Vince,

I’m going to point to this one example (and possibly a broader one) to show you exactly why you (and ron paul) are wrong on everything about his “free for all who survive” social darwinism.

You right…

“He opposes plans for Federally-funded and run healthcare, rightly pointing to the VA as a horrifying example of government-run healthcare.”

~~~~~~

More than a few people will tell you that the Veteran’s Administration has NOT always been a horrifying example of government-run healthcare. In fact, when the VA actually WAS ‘government run’ it did a very fine job of taking care of our active military, our veterans, and in some cases of the active military, their families. It also trained some very fine physicians and other health care professionals. However, THAT was while it was still a government-run institution, and before it was essentially privatized by contracting out every service there was to be contracted out, and that began with the Regan era, and was later solidified in the Bush I era, and became non-existent in the Cheney-Bush II era. So, career professionals vacated in droves, and now it is what it is, admittedly the horror that you claim. My point is that is has NOT always been that way, and that it is the privatization and the contracting out that has been going on for at least 20 years now, that has totally ruined not only that system, but every other formerly public entity that has now been taken over by corporations.

Because of DEregulation, there is now zero daylight between what is the government, and what is corporate.

You and so many of the non-regulatory crowd seem to be totally unaware of how many day-to-day functions are DEPENDENT on ‘regulations’. From ground traffic to air traffic, to the environment, there are regulations that are there for a reason. It’s not because people have nothing better to do with their time than sit around coming up with useless rules and regulations, but because they are NEEDED in the successful operation of most things that occur within our infrastructure.

So, it’s not just banking, but the whole structure that makes existence either possible, or impossible.

Now, since I see that this thread has devolved into a discussion on Ron Paul, even while we are less than a month out to electing a new admin that will NOT be a ron paul admin, I’ll bid you adieu for this particular thread. There is much still to do.

Vince Liberty‘… And what’s wrong with charity? Government co-optation of charity is at best inefficient, and in this case, helped CAUSE the subprime mortgage mess. ...’

Depends on your point of view.  From the standpoint of a contemporary ruling class, and probably a good many ordinary people concerned about street crime and real estate values, charity doesn’t offer sufficient control over the poor.  An efficient Welfare system operates like an efficient Sanitation Department: it removes the poor and their problems from the view and the concern of the better off.

However, Welfare has little to do with the current crisis.  The subprime borrowers were just the canary in the mine.  The grotesque expansion of credit over the last 30 years has brought about an unstable situation which happened to blow out there first, but our financial system is riddled with its effects and there is more trouble to come.

Vince--I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe in the common good, and think that much more can be done when peoel work in community. I dont think that people are meant to live this “individualistic lifestyle”, and, I believe in evolution--our closest relatives dont live like “lone wolves”.

As far as paying for schols, etc. It is a “quid pro quo”. I admit, so far, it hasnt seemed to work (I woudl like for younger peope to vote for health care, as I vote for schools).But, if you withhold money from schools (sic), waht will all these kids do? HOw will their parents work? In actual practice, it just doesnt seem to hold up to scrutiny.

Just cutting the funding to things to “improve them” sound really Bushian/Reaganistic to me. That has been the rule for 60 yrs. How is it NOT the Chicago School, only on a national-only basis?

“Free” market capitalists d o this all the time. They experiment on people and the worst off fal behind and die.

btw--If the people who already died from the tomatoes (it was salmonella), do yu think that they would be comforted to kwow that we had “traced it back"/ So, your choices are poor and you die? How are you supposed to know they are poor choices ?

Sorry, it just doesnt add up for me.

And the link, sponsored by the Independet.org, does not look unbiased at all, to me. “The Myth of Che Guevera”? Please.

Stan Liebowitz has a very good examination of the origins of the banking crisis here;

http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10- 03-trainwreck.pdf

@KDelphi;
Sorry your post went “whoosh” by the way.
“And it is hardly “foreign aid” that “bankrupted us”.
It isn’t helping. And as you pointed out, it isn’t free of strings. But we do it in the worst way possible, by propping up dictators, providing weapons instead of food or medicine, and tying it to contractors with government juice.

This is criminality on a grand scale, aided and abetted by the IMF and the World Bank. Individual givers in the US contribute billions freely to humanitarian causes abroad. Get the feds out of it.

“The problem with “charity” (btw--what is the big diff between “charity” and foreign aid?) is that, it it unreliable.”

Foreign aid isn’t charity, it is a tool of foreign policy, like sanctions, or wars. It is an unconscionable theft from the poor of this country, as is most government, because it is financed with debt and inflation.

“When the economy goes “down”, so wil charitable contributions.”

This presupposed that hundreds of millions of people would, if 50% of their productive output were no longer stolen from them and wasted, not INCREASE their charitable giving. It also presupposes that people do not examine this theft as some kind of forced charity and decide they are already giving enough, thank you.

“ ...the FDA (behold e coli)”

Yeah, they really acquitted themselves well in that one. How hard is it (and how much does it cost)to go to the affected establishments, ask for their bills of lading, and trace it back to the source? Yet hundreds of billions of dollars worth of perfectly harmless tomatoes went to landfills for nothing.

“I was against the bailout , as it stands. It does nothing for the people most harmed and saves Wall St’s ass.”

On this, we wholeheartedly agree.

“...I pay all kinds of taxes (and have inthe past) that I dont agree with or benefit from. I do not suport the war . I dont (never have had ) any kids in my local school district.”

And you have no choice. Democracy is dead, as we have seen, with constituents emailing, phoning, and faxing their congressmen and Senators at 100:1 against, and they still voted for it. In most districts, there is no real choice given. Just because you vote, you still have no say, your money and your productive capacity are stolen from you (and everyone else) AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

“I want kids to benefit, so I vote for it. It is in all of our best interests.”

Who decides? What if i live in Philadelphia, whose school district is infamously bad and corrupt? What kind of message does it send when the money, rather than being cut off, is increased every year, and supplemented by the state and the feds? What do you expect/ Shouldn’t a taxpayer be allowed to withhold payment until it improves?

“Buying” health insurance , or, schoolling on the “private mkt” is just fricking stupid.”

There is NO free market in healthcare, health insurance, or public education, they are two of the most highly regulated and subsidized areas of human endeavor, and two of the most decrepit.

How does “more money” solve structural problems? How does forcing more people to pay more money for health insurance, or for failing schools solve a structural problem? And how does forcing anyone to pay for anything comport with individual liberty?

“People don’t support Paul that often, because he is wrong.”

Over a million people voted for Ron in the primaries.

He was the ONLY major party candidate who even raised the issue of the economy, and he was spot on. As far as I’m concerned, that increases his credibility on the economy, and decreases all the others’.

Vince--I have been to Austria. Of all the European countries I visited (while on a WorkStudy program--I could never have afforded it otherwise), it was the most expensive.

They have a fairly homogenious population--we do not. They are small--we are not. They practice total neutrality--we do not.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/rick/fascism-austria.htm

Ahttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE2DD103 BEE3ABC4D53DFB3668383609EDE search http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:xsHmFa3oC4sJ:www.o enb.at/de/img/angelo_tcm14-46139.pdf+Criticism+of+Austrian+ economic+policies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us shows up some scary

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_dem ocracy/v011/11.2rose.html

A search hardly shows a concensus, and, some of it rings frighteningly of pre-war Germany and Austria. It has shades of “supply-side”, “trickle down”, Chicago School, and Thatcherism.

Can you refer me to something (other than what Paul writes) about it to convince me that it is not just more Reaganism? I will read it. Of not, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I know that these types of “systems” look good to people who are doing (or expect to do) fine.

If I read Paul (more--sigh), will you read Naomi Klein, and decide whether neo-liberalism has really helped (the South Am. Cone--which usd to have to biggest middle classof the hemisphere), or just increasedthe Latin Am. push towards socialism. (Aided and abbetted by our CIA)

I am a Socialist, so we may just have to disagree.

1) I never blamed the crisis on the poor. I simply pointed out that subprime mortgages were given to a lot of poor people. This is indisputable. When you are forced to choose between paying a mortgage and feeding your family, which comes first? Again, not really open to dispute.

2) I like a lot of what Dennis Kucinich has to say. He’s incredibly naieve about the economy as a whole, yet prescient and moral on the War.

3) Sorry for calling you a Democrat.

4) Healthcare is not inherently expensive. Healthcare POLICY makes it expensive. Healthcare REGULATIONS make it expensive. SUBSIDIZED healthcare drives demand, which drives up the price.

5) Undoing Glass-Steagall simply removed ONE regulatory barrier to bad banking, leaving the rest of the edifice (fractional-reserve banking and the Fed monopoly, both products of legislation and regulation) intact.

The CRA amendments in 1998 drove up subprime lending. Bad all around. Simply eliminating ALL banking regulation, along with the Fed would force the banks to either succeed, fail, or be prosecuted for fraud.

How is Hank Paulson not already in prison? Because the system is ALREADY REGULATED - in favor of the banks.

Please read anything from the Austrian School, such as Murray Rothbard’s “The Mystery Of Banking”, “What Has Government Done To Our Money?” or “America’s Great Depression” - all short books, all essential to understanding that this crisis is anything BUT the failure of regulation, it is the PRODUCT of regulation.

Gawd. I just typed up a post, and it went “whoosh!” Someone on another site told me how to bring it back, but it didnt work. I have an old pc and, I’m not that great on them.

I’ll shorten it. My fingers are tired. Vince “Liberty"--What in hell made you think I was defending the Dems? Just because I’m on this site? Everyone here knows all to well the problems that I have with them.

“Bad reg.” did not cause the mkt crash. It was caused by Glass-Steagal (chweck) and nailed by Grahmm (check mate). Those were both de-regulatory bills. Blaming the poor (who have so much power!) is rather a lame target, dont you think? But, it is a conservative favorite. Or, shoudl I say “neo-conservative”

Anyone who caucuses with the GOP has alot of nerve even mentioning the “constitution”. I thoght it was the official White HOuse toilet paper! Of course, we could go back to “strict constitutionalism"--only land owning white males could vote. People could be owned like farm animals. And Paul would probably win.

It is not surprising that an ob/gyn would oppose nation health care (they are one of the highest paid specialties). But, ethical physicians everywhere are endorsing some type of universal care. We coudl disagree on whether it is a human right.
http://www.pnhp.org/

It wouldnt have to be like the VA. There is Conyers HR 676 (Medicare for all), but we would have to take those GOP backed provisions (Medicare Advantage and the HUGE Rx drug bil, which was an $85 million dollar gift to the Rx cos., to make it cost effective). ALL civilized countries inthe world provide health care as a human right. They have higher standares of living than most US citizens.

Many questioned Greenspan. Dorgen and Kucincih come to mind.And it is hardly “foreign aid” that “bankrupted us”. I had some stats on ot--wait-
LAT_8_30_05{1}.pdf
I’m sure you could find stats to prove otherwise. When we do give, we tie so many strings to it, that alot of nations just turn it down. If we keep it up, it should resolve the “problem”. The Scandanavian countries give alot more, and nobody seems to “resent” them, except religious fundamentalists.

Without uniform, public schools, we cannot survive without entering Third Wotld Status. As it is, most schoosl are funded by property taxes (what happens to kids who “pick poor parents”?) The charter school mess is a disaster for urban district. I dont support NCLB. I dont support kids being taught that there were ‘baby dinosaurs on the Ark”.

For not buying natural selction, GOP sure does seem to believe in social darwinsism. yoyo. The problem with “charity” (btw--what is the big diff between “charity” and foreign aid?) is that, it it unreliable. When the economy goes “down”, so wil charitable contributions. People, in ONE of the countries with the 40 richest people on earth, shoudl not have to “sing for their supper” if they cannot work. The govt took a “hands off” appraoch in Hurricane Katrina, and look what happened. Bush defunded FEMA, the FDA (behold e coli), all because “govt dosent work”. Well, it sure as hell dosent work if you dont fund it. (drown it in a bathtub??) We need the estate tax. There is nothing egalitarian about any of Paul;s positions. The US is not a level playing field, and everyone is beginning to know it.

I was against the bailout , as it stands. It does nothing for the people most harmed and saves Wall St’s ass. As for libertarians “tax phobia"--I pay all kinds of taxes (and have inthe past) that I dont agree with or benefit from. I do not suport the war . I dont (never have had ) any kids in my local school district. I want kids to benefit, so I vote for it. It is in all of our best interests. “Buying” health insurance , or, schoolling on the “private mkt” is just frckin g stupid. Look what theyve done twith their “freedom”.

People dont support Paul that often, because he is wrong.

KDelphi, If you are going to criticize, please make substantive criticisms. The links you posted and the inferences you drew consisted of; Linking to an article that pointed out his success in fundraising, then criticizing him for it, and lists of simplistic (+ / -) or misleading blurbs ("Opposed gay adoptions”, which has been debunked).

Many other of the positions liberals claim are bad simply flow out of his principled opposition to FEDERAL TAX MONIES being used to fund things (stem-cell research, abortions, healthcare) for which there is simply no constitutional authority for any Federal role. Many of these things could find more than adequate support in the market.

You simply aren’t willing to evaluate his positions in the same manner in which you evaluate, say, Obama’s. That’s fine, but don’t claim objectivity.

Look, Ron isn’t perfect. As a speaker, he is sometimes professorial and pedantic. A handful of his votes seem puzzling, given his positions. He hasn’t always had an entirely sensible stance on immigration. He is a Republican, though he often professes to being a small-l libertarian.

He already ran once for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and knows there is simply no way for a Libertarian to be competitive under the current exclusionary bi-partisan system (he has also turned down several independent run requests AND an offer from the Libertarian Party to put him on the ticket as VP).

Yes, there are the newsletters (a real tempest in a piss-pot in proper context.)And he’s pro-life (he’s conservative, and an OB-GYN, a-DUH), which is the real reason some liberals hate him.

But to counter the abortion objection - he believes that Federal jurisdiction in the matter is improper, and wants responsibility returned to the states. This is bad, some say, but why?

We already have pretty much de-facto turned it over to the states and localities anyway. Places where there is little or no support for abortion simply have no facilities or services. Places where there is support have plenty of facilities. This wouldn’t change.

So let’s get back to the substantive arguments;

He opposed going to war in Iraq.

He opposes the Fed and its policies of unlimited creation of money, which is used to finance wars while impoverishing the people.

He opposes the Drug War, which incarcerates millions of mostly black and poor people.

He opposes foreign aid, which builds resentment among the people it is used to oppress, while it bankrupts us.

He opposes plans for Federally-funded and run healthcare, rightly pointing to the VA as a horrifying example of government-run healthcare.

He also opposes pyramiding a Federal universal healthcare program atop the current system in which HMOs, Medicare / Medicaid, employer-paid tax-exempt health insurance, and massive regulation and barriers to entry have caused horrendous increases in price and decreases in quality.

And he has warned consistently and often that the monetary and financial policies in place in this country were unsustainable and heading for a disaster.

His insights on the matter come from Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, leading exponents of the Austrian School of economics, which predicts that the creation of fiat money not backed by anything causes malinvestment, which results in booms and busts.

The (Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton)Greenspan Fed, which inflated more and faster than any in history has caused the most disastrous booms and busts in history, especially the current one.

Ron Paul has warned, time and time again about the dangers of fiat money and unsound banking, he has often been the only one in congress to seriously question the actions of Greenspan and Bernanke, and to vote against things like the monstrous bailout bill. And he was, and is, right.

Ron has said, time and time again, that he is no isolationist, that he is a “Non-Interventionist”. He has stated that he believe in REAL free trade (not the WTO and NAFTA), real diplomacy with all nations (not subsidizing dictators) and real freedom to travel (no passports or Real ID between friendly countries).

A non-interventionist foreign policy means a completely benign foreign policy - no intervention in outside conflicts, no foreign aid, no restrictions on travel.

He has even opined that, though he is against illegal immigration as it now occurs, that migration for work would be no problem if our economy were ever allowed to really recover.

This doesn’t sound like isolationism to me - it sounds like what the founders said about America’s proper foreign policy.

I am TIRED of the partisan left saying “see, this is what you get with deregulation and privatization”. Can’t you get it through your thick heads that bad regulations prevented the market from exposing the massive fraud that was at work here?

Regulations don’t work, because they are invariably captured, i.e., written and operated for the benefit of the regulated. As such, ANY federal regulation will almost invariably benefit precisely the people that well-intended people want to penalize.

No matter how good, how benign, or how necessary any regulation is, it always has the effect of favoring the biggest players in any industry, because the biggest player can spread his regulatory costs over a larger revenue base.

This ALWAYS puts the smaller competitors at a disadvantage, and creates barriers to entry, preventing competition from checking such excesses as we have seen.

@Delphi;

Ron Paul has never called for abolishing public schools, this, like many other misrepresentations of Ron’s principles is simply a baldfaced lie propagated by people with agendas.

He HAS called for, consistently, ending the federal interference in education at every level, and for return of control of educational content and funding to the funders, i.e., the local taxpayers. He is NOT an anarchist, though I am - I want no education socialism, I want all education to occur in the market.

And what’s wrong with charity? Government co-optation of charity is at best inefficient, and in this case, helped CAUSE the subprime mortgage mess. The Federal government through the CRA massively pushed institutions to lend money for houses to people manifestly unable to pay it back.

Now that it has inflated the currency to an extent that these people cannot afford to both eat and pay their mortgages, they make the logical choice, to eat, and walk away.

The Democrats are almost all completely on-board with this unspeakable evil, which has plagued us from start to finish through government intervention on behalf of connected players. The Democrats are just as much to blame as the Republicans, and will bankrupt us just as quickly.

This terrible act institutionalizes trillions of dollars of monetary inflation by the Fed. Inflation steals from the poor to give to the rich. Inflation kills and destroys on behalf of whoever is in the Oval Office. Inflation will destroy the dollar and cause massive, worldwide misery. And Inflation knows no party.

Ron Was Right. Say it with me - “RON. WAS. RIGHT.”

cyrena: ‘… He’s an isolationist who doesn’t get the 21st Century realities of globalism, because globalism is multidimensional, and has changed the order of things....’

I don’t follow Ron Paul closely, but to the extent he follows libertarian ideas he can’t be an isolationist.  Libertarians dislike borders, tariffs, restrictions on immigration and trade, and most of the other tools of isolation.  He is, however, explicitly anti-imperialist, and often “globalism” is used to mean “imperialism when we do it”.

Incidentally, I have read that the world’s economy was far more internationalized and global in the late 19th century than it is now.  During the 20th century, many restrictions were imposed on international commerce and migration.  Perhaps that process is continuing today; most of the talk about globalism seems to relate to internationalizing capital and political control, but not the free movement of people or goods except when those in charge desire it.

By KDelphi, October 4 at 2:19 pm #

cyrena--I shouldnt say this--but I just cant resist.

My sister at SUNY/Purchase says some of her students support Paul. She says that they think “all of human experience can be written in code”.

~~~~~

No, KDelphi...you should say whatever you like, though I have to admit that I’m not sure what the students mean by ‘all human experience can be written in code.” It could be because I’m just extremely tired right now. These past weeks have been pretty catastrophic on this West Coast end, but then...it’s been that way for 8 years or more. So, what the hell am I even talking about, eh?

Anyway, I know what your sister means about the students at SUNY supporting Ron Paul. (or at least a collection/cult of them). We had the same thing here about a year ago, though fortunately, that’s died off. I wish I had the patience to go through it all again, the Ron Paul cult stuff, but time is simply too precious now, even though I realize that most of the cult that follows Ron Paul is still of the one track mind-set. If only it were that easy.

Again, if Ron Paul really were a Libertarian, he could have run as such, just as Barr is now doing. It’s a legitimate and recognized political party, and has been for decades.

But Ron Paul IS NOT a Libertarian. He’s a Republican, and has been a republican Congressman for 2 decades. Whatever he has to say about the Federal Reserve is a distraction from the YOYO/Social Darwinism that is his fundamental ideology.

So, I KNOW what Ron Paul is about, which means that I don’t fall for the same bullshit that students are likely to buy into. I expect them to, but that’s because they are generally younger, and their own ideologies are still in formation. And....that’s fine. Or, idealistically it’s fine, because that is the way we claim we want things to be in a free society. People should be able to make up their own minds on these issues.

But in fact, that isn’t really what is happening. We see so much brainwashing these days, from SO MANY SOURCES, that it’s enough to confuse anybody. Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself, for anyone who’s been around long enough to keep track of it. I have, and most haven’t.

So, I’ll say this again, not so much for you, since you’re already aware of his ties to White Supremacists, but to those who seem to think he’s the best thing since the gold that was dug from the ground, and stolen from those who inhabited this part of the world for thousands of years before the likes of Ron Paul ever came along: Ron Paul is a racist, and believes in the economic survival of the ones who can take the most, and claim it as their own.

He’s an isolationist who doesn’t get the 21st Century realities of globalism, because globalism is multidimensional, and has changed the order of things whether we like it or not. (no doubt there are horrific things attached to this dynamic, but that’s the nature of change).

So, in short, he’s a fraud and a farce. That doesn’t mean that many people won’t fall for it. They will continue to sprout the bullshit fairy tales, even when the truth is right there and available in the Congressional record.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00005906

For wanting the “gold standard”, he sure doesnt mind taking those “useles pieces of paper”!

http://www.politicalbase.com/people/ron-paul/15712/

This is how he feels about regulation.

Opps. The site froze up. You guys using trojans now or hanging cookies?

http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/2008/01/ron_paul_suppor.php

A “money bomb” on MLKJr. day ? Poor taste.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/03/bailout-cons titutional-hamilton-oped-cx_jb_1003bowyer.html.

http://politicalgrind.com/2007/11/11/top-5-worst-thing s-about-ron-paul-or-top-5-reasons-i-hate-ron-paul/

Now, that is just opinon, that last one.

Belivee me, I am looking for a new candidate, and, if Paul’s policies were anything close to “liberal”
, I would know it.

cyrena: The irony is that while Ron Paul may have been correct about this aspect of the economy, so were a few million others, and there is another built in contradiction here, because Paul is in favor of everything that led us to this...specifically the deregulation and the privatization....

Well, not everything.  What led to the present crisis was not deregulation but an inflationary monetary policy (but not applied to paper money, only to credit), which turned real estate into a kind of Ponzi scheme.  The weird debt instruments which regulation might have forbidden came in only pretty near the end.  This sort of money manipulation is very unlibertarian—it is a major governmental intervention in markets.  Many libertarians advocate abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank, through which most of the manipulation has taken place.

Oh Naive One,
That’s an idea.  Maybe a good one.  You might be on to something. I sense that the next step has not been envisioned. Something that ties these threads together?

As the idea is starting to sink in, as far as I understand it, I feel it might a very good one.

leilah--Thank you! Sometimes I feel really ignorant out here. There are alot of very intelligent peoel on some of the blogs.

I guess that it is true, The switchboards and pcs were so full, few could get through. And, most voted the same way anyway.

I just thought that, if they included some of Sanders or Kucinich ideas, it would help the people that need it the most.

My neighborhood is getting so --sad. Boarded up houses--most used to have elderly retirees in them. I dont even know where some of them went. It all happened so fast.

Sad beyond belief

I meant TD. I was just wondering what kind of numbers we could pull together (with other sites) that coudl just say “lets not do this fricking thing. Lets do----insert some of your ideas.

Signed,

Oh Naive One.

I don’t know the answer to either option.  They list the number of comments at the bottom of the article on the front page, but a lot of people enter more than one comment.  I have noticed some names, like yours, that I am familiar with.  Might I say, that enjoy your posts.
I started reading Truthdig when Chris Hedges mentioned it on Democracy Now!  In the northeast only a few sources provide good information beside CCTV.  I think they’re trying to brainwash people a la 1984, where in time, people won’t even have the ideas that are available on this site.
I didn’t answer question, but I’m sure someone is keeping track of the number of hits.

KDelphi,

Do you mean Truthdig or this thread?

leilah--Do you (or does anyone else know) how many people frequent this site?

Instead of “Laissez-faire”, it’s “Lassez le bon temp roulez.” Read the following paragraph.
“Less than two weeks after Uncle Sam gave American International Group (AIG) an $85 billion loan - staving off financial collapse - execs from one of its insurance subsidiaries, AIG American General, gathered for a conference at the uber-swank St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort, billed as “California’s only Mobil Travel Guide Five-Star Resort,” where ocean-view rooms start at $565 a night and “world class luxury” is the rule.”
Now, this was planned in advance, but nevertheless, what the hell were they thinking.  Reminds me of a town near here, Medford, MA, that held a fireworks display celebrating its 250 year anniversary two weeks after 9/11, 2001.  Went over well!

Also, Joe Conason is a Democratic operative, which is allright, but you have to read him very carefully.  Like Bill Moyers last night brought up Warren Buffet’s purchase of Goldman Sachs stock as if to reassure American taxpayers.  What he failed to mention at all is the difference with what Paulson is doing with the $700 Bn.  It’s going to his friends, to Europe, the middle east, and China for their worthless paper. 
The Washington Post called it a “Rescue” in its headlines today.  As if that word instead of bailout is going to make it any better. 
I am still stuck on the words, Eight-hundred and fifty billion dollars. 
Also, now that they have the bill signed, they are going to take their sweet time.  All of a sudden the need to rush the money into the pipeline is not so pressing.
Today must have been like Christmas in some US mansions.
Their trying to politicize this between Democrats and Republicans is disinformation.  From these comments and in other threads, I can see people are having none of it.

cyrena--I shouldnt say this--but I just cant resist.

My sister at SUNY/Purchase says some of her students support Paul. She says that they think “all of human experience can be written in code”.

KDelphi,

The irony is that while Ron Paul may have been correct about this aspect of the economy, so were a few million others, and there is another built in contradiction here, because Paul is in favor of everything that led us to this...specifically the deregulation and the privatization. It’s his entire premise and ideology...let the strong survive, and let the weak die off. In an unregulated, no rule of law type system, that’s exactly what happens. When ANY system makes NO adjustments, that’s what you get...and it’s very Hobbsonian, even though “Libertarian” somehow sounds better.

That said, if Paul was REALLY of the Libertarian mentality, that’s the political party/platform that he would be attached to. Instead, he’s been a Republican member of Congress for 20 years, and that’s that. He’s a Republican. And, he’s *not* a ‘conservative’ if we think of conservative in terms of adhering to the Constitution, (which he claims to do) because that would me the same respect and adherence to the AMENDMENTS, which he emphatically rejects in terms of Civil Rights and other Constitutional decisions like Roe v. Wade.

In fact, Ron Paul is very much the AUTHORITARIAN, though as I mentioned before, it’s hidden just below the surface, and only becomes apparent to those who take the time to look at his record, and many of the comments that he’s made. (Like he doesn’t believe in ANY birth control, because he says is a form of ‘social control.’)

I think Ron Paul is as dangerous as Bush or Cheney, but most Americans have looked at him closely enough to figure that out.

Thanks, anarcissie and cyrena--Paul may have been correct about this one aspect of the economy. But, then, so was Nader, Kucinich, etc. I went to the website (I actually get their newsletter, as I agree with SOME of thier principles.) But, as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I’ve read some of Paul’s supporters sites. I’ve heard him speak. Locke’s Age of Enlightment, was extended by people like Jefferson, but, unfortunately, as the bourgeoisie told Jefferson in Paris, “It would seem that your revolution is incomplete”, when they noted that Jefferson had brought along some of his slaves. He claimed that all were created equal, but he did not live it. And, I’m sorry to say this, but, the implicatiosn of “everyone being born equal”, often lead to social darwinism, as in, no one should be given any help at all, because we are all born equal. Everyone knows taht some are smarter, more attractive, etc, than others, although , how you measure it is an ongoing argument. It also begs the question of , what we do with people who build their lives on their families ‘(often ill-gotten) estates? They can do much harm , with all this power, as we have certainly seen over the last few years.

I prefer Jeffersonian politics to Hamiltonian, for sure, and I certainly would not claim to know waht their opinions or policies would be today. One can only infer. But, I dont think that the Constitution is a sacred document, and should be changed to suit the needs of the country’s current residents. There may even be a need for a constitutional convention--we just cannot go bacdk to the agrerian type society we had at the onset of the US tax revolt on Great Britain.

cyrena--thanks. I’m still learning.

KDelphi:
‘anarcissie--I’m sure that you dont mean that “farmers are dumb”.

I am not absolutely sure I know what Paul’s ideas were. But, never fear. If it had been made more public, I’m sure the duopoly would have been happy to ignore him, also!‘

About the farmers, in this case I was speaking ironically.

Ron Paul is a “libertarian”.  These are folk who believe in an updated form of classical liberalism: minimal government, life, liberty, property, individualism, Locke and Jefferson, no entangling alliances or imperialism, etc. etc. etc.  They are often called “conservatives” in the U.S.  There are about a hundred million web sites detailing their views—libertarianism seems to appeal to computer people a lot.  I would say the best place to go to get an idea of what they’re about is Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/).

Needless to say they are never going to get anywhere near the seats of real power, although Jesse Ventura, said to be a sort-of libertarian, did get to be a governor.

I’m amazed, (and dismayed) to here from all of the folks who claim that we’re ‘creating’ or likely to ‘become’ a Corporate State. For Christ’s sake people, WE ALREADY ARE!!! We’ve been a Corporate state for at least 3 decades now, but there’s no denying that the Corptocracy completed it’s takeover within the last 10 or 12 years, and the Cheney Era has finished us off. The Fascism was cemented with the Coup of 2000.

Still, it’s long been underway, and while we can (and should) hold the Clinton Administration accountable for it’s part in helping it along, this has been a republican making, and there’s no getting around that. Indeed Clinton did have to work against the tide of a Republican Congress for most of his administration, but he didn’t have to implement NAFTA, and there were other measures he could have prevented as well. So, anybody who doesn’t understand that we’ve been a Corporate State for at least 2 decades, (the deregulation is what started it) should probably try to get up to speed, if it isn’t too late.

I say that because it’s as much a cause for this economic meltdown as anything else. To blame the subprime lending of the housing crises is a scapegoat. That is NOT what caused this, because the foreclosures have been happening long before now, and the banks haven’t LOST from them. The PEOPLE have. We’ve seen it coming for 8 years now. The only reason we know it now, is because it has affected so many more people, but it started long ago, and would not have gotten to this point without the theft of TRILLIONS, for….WAR. The Cheney gang has laundered trillions of US dollars through the bloody sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, and channeled it right back into their own pockets, while the wealthiest 10% have paid zero taxes. There’s been nothing going into the treasury, because only the middle classes have paid taxes, and now they have no jobs and no income. So, if we aren’t collecting revenue from the people who have the money, (since they don’t pay taxes) and if the middle class can no longer be squeezed of the blood that we no longer have, that pretty much leaves the collective till empty, and all of us indebted to China and other foreign investors.

For those who would like a better idea of how we came to be a Corporate State long ago, I highly recommend Sheldon Wolin’s book, “Democracy Incorporated: The Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” This isn’t a new thing people, and it didn’t happen overnight.

Here’s a link to the book’s review by Chalmers Johnson…”Our Managed Democracy”.

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20080515_cha lmers_johnson_on_our_managed_democracy/

Joe Conason says this in the opening of his piece right here. It’s about a failed ideology, and it’s a neocon republican ideology.

• “…Many Republicans in Congress lacked the intellectual fortitude to cope with the spectacular collapse of their ideology.

Now, I’m not entirely convinced that it IS a ‘failed’ ideology…at least for them. THEY aren’t losing anything, so for them, it’s just fine, because the rest of us are bailing them out. So, is it really a case of ‘they didn’t see it coming’, or would it be more truthful to say that they ‘planned it’ this way, and hoped they could get away clean, before the massive heist was discovered?

By KDelphi, October 3 at 7:56 am #
doesnt Paul also think that we should not have public schooling, that everythihng should be unregulated and privitized,.. He also wants no taxes on estates. You just cannot have an egalitarian democracy with that kind of transfer of (some ill-gotten) wealth. …That, my friends, is what gave us W ….He would extend the “YOYO” Society, not fix it “
~~~~~~~

KDelphi,

You hit this right smack dab on the head girl!! There is another name that I use for this…

• “..He would extend the “YOYO” Society, not fix it (Youre on your own)..”

Although I definitely like your acronym..YOYO. It’s perfect. And, it’s also what Obama keeps saying. But, when Ron Paul first kicked off this latest run for POTUS, (he did a run in 2004 as well…and maybe before) what we were calling his ideology (among other things) was Socio-Economic Darwinism. He’s definitely really big on busting up ALL regulation, and privatizing everything. Whomever is unable to do that, is shit out of luck. It’s like back to the wild, wild, west with him. Whomever gets to it first, and can collect the most of whatever it is, and keep it all for themselves….he thinks is just fine. Those who can’t, just die off. IMHO, that’s basically the republican plan, and always has been. It’s the ‘I’ve got mine’ mentality, and that’s all I care about. You can go out there and get yours for yourself, (except that we’ll get to it first) and that’s the way it is.

In short, Ron Paul doesn’t think the state should provide ANYTHING. And, how exactly does one go about DEMANDING that those who have the most, give some of it to those who have the least? Well, there IS no way to accomplish that, other than by an equitable tax system. There is NO WAY to provide for an infrastructure, without an equitable tax system. But, compare Ron Paul’s state, (TX, where I lived for 17 years) with any other state, but I’ll use my own (CA) for this example. We finally have a proposition on the ballot this time, to build a highspeed rail system that will eventually extend the length of the state. (for now it’s planned for SFO to LAX). If such a thing can be accomplished, it would rival the systems in ---guess where--? CHINA. And yes, the majority of Europe.

We know that 40% of California’s contribution to the global warming problem comes from CARS. But, we keep building more and more roads, and we just keep expanding them more and more, and there’s still major gridlock on all of them. So, why haven’t we long ago built a system that places like China have had in place for ages now? Lots of reasons, but mostly because the corps just keep getting richer and richer off of it. In TX, there is no state income tax. So, they privatize everything, including the roads. It’s a form of gentrification, and while we’ve certainly got our own share of that here as well, the clear example is a state like Texas, and Florida is very similar. (no state income tax there either) to the YOYO, and has been for decades.

Ron Paul would take away what little public property and resources we still have. He’d also like to overturn Brown v Board of Education, and we know he’s hell bent on overturning Roe v. Wade as well. I might also add that he’s a racist. I won’t even say a ‘closet racist’ because his is only just barely under the surface and only because he’s been relatively careful about what he’s said in public. But anyone taking a closer look at his Congressional record could hardly miss it.

So, you hit it on the head here for sure.

anarcissie--I’m sure that you dont mean that “farmers are dumb”.

I am not absolutely sure I know what Paul’s ideas were. But, never fear. If it had been made more public, I’m sure the duopoly would have been happy to ignore him, also!

Ron Paul may advocate dubious policies, but his analysis of the bailout and its prospects, as far as it goes, is exactly correct.

Adding welfare and “regulation” to the bailout does not improve it.  It is still more of the same and will lead either to a bigger crisis or a corporate state.  But I am pretty sure the fix is in; the Democratic leadership and Wall Street are pretty tight.  It is the Republicans who are holding things up, and probably only because they fear the wrath of the voters back home—those flyover farmers who are too dumb to realize that it’s a good thing if their great leaders lift $4000 apiece out of their pockets to continue their exclusive party.

Vince--Maybe about some of it--but doesnt Paul also think that we should not have public schooling, that everythihng should be unregulated and privitized, and , that we should return to the gold standard, or, maybe ( I heard him say this once) trade in “tobacco and corn”? (Well, I guess you could, at least, eat corn! Try eating the worthless dollar)

He also wants no taxes on estates. You just cannot have an egalitarian democracy with that kind of transfer of (some ill-gotten) wealth.

That, my friends, is what gave us W

He would extend the “YOYO” Society, not fix it (Youre on your own) I dont think that US citizens should have to rely on charity in times of diasaster. It is unreliable and immoral to even ask.

I also know that Paul took money from White Supremecist Groups, and, when asked about that, he said, “I dont need that money, but I dont think I shoudl have to give it back”.  He shouldnt. But, shouldnt voters be able to take that into account, as to whom he supports and who suports him?

I do. And that, among other things, is why i could never support him.

The Bailout is simply a wealth transfer from you and me to the very wealthiest people on earth.

It is absolutely morally reprehensible that such a thing should even be done, and there are no words to describe the enormity of forcing the taxpayers to accept and pay for this evil deed.

This isn’t democracy, or even democratic republicanism - this is fascist plutocracy.

Come on, Joe, are you REALLY in favor of creating a corporate state that would make Mussolini look like Adam Smith?

@ Samsnedgar;

The idea that letting asset prices correct will cause a worldwide calamity is erroneous.

On the other hand, hundreds of economists have said that not only will the bailout not achieve its stated purpose, it could lead the way to more bailouts, and a real worldwide financial calamity when all the inflation necessary to fund it collapses the US dollar.

Ron Paul was the lone voice on either side of the presidential debates who said ANYTHING about this perfectly preventable, forseeable calamity. He was absolutely right, the rest were absolutely wrong. To his credit, he is taking no joy in this.

If you put sugar on poison, it does not make it less toxic.

The present crisis did not come about because of lack of regulation.  It has been caused by the unrestrained expansion of credit over the last 30 years.  When the government prints money which does not correspond to any increase of labor or goods, there is and must be inflation.  In this case, the government produced vapor-money, credit, and encouraged private parties to do the same.  This credit created bubbles in the housing and equities markets.  Eventually, however, some people—the subprime borrowers—were unable to keep up with the game, but they were just the canaries in the mine.  The entire economy, but especially that of large financial institutions, is permeated with the funny money and rectifying the situation will require either inflation or deflation until the money, including credit money, is back in balance with the price of labor and the production of goods.  Either inflation or deflation will be painful, especially to those at the bottom of the economic scale.

Paulson’s bailout proposal does not begin to solve anything.  It is simply more of the same, more funny money produced from nothing which will go back to nothing.  A lot of people seem to understand this, although it isn’t mentioned in the media much.

So why have the Democrats been babbling about government regulation, when problem they’re supposed to be dealing with has been caused by the inability of the government to regulate itself?  It looks like part of the fix here is to merge the corporate world with the government, with the corporate world taking the dominant position.  While the high-rolling observed in recent years would no longer be possible, the rich would stay comfortably rich and the poor—well, the corps and the politicos don’t care much about them anyway, unless they riot in the streets, and they know what to do about that.

That is how it’s playing out in Congress today, anyway.  About the only way you can get any enjoyment out of this is to make fun of the Democrats, as they shake their heads and wag their fingers and say, “Now, now!  We’re going to regulate you one of these days!!”

It’s a sad farce, though.

SamSnedegar,

I know you’re absolutely correct. I may not know much more than the average JaneWineCooler, but I know that doing nothing isn’t an option. On the other hand, neither is putting $810BILLION in the hands of one corporate crook with ZERO oversight. That’s how we got here, and it didn’t happen overnight.

When enough people of the US voted to put Dick Bush in charge of everything, (and twice) it was a mindless self-sabotage that brought down the rest of the world with it. Even now, millions are still intent on denying reality. It’s a killer everytime.

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

Why should we believe them? This song was written in Denver.

An opportunity, indeed.

The question is, will the more liberal Dems take advantage of it, or squander it?

This could be a real chance to connect with “regular people”.

The Dems are making a reall mistake, just sweetening it a little for businesses.

The Joe Sixpack American public has no idea of WHAT is involved, and no reporter has managed to state the terrible truth: doing nothing is NOT a viable option, even as the House Reps act for all the world like it is, and Lou Dobbs adds his usual paper moon and cardboard sky to the mix.

Be very sure that they have let this get so bad that doing nothing WILL result in meltdown not of just the US economy, but more than likely that of the WORLD.

There won’t be thousands of casualties: there will be BILLIONS, and those who do not starve to death will have to fight to the death over FOOD.

Oh well; the world and surely the USA have been overpopulated for years and years, and THAT is a big part of the problem.

A crisis IS also an opportunity, and I don’t know why the hell some democrat in congress hasn’t figured that out yet.

They need to squeeze little george ‘till his testicles turn as blue as his blood and fall right off.