-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
- Thread starter CannaBunkerMan
- Start date
She can't be a worse legislator than a singer? 
Two words - Jude Wanninski
Turned 7000 years of demand theory, application and historic synopsis on it's ear, suggesting demand has nothing to do with generating strong economies. Wanninski said strong economies are the result of rich people flooding the market with goods, coercing folks to get up off their cash.
With no focus on maintaining working class wages, folks can't afford the equation. (But let's put aside the fact that the macro alone can't generate expansion.)
Wanninski's synopsis was opposite his theory. The rich never flooded the market with goods. The masses never propelled expansion because there was no appreciable purchasing power. Arranged in Wanninski's fashion, the two elements are incompatible.
Two more words - Arthur Laffer
Arthur's the guy who said, "Lower rates and revenues will rise." This is the same, alchemical turd Wanninski floated. Laffer could have said "like poles attract" and been no less absurd.
Synopsis - Laffer was wrong. The national debt tripled.
Two more words - David Stockman
Stockman looked at Wanninski and Laffer and said, "You two stupid mother fuckers don't know a Goddamn thing!
Then Stockman looked at Reagan and said, "We can spin American history's worst economic catastrophe into working majorities for the next 30 or 40 years. It'll get so bad that Democrats will have no choice but to force fiscal austerity, wrapping the Republican albatross of spending cuts around their own necks. Deficit spending at astronomical rates should be priority #1."
Synopsis - Republican administrations have since spent at multiple times the rates of Democratic administrations.
Two more words - Alan Greenspan
Alan told Reagan to raise FICA on those making $37,500 and lower. Then they proceeded to intercept the enhanced incoming Social Security revenues to offset Regan's legacy as a sink of monumental proportions.
Synopsis - Social Security revenues are depleted, pumping the "ponzi" charge to smokescreen the ripoff.
One more word - bentom187
I imagine you have an alternative for pretty much everything I've pointed out in this entire thread.
Economic conservatism works for the top. The "me" versus "we" way of thinking will buy you less financial security, not more. 50% of kids under 30 think they'll get rich (and they won't) especially when 40% of em still live with mom.
Synopsys - Compare your theories with historic application. We once tried what you want. Observe the mass failures and at least consider their propensity to reoccur.
128 words and a 4 digit number...
synopsis:
counting is not a strong suit.
emo economics works for those not good with numbers
Ok so we go back and look, did the market demand lightbulbs, or did a man with an idea seeking to make a living(an entrepreneur), come up with a novel way to make a light source that didn't require an open flame and oil refills?
His innovative idea immediately created demand but had he not supplied the product, demand for his product would not have been.
So it's less supplying the market with stuff, and more about supplying them with value.
Look at NASA, they gifted us with all this technology, but had it not been for entrepreneurs who understood what it meant/offered to society and then who were willing to risk capital supplying the market with their inventions creating demand, we never would have reaped the benefits of the NASA program.
Your arguments fail miserably, as per usual. They are usually absurd misguided, filled with redirection, strawmen, and obfuscation. I gotta ask, are you really serious when you post or are you just fishing?
The freedom of entrepreneurial spirit never addressed the predator, i.e. tear down aspect of conservative economics. Has no choice but to endure it.
The giant sucking sound that Ross warned of was smoke screen. Every free market capitalist knows the giant sucking sound is the industrialized money shift with each economic bust.
This is a major principle in conservative economics. Those who are relieved of their assets never deserved those assets, even if said had/has to be fraudulently pilfered. We used to allow Wall Street to pilfer amongst themselves and their world view is we should all be subject to their so-called "relief".
They even justify the unwashed masses should relegate their meager existence to mere sustenance while their heads explode in financial outer space.
We-first policies build and invest. Me-first policies tear down and divest what we made on our backs (for their personal profit.)
The giant sucking sound that Ross warned of was smoke screen. Every free market capitalist knows the giant sucking sound is the industrialized money shift with each economic bust.
This is a major principle in conservative economics. Those who are relieved of their assets never deserved those assets, even if said had/has to be fraudulently pilfered. We used to allow Wall Street to pilfer amongst themselves and their world view is we should all be subject to their so-called "relief".
They even justify the unwashed masses should relegate their meager existence to mere sustenance while their heads explode in financial outer space.
We-first policies build and invest. Me-first policies tear down and divest what we made on our backs (for their personal profit.)
128 words and a 4 digit number...
synopsis:
counting is not a strong suit.
emo economics works for those not good with numbers
On the contrary. Keynesian theory is mere theory. The application carried the greatest expansion in American history. Even half-baked Clinton/Keynes produced the biggest peacetime expansion since the end of WWII.
We didn't just balance 4 consecutive budgets (after Clinton took 4 short years to pay off 13 long years of consecutive deficits.) We surplussed enough to project taking on the debt in real terms. At the time, the national debt as a percentage of GDP actually generated fiscal benefits that ideological conservatives ignore (except when it comes to their own business.)
W ripped the cloth from the table but he smashed all the china. It'll take considerable time to put it all back w/o breaking our backs in the process.
He sure did. Unless you take into account the off balance sheet liabilities which the bond market does when determining fiscal sustainability. Minor inconvenient fact.
Plus, he abolished Glass Stegall setting the foundation for the Red Team Progressives to come in and finish off what little was left of the rule of law in this country.
Go big Bill.
Life is never free of minor-inconvenience. The last 30 years have shown us that ends-justify-the-means policies render minor inconveniences as major catastrophes. It's part of the plan.
Clinton signed Glass Stegall alright but you and I would have to research the what ifs of any would-be veto. Dual opposition leadership only needed a simple house majority and 51 Senate votes. The opposition could have told Clinton where to go when Clinton was negotiating additional legislation. Starve-the-beast could have won a larger kitty. Triangulation gets a stab at pragmatic application yet has to wade through chainsaws to get there.
When we look at the garnish and miss the details, sometimes we come away less informed.
Clinton left W ~$246 billion but he didn't know George would give it back (plus 2x more.) I've yet to read anything indicated Clinton had a clue that W and his Super Congress would further deregulate enforcement divisions of the SEC, the Treasury, the Fed, even the FBI, all structures tasked with policing the post GS era. Too many S&L contributors went to jail in the 80s. W made sure that didn't have a chance under his watch. If we're lucky, all we can manage now is getting people to pay fractional fines while admitting no wrongdoing.
Clinton's got lots of faults and made his share of mistakes. IMO, Clinton doesn't dissolve the fact that starve-the-beast lives, breaths and destroys, every time it's in office. Historic rates of spending prove it. Tacticians can massage the data but there's no bottom line indicator that supply-side floats yachts w/o sinking canoes. (It's part of the plan and these guys were and still are unfazed enough to publicly admit.)
At the end of the Reagan administration, Laffer, Wanninski, and Stokman all regaled in their successes. Laffer's curve was 180* wrong yet he defended it as the sole reason that Stockman invented starve-the-beast. That's how he justified his theory as successful.
Knocking off El Chapo won't necessarily save affected Mexican merchants from the take. They'll have to settle with whatever fills the vacuum. Could be multiple El Chapo's
Knocking off El Chapo won't necessarily save affected Mexican merchants from the take. They'll have to settle with whatever fills the vacuum. Could be multiple El Chapo's
We don't advocate you doing nothing. We help you, you do your part and the idea that nothing gets done has no historical reference. Theory can be set up to sound dysfunctional but reality tends to take the pragmatic path, along with it's sporadic interruption.
Value might be nonexistent if you had to dredge your own canal to market.
If they didn't have the American people to pay for inventing the man-size space wheel, we might be up to lab rat models by now.
As usual, your arguments get personal. Concentrate with your noodle, not your doodle.
Pointing out your accusations isn't as easy as making them. I could say the Roadrunner makes for better fiscal policy. Wouldn't alter the disastrous record of starve the beast.
One might imagine STB would bring debt hawks their day of celebration. Drown that baby and throw it out the window yada yada. Yet the one thing the right wing most demands, fiscal responsibility is sacrificed for power, all on a theory that accepts fiscal disaster as the reality that won't be remedied. Day-of-celebration turn day-of-reckoning? Rhetorical question.
DAY OF RECKONING - "Hey, we're with the good guys, hows 'bout some a dem dare jobs and wages?"
The 'Good' guys - "Ummmm, lunch."
???
i obviously need to hit what your smoking. what your saying makes little sense, from what i gather through the gibberish, if gov didnt put in place infrastructure entrepreneurs would never have been able to market their goods?
if that is the case you're mistaken, as the roads and infrastructure only made centralization of business easier... ie it benefitted everyone but also made monopolizations easier.
furthermore, it was industry that first introduced rail, then they got in bed with government, who sold bonds to help the fund the TCRR, they both won, RR's got there funding, a bunch of land on the cheap and the government was assured military and postal access to the lines.
another great case of big business using centralized government to advance their interests... at least it wasn't funded with taxpayer debt...
value in exchange is a two sided equation, both people win, as each subjectively values the others good for trade as more valuable then what they offer.
anyways i'd imagine you'd use existing methods to access available markets and hope someone sees an opportunity dredging a canal, or you take it upon yourself to amass the capital required to do it yourself, and then profit off of it.
lol surely you jest, as a good portion of todays technology was derived from discoveries at nasa... though it took individuals entrepreneurial spirit to bring the tech mainstream.
and i never condoned a national space program funded by compulsory taxation, in fact an underlying point is that even though the gov funded it and small groups of individuals came up with the tech it still took private companies to build the things nasa needed and it took private companies to bring the discoveries to market.
.
nothing personal there unless you think im attacking you(and not your arguments), though my statement was
"Your arguments fail miserably, as per usual. They are usually absurd misguided, filled with redirection, strawmen, and obfuscation. I gotta ask, are you really serious when you post or are you just fishing?"
whats funny is progressivism will starve itself by becoming too top heavy, and bottom dependent.
has nothing to do with debt and everything to do with the government spending my money for me.
the debt system is another subject.
lol right wing, really?? i despise the right as much as the left but then again from where im standing they look awfully similar.
i agree though the right wing did sacrifice faux fiscal responsibility for more power.
Last edited:
you need a sedative
B
BrnCow
Ron Paul's fruitless effort to end the Fed - their headline
Ron Paul goes down fighting but the Fed is too powerful - my headline
WASHINGTON — Ron Paul ran for president three times, served nearly a quarter-century in Congress, spawned a national movement and saw his son elected to the Senate.
But in his singular objective — to "End the Fed," as the title of his book put it — the libertarian obstetrician from Texas failed. He didn't even make a dent in it. In a valedictory Wednesday before Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee, Paul raised the white flag.
"Policies never change. ... No matter what the crisis is, we still do more of the same," he lamented in what probably was his last public appearance with Bernanke before retiring from Congress at the end of the year. "I hoped in the past to try to contribute to the discussion on monetary policy, the business cycle and why it benefits the rich over the poor. And so far, my views have not prevailed, but I've appreciated the opportunity."
For the fiery Paul, it was a subdued surrender. His colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — used this final hearing to honor Paul for his passionate service, treating him with the cautious affection one might use to address a crazy uncle.
"This may be his last committee meeting with the chairman of the Federal Reserve," Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., began. "And his leadership on the committee, especially during these hearings when we've had the Federal Reserve chairman appear before us, have certainly made the hearings more interesting and provided several memorable YouTube moments."
Many on the dais laughed, and even Bernanke smiled at the memory. There was, for example, a clip from February in which Paul informed Bernanke that "the record of what you've done in the last six years is destroy the value of real money, of paper money." Paul instead touted the value of an illegal "parallel" currency and invoked the late Austrian economist Friedrich August von Hayek.
"Good to see you again, Congressman Paul," Bernanke replied.
Then there was the hearing last July, when Paul hectored the Fed chairman for claiming that gold wasn't a form of money.
On Wednesday, about 80 men in their 20s — Ron Paul acolytes — lined up outside the hearing room for a chance to see more of the same. But Paul faded away with surprising deference.
"I have over the years obviously been critical of what goes on monetary policy, but it hasn't been so much the chairman of the Federal Reserve — whether it was Paul Volcker or Alan Greenspan or the current chairman," he explained. "I think they have a job that they can't do because it's an unmanageable job."
The one substantial challenge to Bernanke — Paul's "audit the Fed" bill, which the House is expected to approve next week before it dies in the Senate — was easily dispatched by the Fed chairman, who warned against injecting congressional politics into the staid field of monetary policy. Even Bachus distanced himself from the Paul bill, pointedly noting that it "did not come before the Financial Services Committee, which surprised me."
Paul didn't really argue with Bernanke; he used his time to deliver mini-lectures. In his first five-minute question period, he outspoke Bernanke eight words to one. Paul then got a second question period, yielded to him by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., in a development the chairman drolly described as "pleasantly unexpected." The Paul to Bernanke word ratio this time was 12 to 1.
Bernanke, arms folded in front of him, declined to be provoked. "There's no constitutional reason why Congress couldn't just take over monetary policy," he said. "But I'm advising you that it wouldn't be very good from an economic policy point of view."
Other than making this inarguable assertion — why would it be a good idea to give Congress another duty that it can mishandle? — the Fed chairman listened patiently to Paul, who took off his reading glasses, waved an arm in the air and recited from his greatest hits: Crisis! Printing money! Flawed system! Big government! He led Bernanke on a tour from the Bretton Woods agreement of 1945 to the latest developments in M1 and M2 money supply.
But ultimately, the congressman accepted that he would leave town with the Fed still alive and well. "We never change policy. We never challenge anything. We just keep doing the same thing," he lamented. "Congress keeps spending the money. Welfare expands exponentially. Wars never end."
At this point, the committee chairman cut him off. Paul's time had expired.
Ron Paul goes down fighting but the Fed is too powerful - my headline
WASHINGTON — Ron Paul ran for president three times, served nearly a quarter-century in Congress, spawned a national movement and saw his son elected to the Senate.
But in his singular objective — to "End the Fed," as the title of his book put it — the libertarian obstetrician from Texas failed. He didn't even make a dent in it. In a valedictory Wednesday before Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee, Paul raised the white flag.
"Policies never change. ... No matter what the crisis is, we still do more of the same," he lamented in what probably was his last public appearance with Bernanke before retiring from Congress at the end of the year. "I hoped in the past to try to contribute to the discussion on monetary policy, the business cycle and why it benefits the rich over the poor. And so far, my views have not prevailed, but I've appreciated the opportunity."
For the fiery Paul, it was a subdued surrender. His colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — used this final hearing to honor Paul for his passionate service, treating him with the cautious affection one might use to address a crazy uncle.
"This may be his last committee meeting with the chairman of the Federal Reserve," Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., began. "And his leadership on the committee, especially during these hearings when we've had the Federal Reserve chairman appear before us, have certainly made the hearings more interesting and provided several memorable YouTube moments."
Many on the dais laughed, and even Bernanke smiled at the memory. There was, for example, a clip from February in which Paul informed Bernanke that "the record of what you've done in the last six years is destroy the value of real money, of paper money." Paul instead touted the value of an illegal "parallel" currency and invoked the late Austrian economist Friedrich August von Hayek.
"Good to see you again, Congressman Paul," Bernanke replied.
Then there was the hearing last July, when Paul hectored the Fed chairman for claiming that gold wasn't a form of money.
On Wednesday, about 80 men in their 20s — Ron Paul acolytes — lined up outside the hearing room for a chance to see more of the same. But Paul faded away with surprising deference.
"I have over the years obviously been critical of what goes on monetary policy, but it hasn't been so much the chairman of the Federal Reserve — whether it was Paul Volcker or Alan Greenspan or the current chairman," he explained. "I think they have a job that they can't do because it's an unmanageable job."
The one substantial challenge to Bernanke — Paul's "audit the Fed" bill, which the House is expected to approve next week before it dies in the Senate — was easily dispatched by the Fed chairman, who warned against injecting congressional politics into the staid field of monetary policy. Even Bachus distanced himself from the Paul bill, pointedly noting that it "did not come before the Financial Services Committee, which surprised me."
Paul didn't really argue with Bernanke; he used his time to deliver mini-lectures. In his first five-minute question period, he outspoke Bernanke eight words to one. Paul then got a second question period, yielded to him by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., in a development the chairman drolly described as "pleasantly unexpected." The Paul to Bernanke word ratio this time was 12 to 1.
Bernanke, arms folded in front of him, declined to be provoked. "There's no constitutional reason why Congress couldn't just take over monetary policy," he said. "But I'm advising you that it wouldn't be very good from an economic policy point of view."
Other than making this inarguable assertion — why would it be a good idea to give Congress another duty that it can mishandle? — the Fed chairman listened patiently to Paul, who took off his reading glasses, waved an arm in the air and recited from his greatest hits: Crisis! Printing money! Flawed system! Big government! He led Bernanke on a tour from the Bretton Woods agreement of 1945 to the latest developments in M1 and M2 money supply.
But ultimately, the congressman accepted that he would leave town with the Fed still alive and well. "We never change policy. We never challenge anything. We just keep doing the same thing," he lamented. "Congress keeps spending the money. Welfare expands exponentially. Wars never end."
At this point, the committee chairman cut him off. Paul's time had expired.
Dana Milbank still refers to "end the fed". Not sure he got the memo.
A different take on the hearings
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/186173/ron-paul-notes-that-the-fed-encourages-never-ending-war/
first part of the hearings on CSPAN3
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/186173/ron-paul-notes-that-the-fed-encourages-never-ending-war/
[YOUTUBEIF]XNAwGxQNIO8[/YOUTUBEIF]
first part of the hearings on CSPAN3
http://www.tscolumn.com/news/ron-paul-we-will-keep-going-until-we-have-victory/
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is just fine being one of three candidates left in the Republican primary race. ”There were 12 at one time. Now there are two,” Mr. Paul said at the Will Rogers Auditorium on Wednesday night, according to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “It looks like we are cutting the field down.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has all but secured the Republican presidential nomination after former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the race on Tuesday.
The Texas Republican, however, has not given up hope that his campaign can have a positive impact on voters. ”They ask me if I’m going to quit. I thought we were just getting started. We have a revolution to fight, a country to change,” Mr. Paul said.
Although choosing to run as a third-party candidate would severely cripple Mr. Romney’s ability to beat President Barack Obama in the general election, Mr. Paul has not ruled out a third-party bid. In fact, the former Air Force surgeon recently told Washington D.C.’s WMAL that he may look at the possibility of a third-party bid “after the votes are counted.”
“‘When are you going to drop out?’ When nobody wants to support the cause of liberty,” Mr. Paul told an enthusiastic crowd. “There’s a lot of people who care about freedom [...] so we will keep going until we have victory.”
Sunshine State News reports that Mr. Paul’s supporters are already petitioning for him to run as a third-party candidate.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is just fine being one of three candidates left in the Republican primary race. ”There were 12 at one time. Now there are two,” Mr. Paul said at the Will Rogers Auditorium on Wednesday night, according to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “It looks like we are cutting the field down.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has all but secured the Republican presidential nomination after former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the race on Tuesday.
The Texas Republican, however, has not given up hope that his campaign can have a positive impact on voters. ”They ask me if I’m going to quit. I thought we were just getting started. We have a revolution to fight, a country to change,” Mr. Paul said.
Although choosing to run as a third-party candidate would severely cripple Mr. Romney’s ability to beat President Barack Obama in the general election, Mr. Paul has not ruled out a third-party bid. In fact, the former Air Force surgeon recently told Washington D.C.’s WMAL that he may look at the possibility of a third-party bid “after the votes are counted.”
“‘When are you going to drop out?’ When nobody wants to support the cause of liberty,” Mr. Paul told an enthusiastic crowd. “There’s a lot of people who care about freedom [...] so we will keep going until we have victory.”
Sunshine State News reports that Mr. Paul’s supporters are already petitioning for him to run as a third-party candidate.
Former candidate ends campaign with call to arms. Interesting.
How would you fill the void? I wouldn't expect opportunists would wait and see what materializes. They'd walk on into the Stop-n-Rob (i.e. system) and fill their pockets with the stuff you intended to start anew. Might even burn it to the ground.
We'd have to have at least part of a system at the ready to hit the ground running when your neighbor across the street thinks his way, not yours is the right way.
How would you fill the void? I wouldn't expect opportunists would wait and see what materializes. They'd walk on into the Stop-n-Rob (i.e. system) and fill their pockets with the stuff you intended to start anew. Might even burn it to the ground.
We'd have to have at least part of a system at the ready to hit the ground running when your neighbor across the street thinks his way, not yours is the right way.
