Further proof that Ron Paul is the most sane person in Washington

[thrustbucket]

I know there are those here that can't stand him or think he's a nutjob, and I can't wait to hear their problems with this video (mostly those of you that tend to think more regulation is usually the answer to everything).

New video from 1/5/2009 in the Madoff hearings.

He lays the smack down on a number of issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLUGqC9_oQ

My favorite is from 2:25 to 2:50. Pure verbal gold that Americans just don't care enough about, and will continue to economically suffer for.

After watching this, it further reinforces for me that writing his name in on the ballot was the right thing to do; that is if voting for the best man for the job was the goal.

Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to a Thomas Jefferson today; he has a more firm grasp on the corruption gripping government and works hard to expose it. Most other politicians, especially the most popular this last election, seem more resigned to just work with the corruption rather than risk the seismic changes we desperately need.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Dont taint Jefferson's name like that. He was for free public education up to the college level for anyone able at the expense of taxpayers. He wouldve likely been for universal healthcare as well for similar reasons.

Can anyone point to a period in history when libertarian principles have been widely adopted by a country to their benefit?

[mykevermin]

Yes. Madoff would have never happened if we had less regulation. Thanks Ron Paul. :roll:

He's also unnecessarily dismissive of the Sarbanes-Oxley act (the corporate crime prevention act in response to Enron) and the policy that it is. Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't *meant* to prevent changes in the economy, good or bad, numbskull. It was simply a law that makes corporate executives personally accountable for the *truth* of their financial statements.

Imagine where we would be financially right now if Sarbanes-Oxley never happened: executives would have seen from the example of Enron that there are loopholes to lie about finances without taking personal responsibility. How much better off would we have been there?

Pfff. Just because he's a contrarian doesn't mean his ideas are any good. It's not like he has a cogent grasp of Sarbanes-Oxley in the first fucking place.

[Quillion]

Dont taint Jefferson's name like that. He was for free public education up to the college level for anyone able at the expense of taxpayers. He wouldve likely been for universal healthcare as well for similar reasons.

Can anyone point to a period in history when libertarian principles have been widely adopted by a country to their benefit?
Plus, good ol' TJ was into sweet sweet slave lovin'.

It's definitely inappropriate to label him today's Thomas Jefferson. I can point to a period in history though. The United States of America in the latter half of the eighteenth and the entirety of the nineteenth.

I too oppose Sarbanes-Oxley, but from more of a functional standpoint. Complying with the regulations involved hasn't improved either of the companies I've worked for in the interim. Most companies take it further than it needs out of a fear of fines. He's got a point with the commentary that all of the Enron executives were prosecuted by laws already on the books. Sarbanes-Oxley didn't make it any more illegal, it just caught honest companies up in regulations that didn't really do anything other then create busywork, legal and accounting expense.

[mykevermin]

Think of the money saved in court costs had Sarbanes Oxley existed prior to Enron happening.

Is it red tape? Sure, but it's red tape that's inherently tied to the nature of corporate crime: if you treat the corporation as a legal body, how do you prosecute criminally for abuses of this order?

*Shouldn't* companies be fully aware of the truth of their financial reports?

[Quillion]

Think of the money saved in court costs had Sarbanes Oxley existed prior to Enron happening.

Is it red tape? Sure, but it's red tape that's inherently tied to the nature of corporate crime: if you treat the corporation as a legal body, how do you prosecute criminally for abuses of this order?

*Shouldn't* companies be fully aware of the truth of their financial reports?
Yes, they should, but the argument about court costs is misleading.

There will always be malfeasance. There will always be bypassing of regulations. Making things more illegal doesn't prevent crime - Punishment is not effective prevention. You've said so yourself. It's best to find the people who commit these frauds and remove them from the system. Perhaps a court order to never let them run a company or serve on a board.

Saddling all companies with red tape to punish the few (or many) who aren't honest does nothing other than create new costs.

[Reality's Fringe]

Yes, they should, but the argument about court costs is misleading.
things more illegal doesn't prevent crime - Punishment is not effective prevention. You've said so yourself.

That statement reminds me of study I came across in my Law and Economics course in which data showed that increasing prison sentences were not a crime deterrent, but made it so difficult for the inmate to return to regular life that crime levels increased. Rather, the best deterrent was to increase the probability of being caught in the first-place.

It's usually not prison that is the problem, but the dis-utility of being caught.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I can point to a period in history though. The United States of America in the latter half of the eighteenth and the entirety of the nineteenth.

In what respect? I dont think the span of 100 years of aggressive expansion, wars and lawlessness between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, on either end of which we didnt have a entirely cogent country or government, would be a prime example of a government purposefully adopting such principles.

Regarding the later half of the 19th century, I would point to the government subsidies/loans/land grants that went towards building the national railroad system, and the Homestead Act doling out federal lands to individuals.

Isnt it even contradictory for a national government to adopt libertarian principles? For the most part, the existance of government tends to stand directly in the way of those principles.

Theres a difference between a government not having power, and a government that does voluntarily adopting such principles.

[Quillion]

In what respect? I dont think the span of 100 years of aggressive expansion, wars and lawlessness between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, on either end of which we didnt have a entirely cogent country or government, would be a prime example of a government purposefully adopting such principles.

Regarding the later half of the 19th century, I would point to the government subsidies/loans/land grants that went towards building the national railroad system, and the Homestead Act doling out federal lands to individuals.

Isnt it even contradictory for a national government to adopt libertarian principles? For the most part, the existance of government tends to stand directly in the way of those principles.

Theres a difference between a government not having power, and a government that does voluntarily adopting such principles. I'll give you the financial aid to the railroads.

However, everything else proves the point. Aren't grants of federal lands the epitome of libertarianism? a recognition that individuals can use the land better than the government?

You're right in your last sentence, but you miss the point slightly, the federal government was created weak. On purpose. They threw out the Articles of Confederation that they felt gave too little power, but the attempt was always to make a weak federal because they felt that the states and individuals could do it better.

Our federal government has been grabbing more and more power in the last century, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but at least we have that illustration of "libertarian" principles.

[speedracer]

So that's got to be a new kind of record, huh? Turning this load of horse shit around and somehow finding a way to use some of the most damning evidence against capitalism and free market worship into complete and utter support! Brilliant!

A complete and utter breakdown of market principles by the strongest market actors and the problem is the regulator. The same regulator that everyone agrees has been ineffective. But where were the systems of checks and balances inherent in markets to prevent this kind of damage? Why, they were always there skippy! They just don't work, and I for one am sick and tired of pretending they do. I'd rather believe in the fuckin tooth fairy m'self. At least that bitch actually paid.

So, we if regulate more, we're bad guys to the poor small business man that's eating it due to SOX (lollerskates for the absurdity of that). And if we regulate less, we're idiots.

I guess I'll take the libertarian way out then: when you open a business, you sign a contract with the city and state saying you will play by their rules. Don't like regulation?

THEN DON'T SIGN THE FUCKING SHEET IF YOU DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS.

Amirite?

[Dead of Knight]

I don't know about the most sane, but he's definitely the most honest, which counts for a LOT.

[thrustbucket]

When I said he was like Thomas Jefferson I didn't mean to say he was like him in every respect. Thomas Jefferson, in his time, was famous for constantly warning against the power of privatizing currency creation, the extreme danger of central banks, and corruption in general.

Of course, like any historical figure, they tend to become more and more deified over time and people will cringe to such comparisons.

There have been few others in our nations history that have been as honest on just how deep corruption is embraced in the government. One other is Rep. Louie McFadden (http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=McFadden1932) (D-PA):

The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform upon which Theodore Roosevelt was nominated in the year 1912, and in that same year, when Woodrow Wilson was nominated, the Democratic platform, as adopted at the Baltimore convention, expressly stated: "We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank." This was plain language. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "king's bank" to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave.

And Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.

The problem, I've noticed, with anyone mapping out exactly how corrupt the government is, in detail, is that everyone then asks "Ok, what should we do about it then?" And most Americans don't have the stomach for the types of radical change/solutions that answer that question; it's easier to continue voting for those on the same path of more bureaucracy , more government, more divisiveness, spend more money, raise taxes, and more regulation.

Edit: and here (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59217.html)is the contrasting view, and like Dr. Paul says, will continue to happen; digging deeper holes is all most elected officials know how to do to "make themselves relevant".

[KingBroly]

Having enough Regulation isn't the problem. The regulators are the problem because they weren't and aren't doing their job. We have far more regulation laws than needed. They just don't enforce, probably because of kickbacks you'll never hear about.

[Capitalizt]

Too bad we can't regulate the government. The amount of theft, fraud, and ponzi scheme spending programs in Washington put Enron to shame.

[JolietJake]

Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"

[Capitalizt]

Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"

Ron Paul along with other people who follow the Austrian school of economics like Peter Schiff have been predicting these events for years. They have been dead right on the asset bubble and subsequent burst. The reason you haven't heard of them until now is because their views were marginalized and ignored in favor of the status quo big gubmint Keynesian economists that always make it onto mainstream media.

[Msut77]

If anything we have been listening to the Randroids a wee bit too much, it was the hardon for deregulation and basically letting these brigands in business suits walk around like lords of creation that got us into this mess. The last few years have been again if anything a vindication of Keynes.

[thrustbucket]

Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"

Spend 30 minutes on youtube watching his speeches from the past 2 years and you'll change your mind. If anyone in Washington has the right to say "I told you so", it's him, but he doesn't say "I told you so".

His message hasn't changed much at all. The times have changed to better illustrate his message's relevance.

[SpeedyG]

Too bad we can't regulate the government. The amount of theft, fraud, and ponzi scheme spending programs in Washington put Enron to shame.
You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.

[elprincipe]

You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.

Hmm, that may be more heavy-handed than Sarbanes-Oxley. ;)

A real possibility would be a national referendum system put in place. It won't happen because the federal government would have to give up some powers, but it would be a nice check of the people on Washington.

[gareman]

You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.

Well if you are thinking that way, what is the point using the second amendment?

"We don't want the government to take away our guns so we can overthrow the government lawfully(?) under the rules of said government. We need to tell the government to not take away our guns....."

[Sarang01]

If anything we have been listening to the Randroids a wee bit too much, it was the hardon for deregulation and basically letting these brigands in business suits walk around like lords of creation that got us into this mess. The last few years have been again if anything a vindication of Keynes.

You're joking right?! Here's what you first need to know. What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one. Right now and ever since HEARST got Hemp banned here and perhaps before, the Free Market has not been that. Instead rich individuals have used their money to have government block things that would threaten their profit margin. Hearst had a large amount of land with lumber on it that he owned and Hemp was a huge threat to it. Consider that you can yield 4 times as much paper on one acre of Hemp as you can over the same acre of trees. Also consider you can regrow the Hemp as well.

The Pharmaceutical Industry is also looking to try to get Natural Medicines under the regulation of the FDA. I suspect if this happens many things could happen. Besides being deliberately discredited in some fraudulent study or another said herb might be banned as well. Those are just a few examples. Pharma is doing it because natural medicine threatens their financial bottom line in at least two ways: 1.They can't patent it so they can't corner the market on one Herb for any set amount of time to really milk it. 2.These medicines most likely do not damage your body subtly, sending you to the doctor later for another prescription.

Seriously if we'd get rid of some of this nonsense banning of certain things, not allowing the government to do it to begin with we'd be a lot better off.

[Msut77]

What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one.

Call it whatever you goddamn wish, deregulation i.e. the push for what you are referring to as free markets does not work and is responsible for much of the current mess. Can you even name an example of a place that has an entirely "Free Market"?

[thrustbucket]

The most amazing thing about all of this is that there are those that truly still believe that the problem was not enough government to begin with and the answer, clearly, is we need more government involvement to fix things.

Truly phenomenal.

[JolietJake]

You're joking right?! Here's what you first need to know. What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one. Right now and ever since HEARST got Hemp banned here and perhaps before, the Free Market has not been that. Instead rich individuals have used their money to have government block things that would threaten their profit margin. Hearst had a large amount of land with lumber on it that he owned and Hemp was a huge threat to it. Consider that you can yield 4 times as much paper on one acre of Hemp as you can over the same acre of trees. Also consider you can regrow the Hemp as well.

The Pharmaceutical Industry is also looking to try to get Natural Medicines under the regulation of the FDA. I suspect if this happens many things could happen. Besides being deliberately discredited in some fraudulent study or another said herb might be banned as well. Those are just a few examples. Pharma is doing it because natural medicine threatens their financial bottom line in at least two ways: 1.They can't patent it so they can't corner the market on one Herb for any set amount of time to really milk it. 2.These medicines most likely do not damage your body subtly, sending you to the doctor later for another prescription.

Seriously if we'd get rid of some of this nonsense banning of certain things, not allowing the government to do it to begin with we'd be a lot better off.Herbal "medicines" can also be dangerous in some cases. It isn't a good idea to self medicate when you don't know how something may affect you. Herbal medicine should be regulated by the FDA.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Any game needs rules. That includes markets. Football without goalposts, tick marks or refs isnt "free football". Its just chaos.

[thrustbucket]

Any game needs rules. That includes markets. Football without goalposts, tick marks or refs isnt "free football". Its just chaos.

Of course. Nobody is advocating a 'no rules' game, that's not what Paul is saying.

The rules are already there. They aren't enforced as they should be, is the biggest problem. But the real danger when something bad happens (like the economy now) is many politicians tendency to come up with even more rules as the answer.

To use your analogy, just because you lost a football game, doesn't mean you should lobby for more rules that you hope help you win next time.

[Dr Mario Kart]

There are definitely people advocating for LESS rules.

And less rules is primarily responsible for this. If investment and commercial banking hadnt been allowed to merge, there wouldnt be an economic crisis. Sure, some bad loans wouldve still been made, and some people would be out homes. But there wouldnt be investment vehicles whose total is far greater than the GDP of the planet. Secondarily, regarding companies: If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist.

Enforcement of existing rules is a legitimate problem though.

[Frogurt.man]

I stopped watching when he said get rid of the SEC.

Thanks for the laugh thrustbucket.

[thrustbucket]

Yeah. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS gets laughed at all the time too. But it would fix quite a bit.

[Sarang01]

Herbal "medicines" can also be dangerous in some cases. It isn't a good idea to self medicate when you don't know how something may affect you. Herbal medicine should be regulated by the FDA.

Did you even READ a fucking thing I posted?! If it happens most Herbal Medicines will likely be banned and illegal. Watch people getting arrested for brewing up Green Tea, Oolong, Gingko Biloba, etc. How the fuck can I trust most doctors out there when their school Med programs are most likely primarily funded by Pharmaceutical companies?
I haven't even gotten into how the FDA is totally fucking corrupt. They passed NUTRASWEET for godsakes! They let Donald Rumsfeld ramrod it through. I haven't even gotten into how they let the Department Of Health and Human Services push for annual Flu shots when they should be all but BANNED for anyone who isn't elderly in my opinion.

[thrustbucket]

And now he talks about Israel, Hamas and Gaza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z6vMAoFwf4&eurl=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread426327/pg1&feature=player_embedded

[speedracer]

Yeah. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS gets laughed at all the time too. But it would fix quite a bit.
Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.

[thrustbucket]

Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.

There is no data, it's all theory. Nobody asked the founding fathers to provide data for why the creation of this country should work, did they?

Provide data for why we NEED the Federal Reserve and IRS for our country to function well, or even survive. Both are institutions of enslavement and bondage put in place simply to make you and me legally obligated to rely on others.

[Msut77]

Someone should have told speedracer not to bother, oh well he found out for himself.

[Sarang01]

Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.

The Constitution is his data. Why would you borrow money and pay interest on it when you could legally make it from scratch? It's in the framework of our Constitution and by extension part of the backbone of our government is we can print our own money. Originally it was backed by gold, like in Fort Knox.

[Msut77]

Sarang, people have been reading what you post. It just happens to be nonsense.

You and thrust invoke the Founding Fathers like some magic argument winning talisman.

[Sarang01]

Sarang, people have been reading what you post. It just happens to be nonsense.

You and thrust invoke the Founding Fathers like some magic argument winning talisman.

I've never said it was. Bottom line, the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it. Remind me why anyone BUT the government should be doing it, especially when the government doesn't charge interest for one. Also we have no idea how much they're printing now. Word up, the M-8, which is the info that lists how much money is in circulation supposedly, the Fed is so arrogant they don't put that out now. Publish, whatever, the public doesn't see it.

[mykevermin]

Well, publicize it, then. Does that potentially solve economic issues and more or less than eliminating it altogether?

[thrustbucket]

I've never said it was. Bottom line, the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it. Remind me why anyone BUT the government should be doing it, especially when the government doesn't charge interest for one. Also we have no idea how much they're printing now. Word up, the M-8, which is the info that lists how much money is in circulation supposedly, the Fed is so arrogant they don't put that out now. Publish, whatever, the public doesn't see it.
~Just fyi, all you need to do is go to dailykos.com or huffingtonpost.com, read a smattering of comments from users under any story related to what you are discussing here, and you'll save yourself having to read msut's posts, so you can put him on ignore. ~

The public doesn't care about this stuff, that's the underlining issue here. They are too worried about the Republican bad / Democrat good daytime drama being played out on our mainstream media outlets to care.

Well, publicize it, then. Does that potentially solve economic issues and more or less than eliminating it altogether?

How can any of us get it publicized though? The Fed ultimately answers to nobody, that's the way it was set up on purpose. They don't even "owe" our government a yearly audit.

The only way the Fed can really be stopped, as I understand it, is to get Congress to pass laws removing power from the Fed that they were given originally in 1913; and/or adding power to the government to audit them.

Why this hasn't happened is anyone's guess. Apathy, it seems to me, being the main culprit. People only care about the items on CNN's front page at any given time.

[mykevermin]

That seems plausible - more plausible, even, than simply eliminating it.

Perhaps it's apathy. I think it's more complex than that. Take the national debt for instance: people are becoming more and more concerned about the size of it now that we went from $5T to over $10T in Bush's 8 years (try and beat THAT, tax and spend Democrats!). But now we're adding to it even further with these bailouts we can't afford: I believe I've read our national deficit ended up being over $1.2T just in 2008 alone. But do we need it? I dunno: spending money we don't have to help recover to pay off money we already didn't have but spent before seems like a peculiar fiscal policy (yes, you have to spend money to make money, but perhaps after a quarter century of massive deficit spending and supply-siding, with only 2 years of a surplus under Clinton, you'd think that we'd stop trying this exercise). But, yeah, it's a problem, but the depression "recession" and getting out of it is a more pressing issue. We're told that we had to save AIG and Detroit to survive economically. And many of us are skeptical of that. But saving the economy and avoiding increasing the national debt would not have been a very easy thing to accomplish. If at all possible.

[Msut77]

I've never said it was.

Actually that is exactly what you and thrust (to the extent that thrustmuppet ever says anything) are saying.
I don't blame you, it is much easier after all.

the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it.

There is a bit more to it than that understatement of the year I know; your main beef however seems to be the US going off the gold standard something I am not going to even bother to respond to.

To tie in with what Myke was saying people are stating to notice the deficit and debt again because a Democrat is about to take office and they are the only ones who ever have to worry about paying for shit. Now I am not sure whether Myke thinks we should cut X program(s) or not but I would like to hear if he has anything in mind specifically.

The deficit will probably not be going anywhere and may get even worse (but probably at a much slower rate) from what I have read it will go to what should be looked at as an investment in America such as job creation and repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

[cindersphere]

Getting tired of the matrix.

[elprincipe]

That seems plausible - more plausible, even, than simply eliminating it.

Perhaps it's apathy. I think it's more complex than that. Take the national debt for instance: people are becoming more and more concerned about the size of it now that we went from $5T to over $10T in Bush's 8 years (try and beat THAT, tax and spend Democrats!). But now we're adding to it even further with these bailouts we can't afford: I believe I've read our national deficit ended up being over $1.2T just in 2008 alone. But do we need it? I dunno: spending money we don't have to help recover to pay off money we already didn't have but spent before seems like a peculiar fiscal policy (yes, you have to spend money to make money, but perhaps after a quarter century of massive deficit spending and supply-siding, with only 2 years of a surplus under Clinton, you'd think that we'd stop trying this exercise). But, yeah, it's a problem, but the depression "recession" and getting out of it is a more pressing issue. We're told that we had to save AIG and Detroit to survive economically. And many of us are skeptical of that. But saving the economy and avoiding increasing the national debt would not have been a very easy thing to accomplish. If at all possible.

Oh, the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) will try to beat Bush's (and Congress's) insane deficits of the last eight years, believe me. No need to encourage them. Bush has already left them $350 billion in bailout money to spread around, and they want another $1 trillion (or more). Keep in mind that's NOT INCLUDED in the $1.2 trillion number that came out this past week. Also keep in mind the fact that we did not have surpluses under Clinton, only smaller deficits (unless you count stealing Social Security money to make a "surplus" as valid). Keep in mind that, similarly, the $1.2 trillion is not only before another predictably ineffectual "stimulus," but it does not include the Social Security surpluses we are stealing and someday hope to pay back (yeah right). What a tangled web we weave, indeed.

The only way this situation will ever be solved is for the government to be completely shaken to its roots. Dramatically expanding government is exactly the wrong direction to be headed, although both parties agree that is what's best! I wonder after which trillion dollars we print inflation will rear its ugly head.

[Sarang01]

You want to hear some of my fucking solution's to cut spending msut? Well so be it.

First before I get into that I do think it's an issue NOT to have money backed by something concrete, especially when you have a trade deficit. I'll be the first to admit the debt wouldn't be what it is now if not for that. I think the people who get us out of it will be the small businesses who get big lately and REFUSE to Outsource their products at all as well as pay their people a living wage. It will also take a decent amount of them tied together to do this.
The Fed makes this whole thing harder considering the fact they create inflation on top of what normally exists. Top this with business wanting to make a profit and inflation as we know it as high as it is and the worker really gets screwed. If the government printed money inflation wouldn't be at the 7%(I think that's the number we're talking) it is.
My solutions to cut spending are that you cut Corn subsidies completely for one as well as Dairy subsidies. In WIC you cut out Dairy, instead putting up stuff like Broccoli, beans and rice for their calcium and protein intake. This would be cheaper easily. As part of vitamin B12 you make Hemp and Rice Milk that have it added an option. Note I don't mention Soy as it has Phytoestrogens(plant based Estrogens) that we know do harm to very young boys at later ages.
I would also mention, this is on a consumer spending tip, that we completely cut out the government ban on Hemp and let it tangle with lumber for paper costs. The cost of paper will plummet in the process and we'll all benefit.
Now cutting a bunch of military spending would help too. We spend way too much on it. I will say that when cut you spend at least half of the money saved paying for the training of every military person to pay for college courses to make sure they have the most optimal chance of getting a job in the civilian sector. I'm referring to the one's let go.
Back to the Gold standard, I've heard there has been a bill proposed by Paul to deal with this. Though I'll be the first to admit it makes me uncomfortable not having our money backed by something concrete.

[Msut77]

You want to hear some of my fucking solution's to cut spending msut?.

I don't recall asking you that.

[thrustbucket]

There are some valid arguments against going to a metal/gold standard for money. One of the main reasons being that currently there is way too much gold and precious metals in very few hands.

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

Anyway, how to get from where we are now, to there, is the real trick - and one that will be extremely painful no matter what angle you look at it.

[Sarang01]

There are some valid arguments against going to a metal/gold standard for money. One of the main reasons being that currently there is way too much gold and precious metals in very few hands.

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

Anyway, how to get from where we are now, to there, is the real trick - and one that will be extremely painful no matter what angle you look at it.

Well considering that both presidents who did that(Kennedy and Lincoln) were assassinated, I would say so. Also they dang near killed Jackson. I suspect if Jackson would've been their patsy we would've heard little about the Trail Of Tears and whatever there was would be downplayed.
Truthfully I wouldn't weep if the Federal Reserve people got caught and had their heads put under the Guillotine. I wouldn't actively encourage it but I would see it as Karma and take no hand in preventing it. You reap what you sow.

[thrustbucket]

Maybe their heads could at least become the currency so it has something real backing it?

Man the more I think about it, the more it is truly amazing; that the one and only thing that backs the Dollar is faith in it.

[Msut77]

What I find truly amazing is that thrust is only just now realizing something the rest of understood when we were in elementary school.

Paper money makes just as sense as the idea that my house is worth less than a tiny amount of shiny rocks.

[speedracer]

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

I always thought we should base our currency on SOJs.

[willardhaven]

OP, relativity is a dangerous concept with regard to personal standards.

[The Crotch]

I always thought we should base our currency on SOJs.
I hate the fact that I get this joke.

[thrustbucket]

A message from Dr. Paul dated 1/12:

He is ranting about our involvement in Israel and calling out Bernake for canceling appointments with hearings for little secret meetings with central banks in Switzerland this week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETx6wW1C04g&eurl=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread427558/pg1&feature=player_embedded

I'm sure there is plenty there for the ani-Ron Paul crowd to hate. Why waste so much time trying to expose the Fed when our congressmen should be more concerned about how they are going to "Fix" everything with bailout money and/or getting more bailout money. Right?

[thrustbucket]

A great new video from the Dr from just a few days ago on CSPAN. I like it better when he ad-libs, but it's still good stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTVn2tMI3E

[crazytalkx]

I love how Ron Paul fans circle jerk to the man. It's hilariously endearing. Not that I have anything against the man.

[Kayden]

I like what he's saying, but I'm afraid of what he means.

Who is the beneficiary he promised to fight for de-regulization for?

[thrustbucket]

I love how Ron Paul fans circle jerk to the man. It's hilariously endearing. Not that I have anything against the man.

That's because we haven't had a politician on capitol hill nearly as honest in our lifetime, or your parents lifetime. It's worth jerking off to.

[thrustbucket]

Ron Paul to Bill Maher: America's drug war must end. (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ron_Paul_Dispose_of_drug_war_0221.html)

With video.


Congressman Ron Paul is the most conservative, grandfatherly man to ever be admired by America's marijuana enthusiasts. On Friday night's episode of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, he reminded those who may have been suffering an impaired short-term memory at that late hour why, exactly, they should like him.

Speaking live from Clute, Texas, the libertarian-leaning Republican did what few other members of Congress will and openly called for the United States' War on Drugs to be abolished.

"What about when FDR came to office in '33," asked Maher. "One of the first things he did was repeal prohibition. He said we can't afford this anymore. Well, we have prohibition in this country. ... When he was making radical changes he said look, we're serious now. We're going to make serious changes and people like liquor."

"Well, in this country, people like pot," said Maher to a wave of cheers and applause. "If we ended that prohibition, that would be a giant pooling of money."

"I don't like pot," said the congressman. "But I hate the drug war, so I would repeal all of prohibition. But, I wouldn't even bother taxing it. People have the right in a free country to make important decisions on their own lives. If they want to make mistakes, they can. They just can't come crawling to the government to get bailed out or taken care of if they get sick.

"I believe in freedom of choice in all that we do, as long as the individual never hurts anybody else. So that means I would get rid of all the federal laws. I would dispose with the drug war. We're spending tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars on this, then we march into places like California, override state laws, arrest sick people and put them in prison."

"It makes no sense whatsoever," he insisted.

"Amen, stoner," joked Maher.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If you smoke weed, Al Queda wins.

[Kayden]

You mean all this time... I've been toking for terrorism!? :hot:
If you smoke weed, Al Queda wins.

[The Crotch]

You didn't get the newsletter, man?

[speedracer]

I hate the fact that I get this joke.
I never saw this response. I thought I was all alone in the universe.

[thrustbucket]

My favorite: "We have a total misunderstanding of credit versus capital".

Is it just me or is he basically talking about a currency change coming and/or NWO type stuff?

Absolutely loved how MSNBC hosts were pretty much speechless, and tried to down lplay/write him off like the media has done all along.

[rickonker]

My favorite: "We have a total misunderstanding of credit versus capital".

Is it just me or is he basically talking about a currency change coming and/or NWO type stuff?

Absolutely loved how MSNBC hosts were pretty much speechless, and tried to down lplay/write him off like the media has done all along.
No, he's talking about credit versus capital...

[Birakon]

ron paul is one of the best people for the job. It's sad that he will never have a chance at getting elected.

even if he was nominated (which won't happen) the american people would never elect someone like him, americans today don't want to work for anything and want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

[mykevermin]

Hey, look.

words.

[Paco]

Hey, look.

words.

America at its finest. My sister said that when she saw a book and had this confused look when the teacher asked her to read pages 50-75

[The Crotch]

Hmm.

It seems that Birakon's signature and avatar come from the HotShotX school of brand management...

[thrustbucket]

Paul's article from a recent http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1116/opinions-great-depression-economy-on-my-mind.html:

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.

What a negative nancy. Everyone knows we had no choice but to bail out everything, and everyone knows things will only get better. Right?
Further proof that Ron Paul is just about as kooky as those nutty conspiracy theorists that think both party's are worthless.

[mykevermin]

Roosevelt made the depression worse?

What a ridiculous premise.

[Capitalizt]

He did actually.. The dumbass prevented wages and prices from falling as they must in a correction (though to be fair, it wasn't his idea..He merely continued Hoover's policies). Artificially propping things up sends false signals through the economy.. This can only lead to further distortion and malinvestment by economic players..destroying more wealth and prolonging the corrective process. FDR's constant tinkering and intervention made businessmen incredibly uncertain about the future, and left them unwilling/unable to make long term investments to create real (private sector) jobs. When the government is doing sh!t like this..jumping in and out of different areas of the economy and making tax and regulatory changes on a weekly basis, it pretty much guarantees economic instability will continue for longer than it otherwise would have.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

[thrustbucket]

Yep, I think when company's feel there is even the slightest of possibilities that the government will step in and try to 'stabilize' things, they are going to keep their wings folded and play very conservatively. Not until they feel assured that the government is done rolling economic dice in random sectors will things iron out. That will take years and probably another administration or two.

[speedracer]

He did actually.. The dumbass prevented wages and prices from falling as they must in a correction (though to be fair, it wasn't his idea..He merely continued Hoover's policies).
But Hoover didn't start out intervening, did he? Didn't he go hands off and watch the entire economy crumble under him, prompting him to reverse course because he thought, in real time, that what you're advocating for was not working?

[Capitalizt]

But Hoover didn't start out intervening, did he? Didn't he go hands off and watch the entire economy crumble under him, prompting him to reverse course because he thought, in real time, that what you're advocating for was not working?

That's a common misconception. Hoover was the one who got the ball rolling on everything in an attempt to fight recession.. He pushed through dozens of subsidies, wage floors, price floors, taxes, tariffs, etc. His policy was the opposite of laissez faire in every respect..and he was largely responsible for turning a garden variety recession into a depression.

[speedracer]

That's a common misconception. Hoover was the one who got the ball rolling on everything in an attempt to fight recession.. He pushed through dozens of subsidies, wage floors, price floors, taxes, tariffs, etc. His policy was the opposite of laissez faire in every respect..and he was largely responsible for turning a garden variety recession into a depression.
Right. But he didn't start out that way was my point. And he didn't flip six months in. He espoused free markets as the savior for years before changing course.

I read that Hoover was pissed that Roosevelt was going to take credit for Hoover's finally figuring out that Keynesian theory was going to fix the economy. He certainly didn't start out a Keynesian. I think "Randian" would be most appropriate.

[Capitalizt]

I don't think so speed.. Hoover might have paid lip service to limited government just as Dubya did, but in practice he took the opposite approach. The only thing he "stubbornly" clung to was the gold standard. He did not want to abandon it entirely, and this is what likely contributed to his "rigid conservative" image but apart from that, the man was lock step with FDR on economic policy.

[elprincipe]

Roosevelt made the depression worse?

What a ridiculous premise.

It's not an unreasonable viewpoint. I'd like to hear from you why you think FDR made things better. Obviously, this has a direct application to our modern situation, where the government is doing all sorts of crazy things due to the belief they can "fix" the economy.

[speedracer]

I don't think so speed.. Hoover might have paid lip service to limited government just as Dubya did, but in practice he took the opposite approach. The only thing he "stubbornly" clung to was the gold standard. He did not want to abandon it entirely, and this is what likely contributed to his "rigid conservative" image but apart from that, the man was lock step with FDR on economic policy.
Not exactly the authoritative source I was looking for, but Wikipedia touches on it.
Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[34] Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, who wrote The Conscience of a Liberal, contend that Hoover shared Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint.[35] Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression by hoping that the private sector would recover largely through its own volition.[36] His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

In the same article, they do talk about how Hoover wasn't the super capitalist that I thought he was though. Looks like you were right on that one.