So in the interest of being entertaining as well as factual, I'm going to explain exactly why I do not like this man and believe him to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The mentality of some Paul supporters is cult-like and disturbing. They seem to almost be in a trance repeating, "Liberty, Constitution, Freedom, Ron Paul, only real candidate," and then the copy and paste part comes in. You will see them quote to high heaven things about how great Ron Paul is. They present him as if he were some average man that believes in the Constitution. Okay. Great. His record and beliefs do not seem to match that, so how has this man been able to fly under the radar and sell his bag of goods? It's simple. People are complacent. People are stubborn and they lack some things called basics. Now, I will tell you I was never some brilliant student but there are a few things you sort of have to go to school and learn and this especially applies in college. Don't get me wrong, just because a person never went to college, it doesn't mean they are stupid or cannot understand some things, they just haven't learned some basics, so their overall aim is off.
There are many things we have to learn from science, mathematics, history, politics, etc., you know the drill. All of these disciplines require a balance. From this we learn that extremes can be used as limits of a full range but they are not considered part of the full equation. In fact, extreme values are completely eliminated before a standard is acquired. When it comes to politics, you must work within the center. Where that center is can be another story. Many times people interpret this point in many different ways and disagree as to where a society's "middle point" is. This explains why conservative presidents may act more liberal and a liberal candidate may be a little more conservative in their decision makings while in office. Therefore you must find a norm by weighing and comparing what seems to be resonating with the American public.
Ron Paul is not the norm or center of current American politics. He is extreme, dogmatic, and a legalistic. There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs but when they break outside to what is considered insanity, you can't help but wonder if his followers are just that - insane.
Here, I will list what it is I don't like about Ron Paul. Please don't get your undies in a bunch if you love Ron Paul. There's no reason to freak out and call names; it's not nice to do. I'm listing my reasons and that is all. Agree or disagree - I don't give a sh!t.
1) He believes in moral equivalency.
It’s one thing to have opposed U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to call for a significantly smaller military budget. Fine. But it’s despicable to assert, as Paul did Monday night, that “we’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries” (my emphasis), as if that were a useful explanation for 9/11. “We’re in 130 countries,” he added. “… if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves.”He has basically said it's our fault for 9/11, because we occupy too many nations, even nations that have asked for our help. To him, every intervention is wrong. It doesn't matter what the cause is for at all. Good thing we aren't in WW2. Not all interventions are equal. We are not terrorists.
For Ron Paul to make these suggestions is disgusting. It is the equivalent of telling a girl it's her fault she was raped because she wore a pretty dress. Not only that but many of Paul-bots cite information stating astonishing and grossly uncharacteristic numbers of Iraqis deaths. For example, someone on this blog tried saying 600,000 people killed, in reality, it could be 100k or as low as 30k. My guess is somewhere in between. 600,000 is absolutely loony toon to even repeat, yet these people repeat it as if it makes sense.
He is saying that there is no difference between what America does and what Jihadists do. Has appeasement ever worked? Many of my Paul supporter friends know damn well that appeasement is a joke yet, they will support Paul because it's like a cult-thing to do or something. I don't get it.
2) Ron Paul does not support Israel. He has proposed to stop foreign aid to our greatest ally in the Middle East. The money that we give them comes right back to us because they purchase military equipment from the USA. Why Paul wants to pull support from Israel is ridiculous. If we pull support and there is war, it is going to cost us so much more than if we just continue to support them and ourselves as we are doing now.
Apparently Ron Paul doesn't understand or he really is an anti-Semite. What is he trying to do? He's boldly claimed that it's no big deal if Iran seeks to have a nuclear weapon. Who's side is Ron Paul on? Again, absolutely insane! How are people duped by this?
3) Ron Paul presents himself as a man of the people, as if he's the Lemonade in a world of Pepsi and Coke. Look at the man - he's a career politician himself. He loves term limits - for everyone else! He hates big government - except for his constituents.
He will tell you that he's only trying to get money for his constituents so that they can get their fair share. Okay but, that's ALL politicians so where is he any different? Why does Ron Paul get a pass while other conservatives are tore apart by Paul supporters? What gives? Again, absolute lunacy to believe this man is any different. Give me a break!
4) Ron Paul's foreign policy is extremely LIBERAL, not conservative. Non-interventionism is what Ron Paul promotes. He claims he stands with the forefathers and believes in the Constitution but does he really stand with the forefathers? Or does he stand with far-left progressives?
Our founding fathers were indeed interventionalists. The US participated in wars for years and they believed in defending ourselves from foreign enemies, and to do so consistently.
The Founding Fathers placed tremendous emphasis on a strong foreign policy backed up by military readiness. Without exception, the first ten presidents of the United States had either conducted diplomacy abroad or had commanded troops in wartime prior to becoming President. In the early years of the republic, the national scene was dominated by debates about American diplomacy, and defense spending accounted for a majority of the national budget. Most Americans at that time were remarkably well-informed about international politics.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/the-founders-on-intervention-american-military-action-abroad-1783-1860/
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/06/in-the-service-of-liberty-understanding-american-military-actions-abroad-1783-1860/
Robert Taft is a well-known Republican that was a non-interventionist, and is noted for his standing of non intervention during World War 2. Of course his support changed after Pearl Harbor.
When pacifists are faced with having to protect themselves, some do the right thing and change their tactics. Others will dig their heels in and not give a rat's ass how it effects anyone else. Ron Paul is the latter and by supporting that type of foreign policy it shows an ignorance of how this world is connected. There is no such thing as non intervention. There is no such thing as isolationism. Stop pretending it exists because it's just not possible. We have the internet. We are connected. There is no such thing as the world in which Ron Paul has cooked up in his altered mind.
Overall, these policies are ones that are held by progressives, not conservatives. True to form, progressives live in a world that simply does not exist and thank G-d.
5) Ron Paul supports anti-Semites.
When pacifists are faced with having to protect themselves, some do the right thing and change their tactics. Others will dig their heels in and not give a rat's ass how it effects anyone else. Ron Paul is the latter and by supporting that type of foreign policy it shows an ignorance of how this world is connected. There is no such thing as non intervention. There is no such thing as isolationism. Stop pretending it exists because it's just not possible. We have the internet. We are connected. There is no such thing as the world in which Ron Paul has cooked up in his altered mind.
To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education.
-- Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul
Overall, these policies are ones that are held by progressives, not conservatives. True to form, progressives live in a world that simply does not exist and thank G-d.
5) Ron Paul supports anti-Semites.
A quick search on the internet will reveal many things that have been said about Ron Paul and his support for known anti-Semites. Think Obama and The Weather Underground. Sort of like that. Birds of a feather...as they say.
6) Ron Paul is a 9/11 Troofer. I've written about these folks before as well. Without directly stating he is one, there is no doubt he pushes the idea the government has covered up information concerning 9/11. Again, the far left is right there with him, pointing fingers, lying, "ends justify the means" data, yelling, hollering, acting like babies, proclaiming the 9/11 report was false and is evidence of a cover-up.
Check out what Michelle Malkin says. Sorry to say but in my experience with Troofers, they are also typically anti-Semites.
7) Paul and his supporters don't seem to like conservatives. Check out this quote from The American Spectator.
But anti-Semitism aside, perhaps the real key to understanding the decided left-leaning tendencies of neoliberals is their considerable dislike of… Conservatives.
You read that right.
Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with.
• Ronald Reagan: Here the late Paulist Murray Rothbard labels the conservative presidential icon as a "cretin," Reagan's two-terms in office described as "eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years."
• William F. Buckley, Jr.: The man who became the very gold standard of the American conservative movement is viewed as a "defacto totalitarian" here, again in another Rothbard selection from ex-Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell's site, a site for which Paul himself has written.
• Antonin Scalia: Justice Scalia is not only no conservative in Paulville, he is -- sitting down? -- "a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire." This gem was penned by ex-Paul chief of staff Rockwell himself.
• Sarah Palin: That's right. This business of Sarah Palin being a conservative, according to Rockwell, is just a ruse. In fact, Governor Palin is really a "double agent" for the "regime." From the same article as above. Oh yes… don't forget Governor Palin is quite possibly a "puppet" (as seen here by Jack Hunter, now the Paul campaign's "official blogger"). Oh, and Mr. Mulshine, the Paulist columnist? To him Palin is "just another whiny liberal claiming victimization."
• Edwin Meese: The former Reagan Attorney General beloved of conservative activists is described in Paulville as the "mouthpiece" for fascists.
• The Koch Brothers: The fascists for whom Ed Meese is the fascist mouthpiece? That would be the libertarian Koch brothers who, apparently, aren't libertarian at all in the eyes of Paulville. In Paulville, libertarian conservatives David and Charles Koch are said to be supporters of a "fascist regime." Same post as above. It is surely no coincidence that the Koch brothers were targeted earlier this year by the far-left hacking group Anonymous. As seen in this Politico story. Once again, the right/left neoliberal profile surfaces.
• Clarence Thomas: Dubbed part of a fascist "tag team" by Paul supporters. Why? Because Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justice Scalia, spoke at that gathering sponsored by those fascist Koch brothers. Where Ed Meese was covering as the mouthpiece for the fascists.
• Rush Limbaugh: Rush? Rush Limbaugh? That Rush Limbaugh isn't a conservative? Nope. Not in Paulville. In the eyes of Paulvillians the Rush Limbaugh so many millions of conservatives thought they knew and loved turns out to be a man with "Stalinist tendencies" -- aka a commie. Read all about it here.
• Sean Hannity: So OK, understanding that Sarah Palin is a double agent and a puppet and Rush is pulsing with Stalinist tendencies, surely Sean Hannity -- conservative talk show and TV host extraordinaire, author of the bestselling Conservative Victory -- surely Sean is a real conservative? Naaaaaaaaah. Not in Paulville. There our friend Sean is -- no kidding -- "evil" That's right. You read that right. Hannity is, quite seriously in the minds (?) of Paulville's neolibs, part of the "pantheon of warmongers that make up the true axis of evil." Once that is understood, this video of Ron Paul supporters literally chasing Hannity through the streets of New Hampshire in 2008 can be seen for the leftist intimidation it was intended to be. The fact that the video of Paul supporters chasing Hannity so closely matches this video of Wisconsin leftists chasing and trapping a Wisconsin Republican legislator is a chilling reminder of the commonality of the protestors involved.
• Mark Levin: Come on. So he wrote the bestselling conservative manifesto Liberty and Tyranny.8) Ron and I live in different worlds. Bottom line, it really boils down to how you really view the world. Do you believe that people are naturally evil and there is only so much, everything is limited, or do you believe in abundance in all you see, think, and feel?
I'm an optimist. I see abundance. Paul and his bots see limits all around them. They always are whining about funding. "How are we going to fund this?" They ask with the assertion that somehow they have got you in an "ah-ha" moment. How have we been funding it? Of course someone needs to come up with war bonds but the funding is the least of our worries. The value of the dollar has dropped and perhaps Paul has some points to be made when it comes to the economy, or does he? I've heard him in a video that claims it's illegal to have paper currency. He suggests we carry around gold and silver. Okay. Great idea. Let's have our money backed up by precious metals. Do you have any idea how many people would be up a sh!t hole if we did implement something like that? Nice idea but it was tried already and failed. Again, why does he want to try what already proved not to work?
A gold standard also creates economic volatility in the economy. Monetary theory is based on the elegant formula MV = PQ. Holding V (monetary velocity) constant, changes in money supply directly changes the GDP level. Under a gold standard, money supply is restricted by the supply of gold, based on world mine output. National gold supply could shrink because of shocks. As an example, the Roman empire was subjected to credit crunches during wartime when hostile forces captured Roman gold and territory.Of course that's just one guy I found on a quick search. I did take some economy classes back in the day but, I admit I'm not terribly schooled in this area. He also asks another interesting question:
How can someone who believes in free markets prefer government-mandated fixed rates, which create structural rigidities, to market-determined floating exchange rates, which allows the system to adjust to changes in real time?Well, I don't know. I guess you'll have to ask a Paul supporter. Again, Paul might sound interesting but his policies have nothing to do with freedom, they have more to do with radical left-wing views that restrict America's power and force in the world. Go ahead and read the whole article. It's a great read.
After all this, I'm actually convinced Ron Paul is just flat out dangerous for America. Realistically if he wins, he will not be able to pass all of his nonsense but, just the idea that such a man is even close to the president's chair is downright worrisome.
Sources: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/11/truth-about-ron-paul-delusional-power.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOV0qCW7nBA
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dick-morris-calls-ron-paul-the-most-liberal-radical-left-wing-person-to-run-for-president/
60 comments:
Okay,
Wow, where do I begin?
1. The “Basics. I’m not going to argue on the fact that you went to University and studied the basics of Science, Math and Politics. I think it’s a weak argument as; they are part of the problem. I’ve been studying philosophy, history, economics and politics for the past four years. I started with a few questions that led to more questions that led me to my conclusions. I wasn’t given a syllabus or an agenda. When I hear the word Paul Bots I take great offense but, I think that’s why you say it. To bully. To be mean. To make fun of us “weak minded” people. You compare us to a Cult! You leave me one of two choices to “back off” for fear of not fitting in with my “peers” or to stand up and take the time to defend MY position against this attack.
2. Philosophy is where it started. A dangerous tool that is rarely taught correctly in Schools. For me it started with Objectivism. This led me to Murray Roth bard, brief stop with Niche and a peek at Emanuel Kant. He I believe is the one who fucked everything up. The problem is that most Ron Paul supporters have become armed with philosophy. That is why they are so passionate about Liberty in general. See understanding philosophy led them to be aware of their surroundings. They look at things differently. So when our economy started to crumble, when new laws were passed that threatens our civil liberties, when Americans started losing their jobs, we started asking questions. Why did this happen? Could this have been prevented? History has the answer. Serious digging has taken years of research. The questions I started with were: what is a conservative? What is a Liberal? What is a libertarian? What is a Republican? What is a Democrat? What is money? How did gold go to paper money? What is the Federal Reserve? Who started it? Why did we get involved with WW1? WW2? The Korean War? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Why are we allies with Israel? The history of our relationship with Israel. All of these questions I answered. Without Ron Paul. The answers were out there.
3. Ron Paul happens to be the spokes person for Liberty. He did not create the message, our forefathers’ did. The TRUE conservatives are fighting to get our party back.
4. I’d be happy to have a healthy debate of any of your issues with Ron Paul, economics, history and of course philosophy. Ask me anything. PLEASE!
You can’t call us a Cult. We have supporters from all races, all ages, all religions, all branches of the Military, We have support globally. All different. All individuals. Liberty is not a bad word. It inspires. When you call us Robots you’re projecting. We sat and watched people crying and praising Obama as if he were a KING. He managed to convince the majority of American that he would save us. For the rest of us we were sick with the truth. We knew the lies he told us would lead us to ruin. So we started digging. I believe in Ron Paul because I’ve done my homework. So have most of his supporters. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t win this election. Once you arm yourself with the truth, the facts, nothing will change your mind. This war between Neo Cons and libertarians is a battle of philosophy. Nearly impossible to overcome. So I guess time will tell.
If you are as educated as you claim to be, how can not see Ron Paul as the sleazy snake's skin oil seller that he truly is. This man is no conservative and you are being duped big time. The founding father's were most certainly interventialists. The idea that we just put up a fort and ignored everyone is absurd. We were trading with countries and have always had interest in foreign affairs.
We've already tried the gold standard. Do you know and understand why it didn't work? Read the article that I linked to. Ron Paul's ideas are INSANE and FAR left.
If you support Paul, that's your business but know that you are being sold a load of crap cloaked in "Liberty, constitution, freedom, Ron Paul, I'm smarter; I win the debate."
Ron Paul is a career politician, just like all the others you claim to have such disdain for.
Ron Paul supporters ALSO hate conservatives. Read my post again since I cover all of these points.
There is something extremely cult like when you have people saying outrageous things like we killed 600k innocent Iraqis with a straight face, all so you can justify your insane idea of isolationism.
There is something cult-like when you have convinced people that we can somehow cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. This is lunacy in today's day and age and you believe this can actually happen?
You wonder why I call you Paul-bots? Come on. You folks have lost all sense of reality.
Let me just ask: Your son comes home from school with a black eye. You ask what happened and he tells you the class bully hit him. Do you call the bully and invite him over for tea and politely ask him why he hit your son and then make adjustments according to the direction of the bully? By the stuff you've posted, I gather that answer is yes.
Essentially, you believe that other countries should dictate our foreign policy. Then you wonder why people look at you as if you are on drugs? Oh, that's right, most of you ARE on drugs and this is why you want your marijuana to be legal.
*shakes head* I just cannot believe the stuff some folks actually seem to take seriously.
As far as my "basics" comment, I am in no way trying to come off as some smart ass that knows everything and I have never been some brilliant student. It's my charm and the fact that I've always been a class clown that people love about me. ;) That being said, there are some things I learned in college that I just could not have learned elsewhere. This doesn't mean that people are not capable of learning but that it seems they are lacking some basics, some important frames of reference.
To look at Ron Paul and see someone who is anything but out of his mind and off his rocker is a strong indication that a person is lacking in the "basics" department. That is why it is so shocking to me that anyone even supports him, unless of course they are dyed in the wool progressives.
Let’s take on your points one by one. I will have to make multiple post because my response is too long to be posted all at once.
1. Ron Paul does not believe in moral "moral equivalency" but simply puts forward the common sense assertion that the terrorists that perpetrated 911 were motivated by American troops being in Saudi Arabia and an trade embargo on Iraq that killed half a million Iraqis during the 1990s. The 911 Commission, the CIA, and much of our military agree with this. Do you really think that America having troops all over the Middle East has nothing to do with the motivation of terrorists? If he believed in "moral equivalency" he would not have voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. This moral equivalency argument is silly on its face.
2. The whole is Israel augment is completely dishonest if you just read a little bit of what Ron Paul has said about it but let’s look at it point by point. A) Foreign aid is not allowed under the constitution and as a conservative you should be against it. B) Foreign aid makes Israel MORE vulnerable because it makes them dependent on the United States. Remember in the 1990s when Clinton almost made Israel give up everything to the Palestinians? Such a move would have been a disaster for Israel’s self defense because she would have given up critical buffer zones. Do you think Israel would have given in to American pressure if they were not getting billions from the U.S.? Israel can't even attack an enemy country without permission of the U.S. and we supposed to believe that they are safer because of this? C) Ron Paul was one of the ONLY congressmen not to condemn Israel in the 1980s when they bombed Iraqi nuclear plants because Ron Paul supported Israel’s right to self defense. D) Israel’s enemies get more foreign aid than does Israel, Ron Paul wants to end all foreign aid, this would mean a net benefit for Israel! E) Your whole point about how Israel buys their weapons from the U.S. is complete nonsense if you just think about it for a little bit. Israel is buying their weapons from large weapons companies not the American people as a whole, so this is still a transfer of wealth from tax paying Americans to the military arms corporations. What ever jobs are created in the process, far more are destroyed somewhere else. Such an argument is Keynesian nonsense, and shame on conservatives for using it.
3. Your point about Ron Paul and ear marks is well known but once again a little thought has to go into this. Ron Paul has never voted for any of these bills. He says that if the federal government is going to steal money from his constituents then he thinks congress should decide how money is appropriated like the constitution says. If congress does not appropriate this money then the executive branch will spend it instead. Just a little research will show you that lobbyists don’t even stop by Ron Paul’s office because he stands firmly by his convictions. He even turned down disaster relief when a hurricane struck his district. Does this really sound like a person that is trying to buy votes or is a political insider?
4. Non-interventionist foreign policy is the conservative tradition and war making all around the world is the progressive tradition. This whole warfare wing of the Republican Party is relatively new. Let’s just look at the 20th century. It was a progressive Republican that sought to subjugate the Philippians. It was the progressive Woodrow Wilson that sought to make the world safe for democracy and dragged us into World War I, read Lusitania by Colin Simpson. It was the progressive FDR that tricked America into World War II against the will of the American right and the American people as a whole, read the Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett. It was also the American right the continued to advise against opening a European front and instead let the Nazis and Communists kill each other, if FDR took this advice we might have avoided a 50 year Cold War. You mentioned Robert Taft, he is considered one of the most important Republicans of the 20th century, maybe you should read what he wrote about war if you really cared about the conservative tradition. It was also the American right that was against Korea, read what Howard Buffet wrote about that war. It was Richard Nixon that campaigned and got us out of Vietnam and Ronald Reagan was against that war as well. You don't hear about that on talk radio but that is history. The truth is the anti-war right have a much stronger claim on the name “conservative” that stretches back into the 1920s while the National Review war wing of the party did not start rising to prominence until the 1960s. It is not because the Old Right was against war or were pacifists but it was because they knew that war paved the way for socialism at home. As Randolf Borne said “War is the Health of the State”
As far as the founding fathers and the beginning of America, yes many did support intervention and but many did not as well. Some even supported the Alien and Sedition acts that was clearly unconstitutional, so to say that all the founders followed the constitution perfectly once they were in office is naïve. They were different people with different opinions but if you look at which ones supported foreign interventionism the most, they were usually the big government types of their time to include Alexander Hamilton who no descent conservative would claim as one of their own.
5. You show a Ben Stein video and expect that because he thinks Ron Paul is anti-Semitic that he is? Ben Stein has no credibility and lost all of his money in 2008 because he is a Keynesian at heart. Here is a great video where Peter Schiff tells Stein exactly what happens but Stein refuses to listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZyvnWFbR84
Stein is in no way a real conservative at all except on social issues, why does anyone care what he says? Here is Walter Block, a Jew and a well respected economist on Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Q37qyfHZ1c
6. Ron Paul is not a “troofer” and any attempt to claim so is completely dishonest. As far as cover ups in the 911 commission report, this is true. Listen to Judge Napolitano, the head legal consultant for Fox News on that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4fb8KTLPio&feature=player_embedded
7. The American Spectator article you link to is a pure hit piece but I will touch upon the points listed one by one as well.
a) Murry Rothbard’s criticism about Reagan was that he was not conservative enough. How is this indictment of how Ron Paul is a Liberal? Reagan did after all create a huge federal deficient and failed on his campaign promise of reinstituting the gold standard and ending the department of education. Are we supposed to believe that Reagan was a perfect saint and that we can not question anything about him? Conservatives blame liberals for PC speech control but how is this any different if we can not even question Ronald Reagan a little bit about being too big government?
b) William Buckely himself openly claimed that he supported “totalitarian” governance at home to defeat the Soviets. Are we supposed to support this idea when Ben Franklin said “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” Once again, I guess we can never question Buckely because he founded the National Review?
c) Justice Scalia has supported the police state at the Federal level so what is so questionable about this statement. When the Supreme Court trashes the 4th amendment the people should speak out against it. Once again I fail to see how this is indictment of Ron Paul.
d) Sarah Palin? Are you really defending this intellectual light weight that claims that she can see Russia from her house? 20 years ago she would have been laughed off a stage but she somehow passes for a leader of the conservative movement today. This alone demonstrates how far the conservative movement has fallen. The fact is, most conservatives don’t like her except for those that warship her like some kind of strange identity cult that seems closer to North Korean style politics.
e) I don’t understand the point of this Edwin Maze. Are we supposed to believe that because LRC considers him part of corporate elite that rule the Republican Party that Ron Paul is a liberal or something? Once again Ron Paul did not write this but I guess this somehow reflects his views as well? Even if that was true, I don’t see how not liking establishment republicans as a bad thing?
f) Once again Ron Paul did not write this but who cares if the Ron Paul crowd does like the Koch brothers. I just heard one of their ads on the radio that Ben Nelson underfunded Medicare. I don’t like Ben Nelson but how is complaining about the reduction of Medicare a small government argument? The truth is that Koch brothers are political opportunists and libertarians have been complaining about their destructive influence for decades because their lack of support of the free-market. Once again, the libertarian complaint about the Koch brothers is they should be more free-market, so how does this make Ron Paul a liberal?
g) You don’t have a link to Clarence Thomas but once again their complaint about Thomas that you cite seems to be the same as Scalia, that he supports the police state. Libertarians, Constitutionalists and any conservative before George Bush for that matter are against the police state, so once again, how does this make Ron Paul a liberal?
f) I guess you should click on your own link here but it is not saying Rush Limbaugh is not conservative (even though I would contend that his understanding of free markets, central banking, trade imbalances, fractional reserve banking, and business cycle theory are either limited or non-existent). It is saying that he his using Stalin like tactics of discrediting the opposition.
g) Sean Hannity is not a conservative in any real sense of the word. He hardly questioned Bush at all when he doubled the size of the Federal government, or passed huge new Medicare entitlements. His understanding of the free-market is very limited as well and he does a very poor job at defending it. Hannity now claims that he was really critical of Bush when he was expanding the size of government but the truth is that he gave Bush a pass because he was a Republican.
h) Mark Levin. I could write a whole article on how this guy is not a conservative at all and would be closer to FDR, Stalin, or Mussolini. He supports the National ID act, where the hell is that in the constitution Mr. Levin?! Yea, I am sure the founders would have loved the idea of every citizen having their biometric information and RFID tags in their personal identification cards issued by the federal government! Give me a break. This is what the Soviets did when you had to have papers to go to place to place. If you want some info on how Tom Woods totally destroyed Levin in a constitutional debate check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmZeyaDsNss
Finally your remarks on the gold standard are the most clueless thing in the whole article. In fact, if you disagree with Ron Paul on everything else, you should still vote for him because of his support of the Gold Standard. In addition, conservatives throughout the 20th century have supported it the gold standard. These include, Ludwig Von Misses, Henry Hazlitt, Patrick Flynn, Carl Menger, Albert Jay Nock, Thomas Sowell, Murry Rothbard, Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, Fredrick Hayek, Walter Williams, Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, James Grant, Judge Napolitano, Barry Goldwater, and many many more. Every radio commentator tells about how awesome Fredrick Hayek was but they never tell you that he won the Noble Prize for his explanation of “Austrian Business Cycle theory” and was a staunch supporter of the Gold Standard. You can buy his book here http://mises.org/store/Denationalisation-of-Money-The-Argument-Refined-P567.aspx . The reason the country is heading towards economic collapse is because we are no longer on a gold standard. It was the progressives the stole the gold standard from the American people. Read Howard Buffet’s defense of the gold standard in 1948, http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf . This was the conservative argument of the day even though radio talk show hosts seem to have forgotten everything the right used to believe in. Read about Austrian Business Cycle theory if nothing else so you can protect yourself and your family against the Federal Reserve and its inflationary policies. http://mises.org/daily/672
First of all, I recommend reading Benjamin Baber, "Jihad Vs. McWorld." I think you need a fuller understanding of the Middle East because it's clear you are falling for this no-real-threat argument.
Ron Paul is most certainly a moral relativist. He believes in a very rigid dogma that states all intervention is wrong and has compared our soldiers to jihadists. By insisting we "understand" the terrorists and why they've committed acts of terror, he is advocating a foreign policy that is dictated by our enemies rather than our own country.
I suppose you support hate crime legislation as well?
Our forefather's were most certainly interventianailists, no not all but for the first several years we were in conflicts. These were also not all "declared war" in Congress.
--Ron Paul does not believe in moral "moral equivalency" but simply puts forward the common sense assertion that the terrorists that perpetrated 911 were motivated by American troops being in Saudi Arabia and an trade embargo on Iraq that killed half a million Iraqis during the 1990s. The 911 Commission, the CIA, and much of our military agree with this.--
I keep seeing this claim from you Paul-bots. I read that report. Where? Where does the 911 Commission report say such nonsense? Point that out for me.
The world does not exist in a vacuum and no we cannot cut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
The rest of your comment is mostly just nonsense and gross mis characterizations. You then attack honest and true conservatives who have served their country. True to Paul-bot form you turn on conservatives to claim how "constitutional" you are but really you are fighting for the enemy and working with the far left and people like George Soros.
Umm..another quote I absolutely hate from you troofers, I mean Paul supporters is the Ben Franklin quote of loss of liberty. If you would please learn some points of reference, you would know that at the time, he was talking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! He was NOT talking about the fricken patriot act or trying to defend ourselves from a foreign enemy! For goodness sakes -- CONTEXT!
You obviously are completely unaware of why the gold standard didn't work before and you apparently just want to ignore just how badly that would f@ck up so many people's lives in this country if we did do something like that now. The volatile market that would create would all but nail the coffin on America. Of course this is exactly what Ron Paul would love to see.
The rest of this is just more lunacy and attacking good conservative men so you can push forth the modern socialist/communist movement in the cloak of "liberty, constitution." I guess if you say it long enough, people really will believe it and the snake oil that Paul sells.
If you just think for a moment, you might be able to see how you are being duped but with your history being filled with half-truths and partial explanations, I can see where it would be hard for you.
Thank you for the comments.
Oh, and please don't even bother trying to tell me Paul isn't an anti-Semite. I posted the video of Stein and a note that explains a quick search on the internet will pull up a mountain of information on Paul endorsing and recommending reading by well KNOWN anti-Semites.
It's so obvious the man hates Jews. I don't understand why you folks just don't admit your hatred for Israel and the Jewish people. It's OBVIOUS.
1. I think I understand the middle east because I have served in an infantry platoon there.
2. Do you not think that Muslims see as crusaders? I have spoken to them, some do think that.
3. I do not support hate crime legislation because it is against the constitution and is a perversion of natural rights.
4. Here is a PDF of the 911 commission report, starts on page 48. http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
5. Please point out the nonsense and gross mis characterizations.
6. Do you really think that the patriot act is constitutional and does not violate the 4th amendment? It allows for warrant-less wiretapping and searching of homes? The 4th amendment was written to prevent precisely that. If they really wanted have a Patriot Act, they should have used a constitutional amendment.
7. Do you really think that Ron Paul is a socialist? Can you please point out how this some kind of secret communist take over of the republican party? Can people not have intellectual disagreements and not call the other side socialist without specification?
7. Almost all conservatives throughout the 20th century have been in favor of the Gold standard, have you read anything at all about it besides quotes by Keynesians?
To be honest right now I don't care if you don't like Ron Paul but please read some Fredrick Hayek so you can learn about the Gold Standard? Hint: the reason it did not work was because of government intervention.
Tuesday,
Can you explain to me why you think Ron Paul hates Jews?
Can you explain to me what the Gold Standard is?
Can you explain Why Ron Paul has more support from the military branch than any other GOP candidate?
Can you explain What Ron Paul's agenda is?
From your responses to these comments Im just not clear. I can say that it seems that your anger and hatred overpowers your logic. This person makes some valid points. Will you address them further? FYI I know personally, several Jewish supporters of Ron Paul. What would you say to them? Your saying that Ron Paul supporters hate JEWs? WHY? Seriously WHY? Prove it. With facts. FACTS.
O yea, Ben Franklin's giving up Liberty for Security quote is completely valid, here is a PDF of Franklin's Memoirs. The quote is on page 276, 16 lines down.
http://books.google.com/books?id=W2MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270t#v=onepage&q&f=false
He gave the line at the Massachusetts assembly to initiate war with Britain. He had a similar line "Poor Richards Almanack" saying "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." but this has nothing to do with what he said at the Massachusetts Assembly.
Your man Paul recommends readings from well known Anti-Semites and I provided the link in the above post. I can only hash over this so much. For goodness sakes did you bother to READ my post? Had you, you would have all this information and all your questions answered. Ron Paul being an anti-Semite has been around for YEARS. Where the hell have you been?
A gold standard would restrict the amount of money and absolutely destroy the poor and many of the middle class. How do you not see that? How many poor people you know walking around with bars of gold and silver? Paul doesn't even advocate carrying around paper currency. I have taken economics and the gold standard doesn't work. You are just repeating what you are told by Ron Paul. You need to THINK for yourself and not just regurgitate what he has said.
A gold standard would just make business cycles more extreme, according to co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, Nouriel Roubini.
What's more, a gold standard would make central banks unable to fight inflation or deflation, much less do anything to combat persistent unemployment, Roubini said in an interview with NetNet yesterday.
"A fixed exchange regime, even if it is not a gold standard… that world just doesn't work. Because in that world, monetary policy by definition instead of being countercyclical becomes procyclical," Roubini told NetNet. "Suppose you have a fixed exchange rate regime...it just exacerbates the business cycle."
Do you not understand the rigidity that would put on the economy? THINK about it. Don't just repeat like a parrot what you are told. A little common sense can go a long way!
Advocating for the gold standard is class warfare in disguise
According to Grant, under a gold standard, “If you didn’t like the currency you could exchange it for shiny coins”. Isn’t that the current situation? Are not the citizens of most countries now free to exchange their paper currency for gold just by visiting the closest jeweler? Presumably, he meant that under a gold standard, one could rely on the central bank to store gold, thereby making it cheaper to own gold by socializing the storage and security costs. In fact, hard currencies in general has the effect of subsidizing the moneyed classes, making sure that the store of wealth they have built up does not erode with time, and allowing them the luxury of not having to tend to their vast stores of wealth and outsourcing that expense to the central bank. While I think that the rich are entitled to their wealth because they have worked hard to obtain it, I do not think that the costs of preserving the real purchasing power of that wealth should fall on the shoulders of the public. The rich should pay their own portfolio managers and build their own security vaults at their expense to safeguard their wealth.
A gold standard is also an under-handed way to shift economic power into the hands of the moneyed classes. Advocating for a gold standard is basically advocating for deflation. Almost all of the major gold deposits in the world has been mined, and by Grant’s own admission, negligible increases to the world gold supply occurs each year through mining, while increasing amounts of gold are consumed in industrial applications as more uses are found for gold. In the meantime, the amount of goods and services in the economy constant rises due to improvements in technology and efficiency. Committing to a gold standard means committing to a declining monetary base and deflation, making debts heavier in real terms, and shifting the balance of power towards those with the money to lend, and away from the people who need to borrow.
http://www.blogvesting.com/2010/11/15/why-the-gold-standard-is-bad/
Is that what you want? Screw the poor? Really? This is class warfare. Hello?? Communist 101.
Keynes is widely considered to be one of the founders of modern macroeconomics, and to be the most influential economist of the 20th century.[4][5][6][7] In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."[8] In addition to being an economist, Keynes was also a civil servant, a director of the Bank of England, a patron of the arts and an art collector, a part of the Bloomsbury Group of intellectuals,[9][10] an advisor to several charitable trusts, a writer, a philosopher, a private investor, and a farmer.
Did you catch that? SAVED capitalism. Why? Because you cannot apply a finite amount of wealth and expect the poor to survive. You would shrink the market and put it through crunches that even the Roman Empire could not sustain.
You support a government-designed, government-run, and government-enforced gold standard. Yet you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face (I'm assuming), that you support less government? Ha!
You cannot even pick up on your circular logic and this is why I feel you lack some "basic" information about many different things. This is why you are supporting a man who has clearly exposed himself as a fraud. Why do you think SO many prominent conservatives see him as flat out crazy? Oh, that's right, all of them are evil neo-cons and ONLY Ron Paul is good. Are you even listening to yourself!?!? Really???
"When you had a traditional gold standard, boom and bust with severe swings in economic activity were the norm—really big ones. It was only once we moved to fiat money that central banks were able to smooth the business cycle, and make it less volatile, as we did during the financial economic crisis," Roubini said.
Again, you need to THINK for yourself. The very idea just doesn't make any sense.
There is chatter on the fringes of the Establishment about the reintroduction of a gold standard. The gold standard they promote is not the pre-World War I gold coin standard. That standard drastically reduced government power over money, but it was always a compromise with government power. The governments of Europe revoked that standard when the war began. They played around with a government-run, central bank-run version in 1922: the gold exchange standard. The final revocations of the gold coin standard took place in 1931, when England went off the gold coin standard, and 1933, when the United States did.
There are gold coins and counterfeit gold coins. Similarly, there are gold standards and counterfeit gold standards. When dealing with gold coins or theories of a gold standard, I suggest that you adopt a slogan from 1950s advertising: "Accept no substitutes!"
Here is the real thing: a free market standard without any government involvement – no mint, no central bank, no legal tender laws, no printing presses, no warehouse receipts, no "free" storage. Just this: laws against fraud and laws enforcing contracts. That system will produce a gold coin standard for large transactions and a silver coin standard for smaller ones. The users can decide what they want to use as money. The ruling elites will no longer be allowed to counterfeit, confiscate, or manipulate money.
When an economist who defends this system wins the Nobel Prize on the basis of his defense, we will know that our deliverance draweth nigh. If the prize is awarded in gold coins, we have entered the Golden Age.
~Gary North
Still not sure why this is hard to comprehend but, this is why Ron Paul-bots are not thinkers. They repeat what they are told without applying logic and understanding. They ignore any fact that is contrary to what the are told to say. In essence, they believe in a religion that is dogmatic, rigid, and extreme. This is liberalism at its finest.
Ben Franklin was talking about liberty = PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!! Again, you are mischaracterizing things in order to justify your silly nonsense and, people who have studied history know what Franklin was trying to say. You damn right I support the Patriot Act and in case you forgot there have been suspensions of rights before when it comes to protecting this nation. Please list one incident where an average citizen with no ties to al-Queda has had their rights violated. Quit drumming up your scare tactics -- another tool of the left.
I could go on and on...what you have posted is just flat out silly and misinformed. It scares me that there are people that believe this stuff. I have friends that do and it worries me. Oh well.
Have a good one! I've made my case and I've certainly addressed the other concerns that you continue to repeat but it's clear your interest is not imputing any information that does not reflect your warped view of the world.
You are being duped and the sad part is, we probably agree on a lot of issues. Please give the real conservatives a chance, don't bash them because they don't believe in Paul. They recognize him for who he is - a tool of the left.
There will always be self-hating Jews. Look at Hollywood.
Let me explain how an intellectual argument is made. When you say that "recommends readings from well known Anti-Semites" you should list which Anti-Semites he recommends and then cite your source. To just post a link and make an obscure claim that "recommends readings from well known Anti-Semites" is not how any educated person should make an argument. When you list the people that Ron Paul has recommended, I will respond to your post. As a history major, this is how things are done. As a veteran, I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, I have one on my desk right now. Maybe you should listen to veterans who have actually served overseas instead of just putting a yellow ribbon on your car and loudly proclaiming that you support the troops.
Furthermore, If I recommend a book by Henry Ford does this make me an Anti-Semite? You will probably not respond to that question like so many others I have asked but you should think about it.
This is what I mean by mischaracterization. You made it sound like the 9/11 report was saying the US admitted that we were attacked because of our intervention. This is talking about what Bin Laden thought. I don't give a rat's ass what Bin Laden thought. The man is a murderer! What part of that do you not get?
YOU said: that the terrorists that perpetrated 911 were motivated by American troops being in Saudi Arabia and an trade embargo on Iraq that killed half a million Iraqis during the 1990s. The 911 Commission, the CIA, and much of our military agree with this.
Agree with this? This is an implication that the US is admitting that we were the instigators. This report is saying what BIN LADEN said. It has nothing to do with AGREEING with him! This is a disgusting lie and you should be ashamed. That is exactly what I mean by you mischaracterizing stuff. It's all half truths!
This is why Ron Paul and your ilk are just flat out dangerous. You repeat these insane things as if they are true but when you actually go to the source, you discover that it's all hyperbole and misinterpreted or just flat out lies.
Again. Please stop repeating like a parrot what Alex Jones has told you to say. You think I haven't heard the SAME stuff before? It's like talking points with you. No real in depth analysis. You say you support the constitution but how can you support policies that would require more and more government? Why do you not support fervently protecting our country?
The sad part is, you really do not see the consequences if you really were to implement these policies. You have clearly read some theories but you have not studied implications of modern times. There is a huge difference. First you learn a subject forwards, and then you must learn to think backwards. I fear you lack the latter in your understanding.
A little common sense and some optimism will suit you well. Thank you for your service and your comments.
You claim to have done your research on Ron Paul, that you know all there is about him but you don't know he supports anti-Semites? You've just made my point exactly. Thank you.
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul supports calls for the abolishment of Israel as a Jewish state, and the return of it in its entirety to the Arabs, though he is not an anti-Semite, a former senior aide of the libertarian Texan congressman wrote in a blog on Monday.
“He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all,” Eric Dondero wrote in his blog on the RightWing News website. “His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/ron-paul-is-not-anti-semitic-but-is-anti-israel-former-aide-says-1.403805
Oh, the tax money that comes right back to us? Fricken idiot!
‘Mischief Maker’ Ron Paul’s Rise in Polls Comes From Democrats & Independents
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/mischief-maker-ron-pauls-rise-in-polls-comes-from-democrats-independents/
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because he's NOT a conservative? Oh, that's right, I'm just a stupid neo-con.
Ron Paul Refuses to Disavow Stormfront, Other Anti-Semitic, Racist Groups Openly Campaigning for Him
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/45537/ron-paul-refuses-to-disavow-stormfront-other-anti-semitic-racist-groups-openly-campaigning-for-him/
Ron Paul’s Base of Support: Not Republican
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/27/ron-pauls-base-of-support-not-republican/
Because he's a tool of the left. Wake up!
You know what's really sad is that Ron Paul has attacked more conservatives than liberals and yet you think he's conservative?
Sean Hannity for example, I happen to know is a stand up kind of guy. I know someone that knew him for some time while working at Fox News. I have heard from other circles what an amazing character he truly is and to hear people say such vile things about him and say that he is not a conservative is just sad to me.
The right is always being divided by these crazy loons and yet many still do not see how it's the left that has work in implementations to destroy us from within. To allow Ron Paul to divide us and to fall for his lies and half truths makes me a sad American.
If you really love this country, as I pray you do, I hope you continue to study and learn that Paul is NOT on our side.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/ron-paul-to-the-left-of-obama-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. And then think about it again. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water, can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the driver's seat on national defense?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2828009/posts
The task force's proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence, reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers, canceling the Joint Strike Fighter. "Severely curtail missile defense". and that is a direct quote from the report. Retiring four Marine battalions. Reducing the military by 200,000 personnel. Cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years. And increasing health care fees for members of the military.
You're in the military and you support this guy? Are you sure about that decision?
But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over America's defense policy. There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didn't know and didn't bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job he's running for. There's another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didn't care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the "American Empire" with Soros. But there's also a third possibility.
During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups.
I'm not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of America's defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.
I understand your comment about a formal debate in which I am to list every source and citation. Lovely. This is NOT a formal debate and I assume that the person reading my blog is fairly intelligent and someone who likes to engage in political discussions. This is a blog. I am not, nor to I claim to be some Rhodes scholar. I am an ex-club kid, former professional student, goofy class-clown, improv comedian actress, full on dork that happens to be interested in politics, economics, religion, spirituality, Christianity, my country, science, mathematics, physics, history, and anything else...I know a little of everything and a whole lot of nothing.
Trust me, I have passion but, I am simply one in millions with a blog and big mouth. I don't take myself so seriously, hence I don't consider this a FORMAL debate.
FYI, I did get an A+ in my debate class. It's the only one I got in college. LOL! I know how to do a FORMAL debate but, again, this is just a blog so, get over yourself, as I have.
Sooo let me get this straight, you are a Keynesian? Everything that Obama has done is Keynesian, the stimulus, the bail outs, everything. John Maynard Keynes is the Progressive hero. Can you find any prominent conservative that supports Keynes and his ideas? I don't get it, you think you are educated? Every conservative talk radio show host hates Keynes, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, they all hate Keynes but you think Keynes was great?
This is liking talking to a child, how do you have a debate with someone that does not even understand what their own conservative heroes support? You cite the progressive Time Magazine as a source but neglect what conservative publications say about Keynes? You like reading the American Spectator, why don't you see what they say about Keynes on their website? Do you think National Review has anything good to say about Keynes?
Last thing, is that Gary North article supposed to be against Ron Paul? because it seems to prove my point.
Here you go again with the false dichotomies. Just because a guy has a good explanation for the problems of the gold standard doesn't mean I support everything else the man does and says. Where would you come up with such nonsense? Why are you so rigid?
Limited thinking.
What prominent conservatives are proposing a gold standard? I have not heard one candidate but Ron Paul propose a gold standard. There have been ones that have hinted at it but that is to reign in spending on Congress, which should occur! That doesn't mean that they support radical change the way Paul does.
You have conveniently chose to ignore what a gold standard would do to the poor and middle class. Doesn't that concern you at all?
You want the government to set all the standards, apply a rigid and finite amount of money, spending all of our money of mining gold and storing and protecting it. Have you any clue how much more government will be needed for such nonsense????? Have you even put any thought to this? Seriously, this has to be a joke.
Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are two that have regularly hosted for Rush Limbaugh when he is gone. Frederick Hayek is a hero of all talk Radio show hosts and he supported the gold standard. Hell, Glenn Beck pushed Hayek's book "Road to Surfdom" to number one 50 years after it has been published. Glenn Beck and the rest of the talk radio show hosts consider Hayek one of the best economists of the century. Gary North, who you posted earlier supports the gold standard. Almost all of the conservative intellectual heavy weights have supported the gold standard in one way or another. Go to mises.org if you want to read more about it.
Ronald Reagan even campaigned on returning to the Gold standard. The conservative tradition and its high regard for a gold standard stretches back for more than 50 years.
Keynes whole purpose of getting rid of the gold standard was to allow the government the ability to inflate. Obama is Keynes incarnate. If you dislike the president's policies than the gold standard would be the strongest bulwark against such policies. Keynes and Hayek are polar opposites just like the gold standard is the polar opposite of Obama and large government
Your comment about the poor and the middle class is a progressive and big government argument and not true. Deflation helps the middle class, from 1870 to 1900 the U.S. had much deflation and it was the strongest period of economic growth in American history. INFLATION is what hurts the poor and middle class because it is a transfer of wealth to the rich. You have it exactly backwards.
Once again, read about the gold standard on mises.org. There are thousands of conservative PHD economists all around the world the support the gold standard.
What is it Reagan said? "It's not that the liberals/democrats don't know anything; it's that they know so much that just isn't true."
"You want the government to set all the standards, apply a rigid and finite amount of money, spending all of our money of mining gold and storing and protecting it. Have you any clue how much more government will be needed for such nonsense?????"
Well, yes I do. We did it for over 200 years so we know exactly how much government we needed for such costs. In fact when we had a true gold standard the government was 1% the size it is today. The government going off the gold standard is directly correlated with the growth a big government today.
O great Reagan quotes!
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
-- Ronald Reagan
More Reagan stuff
Reagan was for sound money ie "gold"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjpT1qMC7Pk
There is nothing wrong with wanting to change economic policy as it reflects the oscillating changes of the market. This is what I meant by finding a BALANCE of government involvement vs. a totally free market. At equilibrium, both of these thrive and survive. I also have no problem tipping that balance slightly over to the side that represents the entrepreneurial class.
The perceived superior virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability. But because economies under the gold standard were so vulnerable to both real and monetary shocks, prices were highly unstable in the short run. Not coincidentally, since the government could not have discretion over monetary policy, unemployment was frequently higher during the gold standard years.
Finally, any consideration of the pros and cons of the gold standard must include a very large negative: the resource cost of producing gold. Milton Friedman estimated the cost of maintaining a full gold coin standard for the United States in 1960 to be more than 2.5 percent of GNP. In 2005, the cost would have been about $300 billion.
Bottom line, it doesn't work unless you want all the wealth to move to one area. Meanwhile the poor will be stealing bits of gold from one another in the hopes they can feed their families but hey, the gold standard is great! I'm such a stupid neo-con!
I find it ironic that some who like to think of themselves as “conservative patriots” are advocates of a system that would export the control of our nation’s money system to foreigners.
[This is article 1 of 3 in this week’s portion of my nonpartisan “Ironies” series, a diverse array of criticisms, distributed evenly and fairly among an inclusive list of ideologies—liberal, conservative, and nondenominational—to achieve my Diversity and Inclusion goals for 2007.]
Hey, I like gold coins just as much as the next person; they’re shiny, they don’t tarnish, the artwork is beautiful, and they just feel valuable sitting there in my hand. But that does not mean that I think the gold standard would be a good basis for our monetary system. I think it’s a really bad idea. That irritates some who think of themselves as conservative, or patriotic, or fiscally responsible—and there are more than a few politicians in that group.
Although I haven’t found many economists, of any ideology, who think the gold standard is a good idea for today’s economy, I have seen internet forum after internet forum packed with participants who do. Even though most economists understand both the economic inadvisability and the political impossibility of a return to the gold standard, that message hasn’t yet reached the status of common knowledge. With this article, I’m giving that message a boost, I hope.
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/01/stubborn_irony__3.html
~Well, yes I do. We did it for over 200 years so we know exactly how much government we needed for such costs. In fact when we had a true gold standard the government was 1% the size it is today. The government going off the gold standard is directly correlated with the growth a big government today.~
Good. You just admitted you like big government. Step 1.
The government going off the gold standard is why government is big today. This means that people that like gold want a small government. Keynesians like you want a big government.
O you are not for a totally free market? Well I guess that you can find a lot of common ground with Obama.
Step 1. Neo-cons are not for the free market, they are for government intervention.
Assume we were on the gold standard today—even though 90% of the world’s gold is produced by foreigners, and even though a significant portion of the known gold deposits are controlled by Russian and South African goldmine owners. What if the Russian, South African, and other goldmine owners, colluding with their political leaders, decided their countries could deal the US economy a big blow—thereby gaining a significant relative advantage in international trade and power—if they restricted or cutoff their gold production? How would our gold-standard economy respond to a “Gold Embargo”?
Neo-cons believe in free markets but they also believe in mild intervention when it comes to protecting people. Do you want slaughter houses to pick up dust and fingernails and put them in your sausages? Umm...NO. Some government protections have been wonderful, while others are not so good and have provided restrictions on growth. It is a conservative who have been active in weeding out those that are wasteful, while supporting those that have provided value like -- oh, the MILITARY.
I have listed a ton of economists but apparently you have not read any of them. Market shocks were do to fractional reserve banking, meaning that central banks would lend out more gold than they had. This was not a fault of the gold standard but of government. Once again read a book about the advantages of the gold standard. If Ronald Reagan liked it maybe you should take a look at the gold standard as well.
I am firmly convinced if Milton Friedman was alive today he would be for the gold standard because of the inability of politicians to control inflation at less than a 2% rate that he recommended. Milton Friedman was also wrong on his understanding of gold mining costs because gold is mined anyway by private companies, gold being used as currency would not change mining costs that much when we look at history. The rate of gold mined is about 2% a year both before and after the gold standard. Gold itself is commodity that is in demand so the mining cost argument does not make sense if the same amount of gold is mined whether we are on a gold standard or not.
How would gold give an advantage to foreign countries when we have by far the largest stockpile in the world?
O I am in the MILITARY! But good for you for supporting it. Maybe if you listened to people in the military you understand more than you do now.
...and you want to give foreigners complete control over our country. Smart.
I have listened to people in the military. The certainly don't sound like you but, you seem to think so highly of yourself that you believe you represent ALL of the military. Another liberal trait.
We do NOT have the largest stockpile in the world. What planet are you on?!?! Who told you this nonsense. Private companies mining gold, eh? Are you suggesting that a gold standard would not elicit an immediate subsidizing of mining? Hello? Can you say MORE GOVERNMENT?
Again, you clearly have read theories but fail to see how they apply and how they would apply in today's modern economy.
~Market shocks were do to fractional reserve banking, meaning that central banks would lend out more gold than they had. This was not a fault of the gold standard but of government.~
Oh, of course it had nothing to do with the gold standard! Are you kidding me!?
You won't have a job is Ron Paul is elected. He wants to cut the military drastically.
Well, maybe you should look at what candidate is getting the most military donations? Maybe you should think about who has the most to lose by propping up corrupt governments? Maybe you should join and see how the rules of engagement end up killing American soldiers and Marines. Maybe you should think about whether you want American's dying for foreign countries or for our country. Maybe you should think about how corrupt Iraqi bureaucrats ordered around American soldiers for eight years for whatever political ends that suited them. Maybe you should think about how our soldiers and Marines die for the Iraqi democracy as they throw rocks at us.
This is absolutely perfect:
As stated, the most adamant proponent in the current GOP field of candidates for president is Ron Paul (big surprise). In various speeches, he has listed a number of reasons why he believes we should re-implement the Gold Standard– all of them wrong. To name just a few:
Congress “should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold”. Commodities, almost by definition, are not stable. The price of gold looks as if it used to be stable, because the dollar was fixed relative to an ounce of gold. But this does not mean that its value relative to other economic goods was unchanged. For instance, you could fix your currency to the price of a bushel of oats, and suddenly “oats purists” would be swearing that oats are the only reliable, stable commodity in the world whose price never changes. That would not stop fluctuating oat supplies from whipshawing your economy back and forth. Now, to be fair, the supply of gold changes more slowly than the supply of oats. But demand for either is nothing vaguely resembling “fixed”.
Fiat money inflation “also benefits big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state”. This is an extraordinarily primitive view of the money supply. The Federal government is not Caesar cutting his denarii with lead. The revenues from SEIGNIORAGE even on 4% inflation are trivial. The Federal government gets the money for the “welfare-warfare” state just where it says it does: by taxing the hell out of your wages.
American exporters are whipshawed by our fluctuating currency. Unless “Dr. Paul” has plans to put the entire world back on the gold standard–which would require the kind of powerful international organization, of which he claims to be so “John Birch” suspicious, or invasion–our currency will still fluctuate relative to others even if we were on the gold standard. Every time the price of gold changes in other country, American exporters would either be helped or hurt by a change in the relative prices of their goods. Therefore, the gold standard would shelter exporters from currency fluctuations only in their trade with other countries on the gold standard. Currently? There are no other countries on the gold standard!
The Federal Reserve destabilizes the economy with its “boom and bust” monetary policy. This is hard to reconcile with the fact that the longer the Federal Reserve has been in existence, the more stable the economy has been. Dr. Paul apparently believes that there was no business cycle in the 19th century; however, what we DO know, is that recessions were much longer and deeper before America had a central bank.
Americans don’t save enough because they’re afraid inflation will erode their savings. This is absolutely insulting to our intelligence and has no basis in fact. Moderate inflationary expectations are built into the interest rates that banks offer. After thirty years of stable monetary policy, a good portion of the population doesn’t even remember high inflation, and the ones that do are mostly retired and spending down their savings. Americans don’t save because . . . well, have you tried to tell your 15 yr-old that the world won’t end if they are the only one in school that doesn’t have the iPhone 4? Besides, we’ve been carpet-bombed since birth that consumption is our birthright. The day after 9/11 George W. Bush’s advice to the nation was “go to the mall.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/01/yet-another-gop-folly-return-to-the-gold-standard-and-how-it-would-destroy-the-u-s-economy/
The only thing I think about is how we have failed to pass on the real values that made the great generation -- great. I think about how sad it is that you have such an eroded view of our country and your role in protecting our nation. Ron Paul has contributed to hurting the morale of our troops and using them as a pawn to further his sick, leftist agenda. I support you and what you do. I respect you, if indeed you are military, (let's face it, this IS the internet). I can only hope that you understand what it is you are really supporting. I think you are completely negating what implementation of this man's belief would actually entail. With some extra thought, I'm positive you will see the folly of your original belief of Paul.
Marx was just another “gold bug” like today’s Ron Paul!
Congratulations, you agree with Karl Marx. Yeah, you just love the Constitution, don't ya?
What's even more funny is the economists that you listed pretty much all came to the conclusion that gold standard is not practical. You list Reagan as a proponent of the gold standard but after he had the issue reviewed by self described proponents of the gold standard, the final ruling was that it would NOT work and Reagan abandoned the issue.
Once AGAIN you are either just ignorant or unaware of what many economists propose and most of them do not support the gold standard. They have theories of the gold standard that they support but a continuing read of their writings will show you that they realize it is entirely impractical, especially since NO other country has applied the gold standard.
Let me try and break it down to an easy formula. Let's say the government has 100 dollars worth of gold and they print 100 dollars. Then, an influx of gold occurs through mining and another 100 dollars of gold is now available, now we have 200 dollars worth of money that is backed by the gold standard. After a month, the value of gold drops because no more gold is discovered for that time period and the value goes down to our gold being worth 100 dollars again but, you have 200 dollars in the economy. So 100 dollars is NOT backed up by the gold standard. Do you get it now? It doesn't work! That was the problem before and that is why it will never work. I am trying to explain this in the most simplest terms so that you can understand. If you still do not, well what can I say? Voluntary ignorance is a sad state of mind.
Again, you need to be careful and FULLY study what economists have said, rather than just taking bits and pieces of theories that agree with your talking points you get from Ron Paul.
Another FOLLY from you. I can't help but point all of them out because it is clear you know nothing of what you speak of:
Forced to choose between two conflicting principles, Hayek made the wrong choice, opting for defense of the gold standard rather than for stabilizing nominal GDP. He later changed his views, disavowing support for the gold standard as early as 1943 in a paper (“A Commodity Reserve Currency”) in the Economic Journal (reprinted as chapter 10 of Individualism and Economic Order) and reaffirming his opposition to the gold standard in The Constitution of Liberty (p. 335).
Ms. "Tuesday",
Thank you for trying but have you not learned the Pauliwogs,(they don't like to be called Paulbots, and Pauliwogs fits the metaphor of those squiggly little things that all swim together), first and foremost must submit to a frontal lobotomy, removing their abilities to reason or think logically? You can use history and the proper context of any given fact, and they can only distort it to conform to their talking points they learn from the mother ship.
I read a lot of Hyak, Bastait, Adam Smith, Von Mises, et al. and have my reservations concerning Paul's interpretation thereof. I'v read the Wealth of Nations, (twice) and The Law of Nations by Vattel as well. I am not college educated (thank God in many aspects) but am a true autodidact.
The problem indeed lies in a very "cult like" mindset by Ron Paul's followers. They follow a self righteous, self proclaimed "Messiah of the Constitution" which is a slap in the face to all those that have gone before, to his current colleagues and to every intelligent and patriotic mind that studies and believes in the Constitution as much if not more than Ron Paul. It is nothing short of unmitigated gall and outlandish audacity.
Thanks for trying, but they are the only "enlightened ones". Just ask them, they will tell you so. LOL.
Keep the faith and good luck.
Sincerely,
Lavon Wiggins Jr.
Oh wow! I love your post Lavon! You are spot on. Thank you!
Their views are totally rigid and unfortunately they only know how to argue by making absurd false dichotomies. If you don't support Ron Paul - you have not read the constitution, or you do not stand for freedom and liberty. If you support a Republican you are a neo-con that loves war. Ugh...how are people supposed to respond to such absurdities without laughing at how stupid that is to insinuate? There is no in between with them.
They will quote things from years ago and take them completely out of context.
You are so right. I think most people see how cult-like it has become with Paul supporters, i.g. Pauliwogs (I love it!). They just repeat their talking points and everyone that may challenge their views is considered stupid.
Post a Comment