Ron Paul's On the State of the Economy: "Be Prepared For The Worst"

[Vicious]

Ron Paul is a windbag. With globalization what he proposes would set America back and destroy us.

[Ken]

Ron Paul is a windbag. With globalization what he proposes would set America back and destroy us.

Globalization is the exact problem.

Until you understand that, there is no helping you.

[Mad Mike]

While quoting a science fiction author is very powerful stuff....:doh:

At least I know the difference between fiction and reality ...Mr conspiracy. :hysterical:

I prefer a true statemen's view on topics as they pertain to this thread....

You mean like Alexander Hamilton?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/51287.Alexander_Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, a Founding Father, economist, and political philosopher. He led calls for the Philadelphia Convention, was one of America's first Constitutional lawyers, and cowrote the Federalist Papers, a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:YEFzynz86AMJ:www.alexanderhamiltonexhibition.org/about/Sylla%2520-%2520Federals%2520Revolution.pdf+Alexander+Hamilton+quotes+on+Central+Bank&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Hamilton knew this financial history, and absorbed the lessons it

taught about the relationship of modern financial systems to national

power and economic prosperity. Months before the Yorktown cam-

paign in 1781, while serving as General Washington’s aide-de-camp,

Hamilton wrote a letter of advice to Robert Morris, who had just

become the u.s. superintendent of finance. “‘Tis by introducing order

into our finances—by restoring public credit—not by gaining

battles,” Hamilton wrote, “that we are finally to gain our object.”

Banks, he went on (at a time when America had no banks), were

the happiest engines that ever were invented for advancing trade.

Venice, Genoa, Hamburg, Holland, and England are examples of

their utility. They owe their riches, commerce and the figure they have

made . . . to this source. Great Britain is indebted for the immense

efforts she has been able to make in so many illustrious and successful

wars essentially to that vast fabric of credit raised on this foundation.

‘Tis by this alone she now menaces our independence.2

At the time, the War of Independence had dragged on for six long

years. Congress had no power to tax; it could only requisition money

from the states, which often did not comply. Money borrowed could

not be repaid, making further borrowing problematic to impossible.

Continental paper currency had become worthless, and the soldiers

in the Continental Army were poorly supplied and ill equipped.

Hamilton saw that the way out of the mess required financial

reform, which he reasoned would only be possible with fundamental

political reform, that is, a new constitution. Pending that, he recom-

mended several financial reforms to Morris and other national

leaders. They included sound public finances (tax revenues to pay

public expenses including the army, as well as interest on old public

debts, which would make it possible to borrow more), a stable currency,

a banking system, a central bank he already called the “Bank of the

United States,” securities markets, and corporations

At heart, the dispute was about America’s future. Jefferson and the

Republicans saw Hamilton and the Federalists to be replicating eight-

eenth-century Great Britain, with its monarchical centralization, its political corruption and disenfranchisement of most people, its squalid

cities and factories, its speculators and stockjobbers, its high taxes,

and its imperialistic, militaristic adventurism. They preferred the

future to be like the past. The United States would be a decentralized

republic mainly of planters and farmers, with only a thin overlay of

commerce, factories, and urban life, and with governments close to

the people.

Hamilton and the Federalists, in contrast, saw some virtues in

British institutions. They also had faith that the u.s. republican

constitution, with its dual sovereignty of state and federal govern-

ments along with its checks and balances within governments,

offered adequate protections against British vices. They wanted the

American future to be different from past. Their future would have a

strong, efficient republican government capable of protecting the

country’s interests in a hostile world. It would have a diversified,

growing economy with agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing,

all using modern financial organization to foster the rapid use of new

and improved technologies. The Federalists wanted the future to be

like what the future in fact turned out to be.

Not long after he became president, Jefferson appeared to recognize

with some bitterness that he had lost the battle with Hamilton for

America’s future. In 1802, he wrote:

When this government was first established, it was possible to have

kept it going on true principles, but the contracted, English, half-

lettered ideas of Hamilton, destroyed that hope in the bud. We can pay

off his debt in 15 years: but we can never get rid of his financial system.5

Ironically, a year later, in 1803, Jefferson would use Hamilton’s

financial system to accomplish the greatest feat of his presidency:

he had the United States issue $11.25 million of fresh Treasury bonds

and send them to Bonaparte’s government in France in payment for

the Louisiana Territory. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size

of the country. Fifteen years earlier, before the Federalist financial

revolution, such a transaction would have been inconceivable for a

then-bankrupt country.

Daniel Webster (1782–1852), writing in 1831, three decades after

Jefferson, had a different take on Hamilton. By then the United States

had an industrial sector that had grown at a rate of 5 percent a year

since 1790, and was well on its way to becoming the strong state with

a diversified economy that the Federalists had envisioned when

Webster was a child. Said Webster,

The discerning eye of Washington immediately called [Hamilton] to that post, which was far the most important in the administration of the new system. He was made Secretary of the Treasury…. He smote the rock of the national resources, and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth. He touched the dead corpse of the public credit, and it sprang upon its feet. The fabled birth of Minerva from the brain of Jove was hardly more sudden or more perfect than the financial system of the United States, as it burst forth from the conceptions of alexander hamilton.

[JMS]

Ron Paul is a windbag. With globalization what he proposes would set America back and destroy us.

My problem with Ron Paul is (1) he's an ear mark maniac for his own district while preaching fiscal restraint. (2) He supports systemic tax cuts during economic good times, like all the GOP which is just irresponsible while the budget is running record deficites . True conservatives historically want to cut spending before anything else. (3) He suports folks who coin their own money in violation of the constitution.. (4) He advocates a free pass to tax cheats by dispanding the IRS. (5) He also advocates the disolution of the Federal Reserve. Which is tin foil hat stuff. (6) He wants to legalize using Gold and Silver as legal tender, which basically scraps our entire financial system.

[JMS]

Globalization is the exact problem.

Until you understand that, there is no helping you.

Ron Paul supports Globalization. They call it free trade, but in reality it should becalled unilateral openning our markets. There is no trade in this policy. For every $1000 woth of goods we import, we export 1$. Nobody on earth follows America's open trade policies, everybody pursues balanced trade other than us. How can it be called trade when we are the only ones doing it.

[DaveMason]

:doh:

Yeah, Fiscal Conservative Republicans and Libertarians didn't sit on their hands and support passively and actively the Bush administration at all when he raised both domestic and military spending by record levels while slashing revenue?

What was I thinking.

Your post specifically went after Ron Paul for supporting Bush's policies.

...now that you realize what a silly assertion that was, you are now generalizing Ron Paul supporters. And even then, I would say that you are wrong. (In my experience, anyway. Most people I know who supported Ron Paul certainly did not support Bush.)

[Hubbs]

You name me ten Ron Paul supporters and you've just named nine or ten people who voted for George Bush twice. Start there.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Oh man, this is good stuff. Carry on.

[Madison Redskin]

You can say all you want.....then check how he voted on the appropriations. Which was NO.

Admitedly, I'm not sold on his overall logic for the shrimp earmarks. But please allow me to explain before you make a judgement.

He voted against the spending via the approprations process. If the appropriations still pass, then the money is already spent. He then simply requests his districts fair share of what will be spent anyway. Again, and please let this sink in...The money is already spent when earmarking begins.

Personally, I am against both the appropriations and the earmarks, but I sort of understand where he is coming from.

Either way, he always votes against the spending.

It's total BS and I can't believe that someone with your intelligence is swallowing it. This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that drives me nuts about Ron Paul's supporters. They rail against government spending and turn a blind eye to this crap which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of waste.

Imagine if I were a politician who got elected in part because I railed against programs like cash for clunkers. I went around my district and told people how ineffective and wasteful cash for clunkers is. I get elected and then I go trade in my car for the $4,500 cash for clunkers discount off a new car. I get caught and then tell people, "Well Congress had already allocated the money for this program, I'm just taking advantage of this program for my constituents (i.e., my family)." Only here, Ron Paul isn't taking $4,500, he's taking hundreds of millions of dollars to study shrimp farts or some other frivolous matter.

[PokerPacker]

I think JMS is confusing Ron Paul supporters with GOP Bandwagon tea-party folks.

[DaveMason]

It's total BS and I can't believe that someone with your intelligence is swallowing it. This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that drives me nuts about Ron Paul's supporters. They rail against government spending and turn a blind eye to this crap which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of waste.

Imagine if I were a politician who got elected in part because I railed against programs like cash for clunkers. I went around my district and told people how ineffective and wasteful cash for clunkers is. I get elected and then I go trade in my car for the $4,500 cash for clunkers discount off a new car. I get caught and then tell people, "Well Congress had already allocated the money for this program, I'm just taking advantage of this program for my constituents (i.e., my family)." Only here, Ron Paul isn't taking $4,500, he's taking hundreds of millions of dollars to study shrimp farts or some other frivolous matter.

Maybe I'm crazy...even with your analogy, I fail to see what's so bad about it.

I don't like cash for clunkers either, but if I were buying a new car and I qualified for the discount I would certainly take advantage of it. I don't see why this is wrong. Just because you feel a program doesn't benefit America as a whole, doesn't mean you can't use it if it benefits you as an individual.

Are millionaire democrats who opposes Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy hypocrites if they don't donate their tax refund directly to the government? I don't believe so.

[Willy Wonka]

You name me ten Ron Paul supporters and you've just named nine or ten people who voted for George Bush twice. Start there.

Is this your way of getting out of having to discuss your lack of understanding on the topic of the Great Depression? What do people who voted for George Bush have to do with the Great Depression?

WOW! lol

[Ken]

At least I know the difference between fiction and reality ...Mr conspiracy. :hysterical:

Obviously I do too because I recognized it when i saw it.

It is a shame that you trust so much that is fictional.

You mean like Alexander Hamilton?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/51287.Alexander_Hamilton

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:YEFzynz86AMJ:www.alexanderhamiltonexhibition.org/about/Sylla%2520-%2520Federals%2520Revolution.pdf+Alexander+Hamilton+quotes+on+Central+Bank&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Yes, like Hamilton...sort of.

Even Hamilton's economic system was better than what we have today. If you believe the Private Federal Reserve Bank (No more federal than federal express) is anything remotely close to what Hamilton designed, you have some serious delusions.

Also, Jefferson and Hamilton were polar opposites on almost everything. Hamilton's ideas were a carbon copy of what we fought so hard to get out from under. Hamilton was a founding father, war hero, and an economist. Jefferson and Hamilton were bitter enemies as well because their viewpoints couldn't be more different.

Jefferson was one of our greatest presidents and penned the Declaration of Independence, I'll take his word for it that he knows liberty when he sees it.

[Madison Redskin]

Maybe I'm crazy...even with your analogy, I fail to see what's so bad about it.

I don't like cash for clunkers either, but if I were buying a new car and I qualified for the discount I would certainly take advantage of it. I don't see why this is wrong. Just because you feel a program doesn't benefit America as a whole, doesn't mean you can't use it if it benefits you as an individual.

Are millionaire democrats who opposes Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy hypocrites if they don't donate their tax refund directly to the government? I don't believe so.

Ron Paul has made a living out of telling people that the government is wasteful. So, yes, in my opinion it is pretty hypocritical for him to rail against government waste and then help pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the tubes.

[PokerPacker]

Ron Paul has made a living out of telling people that the government is wasteful. So, yes, in my opinion it is pretty hypocritical for him to rail against government waste and then help pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the tubes.

the dollars are already on their way down, he's just helping to direct the destination.

If the government decides to tax the people for a spending program, then if the governor of your state says "no thanks" to spending for his state, the end product is that his people get taxed and then get absolutely nothing back. Ideally, that governor would prefer the program not go through at all, but once its passed, he has a duty to his constituents to make sure they get their share of the money that's being taken from them anyways.

[Madison Redskin]

the dollars are already on their way down, he's just helping to direct the destination.

If the government decides to tax the people for a spending program, then if the governor of your state says "no thanks" to spending for his state, the end product is that his people get taxed and then get absolutely nothing back. Ideally, that governor would prefer the program not go through at all, but once its passed, he has a duty to his constituents to make sure they get their share of the money that's being taken from them anyways.

So, when it comes to the government's wasteful spending, Ron Paul is no different than other congressmen. He doesn't like it when the government spends money on frivolous projects, but he realizes that "is part of the game" and so he does his best to redirect the wasteful spending to his district?

[PokerPacker]

So, when it comes to the government's wasteful spending, Ron Paul is no different than other congressmen. He doesn't like it when the government spends money on frivolous projects, but he realizes that "is part of the game" and so he does his best to redirect the wasteful spending to his district?

no, he does his best to prevent the wasteful spending in the first place and rails against the bills that support the spending. Once the spending it passed despite his efforts, he has a duty to his constituents to see they get a piece of the spending they're paying for.

[Koolblue13]

Ron Paul has made a living out of telling people that the government is wasteful. So, yes, in my opinion it is pretty hypocritical for him to rail against government waste and then help pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the tubes.

I wouldn't say that he has "made a living" out of it.

He has been pretty much spot on about a whole lot, since 2001.

[Jumbo]

a heroine addict can die going cold turkey

wilsonian would have had to try hard to have used a worse analogy, professionally speaking. i don't intend to derail by lengthy explanation, but the best way to treat heroin addiction actually be much more like the way the sitmulous packages are intended to heal the economy than a "doing nothing" or "cold turkey" approach. that's not saying the packages as designed were the best move. that's a huge debate that arguably will not even be truly quantified for some time. to me, the most focus-worthy aspects are more "if we're going to do it (we were and did) how can it (should it) be (have been) most effective." therein lies the meat of the matter and is the conversation where i think most of the boat was missed via distraction by the impotent "should we or shouldn't we" conversations.

[JMS]

Is this your way of getting out of having to discuss your lack of understanding on the topic of the Great Depression? What do people who voted for George Bush have to do with the Great Depression?

WOW! lol

I would argue that the folks who were in control of fiscal policy for 9 out of the last 10 years and the folks who supported them are alot more relevent to current events than the great depression.

But if you want to talk about the great depression, I'm your huckleberry, what do you want to know?

[JMS]

the dollars are already on their way down, he's just helping to direct the destination.

Acually that's wrong. Ron Paul attaches hundreds of millions ( 400 million to bills last year) for his district projects. That's not money that would be spent somewhere else. That's new money which he's spending which isn't allocated anywhere else. I got a Billion dollar bill, Ron tacks on fifty million and makes is 1 billion fifty million. It's not true the money would be spent anyways.

If the government decides to tax the people for a spending program, then if the governor of your state says "no thanks" to spending for his state, the end product is that his people get taxed and then get absolutely nothing back. Ideally, that governor would prefer the program not go through at all, but once its passed, he has a duty to his constituents to make sure they get their share of the money that's being taken from them anyways.

He tacks on ear marks, ie pork barrel spending on top of bills. He's not the worst, but he's pretty bad. 400 million in 2007, 8 million for marketing wild american shrimp.... another 2.3 million for shrimp research. 65 different earmarks in all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html

[JMS]

I wouldn't say that he has "made a living" out of it.

He has been pretty much spot on about a whole lot, since 2001.

But what does it matter if his message resinates with folks, if (a) people in his own party think he's a fruit cake. ( he doesn't follow his own advice. © About half of the changes he would make would be drastic mistakes.

[techboy]

Acually that's wrong.

No, it is you that are incorrect in this case.

Wikipedia is good for basic information like this:

In United States politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks do not create new government spending, but allocate existing spending for specific purposes. The term "earmark" is used in this sense only in the United States, and it is not recognized as a noun by major dictionaries (such as the OED and Merriam-Webster).

I don't expect congressmen that oppose a tax cut to give theirs back when it passes anyway, and I don't see anything too terrible (except for perception issues) with Rep. Paul attempting to direct some of the wasteful spending to his district if it's going to be wasted anyway.

[JMS]

Yes, like Hamilton...sort of.

Even Hamilton's economic system was better than what we have today. If you believe the Private Federal Reserve Bank (No more federal than federal express) is anything remotely close to what Hamilton designed, you have some serious delusions.

The Federal Reserve is part of the Federal Government. The critics of the federal reserve dont' claim it's not part of the federal government, their objection is their is no elected official who directly oversees it's day to day activities. The fedeeral reserves is definitely accountable to Congress and the President (elected officials) but not on a daily or weakly basis. I think that's their complaint. It's silly to say the Federal Reserve isn't part of the federal government.

I think you need to educate yourself on the Federal Reserve a little. Federal Express doesn't have to report to congress semi annually for a full audit or anually to the speaker of the house? Nor are Federal expresses goals set by congress or all of it's board of directors and chairman appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate.

Nor does Federal Express turn over all the profit they make, less operating expenses to the federal treasury. Federal Express doesn't have the salaries of their directors, chairman and all their workers set by congress either. Federal reserve has no stock owners other than the federal government.

Lastly Alexander Hamilton was a strong proponent and driving force behind the Bank of the United States which basically did the same thing the Federal Reserve does. It was a quasi politically independent banking branch of the government answerable to congress yet not dependant upon any elected official to ratify it's decisions. The Bank of the United States was broken up by Andrew Jackson in the 1840's and the Federal Reserve was established 70 years latter in 1913.

Also, Jefferson and Hamilton were polar opposites on almost everything. Hamilton's ideas were a carbon copy of what we fought so hard to get out from under. Hamilton was a founding father, war hero, and an economist. Jefferson and Hamilton were bitter enemies as well because their viewpoints couldn't be more different.

And Yet Jefferson and Hamilton did reach an agreement on both a strong central federal government and the Bank of the United States. Jefferson set aside his initial objection to the bank in a compromise with Hamilton brokered by George Washington. That's how the capital of the United States came to be on the Patomac in the south between Maryland and Virginia on land formerly Marylands and Virginia. (Alexandria was originally part of the district of Columbia but reverted back to the state of Virginia in 1863) Washington DC was the price of withdrawing Jefferson's support for the Federal governemnt assuming the revolutionary war debt of the states (mostly new england states) and the creation of the Bank of the United States.

Jefferson was one of our greatest presidents and penned the Declaration of Independence, I'll take his word for it that he knows liberty when he sees it.

And Jefferson ended up supporting Hamilton's central Bank of the United States. So go ahead and take Jefferson's word on it.

[Midnight Judges]

No, it is you that are incorrect in this case.

Wikipedia is good for basic information like this:

I don't expect congressmen that oppose a tax cut to give theirs back when it passes anyway, and I don't see anything too terrible (except for perception issues) with Rep. Paul attempting to direct some of the wasteful spending to his district if it's going to be wasted anyway.

But it's not necessarily going to be wasted anyway. IMO, many of Ron Paul's earmarks are for worthy causes, but some of them are not. IMO, a congressperson has an obligation to spend the money responsibly. Libertarians, it seems, would like to raise the bar for what is a worthy Government expenditure, but when they shrug and say "what the hell, it's all waste anyway" they're basically accepting the complete opposite.

Also, there is a flip side to the earmark process not covered in that wiki entry. Earmarks funnel down to an agency and are cut out of the agency budget (I have no data on what percentage of earmarks do this). Problem is, agency budgets are planned 3 years in advance, then refined over the next two years before they are approved by congress. Earmarks theoretically do not add additional spending, but agencies use baseline budgeting-that is to say, if an agency doesn't spend all of its budget one year, their budget is decreased the next. If an agency can justify an increased budget over the baseline, they might or might not get it. But the fact that congress mandates them to spend above and beyond what they are planning helps them make that case.

So in a round about way, earmarks could contribute to increased spending.

[JMS]

No, it is you that are incorrect in this case.

Wikipedia is good for basic information like this:

I don't expect congressmen that oppose a tax cut to give theirs back when it passes anyway, and I don't see anything too terrible (except for perception issues) with Rep. Paul attempting to direct some of the wasteful spending to his district if it's going to be wasted anyway.

You are correct that ear marks can be carve outs, but you are incorrect that they are always carve outs, they can also be add ons. Here is a quote from the Office of Managment and Budget (OMB)... Which I hope we can agree is a more creditable sources on Ear Marks than Wiki...

Ron Paul had 65 earmarks amounting to 400 million dollars just in 2007. Think about how many years Ron Paul has been in congress, then do the math. How much does 400 million in set asides amount to for his district? For studies on shrimp.

http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html

Earmarks Include:

1. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark.
   
2. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
   
3. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark.