Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
Ron Paul is making sense
Monday, February 23, 2009
Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Real Time with Bill Maher:
Somehow, the idea of the government just doing nothing - getting all the nastiness over with in a relatively short period of time and starting anew - is starting to sound better and better.
20 comments:
Ron Paul is crazy as a loon, or maybe a fox, but he has such great ideas. He has such a clear-eyed vision of where the REPUBLIC of the United States should be, fiscally.
like in N'awlins, a significant attitude shift wrt welfare won't happen until the nanny FedGov really drops the ball and tens of thousands die while waiting for help. self-determination might become cool again.
so what could do something that? food inflation --> food price caps --> food shortages.
Ron Paul isn't crazy, he's one of the few politicians who actually read and understood the Constitution. He should be POTUS.
Instead, we've got the usual cast of clowns thrashing around and screwing everything up, as usual.
As just ONE of several examples, consider that Geithner was the head of the NY Fed during the financial meltdown that started under Bush. He's as much to blame as anyone except Greenspan.
Despite that, Obama picked him to be head of Treasury. The moron can't even do his taxes with TurboTax and he's in charge of the whole financial mess now. Notice what a GREAT job he's done so far - NOT! Calling that CHANGE is a joke!
Some of us are looking at secession from the Union as the only semi-viable option. (Of course, that worked out so well for CSA in 1860-61 when Lincoln decided he would ignore the Constitution and invade the South.)
If the Free State Project:
http://www.freestateproject.org/
had picked a more livable state than New Hampshire, I would already be there and push for secession. Despite the God-awful weather and East Coast nightmares, if things continue on the current path, I'll be moving my family to NH.
The US is so far from the original idea that it would not even be recognized by the founders if they came back today. The more we stray from the original ideas, the worse it gets.
If we don't start listening to Ron Paul and his ilk, what's left of our freedom will soon be gone.
You can't have it both ways; you can't be free and, at the same time, dependent on government for everything. At some point, people need to grow up and start making decisions for themselves and taking the consequences of those decisions.
The Nanny State is a reflection of the extreme immaturity in our citizenry and the la-la land, wishful thinking of the bleeding heart liberals who wish for a world that simply does not exist.
Sometimes Ron Paul makes a lot of sense and says some meaningful things but he always follows it with something really ignorant. Such as...on the Bill Maher appearance he talks about letting this recession and the business cycle run its course. Well this is NOT a "business cycle recession". This is a systemic collapse caused mainly by highly leveraged speculation by financial institutions. This speculation at one point totaled over $500 Trillion in derivatives contracts. That's a trillion with a "T". This has NOTHING to do with a normal business cycle. Furthermore, the idea that financial institutions should be left alone to do their business without regulation is exactly what allowed this scenario to unfold. Unfortunately Congressman Paul does not understand this crisis.
Berry, I think Congressman Paul understands the current crisis well enough; he's shown he's a very smart guy over the years. Certainly, a short appearance with Bill Maher can't get into details. I think he just wanted to do what he's good at, which is reiterate his previous messages of less government, and libertarianism. Lastly, I don't think the scenario has unfolded completely, because the institutions which over-leverage are not being allowed to fail. So I think Paul's right, it's just going to keep going.
I'm with Evan.
Berry assumes we need minor changes to massive regulation and control by Big Government while libertarians believe individuals should be personally responsible and not rely on government to protect them from everything.
It's laughable to believe that one of us in the blogosphere has a greater understanding of the financial system than Ron Paul. I'll leave it at that...
For those who believe in smaller government and individual responsibility, etc. now may be the time to seriously consider secession.
Sounds weird at first but it's got a lot going for it. Once you start thinking about it, it's like Lay's potato chips.
This is a systemic collapse caused mainly by highly leveraged speculation by financial institutions.
That IS the business cycle.
During a flat portion of the cycle, people and companies earning a good return can and often do increase their leverage. When this increase leverage works to increase return, leverage is again increased. Eventually leverage increases stop working and deleveraging ensues.
Use of exaggerations like "systemic collapse" are indicative of nothing.
@AcaiBerry,
The banking business model, at least the lucrative version, has always been privatized profits and socialized risk. Without government backing via the Fed and Treasury, it is impossible to create such a highly-leveraged and widespread financial web. Though I agree that better regulation would have helped, the solution is not more of it. This leads us down the path taken by Russia and China in the last century.If we concentrate power in Washington, special interests focus their efforts there. One of the main arguments promoted by Ron Paul is giving the power back to people. Just dismantle the Fed and the need to regulate banking largely goes away.
Ron Paul has some valid criticisms, and I could not be more against both the bank bailouts and home-debtor bailouts.
However, his absolutist libertarian vision of society is completely unrealistic and quite cruel. He advocates for example, zero social safety net. In other words, most people getting a nontrivial cancer would not be able to afford a treatment. Maybe its fine with you, but not with me.
To me the proof of a theory is always in experiment. Here is the experiment: no healthy society exists today that embraces Paul’s ideas and I would venture to say never existed. I know some like to talk about the US in the 19th century. I think we know little about real life in the US in 19th century but I’ve read that the average life span was ~30 years. Once a society advances and then a crisis hits, people want equality (crudely speaking, don’t want to starve when they see others eating caviar) more then liberty (to starve): there is either some introduction of a safety net (social democracy) or a dictatorship (Russia, Germany, China). I’d take social democracy any day.
Absolutist fanatics who never acknowledge the “on the other hand” argument make for entertaining speeches but they invariably lead societies to disaster if they come to power.
Oh and Nostradamus, when you talk about Lincoln’s illegal aggression you are forgetting about the little thing called slavery. Surprising from someone so obsessed with liberty.
The issue for Lincoln was secession not slavery. He was in favor of sending all the slaves back to Africa. If the issue had been slavery, a civil war was hardly needed. Many other societies ended slavery by simply purchasing their freedom.
Hi, jp
I didn't forget about the slavery argument and was expecting some mentally-challenged person to bring it up.
I was pretty sure someone would try to raise the moral issue of slavery in the context of the legal issue of the right to secession.
You win!
You show your shallow and emotional liberal thinking when you can't separate the legal issue from the moral issue.
Just like you show your limited knowledge when you forget that there's a "little thing" called health insurance that people can buy and it doesn't have to come from big government.
You offer no solutions and only complain.
Again, for those who still have a functioning brain cell, it's time to start thinking about secession.
And for you, jp, secession discussions do not have to include arguments in favor of slavery. They can be about other things like, say, economic freedom.
Social safety net, socialized medicine, education, etc. This all sounds very comforting until you consider who is going to administer the programs. Have you checked in to see how well that is going right now? It is a guaranteed disaster in the end. The Chinese and Soviet experiments proved that beyond any doubt. I'd rather eliminate those programs, give me back my taxes and let me decide where I should donate it to instead.
jp really makes the argument for secession.
too bad...
People like him are in the majority. They can't think clearly and logically and all they know is that they want someone else to clean up all their messes in life.
They can't even imagine a world where they are in charge of their own destinies.
Those who strongly believe in personal responsibility are now in the minority in America and, just as the colonists did and the South tried, we may have to face facts and withdraw through revolution or secession.
Sadly, in each of those cases, the powers in charge did not let the dissenters leave quietly and the current power system will not likely allow a peaceful withdrawal, either.
It's a shame but it might have to go that way some day...
RP -- I strongly suspect I pay more taxes than most on this blog, so I don't want anyone to clean up after me, rather the opposite. Also, I repeat -- I'm very much against picking up after both banks and homeowners and for letting chips (prices) fall as they may with regard to housing.
On the broader topic, I read plentiful insults, but interestingly nobody responded to my main point -- name an existing society that works well according to the principles Ron Paul advocates. I can name social demoncracies that work -- e.g. Switzerland, Canada. By this I mean work in real life, warts and all. To me as an engineer this empirical evidence means more than your libertarian fantasy land/thought construct.
Funny you call me a liberal, such a strong need to reduce all arguments to labels. Things don't have to be black or white, there is gray. For example, safety net can and should be basic, w/o taking away freedom and incentives to work. Please don't bring up false strawman choice of "total liberty" vs. Stalinism/Maoism (with Social Security automatically putting us into the latter category). Compare societies that exist in reality and that you know something about!
jp
For a success story, try America before FDR.
Now, Please!!!
Go back to your room and play with your Star Wars Action figures.
The big people are trying to talk here.
If I have to tell you again, I'll have to lock you in the big Tupperware box again and I don't want to do that.
Don't know about Switzerland but Canada works not because it is a social democracy, probably more so in spite of it being so. Canada is essentially 35M people sitting on a s...load of natural resource wealth.
IP, I think you are missing an important point too. For the elites that run the world, the goal is not a system of government that benefits the society as a whole. The preference has always been alternatives that enslave it. This is why we get a social democracy with a central bank and paper money, runaway debts, war without congressional approval and just about every other violation of the constitution.
X said... (X = Nostradamus or Ron Paul),
My apology for bringing up diverse ideas in the comments, some diverging from the RP "party line." I thought it could be interesting. Clearly, I was wrong. Apparently, "big people" respond by childish name-calling to anyone to disagrees with them.
You have the podium to yourself, please continue raising the level of discussion on Tim's blog with your rants.
@ip,
Blogs are also an avenue for ranting. Some of the biggest fights I have had are with good friends. Thanks for taking the high road. On your point of view, I have to side with anon327 above. I believe governments are designed to serve elites to the detriment of the rest. To that end, a social democracy is what we get.
ip
Here's a tip from a crusty, old fart:
If you don't like getting reamed in public, try to remember this:
Before you make a smarty statement like 'a little thing called slavery' etc., you might want to reconsider. If you make such a statement and you're wrong, just admit it and get it over with.
The simple fact is that you made a blunder and you didn't just admit it and retract the comment.
You could have simply said something like, "Yep, you're right. Slavery has nothing to do with whether Lincoln violated the Constitution."
Instead, you kept digging deeper and deeper and people often don't like that. Some of those people are at least as smart and glib as you.
I get tired of that kind of lazy thinking parading about without anyone challenging it. It happens so much that it's hard to play nice when someone gets the 'tude you showed.
A blog comment is a perfect place for people to speak the truth. If it hurts, maybe you should try to learn from it so it won't happen again.
I apologize for my rudeness, incivility and immaturity.
Ah yes, let us remember the good old days, before FDR, when our grandparents were self-reliant and didnt depend on anyone. And when the banking system collapsed, they sucked it up, ate catfood, and died in the streets. Ah, the good old days.
Honestly, you Ron Paul people are sick in the head. People with drive and determination succeed in America every day, but your a deluded bunch of failed losers, so you blame the government, and despite your personal failures, still can't imagine helping your fellow Americans in need. To the guy who said he would donate to the charity of his choice, you've obviously never seen how charities in this country work, and the shortfalls they face in providing basic services to the needy, which are often covered by the government. All over the world, in democracies like ours, people lose their jobs and don't have to worry that they will die without health care or food. What a bunch of pussies huh?!?! Dying because you can't afford food or medicine is the American way, according to you guys. You guys act like its your right to ignore the plight of your fellow Americans. You reserve the freedom to kick them when their down, and cut back on health care and other assistance, but unfortunately for your sick view of freedom, American voters say otherwise.
You truly hate America, because we have a democracy and a 'free market' of ideas, and despite all your delusions of oppression, you simply can't respect the wishes of American voters, and the political system our country was founded on. Thank god your candidate is so bat-shit insane he can't even make it through the Republican primaries without coming in last place in almost every single one. You guys can go back to jerking off to Ayn Rand now..
Post a Comment