problem I have in "talking" with people like you is that you have one agenda item and your repeat it over and over. And you're arrogant. I guess that's two problems. See! I understand economics just fine.
But hey, keep up with that and see how far it'll get you and Ron. You don't address any of my points, but you assume that I should address yours. Interesting. But that's a typical conversation with one of the "converted."
I just believe in different things than you do. I think school should be FREE. I think healthcare is a basic human right. I think that 15% corporate flat tax is INSANE. I think that the world Ron Paul envisions has never existed and doesn't have a place in the modern industrialized world, and in fact, there is no model for it.
I'm not going to look at your links. I'm not going to interact with you further.
You're unfriendly. Arrogant. And myopic. You refuse to see any view other than your own, and you think that ad hominem attacks strengthen your argument. Please. Use the "word" dur few more times. And then, by all means, do give up...
People often confuse deficit and the economy. Higher taxes help reduce the deficit but doesn't help the economy. Lower taxes for the people gives them more money to spend. It is always better to have lower income taxes for people. On the other hand, it increases deficit. That is handled by reducing expenses. Of course, the more one earns, the more taxes they have to pay (same % or slightly more). Tax loopholes are a problem.
Well, we've had the lowest taxes in decades--the Bush tax cuts have been extended now for years. So, really, the argument that low taxes = financial health doesn't hold up. How do you explain that? So, in 10 years in (Obama extended them again a year ago) how have those Bush tax cuts--those worked out for us? The big lie is that tax cuts do not translate into prosperity, because if they did, we wouldn't continue to be in such horrendous economic straights. Watch this guy for a few minutes:
Watch this: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/rich-reich-7-lies-revealed.html
Tax cuts for the people help. Tax loopholes for the rich doesn't. In any case, tax cuts didn't cause the current economic crisis. Blaming the tax cuts is not correct.
Tax cuts didn't cause the current economic crisis but they did contribute to it. We keep lowering our income/taxes and increasing our spending, mostly on war. This is a common theme with Republicans. Cut taxes while they are in office then when they get the boot because the economy tanks and the national debt rises... They cry about the Democrats overspending and ask for more cuts and massive tax breaks for the rich. It's a cycle that has been repeating itself over and over again for the last 30 + years.
How did they contribute to it? They contributed to the deficit. Not the recession. The deficit should have been handled by cutting down unnecessary expenses like the wars. There are two ways to balance a budget - increase income or decrease expenses. Decreasing unnecessary expenses is the right way to go because the income is from tax - money that is taken away from other people.
As long as the expense is reasonable like benefits for the poor etc. there is sense in increasing taxes for that. Most tax increases are to support useless programs. Cutting down on wars alone with cut a huge part of the deficit. A fact no candidate even wants to discuss. Except RP.
For the most part i agree with what you are saying.
I do want to point out that there is a 3rd to balance the budget. Increase income/raise taxes and cut spending. Especially cut's to wasteful programs like you mentioned.
The tax cuts didn't prevent the recession, but did jack up the national debt.
The theory that they'd improve the recession and reduce the national debt turned out to be nonsense.
The recession was caused by near financial collapse due to the housing bubble. Lower taxes didn't prevent it because lower taxes are not meant to prevent recessions. Just like bridges and rivers are not meant to prevent recessions.
Recession reduced tax income and the deficit went up. Higher taxes always help to reduce deficit. In times of recession, it is better to try to kick start the economy with increased spending.
Let's examine how the tax amount can be spent. With lower taxes, the person who earned it decides to how to spend it. He may spend it anywhere he likes. In someway that helps the economy.
When he gives it to the government as tax, they could spend it on, for example, an infrastructure project. It helps the economy too. In this case, the economy is helped in both cases.
On the other hand, the government might also spend it on wars or inefficient expenditure where bribes are involved. In this case, the tax money has been put to less efficient use.
It is always more efficient for the person who earned that money to spend it himself.
How do higher taxes help the economy? By increasing government spending. Isn't it better to let the people have their money and spend it themselves instead of the government taking it and spending it? Shouldn't the economy be helped either way?
What if people don't spend and save all the money? Forcing them to pay taxes and spending it will help the economy more in that case. Sure. Is that the right thing to do? Isn't it the same as forcing you to buy stuff?
This is not to say no taxes are needed. We need taxes to provide essential services and take care of the needy. Beyond those necessary expenses, everything else is a waste of money.
So the question is, what is the ideal tax rate? To answer that, we must find out what the government expenses are.
Lower taxes are supposed to boost the economy--at least, that's what their defenders say. But they haven't. I didn't say that they caused the economic meltdown, but now that you mention it, it wasn't "the housing bubble," as if it were something remote and mysterious. It was a combination of deregulation in housing loans (including the zero down loans) and the idea that everyone should own a home, combined with the trade of increasingly worthless securities--mortgage backed securities--that were sliced, diced, repackaged and sold, all under the regulatory radar. These securities are still being traded today.
But back to tax cuts: it's the old trickle down theory and it doesn't work. Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion and they're making record profits. The highest in decades. Profit ratios to wages is the highest in decades.
Lower tax revenues have increased the deficit--and the national debt. This is not in dispute. Lower taxes have not led to "more jobs" as their defenders would have you believe, and that's the point here: they have not "simulated" the economy. They've been in place for many years. Still no economic stimulation. Do you see??
If I had rp or ows on opposing sides, I would go with the one with the education, experience and integrity, rather than the one with passion but no clue about how to fix things.
First, it's about the issues, specifically, and the philosophy, more generally--neither of which you addressed.
Second, as for people who have "no clue on how to fix things"? Oh, I think you underestimate the people who comprise this movement. You think it's a buncha stinky kids hanging out? You're wrong--arrogant, a bit, definitely--and wrong.
Take me, for example, I worked on capitol hill for 25 years. I know the legislative process. I've worked in the federal government. I've also worked in corporations. I'm with the #OWS. I'm going to offer my services to the movement free of charge--and there are thousands more like me out there. People with good jobs and homes and careers.
Third, Ron Paul is a radical. Sorry, but he is. He believes that government should basically be dismantled and that the "free market" should prevail. There is no modern industrial country where this vision exists. None. It's all theoretical. Our country wasn't based on it, and frankly, many of the things we take for granted (Internet, postal service, highway system) would probably not have come to pass if this country had been run according to RP's precepts.
Lastly, his supporters don't tend to acknowledge any common ground with the movement. Ending the fed isn't a way to open a dialogue with people you want to work with--especially since that's not the top priority (if it's a priority at all) with #OWS.
I disagree, I don't think any or rps policies are new, it's a return to the integrity the country was founded on. Integrity never goes out of fashion. As far as my view on the protesters, I pass no judgement, I commend their enthuisiasm, trust they deal with diseases and not symptoms, and hope when people suggest great ideas they rally behind it. I personally don't like attacks on Ron paul as he is a true rarity, a principled politician. I don't care if people don't agree, that's hw democracy works, but you cannot out down an open and honest man.
I didn't say his policies were new. I said that they were radical. Under Ron Paul, the people of New England who got decimated by Hurricane Irene would hold bake sales to try to recover their lives. Why? Because that's what they would do in 1900.
I have no anger toward Ron Paul--he is who he is. I agree with his stance on the war, but that's about it. He wants to gut the federal government, is a believer in a strict reading of the constitution as a policy document rather than as a guiding document, and he believes that increases in taxes are inherently class warfare. That's his right. I just happen to believe--and you didn't actually address this--that his vision of what the United States "should be" never actually really existed.
Again, you don't address my points--that's your right. I'm not trying to shut anyone down: I'm simply pointing out his published policies. That's not abridging someone's rights, that's called analysis. You don't agree with what I've said? Great. Try addressing the issues I raised...
Only viable candidate so far...We don't need any more warmongers... Don't worry meg, money is imaginary...
If OWS is smart, they will ally with Ron Paul.
I like SOME of what he says.
However he doesn't seem to understand that there are institutions and forces besides the Federal Gov't that can be just as oppressive, ie-
State governments
Corporations (what is his position vis-a-vis personhood?)
Religions
This. He's far too vague in spelling out his vision, and seems to be anti-government on principle rather than practicality.
a country can default on it's debt. see russian or argentinian history for some recent ones. or iceland. this will not happen with the US because the us dollar is the reserve currency of the world. however, that currency is still in pain and going to slip against goods, or alternative monies - such as gold. this has a lot to do with why the price of gold has risen from $650 in 2007 to $1650 today.
Well the British pound also used to be the reserve currency of the world.
Also, the dollar is not worth the money it's not printed on. Once our creditors figure this out, interest rates skyrocket, we can't make payments anymore, and goodbye U.S. dollar.
All fiat currencies eventually revert to their inherent value, which is zero.
this is true, but that's not a default, and it's not a slow process. we aren't going to default, nor are we going to have hyperinflation. the most likely scenario is a big slip against gold - like we had in 1931 and 1971. and in 50 years there will be a basket of currencies acting as reserve, with the basket likely containing gold. keynes actually advocated gold (the bancor) during bretton woods, but the us muscled it's way in with the USD, right into the triffin dilemma.
Bernanke has already tripled the money supply over the last three years. Think about that.
We are poised on the edge of hyperinflation.
http://inflation.us/hyperinflationwarningsigns.html
there are many factors that go into having a hyperinflationary event. i think we may see double digits but not even make it out of teens. there has never been a hyperinflation of a reserve currency. owners of the currency around the world will step in to defend it. ie. china has 1 trillion dollars, they don't want to see the purchasing power of it all evaporated away, they will step in to defend the dollar as the US would do (with gold)
A lot of those things would take care of themselves by state and local level.
Makes perfect sense why you wouldn't vote for him considering you agree with him and all. And we wonder why we have so many problems.
Per who "Owns it all" and why things are as they are, please comment on article - http://occupywallst.org/forum/walter-burien-speaking-to-the-health-and-freedom-c/
Thanks,
Walter Burien - CAFR1.com
Thanks for the illogical, at best, post. Pay attention for a minute here. Ron Paul is responsible for a/huge general awakening in the way our country has been pilfered and thus people like you and me are taking hard looks at EVERYONE running for offices of all types.
The point is he is creating a top down effect. The supporters / voters will elect him then we will all campaign vigorously to get an honest Congress. Look, its a start and a dam good one I don't believe with everything he/says but right now we need someone for the people by the people, not for the street by the street.
Nice to see so much support for Ron Paul. Here-Here!
no, because we can just kill our creditors with our army when they come to foreclose or repossess
Ron Paul is our one chance on either side of politics to get this right.
Ron Paul is our one chance on wwither side of politics to get this right.
Ron Paul Doesn't know that we are an empire. That aid is not given freely, the countries that get it become our bitches.
Him being against the 64 civil rights act is bad enough to avoid him.
As long as the political & economic system is corrupted, we have to eliminate those that destroy its integrity. We have to fix the corrupt politicians out of office and fix our economic system by not only ending the FED in order for it to be replaced by another variant ran by the same people under a different name. Which is what's going to happen if Ron Paul is voted, with or without his approval. The decision is out of his hands. The corruption in this government has occurred far to long for anyone to place trust & vote on a single person.
Today is BLACK THIS OUT.... I already donated to Ron Paul's website. Show the media this money bomb!
What Paul won't mention is that we borrow more from ourselves, which can be rolled over, because of the low interest rates.
Yes. That foreclosure is called hyperinflation or default.
Really? Ron "Austerity for Prosperity" Paul?
Ron Paul, Austerity for Prosperity(?)
No president will ever be able to get everything they want, so you don't have to agree with everything they say. They are not Kings. The policies that Ron Paul will introduce will probably only start a real discussion. Don't fear..that is what the corporation owned media wants you to do.
It takes a free man/woman to be able to look at candidates with equal scrutiny regardless of party affiliation to weed out the corporate cronies to actually empower yourself with enough knowledge of each contender to make the wisest choice.
as an independent who doesn't fly colors, Ron Paul is the only one so far with the economic wisdom and voting record to back it up, to effectively do anything to stop the bleeding U.S. economy, in my very small and humble opinion.
I don't care what party they are from. Alan Grayson, a democrat, he runs a very close 2nd in my book.
(Video) Alan Grayson: "Which Foreigners Got the Fed's $500,000,000,000?" Bernanke: "I Don't Know." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ
Forget his party affiliation and your preconceived notions of red or blue. He is the only politician that is not playing the game. Lobbyists won't even touch him. He is unable to be corrupted, which is why he will never be elected unless there is a real revolution. Notice how he kills it at the debates but gets no replay on the news. Fox news hates him, MSNBC hates him, and CNN ignores him....Why? Because they are corporation owned media. Kick backs and corporatism end if he ever got elected.
Greece is about to foreclose
I have a suggestion. Use facts and figures. Words are very powerful. Context gives meaning. If I say, "The sky is getting very dark," it may conjure up ominous ideas. The meaning depends on the context and maybe I was just noting the hour of the day, as evening begins.
Use fact and figures. How much has the US borrowed from China? What is the total amount of US debt? How much of the entire debt is owed to China and how much is owed to other lenders? How much foreign aid does the US give? Compare the amount of foreign aid to the debt amount. Is it a tiny fraction? Once you have some facts and figures, analyze them. When the US gives foreign aid, does that add to the entire debt or just the portion of the debt owed to China? If it adds to the entire debt, is your premise really true?
The English language can sometimes be unclear. Its up to its users to use it carefully. Without context, facts, figures, and analysis, I can't tell whether your concern is about the US debt, or just the portion of debt owed to China? Are your questions, especially the last one, rhetorical?
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
His sight....just a few highlights here. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs <
~ screw the sick poor 10% reduction in the federal workforce <~~thousands more out of work Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15% Oh i am not even touching this one Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. waste time undoing stuff that would be good for us....you know like regulating banks so they can't flop the economy.Its asshats like this that are the direct reason i have no job. I had a good job working as a Pharmacy Tech for the department of veterans up until 3 months ago. When we were informed that our budget had been CUT not because we were spending too much on medication, or had done anything wrong. In fact they knew damn well we had done every single thing possible to save that department 250,000 that year. No we were CUT because some ass hat like this guy without knowing a god damn thing about pharmacy, and how expensive they are to maintain cut our funding by a million dollars for the year.....end result 15 techs without work, and a Pharmacy they now has to tell the veterans if they can get there before noon they can pick up med's after 6pm, and if they show up after noon they can't get them till the next day.
Ron Paul - do away with EPA, do away with FEMA, do away with anything that does anything for the common good. He's agains any form of regulation, which is what brought the collapse on in the first place. While this is not an endorsement for ANY candidate, be honest about what this country would be like with Ron Paul policies in place. We'd be back in the gilded age, no unions, no bank regulations, no clean air or water. Is that what you really want?
actually, there was regulation, it was just not enforced. regulation is subject to regulatory capture in the crony capitalism world - so be careful what you put your faith in. the government, via the federal reserve, also chose the wrong monetary policy and made money too easily available for too long. ron wants a system where a market decides this policy, not men in a room. the bubble would have never been possible without this source of air to blow it up. other problems were the fault of private enterprise - lenders and borrowers - note that the government was also sending all the wrong signals though; with the price of money, and the encouragement into housing.
i agree that i don't think free market/property rights approach works as well as the EPA, but the EPA also does a lot of stupid stuff as well. we probably need a smarter EPA. keep in mind that he needs congressional support to do something like this - i have doubts he would get it with the EPA. he does have great power to end our nonsense wars on drugs and terror however.
I saw a documentary on fracking for gas and the wonderful job EPA does (NOT!). EPA was pressured by I think it was Dick Cheney to make it so fracking for gas is allowed under law to continmate ground water. Then people are getting sick from toxins in their water and teh EPA does nothing. Ron Paul is not against regulations, I think he wants the states and local governments to be able to do these laws to protect their local people. This makes sense, because a big bloated fed govt organisation is far removed from the people it is supposed to protect....if u have a local org making laws to protect local people u have less chance of corruption, people are more easily able to complain and have access to the people passing the laws.
local governments are just easier to bribe and control. What we need are agencies that have real teeth and the power to enforce the rules. 30 years of picking away at protections for the environment and our rights has NOTHING to do with this. Ron Paul consistently says he wants to do away with regulatory agencies. Sorry, we'll disagree.
It is a heck of a lot easier to go visit a major or local politican and complain to them directly about your local community being hurt by some corporation than try get the attention of a vice president is it not....... if u need to complain doing so at a local level gets better results. Corporations would have a much harder time trying to get all states to do their bidding its much easier for them to get what they want from a single point of weakness in an a large govt organisation that makes laws for the whole country
He is against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT going outside of the their constitutionally granted powers, no more, no less.
Common Good? Most atrocities committed by man, especially by government, during all of human history were done for the Common Good of one people or another.
so you don't want roads, schools , water treatment plants, fire fighters libraries on and on and on
Of course I do. All of that and more could be handled at the STATE level at the very least and in private sector at best.
Private? LIke Private Prisons? Private Roads? Private Water?
Sorry, not a chance in hell of this being right, just or fair in any manner. Privatization leads to corruption and prices rising. Practically every time. This is not a solution it's a step backwards.
Really? Name ONE institution that government does better, faster, and cheaper that has an equal counter part in the private sector.
I won't hold my breath.
Occupy is undermined by the public's ignorance about what's going on, caused by their relying on the mainstream media to teach them about the bankers' schemes and crimes. The bankers partly own the mainstream media, folks.
Fact: The USA is already bankrupt. As declared by the Treasury in December 2006. We're only hanging on because we have the world reserve currency. China and everyone else are trying to get rid of their dollars to end that status.
The bankers are attempting a global coup d'état to set up their One World Company, as they call it, which will be a global police state. They will start by imposing a global currency called the bancor after they have destroyed the US dollar.
The rich want a return to feudalism, and they are busily working to bring that about. They don't want competition.
Sort of, yes
My main reason for not voting for him is that he is so old. 76 years old is up there. Can he last 8 years. Remember, the election is '12 and he won't start til '13. Do you want an 85 year old man running this country. I wish he had thrown his hat into the arena about 2 decades ago. I may sound course but I am just being realistic.
Who cares if he can last 8 years? Let's get him in there for four, and maybe this country can be put on the right track again.
Listening to that debate last night was nuts. Anyone see the Family Guy episode where Lois runs for mayor and she just says "9/11" to every question -- and the crowd goes nuts. That's what listening to the other candidates is like, especially Hermain Cain. Paul is the only one who actually offers substance. And notice how he was booed by some of the idiots in the crowd -- that's because he doesn't give a sh*t about standing up against traditional neo-con platforms -- like cutting the spending in the GOP's sacred cow: defense spending.
he did, go find videos of him in 1988 running as the libertarian party candidate. he is also saying the same stuff as he is today. he is old, but i'll be damned if he still can't run intellectual circles around those other chumps on stage.
He is still taking money from wall street and other 3rd parties. He is as corrupt as all the other politicians
you might want to check his donor base again.
That is a vicious lie. He and Bernie Sanders are the only politicians in Washington who do NOT take corporate money. Also, he has refused any pension from the U.S., he has run his own profitable practice all of these years, he has accepted NO handouts from U.S. taxpayers.
Idiot.
You got something to back that up?
I do http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005906&type=C
Look at Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638
Look at the amount from Finance and Lawyers/Lobbyists. LOL
You do reaize that those are INDIVIDUAL donors in that industry right? Notice the number of PAC dollars is 0? Kind of important.