Forum Post: Why I'm upset with the Ron Paul Supporters
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 3:21 a.m. EST by OpenSky
(217)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Its time that they understand that our movement isn't about a candidate for election. It's about the 99% vs the corporate taint on our political system. I just wish they wouldn't use our forum for campaign recruitment. Perhaps I was a bit harsh (in one of my earlier posts), but you should see what's going on on all the forum posts. Almost every single post is plagued with Ron Paul supporters talking about completely different topics. They just look at a post with lots of views, then copy/paste their statements into the thread and head on to the next one. It completely hijacks the conversation and prevents people and the OP from talking about the original topic.
Please understand, I'm not making a judgement of Ron Paul's character of fitness to be president. I just want to make sure that people respect each other's right to post without fear of being co-opted.
Interesting article with the same view: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/opinion/martin-occupy-politics/
The way I would suggest dealing with Ron Paul supporters:
Read Progress and Poverty by Henry George.
Henry George and John Stuart Mill are a kind of common ancestor between Libertarianism and modern left liberalism. Few Paul supporters are really familiar with that line of thinking-but it is what you need to understand the potential for common ground here.
Paul supporters truly believe that if their program was adopted, the lower and middle classes would benefit. I personally think they are very, very wrong-and the reason is they don't understand the nature of economic rent in modern society and why that produces trickle up effects.
Or just copy and paste this -
"This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. Then, I brushed my teeth with that water, filtered to standards set by the EPA and my state.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank and printed by the Federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
I park my car on the street, paved and maintained by the Department of Transportation, and put quarters issued by the United States Mint into the parking meter.
Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right. Keep government out of my Medicare!"
Great text.
Great! So according to your logic Steve Jobs death is a happy occasion! Finally he will contribute back to society in the form of forfeiting half of his estate. Finally this rich oligarch who did nothing but enslave and rob society with his products can contribute. Attaboy Comrades!
Agreed.
Continued from below
What a lovely straw man you have built, equating Keynes to Marx and FDR to Stalin. If I were to compare FDR to someone, I would compare him to himself, for the 12 years of failure he presided over. I cited USSR as an example of a government of large geography and cultural diversity that tried to acomplish big government altruism. Lets just both acknowledge what a failure it was and move on.
And since you bring up Keynes, it seems many economists have come to acknowledge that Keynesian polices worked in short bursts, but were utter failures over prolonged periods of time. In the long run we may all be dead, but our children live on and have to deal with the debt we create by taking it out of the quality of our lives.
I'm not doing this with you today troll. 12 years of failure - a concerted effort over the past several decades by the Austrian school has had its desired effect apparently, and history is revised. The people who lived it, who KNOW, and were grateful to FDR for their very lives, are all just about dead, so you win. The fact that GDP grew from '32 to '37 and from '38 to '41 while unemployment fell every year in those same periods despite the complete lack of any private sector energy and while trade sat, flatlined, can just be safely ignored, I'm sure.
LoL. They've written books about the glorious years of FDR. Maybe you've read one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath
And you call me a troll. My lord.
Yes, the horrors of that time. All for which you folks would have done... nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Economic_environment
My figures from the previous post (see charts).
A fundamental question remains: Can the successes of Roosevelt be duplicated today? The US is a VERY different place now.
I actually knew one of the New Deal inspirations quite well(Norm Thomas's 1940 running mate Maynard Krueger was one of my professors). Maynard was quite open about what he felt were mistakes he made in anticipating how the program would work. We spoke quite a bit about alternatives.
I'm personally convinced that revisiting taxation of concentrations of wealth is a high priority. We are moving towards some experimentation as things get worse-but we just can't afford further wealth concentration in the current situation. A return to the New Deal is really just a band aid in the present situation.
I hold a degree in economics from the U of Chicago.
This is the professor I mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maynard_Krueger
I support Nader's basic idea of eliminating taxes on incomes under $100K and direct taxation of concentrations of assets(estates over $1-5 Million which correspond to the upper 5% and 1% respectively). I do this because the top 1% have made extraordinary returns on investment the last 30 years due to globalization and Reagan tax cuts. I want to avoid taxing the small property holders because that has been a very active form of capital with lots of jobs creation per unit of non-land assets.
The one area I'd favor increasing capital gains taxes is on large real estate transactions-but I'd make it function much like an asset tax economically.
One area of compromise I can imagine is to accomodate the conservatives on Fairtax-but to get an iron clad guarentee that if there is any increase in the wealth of the upper 1% that exceeds inflation we start to substitute asset taxation for broad based consumption taxes. I think that would eventually stabilize at about 35% of taxes coming from high end asset taxes based on a Wharton study. They estimated a flax tax of 17% could be paired with asset taxation to assure the wealthy got no windfall from a tax transition-and the same rule would apply to fairtax. I'd guess this implies about a 2% tax on assets over $1 Million and 3-4% over $5 Million when the dust clears-but the actual net assets of the very wealthy could remain about constant because of trickle up effects of lowering taxes broadly on the rest of the population. This is the kind of regime in which the middle class might actually get a real tax cut and find themselves about to save again.
"A return to the New Deal is really just a band aid in the present situation."
Well, in the long run we're all dead. :) I consider the 91% marginal rate to have been a lingering aspect of his policies (It sounds like you have some more refined ideas on taxation - capital gains? - and I'm all for it) Likewise with financial regulation, much of which survived into the 90s.... The labor programs were never meant to last, and they served their purpose (and could again).
All of this amounted to a 50-year band-aid, and I'd be happy to have even a fraction of that success, as opposed to a return to the gilded age which is where we're apparently headed (and in terms of inequality, where we already are).
"..was one of my professors."
Are you an economist by chance?
Certainly not his exact successes. Resources are a major inhibitor, as is the current trade situation, etc... But we also have new opportunities w/r a massive, crumbling infrastructure and pressing need to shift the energy balance away from fossil fuels.
One thing's for sure: We can't start figuring it out if we're still fighting the revisionists about there having been success at all.
At that time? We would have done nothing? Your boy had 12 fucking years, pardon my french, and what do we have to show for it. A few large government construction projects which were pawned off to private enterprise, built on the backs of the people kept poor by his policies. I guess we can give him credit for inspiring Steinback to write books like grapes of wrath.
FDR wasn't evil, but your idealization of him is nearly as comical as the kids wearing shirts with the mass murderer Che Guevarra on the front, going on about the glory of the revoltion, while dissidents still sit in Cuban jails.
When FDR assumed office, there was a serious possibility the US would have a coup or revolution. Allister Cooke was a BBC correspondent at the time-and that was what his bossed had told him to anticipate.
The US at least continued having elections-and avoided a mass internal blood bath. I wish FDR had done a little more along the lines that Huey Long had proposed-but in retrospect, FDR was really a creature of compromise.
Hmm, I'm sure you've won many converts with that gem. FDR and Che now... I think you're a bit overpaid. Hopefully your work is peer-reviewed?
Kept poor by his policies... You really haven't a clue, but I'm sure you'll produce an amazingly informative canned counterpoint from Friedman forthwith. Sadly, as you've noticed, nobody's interested any longer in the neoliberal propaganda that's brought us to where we are today.
The thread depth limitations of this forum are rather annoying.
Randal, after carrying on this conversation for several hours now, I need to make a few personal observations I feel are relevant. First, your posts have a rather nasty habit of ignoring the majority of the points presented in mine. I refuse to believe it is because you have no opinion, or aren't knowledgeable of the subject matter, so I'm going to assume that on these issues, you've decided to forgo presenting a response for the inability to present a convincing argument. If I'm wrong, by all means, present your case or clarify why you won't.
Perhaps more annoying is the general tone of dismissal that comes with your incomplete responses, as if to say, "well everyone knows that". Your reply which asked me to Google your name for your position on a particular point was especially humorous, as if anyone would waste their time Googling your name to obtain your opinion. If you have an opinion on these issues, present it so people can determine if what you have to say is valid, or simply an incorrect opinion you have formed based on numerous conversations with other people who think exactly like you do.
Considering the attitude, and your many obscure citations from various academics, one is lead to believe that you are some sort of academic yourself. You give the impression that you are looking at the bigger picture when you describe the world as a better place under FDR because there was less income inequality, while you completely ignore the rampant poverty of what most people call the great depression.
If you are an academic, you should be smart enough to understand how loony most regular 'uneducated' people find the idea of looking back longingly at the great depression because there was income equality. The same applies to the excuses you continue to make for the failures of communism in the USSR.
Its rather comic when you consider how you look at most Americans as the lumpenproletariat, while at the same time most Americans consider your 'highly educated' views on these matters to be lunacy. Sorry if this is overly personal, but it is both relevant and humorous.
In light of all that, lets narrow the topic to just one of the many credible ideas I put out down below and see if we can complete a dialogue. What type of value do you think we are getting out of the Department of Education?
Nobody looks back longingly at the depression. We look back longingly at the policies that survived the depression and powered our nation to previously unheard of levels of growth, opportunity, and equality throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, until undermined by Reagan and the free market, supply-side fundamentalists in the 80s. FDR found consensus on a new social contract that provided the brightest period in this nation's history. Your side returned us to the mean policies of the Gilded Age, and equality and hope for the many pretty much died.
By the way, earlier you used the Grapes of Wrath to argue how terrible FDR and the government were, in your blaming them for the depression. Studs Terkel, who lived through it, disagrees on all counts, and would thoroughly object to your using Steinbeck's work in such a way:
STUDS TERKEL: Who knows? That’s just the point. There was no preparation [for Katrina] at all. We know that now. A guy named Brownie. “You’re doing a heck of a job,” says the clown to him, the second banana says to — this guy is the third banana. It’s a burlesque show, really, but it’s not funny. I don’t know what — I mean, there has to be a government — has to be a benign one in this case, to step in fully. You think of all of the dough that goes into the wreckage that is Iraq today, the immediate billions and billions, how much of that could be used, just a portion of that, could be used — could have been used to prevent it.
Of course, it’s — all disasters are preventable, provided there is governmental activity that calls the shot. In the case of the New Deal, Henry Wallace, who was the heart and soul, was Secretary of Agriculture during two terms of Roosevelt and then he was the Vice President, was a remarkable figure. One of the most attacked and assaulted figures in our history. It was during the Cold War. And I’d say the three great Americans of our century are Martin Luther King, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Henry Wallace. I put him up there.
When Tom Joad says to Ma Joad — remember at the end of Grapes of Wrath? And they’re bullied by the vigilantes and the big growers and the Legionnaires, they come to a government camp, and it says Farm Security Administration, a subsidiary of the Department of Agriculture. And the director of that camp, who is made up to look like FDR, by the way, wears pince-nez glasses. I remember that small things. The actor’s name was Grant Mitchell. Isn’t that funny? I remember the little things. He says, “This camp is yours,” to the Joad family and to others, to the emigres. “This camp is yours, your decision to be made. You do it. We’ll help you find jobs.” So that was the government that is being dismantled, every aspect of the New Deal.
LoL. Nice speech. What part of it was supposed to make us forget about FDR's extension of the great depression, or make it think it was any better than it was. Maybe we were supposed to be glad that all those people gave up a decade of their lives so that FDR could have his massive expansions to government?
Continued from below
It may be easy for you to dismiss my list, but lets not be dishonest about it. Some of those economic polices work better than others, and by all historical measures of success, mixed market capitalism tops the heap, despite the robber barrons. I was pleased you were able to acknowledge the reasons why Socialism works in Norway, thus acknowledging why it would never work here. I was, however, disappointed to see you cite the dictatorship of Singapore as an example we could follow. Not because Singapore is a benign dictatorship, arguably the most efficient form of government, but rather because of it's size. Calling it a country is somewhat of a joke, and in all fairness, it's continued existence is at the good will and protection of Pax Americana. As Pax Americana fades, small efficient countries that benefited from our protection such as Taiwan, Israel, and even Singapore will more than likely be set upon by the wolves that surround them.
I think you need to once again breathe and have a reality check on how the world is vs how you imagine it could be. Reality. Its a bitch.
Well, while we are at it: Russia was autocratic before the revolution-and it was autocratic after the revolution. A lot of old problems persisted despite the change in management.
i wasn't saying that Singapore was an example for the US-but is is an example of fairly mixed government that has succeeded in ways that weren't really easily predicted.
That said, the US will experience declining living wages as long as it has an open immigration policy-regardless of whether it has a Democratic or Republican government. Friedman is right: you just can't have both a democratic welfare state and open borders. The leading counter example is Saudi Arabia-where they import guest workers massively and they can afford that and fairly generous benefits because of their oil revenues.
That said: just adopting a stricter immigration policy won't solve the jobs issue in the US. Capital in the US has gotten enormously concentrated by historical standards. The New Deal policies won't do much more than contain further concentration of wealth a bit. They just aren't suited to a situation with pretty extreme concentration of wealth-and an economy that is more fundamentally sick. Libertarian policies might create more low end jobs than they would otherwise-but if Cato gets the loose immigration policies they(and greenspan) advocate, we'll still see wages in the US continue to move towards world market levels-which means continue to get rapidly lower for 99% of Americans. If we got the kind of theocracy folks like Billy Graham advocated, it would terribly divide Americans-and it would take a police state to enforce.
So the question comes down to: what kind of mixed capitalism can we get that has the fewest side effects?
What I would like is redistribution of wealth with minimal confiscatory policies. I'd like to leave the wealth outside the upper 1% alone. We can reduce taxes on income-but they recapture increases in wealth on the upper `1% and upper 5% of wealth holders. The trick is the do this in such a way to don't tax them to the extent they loose ground.
Hell, I'd even support the fairltax if it were accompanied with taxation of gains the upper 5% that exceeded the rise of median wealth holding and the upper 1% got that exceeded inflation.
Well now you are talking about something closer to sanity, though the concept that true socialism could work for the USA that we've known in any format over the last 200 years is striking to the point of being concerning. So to your points:
Lets not make excuses for the USSR. If you look at the current prison population in the US, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call us autocratic. USSR was what it was as a historical fact. Success may have a thousand fathers, while failure remains an orphan, but practically every other country that went down that path failed miserably, while countries taht went with free market principals grew and thrived.
I appreciate your honesty about immigration policies and I have to agree with your stance in opposition to the Cato institute's promotion of open borders. I watch the US Chamber of commerce talk about it on CSPAN and it sickens me. To be fair, free flow of capital and free flow of people have a very similar effect, and globalism is a fact whether you or I like it or not. At some point in the distant, or not too distant future, wages will level off around the globe, assuming we don't all kill each other first. The trick is to institute fair trade policies that force the cheap labor countries to bring standards up or face trade barriers.
There are a myriad of things we could do right now to fix this mess without massive wealth redistribution.
There are a million more simple ideas like this, any few of which would quickly put us on the path to financial stability, without massive wealth redistribution, a revolution, or any other looney ideas.
The US is NOT autocratic-it is more plutocratic. Power in the US is far more distributed than it was in Russia before or after the revolution. The US has had a big shift in elites though.
As far as wages leveling globally: I don't see that happening any time soon. The gap between the US and China is huge and we are already seeing a huge push back. The only thing that might change that IMHO is a huge economic expansion like the one proposed by Gerard O'Neill of Princeton in the 70's(basically a massive technological expansion that would include use of non-terrestrial resources to increase global standards markedly).
I've written extensively on this if you google my name. Border control isn't that expensive-but I would agree employer sanctions are more cost effective. We probably need both-and more to get the situation stable though. I think you underestimate the seriousness of the issue quite a bit.
We've already had massive wealth redistribution from the middle class to the rich the last 40 years. The question is how will that trend be contained?
This is really a survival issue. There are limits to just how much inequality any country can deal with-at some point discontent becomes huge and instability follows. I think we are reaching a point in the US some experiments will be tried-but there is just little room for failure in that area. We have a lot of bright, educated, jobless and frustrated people around.
Hey, I googled your name like you asked. Why does the Southern Poverty Law center list the organization you write for, VDARE, as having racist ties?
VDARE.com also regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites.
In Its Own Words "America was defined — almost explicitly, sometimes very explicitly — as a white nation, for white people, and what that means is that there is virtually no figure, no law, no policy, no event in the history of the old, white America that can survive the transition to the new and non-white version. Whether we will want to call the new updated version ‘America’ at all is another question entirely." — Sam Francis, VDARE.com, July 21, 2003
Gotta say, your credibility just went below zero.
You might want to research the Southern poverty law center a bit-it is basically a money making operation.
Sam Francis is but one contributor to VDARE. Just FYI Ron Paul also did a VDARE interview a while back. http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty
Cockburn, Alexander (November 9, 1998), "The Conscience Industry", The Nation, "Morris Dees has raised an endowment of close to $100 million, with which he's done little, by frightening elderly liberals that the heirs of Adolf Hitler are about to march down Main Street, lynching blacks and putting Jews into ovens. The fund raising of Dees and the richly rewarded efforts of terror mongers like Leonard Zeskind offer a dreadfully distorted view of American political realities"
Also: the church of Morris Dees: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709
If you actually read my articles, you'll find I have a little different take than other VDARE contributors like Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts and Michelle Malkin.
The reason I've published there: when H-1b laws were changed in the late 90's, I saw a lot of folks being impacted very severely. Literally the only people that would talk about the issue at all were folks like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan that were well outside the mainstream. All the major leftish publications were pretty much unwilling to publish on the issue(I actually did try to submit some articles a bunch of places)-but Peter Brimelow at VDARE.com was.
I do NOT consider someone like Morris Dees of SPLC to be an authentic leftist-he's more like a brazen opportunist that does what it takes to get millions of dollars in donations from a lot of rich folks. By his standards 20-30% of Americans might be classed as hate criminals-so his opinion doesn't count for much with me.
I personally don't see folks that Dee's would call "racist" as the big threat to freedoms today-but rather what FDR called "economic royalists"-and folks at OWS have called the upper 1%.
Anyhow, a substantial part of my personal ancestry is either Native American or Sami(A european minority group classified by the UN as an indigenous people that was subject to extermination policies through the 1950's)-so don't try to paint me with that racist brush.
I don't think the stuff fears that Dees appeals to can be dealt with by just browbeating people. Long term, we need a realistic basis for prosperity that really can lift all boats-and I think that will have to be something that comes from outside the current range of political thought-we'll need to find something fundamentally new beyond what is now being offered.
Ron Paul supporters are Libertarians who don't realize that the fundamental threat to freedom is wealth-based oligarchy. He is a 19th century candidate running in the post-industrial 21st century.
And btw, he would deny us all emergency room visits if we couldn't afford health insurance.
Actually, a lot of Ron Paul folks are deeply suspicious of concentrations of power. However they think if we return to 19th century style economic policies, we'll get a 19th century type of wealth distribution.
The basic problem is the US is now a much more crowded country-and that means property values are a lot higher.
I honestly think Ron Paul is a pretty decent human being-but he's really wrong in his expectations of what his policies would do with respect to concentration of wealth in America-tragically wrong.
How can 19th-century wealth distribution be held as anyone's ideal? The gilded age is not known for equality, is it?
Ron Paul is against the womans right to choose, environmental laws, govt funding of the arts and the public school system. Just for starters. I don't get how this guy could even merit debate on this forum.
gov't funding for the arts? you sound like a 1%er
art is an important part of humanity my friend
yeah, doesn't mean it needs to be government funded.
if the government is going to kowtow to one kind of arts and not others, then it is no better than corporate special interests
i agree with you there. I believe that there should be government funding to all the arts, not just specific ones
even bands like nickelback? i don't know about that one
I was under the impression that we were talking about the public school system
I'm talking about all arts. Public schools. NEA. Etc. And I am sure if the 99% were polled the majority would be for govt funding.
k for some reason there's no reply button for you. Anyway, funding of arts programs in school is definitely government funding for the arts. And if you look at the original post by gagablogger, he clearly mentions the public school system.
i thought we were talking about government funding for the arts
Should the Paulites be ALLOWED to post about Ron Paul? Sure why not? Everyone gets their say here, amirite?
My critique is that they shouldn't post here because they're only damaging people's perception of character by copy/paste spamming the forums of a non-partisan group with more partisan politics. It's annoying and belittling of the uniting reason we (most of us anyway) are here.
I support Paul and I agree that this isn't the forum for politicians its a forum of ideas for solution to the problems. As a supporter I also feel that through this dialog people will come to Dr. Paul but outright advocacy especially pushy or spammy not only unwarranted here but also counter-productive.
I just feel that most of these ows points have been started by Ron Paul 30 years ago. It's natural that people who believe in these points, side with him.
Thank you so much for sharing. You are sincere. I think that most people understand by now that politicians cannot bring about the change the movement seeks, well that the American people seek. Cool thing about RP, is that I believe he would agree. Keep posting, keep sharing, it is much appreciated.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/94223
I'll make a judgement of Ron Paul's character and fitness for president. He's a stupid, fucking moron idiot. Some progressives support Ron Paul, because he is against the republican wars for economic reasons. But the money spent on these wars is a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy part of the problem. The most severe economic problem in America is the constant migration of American currency upward, into the bank accounts of the wealthy investment class, due to the completely unregulated "freedom" of the free-market system. Ron Paul is all about supporting and sustaining the unregulated "freedom" of the free-market system. Put Ron and Ran Paul together, and they have the economic I.Q. of zero.
ZERO.
I challenge one supporter of Ron Paul to tell me what an "unlimited economic growth model" is. I challenge one supporter of Ron Paul to tell me what is the primary source of all economic wealth in the world. I challenge one supporter of Ron Paul to tell me what are the three primary inhibitors to economic growth. I challenge one supporter of Ron Paul to tell me what is the one primary factor that allowed for expansive economic growth in America, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Ron Paul supporters don't have a fucking clue. And neither does Ron Paul.
ourevolt.com
I happen to think Paul is wrong on key economic points. He is far from a moron though. He's a true believer that can't carefully examine his complex theories empirically-but then neither can a lot of Daly/Steady state economics advocates.
As long as the 99% are divided-the 1% can rule.
I'm very familiar with the limits to growth model etc. The basic idea is that you can't continue present economic trends relying on terrestrial materials. One major dissenting view point was Gerard O'Neill of princeton who claimed it could be economically feasible to use non-terrestrial materials given the right technologies.
Major factor promoting growth in the 18th and 19th century was the existence of a physical frontier(gained at the expense of native americans) which meant that even with minimal regulation in place the US had a fairly high level of wealth equality compared to European countries-and high levels of market wages.
As far as the "primary source of economic wealth", some conventional wisdom would say increased use of energy resources. www.democrats.us/editorial/wise041105.shtml I'd argue instead that you need to look at technological improvements that allow those resources to be utilized-and ask yourself what kinds of technological developments might accelerate them-which is something Bucky Fuller addressed.
IT sounds like you have been influenced by folks like Herman Daly and his steady state economics-but there is a lot more out there. Have you actually read the austrians/Chicago folks? I have. I'm actually quite critical on the wealth distribution front-but there are nuances to that line of work-and I have my criticisms of Daly etc. too. I dont' think they have safeguards in place from preventing their approaches turning authoritarian/stagnant.
Just FYI I'm not a paul supporter. I'm more a Georgist and green sympathizer rather than a true believe. I've voted Nader in recent elections.
The thing is: you need to go beyond addressing jargon with jargon. The Paul folks represent 5-15% of the voting public-and a lot of them are true believers not the 1%. they need to have a real voice-and folks need to learn how to communicate with them.
Alright, look, ...first of all, the fact that someone is a true believer, does not mean that they know what they are talking about. In fact, the most ignorant people in the world, are true believers, who are convinced they know that they are talking about. I'm sure Ron Paul believes what he is saying, and that only emphasizes the fact that he knows shit about economics. And I don't know who the fuck Herman Daly is, nor do I give a shit who the austrians/Chicago folks are. I think for myself. And all economic growth is limited by natural resources. And all economic growth is limited by natural resources. And all economic growth is limited by natural resources. And anyone who doesn't take that into account, is an economic moron. And that would appear to be, Ron Paul, and you.
well you are really good at calling people names. Now, the basic issue around natural resources is this: the value of natural resources depends of the available technologies. If you changes the tools, you change the rules.
For a long time, oil had basically no value-then folks figured out what to do with it-and it became quite valuable.
The doom and gloom models like limits to growth(Jay Forrester at MIT) all assumed little in the way of technological change. Now, what is sad, is that line of thinking may have actually reduced progress in key areas because corporate and political types figured "why bother".
Here is who Herman Daly is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly
You'll probably agree with much of what he says-but until you can read and analyze folks you don't agree with, you'll be just another true believer-and not even know it.
I am NOT a ron paul follower. He's far from a moron though. I happen to think he's wrong-but if I'm not prepared to be respectful, there is little hope of reaching a new consensus that can change the current rule of the top 1%.
Alright Randall, you got me. You are right. The value of natural resources depends on technology. But, there has never, in the history of all humanity, been developed any method of exploiting natural resources, that does not impact the natural environment. So, once we run into the tolerances of the natural environment, we run into the limitations of economic growth. You can call it gloom and doom, or anything you want, but the primary factor that allowed for the vast expansion of economic growth in the United States and western civilization, was territorial expansion. We have run into the limits of territorial expansion. And the evolution of human technology has yet to overcome the limitations of natural resources and territorial expansion. It appears to me, that Ron Paul is not taking this into account, which makes him an economic moron. Now, I wouldn't be so hard on the guy, if he would admit, that he doesn't know a whole lot about economics. But he is going around the country insisting that he is some kind of economic genius. He is begging to be put in his place. It appears to me, he doesn't know shit, about economics, and I'm not going to feel sorry, about pointing it out. People like Ron Paul and you, apparently want to believe, that if we just keep giving more and more money to the rich, they will find ways to overcome the limits of natural resources. Well, the rich have shitloads of money, Randall. SHITLOADS. And they haven't even begun to propose any means of overcoming the limitations of natural resources that we face in the twenty-first century. As far as being respectful: if you go to a doctor, and he doesn't seem to know anything about medicine, you need to call him a quack. If you go to a "mechanic" and he doesn't seem to know anything about auto mechanics, you need to call him a shyster. If you send your children to school, and they don't seem to know how to educate your children, you call them inept. Stop being such a pussy. Ron Paul is propagating the very same bullshit that supports the economic domination of the top 1%. And if you are going to be respectful of that bullshit, then so are you.
Just FYI, I think paul and the austrian school are fundamentally incorrect in many of their economic theories. IMHO you are correct in your assessment that Libertarian policies would tend to have enormous trickle up effects- and have had that effect with things like the Reagan tax cuts.
What I would rather see than an attempt to go back to heavy, broad based income taxes, is to look at serious taxing concentrations of wealth like Huey Long and Henry George wanted to do before the New Deal policies were tried. Concentrations of wealth have gotten enormous returns in recent decades significantly beyond those available to most investors.
What I have in mind is a tax of 1% on asset over $1 Million and 2% on assets over $5 Million to start-and a reduction of broad based taxes(FICA and lower end income taxes). I expect that as we reduce those low end taxes, we'll see a strong trickle up effect that will mean we will actually get quite a bit more revenues on these asset taxes than we would with present valuations.
Basically I'm in favor of taxing away the gains in wealth the upper 1% have gotten the last 30-45 years-and putting a structure in place they won't get any more huge windfalls from changes in tax policies. What I expect that would mean is that we then have low end tax cuts-we'll recapture the resulting trick up revenues which will be huge.
The paul folks want to deny these kinds of trickle up effects will occur. My approach: if they are right they should get what they want-but if they are wrong, asset taxes should be part of the price for trying our thei policies.
As far as resource limitations. Take a look at The High Frontier by Gerard O'Neill. Another book work considering is Engines of Creation by Eric Drexler. These both attempt to show possible technological means around major resource constraints. I won't promise either approach will work. However, if you are going to go to a major austerity program like the steady state folks suggest may be necessary, it might a good idea to have shown you really tried the alternative approaches before they were given up on.
I'm not interested in any of your stupid books or theories. I do something you can't do. I think for myself. Right now, today, the growth of our economy is limited by natural resources, and current technologies. And because of those limitations, the wealthy class have no way of growing their own wealth, but by exploiting wealth out of the rest of the population. And by your refusal to except this reality, you are giving license, to Ron Paul, and all of the other, super-capitalist ideologues, to bullshit everyone else in America. You are a stupid dumbshit. And I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you. Don't bother to respond, I'm not going to bother to read it.
The ability to change technologies is within our capacity-and is how we get around resource limitations. There is a real problem that critically needed technologies aren't being developed fast enough. For example, a replacement for oil is urgently needed. However, claiming that can't be done because it hasn't been done yet is self-defeating-particularly when the only thing that has been tried to let big corporations and bureaucrats do what they can.
Paulians "ask the same stupid question":
“I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events,” Cain writes. “I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? It’s really becoming annoying more than anything else.”
Cain said Paul’s fan have “stretched the truth” by accusing him of not wanting to audit the fed.
“I have never said that,” Cain wrote. “I have said: ‘I don’t think you’re going to find anything to audit on the Federal Reserve.’ But they want you to believe that Herman Cain doesn’t want the Federal Reserve to be audited.”
http://wearepolitics.com/default.aspx?pid=7562&ti=Herman-Cain-Annoyed-By-Stupid-Questions-From-Ron-Paul-Supporters-About-The-Federal-Reserve
Herman Cain is right, these Paulians have been brainwashed, like "Saint" Paul brainwashed the modern-day Pharisees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-pav_yPFkI&feature=channel_video_title
The results of the BI PARTISAN ( diluted version because of Bernie Sanders in the Senate) AUDIT the Fed bill by Alan Grayson (D) and Ron Paul (R) are out........16 TRILLION dollars were given to foreign and domestic banks at zero percent interest rates since 2007.
Don't get me started. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura! Across the political spectrum the ONLY true whisteblowers!
Cain is ex FED and wants the status quo.
You are brain washed why are you on this site Cain is a former head of the Fed who is responsible for these injustices that we are fighting to correct. You are seriously backing the banks educate yourself man this is sad.
I am a Ron Paul Supporter and I do see what you are saying. Though I have never copied or pasted anything but a link and only one per post. I agree the issue are what we should focus on not any one person.
16th october 2011 Bank Bosses Day Surprize! We are here to declare the 16th of october as a starting day of " FILL THE SOCKS" - coordinate action taken by a people in order to give the lesson to the banking sector. we shall never be used by the ruling system as a shield to protect their wealth again! therefore since the october 16th 2011 people who are fighting for our freedom begin to withdraw the money from theirs banking deposits and convert them from virtual to the
fresh printed dollar bills. the action starts immediately and last until the simple people will gain back their rights. all people who are unhappy with the status quo of corporatocracy are well welcome! this is the first announcement . help us spread the news - media somehow try not to see the occupy wall street properly - this action will open their eyes -
just the risk of banking runs creates attention, and the need to coordinate policy with us -
working class - 99% of the society. soon you will hear about the project everywhere. and you can create and add to it by yourself feel free to share this post with your friends, feel free to modify it and post it everywhere. this is people for people project.
I like that article, very illuminating point there about how the civil rights movement didn't have a specific party they supported. Here's Bill Clinton on the Letterman show with a different perspective. Let me know what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5esYJ6ggnA
In all fairness he has been fighting this stuff for 30 years, its funny how people take it on as a new cause. Maybe it's time to listen to the guy who has predicted this day for longer than most protesters have been alive?
Wow Im not sure there is anything to say. When someone is that ignorant to the inner workings of politics and brain washed...... Seriously wow. Both take money from the same lobbyists both sell out the people to make money Obamas cabinet is made up of former Wall Street big wigs just like every president democrat or republican in the 100 years. Both parties perpetuate war violate the constitution and push us further into debt. Rick Perry use to be a dem now rep same a Michele Bachman. Hillary Clinton use to be a rep now a dem. Ronald Regan was another dem to rep crossover. Same as former democratic party head Howard Dean once a Rep. Lets not forget Condoleeza Rice, FDR, Jessie Ventura, Joe Biden the list goes on and on of party cross overs on both sides. Let me give you an example of why they would do this. In 1913 when the heads of the largest banks met to organize the federal reserve, thus forming a sweetheart deal with the federal government making untold trillions of dollars, they knew that the culture at the time didnt trust the big monopolies and oligopolies so there is no way the public would agree to giving them the power to control our currency. Well being the brilliant business minds that they are they decided to put out a media campaign where they heads of industry such as Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan denounced the need for a federal reserve and were staunchly against it. This caused the public to have the opposite reaction and push for a federal reserve thus it was enacted in 1913. Unknown to most of the public was that it was the very captains of industry that spoke against it ,such as those I have named, who were the ones who founded it. It was a brilliant bait and switch. The sheep are not hard to control if they are felt to have their own free will but impossible to move if they feel forced into a decision. There for you have two parties one for the liberals one for the conservatives most of the population is then satisfied that they have a choice and are making a difference when the real difference we could make is to take power away from these people not give them more. Still not convinced? Of course not look at Allan Greenspan the architect of deregulation he ran as head of the federal reserve, which is presidentially appointed from 87 to 06 under both rep and dem presidents. Bush got us into a war and the people hated him for it so then here comes Obama who couldn't be more opposite than Bush the great orator with his promises to get us out of war and shovel ready jobs "Yes we can..." fallow a new Shepard down the same path. Not only are we still in war but the surge has us more committed than ever and where are the jobs.. Well you might say if we push through this new jobs bill then everything will be ok. Well that would require the Fed to print more money which the collect interest on that us , the tax payers, have to pay back. Our country was founded on the principals for small government and freedom to all. Now the government is larger than ever and are freedoms are being diminished. So people are so frustrated they occupy wall street to make a stand... But a stand for what you are still playing the same democrat vs. Republican game these arent sports teams this is our lives. Please educate yourselves we need to break the financial institutions grip on our government before we can have the slightest chance of getting our government to work for us instead of against us. Eliminate the fed.
easy to tell this is a canned copy/paste response.
serious? I just typed that shit out so fast because im responding to two other blogs. with run on sentences and all and its copy and past. Wow thinking for my self thats so crazy I must have stole it. From whom Id like to meet the auther he sounds like a reasonably educated guy. Copy and paste...ha... not sure why i even responded to such a juvenile remark.
Yep! We need to find our focus here and figure out what our central message is... I don't see how Ron Paul or any other candidate fits in with that.
the ron paul, abolish the fed, gold standard movement is off base. money and debt is a huge part of our current problems and very misunderstood. the populist movement of the 1890's educated themselves on these issues and we should also. money is debt. there is nothing wrong with going into debt - it depends how it is used - wars or clean energy. someone should be doing teach-ins at the site to help people understand.
I support the movement. Peace and true democracy will never be brought about by reforming capitalism. The whole political system needs to change, call it neoliberalism or whatever you like, it's still a capitalist economic model. What concerns me is the lack of political thinking on this website. What answers do you have? Where are you taking this movement? I think if you guys don't take up a political struggle against this capitalist establishment then the movement will fall apart. I am certain of that. Yes we need a revolution, but we need to replace capitalism with a viable alternative run by the people, for the people. It cannot and will not be a peaceful transition. The ruling class will not give up their wealth without a war, a class war. I wish you the best of luck. You must get explicitly political. It's crucial to this movement.
Some Paul supporters are alright but many of the ones who pass by Zuccotti do not know how to have a rational discussion. They are ok at first and then they start SCREAMING about how the government should not be doing ANYTHING at all about ANYTHING. It is their ideology that they take as a natural fact.
A few causes at OWS I do not support but that does not stop me. Let me know what your views are too here: http://theassailedteacher.com/2011/10/09/why-the-end-the-fed-cause-is-bad-for-occupy-wall-street/
You'll find that as the general message to OWS is one of public rage against institutional corruption of government, that by setting aside specific ideological differences and focusing on the singular solution of election and lobbying reform, that not only will you have a great deal more positive conversations, but that you'll be working together to achieve a goal to make it possible for you both to respectively prove the other wrong on more than the internet.
My advise is just stop engaging RP supporters unless they are willing to dialogue and not just diatribe. In truth, I think many, though by no means all, are being consciously obstructionist.
Why do you fear someone pushing a candidate they feel will make a difference? It certainly makes a lot more sense than the mindless drones among us trying to protect the status quo.
I talked a bit about this yesterday. Pardon the copy-paste, but it fits.
snip
This isn't about Ron Paul; it's about a fundamental conflict between Paulite libertarianism and much of what OWS advocates. Paulites almost always want financial deregulation; OWS often calls for stricter financial regulation. Argue the merits, certainly, but when the chips are down, there's a very difficult bridge to cross there.
It is a crying shame; OWS and the Paulite camp agree on a lot. We definitely agree that there's a problem. We mostly agree on where that problem resides. We quite often agree on who is to blame. Unfortunately, we totally disagree on how to address the problem. Most lamentable; I wish I knew of a way to bypass the divide.
snip - http://occupywallst.org/forum/shut-up-about-ron-paul/
Very well put!
Right. Everyone agrees the problem is washington playing favorites to special interests.
The left wants more government but less corrupt altruistic government
The Democrats want more government but government that corruptly caters to their interests (unions, green energy, global warming, and Most of the fortune 500)
The Republicans want more government but government that corruptly caters to their interests (Haliburton, Big Oil, and Most of the fortune 500)
The Libertarians (Paul) want almost no federal government eliminating the governments ability to cater to anyone but also nuetering its ability to police bad guys domestically and abroad. Domestically, they leave it to the local governments, and abroad they make none of our business.
The Tea Party is split between Paul's ideology and a return to more traditional Republican values with some regulations, but overall less government domestically(and thereby less ability to be corrupt), but a strong enough federal government to project our foreign policy.
So far, OWS has many voices, but from I've read, the ideals seem to fall to the altruistic left.
I would look at Beyond Red and Blue from the pew Institute-which also deals with some of the same issues you are grappling with.
The thing here though: a lot of the Tea Party folks are very moralistic Christians. Also a lot of the Paul People sincerely believe their program will benefit the middle and lower classes. I happen to think they are wrong-but the hypocrites, opportunists and sociopaths are in the minority in that group.
The big failing I have with the Paul folks: they grossly underestimate how much of the benefits of their approach will trickle up into the hands of the upper 1%-and they have no plan for dealing with that possibility.
I did look beyond the red and blue labels. I spelled out the general economic ideoligy of each of these groups, which is required to understand and compare them.What I did not do, is delve into the social aspects of these groups, such as issues of faith, or lack thereof. Up until now, this has been a discussion of the economic issues in front of us, not the religious ones.
You made the assertion that the tea party folks are "very moralistic christians". Knowing quite a few Tea Party folks here in California, I can tell you the ones I know are mostly Atheists. Of course none of this should really matter as I am sure you respect a Christian's right to practice christianity as much as you respect an Atheist's right to practice Atheism. Frankly, as an agnostic, I resent the off topic derrogatory slap as much as you probably hate being called a filthy dirty rotten smelly jobless lazy hippie socialist, even though those words may very accurately describe you or many of your friends.
If you want to look beyond the labels, and delve into problems and solutions, look at my post above, think about those economic ideologies, be realistic about what is possible, and you may find out you are a closet Tea Party sympathizer.
FYI, the christian right and the social welfare left share the value of collectivism in caring for the poor. The only difference I see is the christians want you to subjugate you to their magic man in the sky, and the socialists want to subjugate you to their big government.
And libertarians generally are so sure their program will create a utopia-they have no backup plan-so ultimately they will subjugate folks to concentrations of wealth.
Of course. Just as the utopian dream of a big altruistic government actually results in an economically lethargic, highly corrupt, oppresive government filled with poor citizens. Once again, from my list of economic ideologies, there is really only one realistic choice.
Not really. If you actually adopted the libertarian program, the trickle up effects would be so huge, the society would destablize-just like Iran did under the shah.
That is why we need to add to the list of choices.
In all fairness, Ralph Nader has been sincerely trying to take the left away from rigid involvement with New Deal policies. Stuff like advocating removing all taxes on incomes less that $100K.
www.theamericanconservative.com/2004_06_21/cover.html
We may need to go further to really reach a new consensus-but I haven't seen ANY similar olive branch from the Tea Party yet.
On immigration policy: Milton Friedman commented that it is impossible have both open borders and a welfare state.
He tended to support open borders-and I am more supportive of having a welfare state. However, I agree with his basic point-though I would rather have a citizens dividend that many of the Great Society type policies.
"Once again, from my list of economic ideologies, there is really only one realistic choice." I tend to think that of your list of choices, NONE will really work as advertised.
I actually had the privilege to get to know Maynard Krueger quite well when I was at U of Chicago. Prof. Krueger was Norm Thomas's running mate in 1940 and played a major role in creation of the Socialist party platform that was the backbone of the New Deal. He freely admitted that many of those policies didn't work out as he had hoped-and we talked quite a lot about the potential for creating policies that might work better.
Norway is an ok example of socialism that works. Yes, their immigration policies are very restrictive. 3 of my great grandparents immigrated from Norway. If I were Irish, I'd automatically qualify for citizenship-but Norway has no such accommodations-even for descendants of indigenous minorities that were pretty much run out of that country as part of a ethnic cleansing program.
That said: socialism works as well as it does, because Norway is an extremely natural resource rich country(i.e. they have a lot of oil and hydro power) and the Norwegian people are not prone to governmental corruption. The country is more diverse that is commonly appreciated-but the Sami ethnic minority have historically had serious problems.
The better example of a more diverse country which has a mixed economy without those advantages might be Singapore. Singapore has a vibrant free market sector, but public housing benefits are VERY generous for Singapore citizens-as are educational benefits. Singapore has managed to do all this with very meager natural resources-but at the cost of a very low birth rate and a government that is highly competent, but not very democratic. Singapore is fairly diverse ethnically though-Chinese and Malays make up most of the population-but there are quite a few Indians and whites there too.
The USSR example below is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Keynes = Marx, FDR = Stalin. Ridiculous.
The Norway bit is little better. You cede that it's a better system sans immigration policies and the fact you can't live there.
There have never just been two choices, we've lived the third way our entire lives, to mixed results, as has western Europe since WWII. All better than the 19th century USA and its robber barons. You will never get the free market purity you hope for, so why not help us create effective government instead of more corrupt and defective government, which is all the past 40 years of tug-of-war between free-market ideologues and liberals has gotten us?
Not really? You did not just sumarily dismiss my point about altruistic big government ideas with just two words and not a shred of evidence, did you? Oh yes you did.
In that spirit, lets sumarily dismiss the meaningless babble that was your last post and have you demonstrate a single example of a country as large and diverse as ours that went big government and had it not turn out as I described. The closest thing would be the USSR. Its the inconvenient truth big government socialists and communists like to avoid talking about, but it is the truth. Learn from history or be forced to repeat it.
If you like a functional socialist big government, move to Norway.Oh wait, you can't because their immigration laws are among the toughest on the planet, including no birthright citizenship, not to mention all the citizens share the same genepool. Are you a big fan of shutting down the borders and birthright citizenship? I didn't think so. If you are really determined, I'm quite sure you could get into a kibbutz and live the dream, without forcing your nightmare on the rest of us.
Oh, and the Tea Party doesn't have to offer you an olive branch any more than Ron Paul does, or OWS does. With our without the tea party, those people share a common economic ideology. If you are down with it, thats cool, if you are not, thats cool to. Its not a negotiation.
Whether you agree with it or not, whether itis called the tea party or not, whether the tea party is popular or not, the ideology is one that polls at about 65% popularity in this country as opposed to socialism at 35%, and Nader at 5%. If you think Nader's ideas have more popularity than I give them credit for, you should run them up the OWS flagpole and see if you can get OWS to headline them as "Demands". If you can pull that one off(which you cant), it would be fun to watch the country wide acceptance of such proposals.
Sorry to go argumentum ad populum, but I've covered the facts, so I thought I'd drive the point home with a little reality check.
I was referring to an actual, formal poll-which among other things looked at which groups tended to support the Tea Party.
If you really look carefully: Classical Economists like Henry George and John Stuart Mill had fairly strong provisions for assuring economic inequality didn't get completely out of hand. Even Frederick Hayek and Milton Friedman endorsed some form of income support in that direction. The basic difference between Georgists and Libertarians is that Georgists tend to associate landed wealth-and the exceptional returns associated with concentrated wealth both with economic rent.
George Stigler made the claim that economic rent was a small portion of the US GDP. The thing is, you could replace the entire work force and capital stock in the US for a small fraction of US GDP today-what is left is economic rent in various forms. If we actually a adopted the libertarian economic platform, this would wind up overwhelmingly in the hands of the upper 1%-which is something that will NEVER be politically feasible.
What we get instead are various compromises. The New Deal left out two key demands of the old socialist party: a) taxation of land values(ala Henry George) b) taxation of concentrated assets(which george also supported-but which he thought was less important. Huey Long later focused on this idea).
Ron Paul's libertarian ideology as it will NEVER appeal to more than a small cohort of true believers of the lies rich people pay to be told-which is how I personally see Austrian and Chicago school economics. I am VERY familiar with what those folks have to say-I actually hold a degree in economics from U of Chicago.
The misunderstanding of definition of economic rent is the key to the failure of Austrian and Chicago economics to anticipate the trickle up effects of Reagan economic policies.
Without the kinds of controls Henry George advocated, free market capitalism is ultimately like a casino where the most very wealthy take on the role of the house-and become just as threatening to true liberty as the political authorities under state socialism or the moral authorities under christian theocracy.
You are like a broken record man. You keep going on about Ron Paul as if I care. You keep denying the failures and unpopularity of your own ideology as if they don't exist. Its embarrassing. Is this what passes for a credible argument with the folks you hang with?
You came all prepared to debate an ignorant Ron Paul devote, and nothing else. Seriously. Educate yourself.
"Once again, from my list of economic ideologies, there is really only one realistic choice." Once again: I think you are considering an overly narrow range of choices. Those are pretty much what is on the table. However, the existence of OWS is largely evidence of the limitations of traditional Democratic policies. I don't think the OWS folks will become Ron Paul supporters-but they might well become something that isn't on your list. I wouldn't assume they are automatically going to become New Deal types. Even if they did, I personally doubt New Deal policies would work as well now as they did in the 1930's. I don't think ANYTHING on your list will really work as advertised by supporters.
The big idea that was on the old socialist party platform that hasn't been broadly advocated yet by OWS folks or tried in the US is direct taxation of concentrated assets-like Huey Long advocated. That was VERY pointedly left out of the New Deal-basically FDR was willing to give Socialists EVERYTHING else. Perhaps that was the only really strategic item in that shopping list.
This isn't the place for candidates. If you feel your candidate is strong because of their positions then discuss the concerns behind the positions and if the argument is strong it will naturally attract people to your candidate.
People don't like when things are felt to be in their face - within the realm of political action perception is reality.
The Ron Paul supporters are making a huge mistake. They are now attempting to get the Tea Party people to join them and the OWS movement because they know they are out numbered and think they are getting pushed out.
I see a lot of ideas from a lot of people and that's great ! Every ones has a voice and it needs to be heard. Sadly, it's always the Ron Paul supporters that force their views on you and want to debate economics endlessly. They wont accept the possibility that not every one wants to change our entire monetary system and switch to the gold standard or a version of it. The more they keep pushing their agenda and forgetting what the occupy movements are all about ...The more likely that they will get pushed out and Ron Paul and Libertarian points of view get buried under mountains of Obama propaganda.
Let's work on the things we all agree on and leave the politics at the door. Once we get our government back in the hands of the people, then we can tackle the things we don't all agree on.
YOU WILL NEVER GET THE GOVERNMENT BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE AS LONG AS THE FED EXISTS..... OWS supports dont even come close to out numbering Ron Paul supporters you have been watching too much fox news.Ron Paul won the CA straw poll by a staggering majority almost won Iowa , New Hampshire, Florida, swept the Texas values poll. The reason why you hear so much about Dr.Ron Paul is because he has a huge fallowing of very educated people who are united under one cause to fight against the establishment to get America back in the hands of Americans..... What about that dont you support? What do you support? What is OWS accomplishing NOTHING if we dont unite we have all been wasting our time.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake
lolololol
they are the same
Ameica has a two party system-but that could be changed-one state at a time. In fact, it is probably legal for a state to start electing representatives by proportional representation-which I would personally favor. Just having one state that would move to elect is legislature this way would be a huge step forward IMHO.
The two party system lets the 1% rule a divided 99%.
the tea party is bigger than occupy wall street
When you go back and study the genesis, the etymology if you will, of the word "flashmob" the premises and conclusions are shocking. As I recall the notion of a flashmob orginated in a sci-fi story which cannot recall the name of(pardon my grammar). The gist of the story and word is this(my takeaway, correct if need be). In this story teleportation was not only existent but cheap,easy, and riskless. At some point in this story an incident of extreme police or other government brutality takes place on national TV. Within seconds a "flashmob" appears to take the side of the oppressed. In my mind we are basically there as a country. Our choice is how to proceed.
well said!
Its cool to share your thoughts, but lets all work together.. his followers, obama's, the commies, the libs, dems, centrists, the right...everyone's followers..they are the 99% Hash out the details later and ignore the differing opinions. I believe in diversity. I do not wish to see politics enter this at all, of course it has and it will, but it just sucks, because it is going to hurt the movement. Personally I love most of what Ron Paul has to say but I don't trust him either nor do I think we have a reason to trust ANY politician in office.
Do not allow yourselves to be divided and conquered.
Just stick to the message. Banks and corporations were bailed out. The assassin that they paid TARP or any one of the other alphabet soup programs back is at best poor journalism and at worst propaganda that would make Goebbels cream his lederhosen. Don't lose the message. What is the "Message"? As McLuhan asserts "... The media is the message..." the point is not to subvert to the political structure but to change it. The point is that every time some one is pepper sprayed or beaten; that it is not just them alone.
Everyone should be reminding everyone to only use the general 99%. Occupy labels. We do NOT care about your former ideology here. This is not a place for ideology. Ideology is BS politicians create and we are not politicians, so dont act like one.
Do not use labels because labels divide us. If you see someone casting insults or excessively labeling and using misinformation and such call them on it as a troll and ignore them. ( You can play with the trolls just dismiss their propaganda). If you are in doubt about something and the troll is convincing you of something. STOP! Check it out on the net see if it is true or isnt or whatever. Just dont assume everyone on here is out to make this work.
We have infiltrators you cant stop it just ignore them and remember the overall reason you came here.
Just remind those posters that we are made up of many diverse ideologies all striving to end corruption and stop corporate bribery. Their attempts at pushing their candidate is distracting for many and is causing anger. Ask them to please refrain from campaigning here because to endorse ANY candidate pushes away people from other ideologies.
You might want to direct them to this link
I agree and that why there should be cohesion behind Ron Paul because the media and the establishment HATES him because like us he is a thorn in their side he stand for real change. Which is why he is only promoted on the grass roots level.
I can't believe all of the anti-Paul talking points I see from OWS because they are all based on NON-ISSUES. The most important thing to realize about Dr. Paul is his foreign policy. He is the only anti-war candidate. And not just in a casual way, he has literally caused an awakening by pointing out how wars are always based on lies and only serve the special interests at the expense of the people. Maybe we should research more into just how AGGRESSIVE and DEADLY our foreign policy is. We are killing thousands of innocent people, assassinating little kids and American citizens. Inciting hatred and dis-trust towards us all over the world. Using bombs and bribes instead of peace and diplomacy. Spending trillions of our money to flex our might and bully the rest of the wolrd. Paul is the only one who will CHANGE THIS POLICY.
He voted against every bailout, he opposed all these government favors that we are protesting.
Why so much talk about "regulation" do you even know what that is? Regulations benefit the big corporations and serve as obstacles to small businesses and competition. Wall Street executives get rich because of regulations, the more regulations are in place, the more corporations pay to Wall Street executives to help them get around the regulations. Ron Lawl wants an even playing field for everyone. That is the only way to bring fair competition, lower prices, and no special favors from government.
OWS needs to try and be a little more pro-freedom. The reason the establishment is trying so desperately to stifle Paul is because if he was elected, the US Gov't will have to admit they have been wrong on every issue for the past 70 years, they have been wrong on foreign policy, wrong on drug policy, wrong on monetary policy. They are in denial, it's like the stubborn person who won't admit they're wrong.
Don't hate on Paul because of his views on things that don't matter. Global warming.. who cares? Abortion... who cares? Paul does not support a federal ban on abortion, he wants the states to make the policies just as they do for traffic laws and everything else, so it's literally an even playing field for pro-life and pro-choice people. So, if you're pro-choice, that's not that bad. Paul is not a hypocrite, like some who want a federal ban on abortion and gay marriage but oppose federal mandates, etc. Paul wants fairness between everyone.
This whole concern about things he said about the civil rights act is IRRELEVANT. His point was that racism can only be cured in the mind of the racist and not with a federal mandate but that is a NON-ISSUE. He is by far the most diverse and anti-racist in his policies. His opposition to racist policies such as capital punishment, prison industrial complex, war on drugs, etc. That's why he has more black supporters than Herman Cain. Yeah, he's an only white dude and is not always the most PC but he's honest.
Geez, let's talk about the real issues, our pro-terrorism foreign policy of killing innocent people to prove our point. The outrageous war on drugs. The out of control Fed. The bailouts. Prohibition. Corruption of special interests influencing our politicians. The Corporate media lies.
Do you guys realize how serious our situation is? Look up SOPA and NDAA, these bills are being introduced that would literally turn our country into a fascist police state. American citizens are being assassinated! A 16-yr-old boy was assassinated by our President, Obama, Bush are both war criminal terrorists.
Look who Paul's up against, they all want to go to war with Iran. Spreading more lies to promote a war with Iran. Mitt Romney is influenced by all the big banks, Goldman Sachs, etc. Newt Gingrich wants to toughen the war on drugs and the patriot act. He wants the Death Penalty for drug trafficking! They both supported Tarp and the bailouts. Do you people even realize this! That will be where we are headed if we don't do something. Use the proper channels. Paul may not be perfect but he's by far the best option we have at this point in time and he has a ton of momentum right now and a ton of support from OWS people. The only way for the 1% to be victorious is to rock the establishment by electing someone who will bring CHANGE. Ron Lawl will literally uproot and change the entire system, end prohibition and bring all our troops home. So please no more talking about pointless issues.
I didn't find one thing I've said about Mr. P to be pointless. Not one.
In addition to Ron Paul wanting to stop wars, shutting down the Fed, legalizing pot and all the issues you LIKE about him, which many of you support (for some unknown reason, besides being well uninformed), did you also know this: • He wants to end Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - That means Grandma's moving in! • He wants to take away a woman's right to choose - what happened to his mantra of "less government"? Could he be a closet misogynist! • He wants to ELIMINATE public schools – that means your kids will be home all the time, in your face, on your nerves! Keep the insubstantial people uneducated; now that's a good call, huh! • He opposes Universal Health Care - remember "Single Payer" healthcare for all? Same thing! and he's against it. Is he still sounding like a candidate that's going to work for you?!
JESUS its posts like this that prove my point. Totally unrelated and you can tell that it was copy/pasted.
Yeah, it's just taking away from finding a useful focus for this movement.
no he doesnt want to stop a womans right to choose, he wants the federal government out of stuff that it isnt supposed to be doing according to the constitution. Hence he wants to let the states decide on things like this. I am guessing because it is not the federal govts job to do these things, according to your own constitution. Taking power from the fed govt and allowing states to decide. Which is a great idea, it is easier to stop corruption on a local level, people in power are held more accountable at a local level, govt is more accessible and transperant at a local level.
If they gave power to the states, our country would break down into smaller countries, the demographics were become so skewed and civil war would ensue. He's against a woman's right to choose and that's enough for me to see that, once again, another man is trying to control what is best for a woman's body. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but don't try to tell women what is best for women!
Eliminating public schools would raise the quality of the average person in this country by double, almost overnight.
You're a freak!
Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? This is Aristotle, if you're not familiar.
So, if we have public schools that are trying to "educate people" and we're a nation full of stupid people, that means one of the premises has to be wrong. Either everyone is smart, or schools aren't setting out to educate anyone. I don't see any evidence to suggest everyone, half, or even any sort of large percentage of people is smart.
If we got rid of schools, peeps would be free to bring out the best in themselves, instead of a mandatory period of 12 years of brainwashing and conforming to the lowest common standard. Schools take the best inside of children, the creativity, the originality, the wonder, the excitement, and they stamp it out.
Occupy Wall St is protesting corruptness. You know who raised us all up to think this was the best way to live? Schools.
But you're welcome to call names if you have nothing rational to bring to the discussion.
Unfortunately, not enough people are motivated to educate themselves. We don't have a nation full of stupid people because we have schools! If we could just get the money back into education instead of corporate pockets, then we'd have even smarter people! Stamp out money in government. Bring it back into schools. Our system is so corruptly skewed that it doesn't work for anyone but the 1%. But they better look out cause we'll be soon coming after them!!
"Unfortunately, not enough people are motivated to educate themselves."
Exactly, and you know what doesn't fix that? More money in schools. I just blew a hole in your argument big enough for a cruise ship to sail through. All aboard!
Ok, perhaps I should have elaborated a bit on that comment: More money to establish a system that rewards AND respects better teachers with financial gain!
Really, now! Just look at China or Japan!
Those teachers are well respected, well paid and the masses are much more educated than our nation.
So studenet motivation is fixed with better teachers and we get better teachers by throwing money at them?
Although, I'd have to say that establishing a system that rewards and respects with financial gain would have to be one in which competition is allowed, and now you're talking about free market education, which is exactly the opposite of public school.
Hopefully you can see, once human action is factored in, what a fallacy public schooling is. Rounding people up and making them sit in a building for 12 years is a big waste of everyones time. Getting a degree is no indication of learning. Money doesn't mean teachers are any better. People who want to learn something WILL LEARN IT. Forcing everyone to pay into and attend this corrupt system is churning out hordes of people without brains, rather than a highly civilized, intelligent society. As you can see by looking around.
in a perfect world that might work. But the problem is that many people lack basic critical thinking skills, things they pass on to their kids, and can only be remedied through education.
Whoa buddy, settle down. I'm 100% in favor of education. We're talking about public schooling here.
We need to provide unbiased information to our kids. That's why there is a separation between church and state. For example, even though I respect a parent's desire to teach their kids good christian values in a private school, the education they receive from such a system would be inherently biased (for example in subjects such as evolution). This is just one example. The truth is, the public school system tries to spread knowledge without imparting ideals and beliefs on our kids. Education must be objective.
On top of which, with the availability of the internet and libraries, there are all kinds of free, public options for people to learn at. Sitting in school doing remedial math drills for 12 years doesn't do shit for a person.
Exactly, and much of what I have learned has been through reading literature and the internet. But school is still necessary to provide a strong foundation and value for learning that leads on to this process. And I don't know about you, but I certainly haven't been doing remedial math drills for 12 years. I'm studying to be an aerospace engineer, and I can tell you, what I learned in math is definitely valuable. (and each year of calculus was totally different by the way)
Just think of how much you would have learned if you had been apprenticing with aerospace engineers for the past few years. You'd be an engineer yourself already, instead of sitting in some building learning theories racking up student debt, and then you have to go try to find a job at the end besides. Society sees fit to waste your time and potential but I don't think it's just.
I agree, that would definitely have been valuable. The point i'm trying to make though is that the public school system definitely has a place. Should it be as large as it is now? That's debatable, but removing it all together could have disastrous consequences.
I'm trying hard to be civil.
First of all, anything you learn from anyone is biased. If you think otherwise, you're naive. Parents bring up their children as they like, whether that's christian, pagan, or athiest. And not just religious values, they influence children in all kinds of ways. It's NOT a perfect system, by any means, but advocating state control is exactly something a government who wants to create a bunch of drones would advocate.
The public school system DOES NOT try to spread knowledge without imparting ideals and beliefs. This is absolutely false. If this were true, there would never be a debate about what is taught in school, as everything would be taught. But there are plenty of debates about what should and should not be taught based on the agenda of who is in control.
The best solution I have thought of is to raise people up who care about educating themselves for the rest of their entire lives. Everything valuable I have learned, I can reflect back and realize that it wasn't in school (with the exception of writing, perhaps, but my parents could have taught me that easily enough). Public education is creating a bunch of subservient drones. Don't believe me? Why is everyone so ignorant and complacent?
The only reason there is a debate about what should be taught in schools comes down to one reason. SCIENCE. As science is based on observable, quantifiable fact, it does not include religion or the paranormal, so these have no place in public education.
Why is everybody so ignorant? Because standards aren't the same across the board, and many kids just aren't taught to value education.