Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(524)
-
▼
July
(29)
- Ron Smith of the Baltimore Sun: "history tells us ...
- Ron Paul: What are they afraid of?
- Michelle Bachmann On Obama's Health-Care Plan
- Peter Schiff Money Bomb
- Obama's Tax Pledge
- Ayn Rand on Fascism
- Alan Grayson vs. Ben Bernanke
- Questioning the "Official Response"
- Ron Paul Questions Jim Carr from NCRC
- Ron Paul Questions Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke
- Russia Today: Ron Paul Puts The Fed Under Fire
- Southern Avenger: Ron Paul and Jim DeMint take on ...
- Alan Greenspan on Market Regulation
- Ron Paul on The Fed and Consumer Protection
- Bar Stool Economics
- Schiff Takes Talking Head To School
- Ron Paul 2012
- Dennis Kucinich Acting Like Bill O'Reilly
- Ron Paul: What if...?
- Garden Update
- The Fed Under Fire
- Ron Paul: Opening Statement at Fed Hearing
- Jim Demint Attempts To Add The Federal Reserve Sun...
- Pastor Steven Anderson
- We're backing out of the house...
- Obama Hypocrite on Science
- "Ron Paul Strikes Gold"
- The Great Global Warming Swindle
- US Hire Afghans To Attack US
-
▼
July
(29)
22 comments:
The problem with Ron Paul is that no one cares. It is the same problem that plagues the left. Everyone is sitting around watching movies and eating potato chips.
That's Ron Paul's problem? That everyone else is sitting around watching movies and eating potato chips?
I thought you thought his problem was that he's a hypocrite and racist?
1. Basically.
2. Yes, he is a hypocrite, and, yes, he associates himself with racists.
"1. Basically."
Well, I don't disagree. But, he's got some people off the couch. Pressuring close to 2/3 of congress into cosponsoring his audit the fed bill is something Paul certainly did not do on his own; he doesn't have the political weight. As well, a recent poll shows 75% of Americans support HR1207.
So while everyone else's laziness is Ron Paul's problem, this problem certainly seems to shrinking.
Polls can mean everything and nothing. It only matters who they vote for and if the people surveyed vote. People who dont vote can agree all day long and still not change anything by not voting. Similarly, if voters dont make an issue important, and keep electing officials who disagree with them, then..
He is also very polite to homophobes and fascists.
"He is also very polite to homophobes and fascists."
He's actually very polite to socialists, communists, liberals, and Keynesians as well.
"Polls can mean everything and nothing. It only matters who they vote for and if the people surveyed vote. People who dont vote can agree all day long and still not change anything by not voting. Similarly, if voters dont make an issue important, and keep electing officials who disagree with them, then.."
That's the beauty of having every republican and 80 democrats having cosponsored his bill...public action is forcing the hands of congress; unfortunately those in power Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama aren't as easily swayed. Those in power apparently answer to a more important constituency that is not the american people.
Well, considering that the FR was set up by capitalists, I can't really complain.
"Well, considering that the FR was set up by capitalists, I can't really complain."
Really? I thought you love to attack capitalists. I would think you'd be all over attacking the Federal Reserve because it is an institution of capitalism...at least in your judgement.
Of course its not. It has nothing to do with the ideal of capitalism; with what capitalism is supposed to be. It is more an institution of socialism or communism; not that its existence defines socialism or communism, simply that its existence is more compatible with those political perspectives than it would be a society built on free-market ideals.
"Really? I thought you love to attack capitalists. I would think you'd be all over attacking the Federal Reserve because it is an institution of capitalism...at least in your judgement."
No, because I don't think it is the primary cause or even an important enough issue to worry about. I think the deregulation led to the FED being able to wash the markets with cheap capital. Reregulate and the problem is solved.
Jobs being shipped overseas is much more important. Obama's lying about about the Card Check bill is another. Health care is a third.
"Of course its not. It has nothing to do with the ideal of capitalism; with what capitalism is supposed to be. It is more an institution of socialism or communism; not that its existence defines socialism or communism, simply that its existence is more compatible with those political perspectives than it would be a society built on free-market ideals."
Lol, whatever Josh. Nobody is going to take you seriously when you spew jibberish like that. The federal reserve is not communist, not socialist. It is capitalist. It is capitalist in the classic Marxist sense of the capitalist class colluding together to control the financial system. That's why they needed a FED, because the Mint is in control of the people, constitutionally. The workers, middle class, and small businesses would obviously regulate it more if they knew the consequences, so the big capitalists bypassed that system.. that's capitalism..
"No, because I don't think it is the primary cause or even an important enough issue to worry about. I think the deregulation led to the FED being able to wash the markets with cheap capital. Reregulate and the problem is solved."
There was plenty of regulation. The FEC couldn't even stop Madoff despite several complaints against him. Anyhow, would you say the FED would be the proper institution to determine and enforce new regulation?
Also, why is the FED the one institution of capitalism you stop short of attacking?
You don't believe an institution which has the unchecked power of stealing the value of every individual's savings for their own purposes important?
"The workers, middle class, and small businesses would obviously regulate it more if they knew the consequences, so the big capitalists bypassed that system.. that's capitalism.."
Pushing through legislation which monopolizes the control of interest rates and money supply has nothing to do with capitalism.
"There was plenty of regulation. The FEC couldn't even stop Madoff despite several complaints against him. Anyhow, would you say the FED would be the proper institution to determine and enforce new regulation?"
What? No, Congress would enforce it.
"Also, why is the FED the one institution of capitalism you stop short of attacking? "
Because you are ignorantly taking up as your central cause even though you know you are ignorant. That's just stupid.
"You don't believe an institution which has the unchecked power of stealing the value of every individual's savings for their own purposes important?"
Again, regulation would take care of that.
"Pushing through legislation which monopolizes the control of interest rates and money supply has nothing to do with capitalism."
Ah, yes it does. It gives the big capitalists a guaranteed supply of capital based on taxpayer money. That means that "favors" can be made clandestinely and "deals" can be made clandestinely, all without public approval or scrutiny. This is perfect for the big capitalist in need of capital or the fiancer who wants to expand. Do you have a hole in you head? The FED is in no way communist or socialist.
"What? No, Congress would enforce it."
Obama is trying to push the FED as the all in one regulator.
"Because you are ignorantly taking up as your central cause even though you know you are ignorant. That's just stupid."
I recognize the affect a paper currency system controlled by a few powerful men has on everything. Poor health care, poverty, budget deficits, bubbles bursting, war, corporatism, wage gaps...everything is affect and manipulated by the ability of a few powerful men to turn on the printing presses and redistribute wealth without a single appropriation bill passing congress. And when they do it, they do it in trillions of dollars, not the billions congress works with. The FED is a like a government onto themselves. Now, I'm not saying an honest currency would cure the health care woes or poverty or any of the rest, but I do think it would be a stride in the right direction. Honest money would force government to spend honestly, and tax honestly. Once this issue gets resolved, then you move onto the rest. If you build a beautiful house with rotten wood on a crumbling foundation, then all you have is a beautiful house for a short while. Eventually its gonna collapse.
"It gives the big capitalists a guaranteed supply of capital based on taxpayer money."
Correction. It allows government (I would specify the fascists within government, but I don't want to argue about fascism right now) to redistribute capital to friends without any oversight. Again, not even close to being within the spectrum of free-markets and capitalism.
"The FED is in no way communist or socialist."
I didn't say it was. I said it would more appropriately fit within a communist or socialistic society. Its not as if socialists or communists would support gold as currency, they would want to control it much like the FED does. The only difference is that a socialist would probably argue this power should lie in the legislature, where a fascist would argue it belong to the bankers, as it does now.
A capitalist would argue it belongs to the market.
"Obama is trying to push the FED as the all in one regulator."
And?
"I recognize the affect a paper currency system controlled by a few powerful men has on everything. Poor health care, poverty, budget deficits, bubbles bursting, war, corporatism, wage gaps...everything is affect and manipulated by the ability of a few powerful men to turn on the printing presses and redistribute wealth without a single appropriation bill passing congress. And when they do it, they do it in trillions of dollars, not the billions congress works with. The FED is a like a government onto themselves. Now, I'm not saying an honest currency would cure the health care woes or poverty or any of the rest, but I do think it would be a stride in the right direction. Honest money would force government to spend honestly, and tax honestly. Once this issue gets resolved, then you move onto the rest. If you build a beautiful house with rotten wood on a crumbling foundation, then all you have is a beautiful house for a short while. Eventually its gonna collapse."
There is no such thing as "the government". They are capitalist, pure and simple.
"Correction. It allows government (I would specify the fascists within government, but I don't want to argue about fascism right now) to redistribute capital to friends without any oversight. Again, not even close to being within the spectrum of free-markets and capitalism."
"spectrum of free-markets and capitalism" is an ethical statement, not a statement about how things are. The capitalist class has always colluded. You want to ignore this fact? Fine, but you are ignorant for doing so.
"I didn't say it was."
Yes, yes you did.
"I said it would more appropriately fit within a communist or socialistic society."
See above.
"Its not as if socialists or communists would support gold as currency, they would want to control it much like the FED does. The only difference is that a socialist would probably argue this power should lie in the legislature, where a fascist would argue it belong to the bankers, as it does now."
Ah, er, a socialist is for social programs, which is why there is such a poverty of knowledge of economics in liberal circles. Er, a communist economy does not use money, so the point is moot. All you are saying is that there is an organization at the top, which is true for any form of government. Nor is a government at the top a requisite of communism. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.
"A capitalist would argue it belongs to the market."
And the colluding capitalist/fiancer would disagree, which means you very definition of of what capitalism contradicts the facts. It means your argument is non-scientific and perhaps anti-scientific.
"And?"
Just an FYI that the Bankers are trying to take full control of the entire regulatory system in the US (with that and control of monetary policy, they'll essentially control the government) with the support of Obama, of whom is provided legitimacy with support from left-wing liberals like Kucinich and Sanders.
"The capitalist class has always colluded. You want to ignore this fact? Fine, but you are ignorant for doing so."
Correction. The elite, the rich, the ruling class has always colluded, in every society. Simply because you label them as "capitalists" because they were the ruling class within a free-market economy does not make them so. In germany they were the Nazi, in China they were the communists...they have a title in every society but they all go after the same thing: control. Which is the opposite of capitalism and free-markets.
"Ah, er, a socialist is for social programs"
Right, so they wouldn't leave the control of money in the public hands. They would control it much like the FED does; only its doubtful they'd leave it in the hands of bankers. You're right, they don't know much about economics, but I'm sure they're not ignorant to the fact that a printing press allows for greater spending to support all that a socialist agenda calls for.
"Just an FYI that the Bankers are trying to take full control of the entire regulatory system in the US"
Just for your information: Bankers and financers are the tip of the capitalist class.
"(with that and control of monetary policy, they'll essentially control the government) with the support of Obama, of whom is provided legitimacy with support from left-wing liberals like Kucinich and Sanders."
Are you dense? That doesn't mean they "control government". It means there is a coalition that agrees.
Correction. The elite, the rich, the ruling class has always colluded, in every society. Simply because you label them as "capitalists" because they were the ruling class within a free-market economy does not make them so. In germany they were the Nazi, in China they were the communists...they have a title in every society but they all go after the same thing: control. Which is the opposite of capitalism and free-markets."
Nope. Capitalism is a really existing system. "Free market capitalism" is a pie-in-the-sky ideal. And, yes, the elites have always ruled, but that just means that under capitalism the capitalist elites rule. Since the bankers and financers and lenders are that elite, it makes sense that they collude and take control. That's also why Thomas Jefferson said the Republic would only last a couple of hundred years. He might have not have written like Marx, but the same obvious facts were before his eyes.
"Right, so they wouldn't leave the control of money in the public hands. They would control it much like the FED does; only its doubtful they'd leave it in the hands of bankers."
Um, since socialists are for the people, I don't see why they would set up the FED. Oh, yeah! They didn't! A bunch of capitalists did! Socialism is completely compatible with the constitution.
"You're right, they don't know much about economics, but I'm sure they're not ignorant to the fact that a printing press allows for greater spending to support all that a socialist agenda calls for."
You'd be surprised.
"Just for your information: Bankers and financers are the tip of the capitalist class"
There's a capitalist class? Are you part of it?
"That's also why Thomas Jefferson said the Republic would only last a couple of hundred years."
He thought that parts of the country would secede...as it tried to...not that capitalism would collapse.
"since socialists are for the people"
Socialists are for me? How come they represent nothing I believe in then?
"Um, since socialists are for the people, I don't see why they would set up the FED. Oh, yeah! They didn't! A bunch of capitalists did!"
Woodrow Wilson was a democrat. He signed the legislation into law. He could have vetoed it. In fact, it was his responsibility to do so as per his oath to the constitution.
"You'd be surprised."
Probably not.
"There's a capitalist class? Are you part of it?"
Yes, of course. History is a history of classes. Do you know your history, Josh?
No, I am part of the middle class. I am a teacher. I do not create the products at the center of capitalism, so I am not a worker, and I don't control capital, so I am not a capitalist.
"He thought that parts of the country would secede...as it tried to...not that capitalism would collapse."
I'm sure there was more than one reason. And no, I didnt say it was because "capitalism was going to collapse", but because the banks, those whom Jefferson opposed for this very reason, would gain control of all the institutions of government and then put the landed class, the farming class Jefferson supported, into slavery. Obviously the farming class no longer exists, but the big lenders do. ;)
"Socialists are for me? How come they represent nothing I believe in then?"
Because you have been brainwashed by the propaganda organs of the big capitalists. Lol, Jefferson wasn't even a capitalist! But that doesn't seem to sink in, because you are brainwashed!
"Woodrow Wilson was a democrat. He signed the legislation into law. He could have vetoed it. In fact, it was his responsibility to do so as per his oath to the constitution."
Good thing I'm not a democrat!
Post a Comment