patrick.net

There is a typo in your subject heading - it should read:

10 reasons TO VOTE FOR Ron Paul.

Muwahahaha!

Ron Paul 2012!
(hes my kinda maniac)

MSNBC Praises Ron Paul:
www.dailypaul.com/186180/msnbc-praises-ron

These are all a bunch of half-truths, speculation & lame liberal talking points. It is BS spin, as is most "information" about just about any presidential candidate. I love all this nonsense about him being a racist, sexist, homophobe, [insert favorite liberal boogey-man label here]. Most of those half-truths are missing the part where he wants to push the responsibility of many federal laws down to states for them to decide. They guy advocates personal responsibility. I can understand why people are sort of scared of that since, well, look at the general public! Despite this, it NEEDS to happen at some point.

If you don't like his ideals, don't vote for him. It is that simple. The guy doesn't sugar-coat his messages. If you want to know what he is for/against, go to his campaign site & see for yourself. Draw your own conclusions. Don't be a robot that soaks up far-left talking points.

(one should scrutinize ALL information about ALL candidates, btw...don't be a brainwaste & let the media decide whom you vote for)

The reasons given by the article...

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.

Total bullshit. Ron Paul is the poster boy for equal rights for all people. The article wrongfully asserts that being against Affirmative Action means being against equal rights. If anything, the opposite is true. Affirmative Action is an attempt to rectify past injustices by enticing present and future injustices in the opposite direction. It goes against the very notion of equal rights.

Such a blatant lie about Ron Paul doesn't make the article start off well.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.

Second point is also complete bullshit. The article makes the absurd claim that unless you are 100% for Roe v. Wade, which I actually am, then you must believe women have no rights over their body and should be treated like cattle. This is an insultingly stupid lie that is easily disproved by the fact that half the people against Roe v. Wade are women.

Next time I get a couple of free hours, I'll educate everybody on the real truth about abortion rights vs. right to live in one of my 20+ page tirades. Here's a hint: both sides are fucking wrong and won't admit it.

Ron Paul's actual stance is that abortion should be a state issue, which makes absolutely no sense to me, but Libertarians think everything should be a state issue. Despite being pro-life, Ron Paul does accept the legalization of abortion at the state level and has stated he won't interfere with that right. And since Ron Paul is an ideologist, you can count on that.

The fact that the article tries to make Ron Paul, an obstetrician who has delivered many babies, into some kind of male chauvinistic pig that thinks women are here just to serve men proves beyond any doubt that the author, Summer Ludwig, is an ignorant bitch who deserves no respect. It's one thing to strongly disagree with a politician and to call him out on his policies, but it's quite another to lie about what those policies are. Summer Ludwig has the same level of credibility as Fox News.

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.

Many would argue the exact opposite. In addition to being against regulation and the minimum wage, Ron Paul is also big corporation's greatest nightmare. Compared to him, Elizabeth Warren looks like an ally.

Ron Paul is completely against all subsidies to corporations, all laws lobbied for by major companies, bailing out banks, fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve, and the transfer of huge amounts of money from the treasury to private corporations in all its forms from the industrialize military complex to hiring of contractors.

Now some of the things Ron Paul would do, if he could, might harm the economy in the short run -- as if it wasn't already in the shitter -- but there has been no evidence to show that his ideas wouldn't be better in the long run. Ron Paul would indeed decrease the social safety net for the working class, but he would also vastly increase the balance of power between the working class and its capital overlords by forcing government to not take sides. Right now, the government has taken a side: capital.

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.

Ron Paul's ultimate tax goal, which he would never get even if elected president, would be to eliminate the entire income tax, replacing it with nothing, and doing so by cutting the vast majority of spending: military, Social Security, and Medicaid. And the biggest of these three is the military.

Ron Paul might, and that's a pretty weak might, just might be able to get military spending down and America to give up its empire. However, Ron Paul has absolutely no chance in hell of dismantling Social Security or Medicaid. As such, it does not seem logical to vote against him for this belief.

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.

Ron Paul, like most Libertarians, is lousy on the environment. However, the lack of subsidizing the coal and oil industries would actually be good. That said, the fundamental flaw that Libertarians have with respect to environmental issues still stands. Libertarians just don't believe in publicly owned property like the air and oceans. If they did, then they would understand that protecting the environment is protecting property rights.

However, Summer Ludwig still fucks up an important point. The Democrats and the Republicans are just as lousy on the environment. They both supported off-shore drilling. That disaster happened on Obama's watch because he allowed off-shore drilling despite intense opposition that said unequivocally that a major oil spill disaster would result, and of course, it did.

Also, no environmental damage is irreparable. Yes, species can go extinct, but all environments can be repaired. It's a question of cost, not possibility. Hell, we could terraform Mars if devoted enough wealth to do so. Note to all smelly hippies: no, I am not saying that we should fuck up the environment just because we can repair it; obviously, it's better not to break it in the first place.

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.

This is a complete sack of shit. Obama voted to continue the USA Patriot Act after it had been used to rape, torture, and murder people, including innocent people having nothing to do with terrorism. People were literally ripped to shreds by attack dogs because of this act. Then, as president, Obama renegade on his promise to close Gitmo on day one and instead kept it open until he could outsource torturing to other governments so that America would not be held liable.

Additionally, as president Obama has murdered thousands of civilians with drone attacks including children and at least one U.S. citizens that he refused to allow the legal system to deal with. That American's crime: using Facebook to spread a message the U.S. government didn't want spread. Maybe you can make a case that it is a crime, but a capital one that demands due process and legal proceedings be averted? That's fucking un-American as the Gestapo.

Yet, Obama didn't fuck up America's image? What hypocrisy! Ron Paul makes Obama look like George W. Bush. Remember, Ron Paul was one of the few members of either chamber of Congress that voted against the evil USA Patriot Act. He also voted against all the wars, including the one in Afghanistan that Obama has continued for years.

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.

Yet another incorrect statement of the facts by Fox and Friend's smelly hippy guest speaker, Summer Ludwig. She's a liberal, female version of Shrekgrinch, just pulling facts out of her ass.

Ron Paul's actual reason for cosponsoring Marriage Protection Act in 2006 was to prevent one state from being able to decide for another state whether or not homosexual marriages should be recognized. You might not agree with this idea -- I certainly don't, but that's an issue for another 20 page tirade that keeps me up until 6 a.m. -- but it certainly has nothing to do with the crap assertion that Ron Paul wants to discriminate against homosexuals.

Ron Paul's actual stance on gay marriage, as stated by OnTheIssues.org is:

No federal marriage licenses & no state licenses either. (Aug 2011)
Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011)
Government is totally unnecessary for gay marriage laws. (May 2011)
Definition of marriage is free speech. (Apr 2011)
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)
No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007) [The only red flag.]

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
[Paul's rating is consistent with his single philosophy of keep government out of everything. So his policies are neither anti-gay or pro-gay. They are, however, pro-civil rights in general. At worst, you could call Ron Paul an anarchist.]

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.

I suspect that Summer Ludwig thinks that anyone who is for gun rights has an unnatural obsession with guns. Ron Paul has consistently voted against war and military spending. To call him a gun nut is as fucking insane as calling Ted Nugent a vegetarian.

Ron Paul does believe that law abiding people should be allowed to do anything they want including having sex with consenting water buffalo in public. He's completely believes in "you can do anything you want as long as you aren't infringing on someone else's right to life, liberty, property". And yes, that includes getting nasty with some water buffalo.

I was going to Google image search "nasty water buffalo", but coincidently Ted Nugget's website had the perfect picture. That was a coincidence, right?

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.

Yes, Ron Paul would privatize education. Given how fucked up the American education system is, it couldn't be worse. As long as no tax funding goes to religious propaganda, er, classes, I'm for this. Hell, I'd open a virtual school that would kick the shit out of every public or private school out there. And it would be cheaper too.

Competition is a good thing. Big corporations like Goldman Sachs and the public school system are bad. And yes, they are both corporations.

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.

Ron Paul is consistently Libertarian on every single issue, except this one. Religion is the one thing that seems to fuck up otherwise consistently Libertarian or consistently scientific minds. It's like the one blind spot that trumps everything else. So, yes, this part is true.

Unfortunately, none of the other politicians believe in separation of church and state either. That includes both Democrats and Republicans. They all suck on this. I guess this is why we need an atheist president. But that's the one thing we'll never see, because atheism is the one minority group that everyone is still allowed to hate. Well, maybe except the richest 1%, but they deserve it.

Well, there you have it. Only two out of ten points had any merit. And those two points apply to just about all politicians in our country. Of course, this discussion is academic because Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination even if he got all the votes -- they would be deliberately misplaced as in past elections. And even if he got nominated, he'd be assassinated by his own party before Election Day.

I've always told the ultra-cons that if I hear bullshit from a liberal, I'd call him or her out on it. Getting facts rights is important. Getting reasons right is even more important. Even being right for the wrong reason is ultimately wrong. Reasoning matters more than conclusions.

However, this article is almost entirely wrong about Ron Paul. If you are going to vote against him -- and you'll only have that opportunity in the Republican primaries -- then at least vote against him for correct reasons.

If he shows up at the debates Mongo has a facebook with his face on it, and the words underscored "Kick his ASS!" under it.

Welcome to America...

"Quiet! Pigeon plucking in process."

Anonymousone says

MSNBC Praises Ron Paul:

www.dailypaul.com/186180/msnbc-praises-ron

Linked worked for me. So far I've watched the Herman Cain part.

I don't know the background about his position on the housing bubble, but at least he admitted being wrong. More than most politicians do. Still, I could never vote for someone who was for keeping Gitmo opened. That's a deal killer. There are also other things on his OnTheIssues.org page that I disagree with, but the Gitmo thing just made me stop reading.

Anonymousone says

MSNBC Praises Ron Paul:

www.dailypaul.com/186180/msnbc-praises-ron

Just listened to the Ron Paul part. Yep, one of the reasons I liked Ron Paul was he had the intelligence and foresight to see the bubble at the same time as the rest of us on patrick.net and thehousingbubbleblog.com.

Too bad the media still doesn't realize that there were hundreds of thousands of people who saw the housing bubble for what it was and knew a financial collapse was coming. We all warned the world, but the world didn't listen. And it still isn't.

Even with the stuff that I disagree with Ron Paul, I gotta give him props for understanding economics. We should all be Austrian, not Keynesian.

The GOP says

If he shows up at the debates Mongo has a facebook with his face on it, and the words underscored "Kick his ASS!" under it.

Welcome to America...

"Quiet! Pigeon plucking in process."

William E Baughb

Does anyone else think that the GOP account is just a link farm building bot using copy-n-pasted text that is utterly incoherent and could only serve the purpose of fooling Google's page rank algorithm into thinking a page was written by a human and isn't a link farm node?

100 Reasons for Ron Paul, a YouTube video of a young women intelligently arguing for Ron Paul's position against subsidized schooling.

I disagree with some of the wordings she uses, things like education instead of schooling, etc, but the message is correct and straight to the point. College is expensively solely because its subsidized, and thus students are worst off because of federal student loans.

That article is biased.

Ron Paul is right that we have too many government subsidies floating to special interests, that needs to stop. He is for states rights, not for federal government growing out of control.

FortWayne says

He is for states rights, not for federal government growing out of control.

Pretty much sums him up well. I, however, am not for state's rights, but for individual's rights. I don't see how 50 dictators are better than one.

Sometimes states promote greater liberty than the federal government like some states did with gay marriage. But sometimes states curtail liberty like some other states did with gay marriage and earlier with blocking civil rights of African-Americans. (Coincidentally, the anti-black states of yesterday are the anti-gay ones of today. Well, actually that's not coincidence.)

My point is that individual rights, not state rights, is what's important.

FortWayne says

That article is biased.

It's not so much it's biased as all opinions are by definition. It's that the article is just almost completely wrong. Only 2 of the 10 points are correct. A few are half-correct, but a half-truth is the worst kind of lie.

Ron Paul Song
A veteran speaks honestly about the Iraq War, honor, and Ron Paul
Ron Paul in a Nutshell

I was absolutely delighted when I first saw Ron Paul speaking out loud in Congress about how the Federal Reserve inflates the currency, stealing from the rest of us to save banksters.

Love the anti-interventionism and sincere desire to let everyone do their own thing as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

BUT I have a few major problems with his platform.

* He has zero plan for health care. "Let people beg for charity" is not a plan.

* He would wipe out large portions of government that actually do useful things, like scientific and medical research that private industry won't do.

* He would eliminate the income tax, which is good, but if you just do that, it's even more regressive than our current system, and wealth will get even more concentrated into the hands of non-productive rent-seekers.

I would support Ron Paul if he supported a government health insurance option, if he would acknowledge that good things can and do come out of government (this very internet we're using), and if he proposed some kind of land or asset tax to replace all other taxes.

Not Sure says

Healthcare and scientific & medical research could easily be funded by those STATES interested in doing so and willing to bear the costs of such endeavours.

It makes sense to social the cost of things that benefit all of society because the economy of scale allows for the greatest return on that investment. As long as the benefits are for all of society rather than a select few.

As such, scientific research is best done on a global level followed by a continental level and then a nation-state level. Individual U.S. states (providences) aren't going to spend the money on something that benefits the whole world or even just all the other states. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

That said, the main reason to elect Ron Paul would be to act as a counterbalance to the rest of Washington. His more radical ideas won't get passed. Heck, I doubt if any of this ideas would get passed because both Democrats and Republicans would fight against him all the way. But at least Ron Paul would veto all of their crappy plans too.

Having Dr. No in office would curtail government growth, end the wars, prevent future wars, and make lobbying a lot harder. It's not so much that Ron Paul has all the answers. It's more like the answers he has have been under-represented so much that it would take a radical just to get the country back to talking about them.

Of course, it's an academic point since Ron Paul will never get nominated, nonetheless elected. He just doesn't have the gravitas and the speaking ability to win a presidential election. Even dumb ass Bush could at least speak like Bugs Bunny. Ron Paul looks like an unsuccessful used car salesman. And people like that don't get to be president. Just ask Ralph Nadar.

Of course this means that Obama is going to be the path of least evil in the upcoming election. The bright side is that 2016 is relatively open. Biden will probably run, but I'm still hopeful for a Warren/Black ticket. That might just be a pipe dream, though.

PasadenaNative says

As if we really need that many!

If you did not really need any reasons, why bother posting it? :)

PasadenaNative says

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

Dan has posted a nice rebuttal, so I'll just add my thoughts.

A few notes of what I would like to see from Ron Paul (and I don't see it now):

1. Too much ideology. He's of the belief that free markets and limited government is the ONLY solution. Not true, there are several developed countries in the world where responsible governance works quite well. In fact, a responsible government is better than limited government to protect the common man.

2. For capitalism to work as intended, effective regulation is needed. This is because capitalism as a system requires majority of the participating people to be honest. If they're not (they're definitely not in the US), then regulation is pretty much the only defense for the powerless. Private property rights only offer so much protection and the powerful can always override those rights. Ron Paul always talks about deregulation but fails to recognize that adequate, adaptable and flexible regulation (more regulation when more people turn rogue) is always required to ensure the game doesn't get rigged.

3. It feels like Ron Paul is better off aligning himself with the intelligent Democrats (Alan Grayson, Marcy Kaptur) than with the 'fiscal conservatives' LOL. However much one wants to vote Republican for Ron Paul, the Republicans dug a much deeper hole than the Democrats in terms of damaging the economy. He is portrayed along with a bunch of buffoons which makes him lose his credibility (somewhat).

4. Always hell bent on lower taxes. It can be effectively argued that in a rent-seeking economy that we are in -- progressive taxes are an effective way to funnel more money into the middle class (where bulk of the wealth extraction takes place) for more balance. But progressive taxes also require honest governance, where US is WAY OFF.

HOWEVER, there are equally valid 5 reasons why I am a fan of him:

1. His understanding of the monetary system and its root-cause for financial crisis.

2. His non-interventionist foreign policy (In fact regardless of who becomes President, Ron Paul should just be sworn in as the foreign policy head -- America will be much better off).

3. His remarkable consistency over 30 years of politics. Politicians are hardly ever consistent (a good thing if they learn their mistakes), but Ron Paul's core principles haven't really changed that much. Which is important, because you can *trust* him that he would do what he says.

4. His sound understanding of economics and the fact that he saw the housing bubble WAY before everyone else did. It is testament to the fact that he is a good leader. A good leader has the ability/vision to see the future crises/opportunities and prepare a nation accordingly. Ron Paul has the ability to do that.

5. His unequivocal defense for liberty and the constitution. Say all you want, but the US constitution is one of the most sublime documents produced ever in the history of mankind. The founding fathers (Madison, Jefferson et.al) were phenomenal in producing well-thought out articles for the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only politician who adheres strictly to those basic values (most of which still remain true to this very day).

austrian_man says

Marcy Kaptur

I forgot about Marcy Kaptur (D, OH). She's one of the few politicians that got how bad the housing bubble was and that it was going to cause a financial catastrophe that went far beyond the housing market. And that was back in 2006-2007.

What ever happened to her? I don't hear her in the news anymore.

There are way too many 'tax eaters' for Ron Paul to ever ever get elected.

Probably there are too many tax eaters for any republican to win the WH again.

Anyway - we all know the only cure for big governemnent - its not from voting. Its financial collapse/bankruptcy and its HAPPENING fast.

The democrats will probably destroy the federal system with insane deficit spending. The feds are spending almost double what they take in from taxes. So either they cut spending in half (impossible since they were elected to 'continure the spending') Sooo we know the solution - soviet style financial collapse at some point in the future? I'm Not sure if that means deflation or inflation but mathematically what they are doing could be considered financial terrorism? It certainly will end in a greece type of default/restructure where the feds get to set the rules so maybe nothing will change.... Lets watch europe closely to see if thier collapse leads to small government (ha!)

PockyClipsNow says

The democrats will probably destroy the federal system with insane deficit spending

You meant to say Republicans, right? Because if you look at public spending over the last 30 years, it's guys with an R after their name that are responsible for our debt...

PockyClipsNow says

The democrats will probably destroy the federal system with insane deficit spending

LOL. Hate to break it to you, but the Republicans retook the house in 2010 and it's their budget now. Plus of course as was mentioned above it was the Republicans who gave us Medicare Parts C & D and $500B+ defense budgets while cutting taxes.

How the fuck did they expect that to not result in massive deficits?

Sooo we know the solution - soviet style financial collapse at some point in the future?

Maybe, but Japan is also a possible future. But with our trade deficit, I think FSU is more in play than Japan perhaps.

Lets watch europe closely to see if thier collapse leads to small government (ha!)

Europe is really mixed. The nations that have their act together are still doing OK -- the nordic nations and Germany. Belgium and France are not in that rank, and the Mediterranean socialist states are screwed thanks to leveraging their economies on debt take-on (sound familiar?).

America's problems are easily solvable if we back out the mistakes of the past 30 years. Raise taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, get our trade and labor policies back to pre-Nixon strengths, get our defense costs back to pre-Bush levels:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3eM

plus find and implement a replacement for our gasoline consumption.

No problem.

Oh, we also need to cut health expenses 50% per-capita (to match the rest of the world), forgot about that.

tatupu70 says

PockyClipsNow says

The democrats will probably destroy the federal system with insane deficit spending

You meant to say Republicans, right? Because if you look at public spending over the last 30 years, it's guys with an R after their name that are responsible for our debt...

Why does it matter? They are both BAD. Maybe one turd is stinkier than the other...but they are both still turds! Don't buy into this 2-party crap. It is exactly how we keep ending up with lame ducks in office. It does not matter if you support Democrats or Republicans. They are two faces of the same coin. Supporting Dems/Reps is nonsensical because it is the same as supporting Reps/Dems! One party is a giant douche and the other is a turd sandwich...how does it make ANY sense to support one over the other?! The ONLY person I would vote for on a republican ticket is Ron Paul, because he does not count as a "modern" Republican. The party hates him because he goes so strongly against their grain...and yet, he is what they SHOULD be. If/When he does not get the nomination, I am still writing him in next November.

Both parties are raping America. One uses a condom, one doesn't. For many people, it is a matter of great importance to decide which party used the condom, and point out that the other one didn't.

From now on, whenever I see someone counter a "that party is bad because X" statement with a "well the OTHER party is worse because Y" statement, I will inform them that they are arguing that rape is A-OK, as long as a condom is used.

bmwman91 says

Why does it matter? They are both BAD. Maybe one turd is stinkier than the other...but they are both still turds!

lol. And you're going to vote for the one person worse than either a Rep or Dem.

bmwman91 says

From now on, whenever I see someone counter a "that party is bad because X" statement with a "well the OTHER party is worse because Y" statement, I will inform them that they are arguing that rape is A-OK, as long as a condom is used.

OK--that's not what I was doing. Porky argued that Dems were bankrupting America and I said actually it was Reps that are responsible for the debt.

Your argument is idiotic. There are clear, important differences between the parties. If you can't see that, then you really need to get your eyes checked.

tatupu70 says

bmwman91 says

Why does it matter? They are both BAD. Maybe one turd is stinkier than the other...but they are both still turds!

lol. And you're going to vote for the one person worse than either a Rep or Dem.

You are welcome to your opinion of the guy. We'll all get to express ours on voting day.

And +points for the correct usage of "you're". Nothing makes me cringe like the interchangeable use of your/you're found on the internet today.

Let me sum up 'federal politics' IMO:

People who rely on the federal gov for a check directly and/or indirectly fighting over the federal budget.

Since I dont work for a huge defense company/bank/hedge fund I'm not an R.

Since I'm not a gov/union employee I'm not a D.

(I get it that if you are a cop, you need to always vote for D since 'they got yur back' and always funnel $ to you and will always bail your pension, etc).

So the rest of us who are NOT tax eaters - we all think they are the same party - the party of the big spenders - the 2 headed corporate monsters. Follow the money. Abortion and men kissing are tricks they use to get votes in 'purple districts'.

Same party for me. If Tony Soprano was extorting me for $ every month I wouldnt really care whether he uses the money to pay old people so they can eat better or if he is funding foreign wars. Thats the perspective of the 'beleagured taxpayer'.

PockyClipsNow says

So the rest of us who are NOT tax eaters

Thing is, without the redistribution, this place would *really* be fucked.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners

Paul's idea that if we cut a trillion out of federal spending the economy would blossom is pure industrial-grade bullshit.

I'm all for cutting wasteful and unproductive spending -- there's a trillion or two of that no doubt in the $5T+ all levels are spending -- but things are so screwed up now that it's just government keeping shit together for millions.

This graph:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3f6

shows how big finance (yellow) was borrowing a trillion dollars a year since the 1990s, until it all blew up in 2008.

Big finance snookered households (blue) and later corporate debt (red) into the game and took them out too.

Without that green spike of debt (the federal deficit) we wouldn't be wasting time on the internet, we'd be living some post-apocalyptic BS already, or the 1930s, same difference.

Bellingham Bill says

Paul's idea that if we cut a trillion out of federal spending the economy would blossom is pure industrial-grade bullshit.

Troy - then how do you explain this?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cp32n3-1.html

Is that also all BS? In 1946, government stimulus was withdrawn and labor market adjusted.

Bellingham Bill says

but things are so screwed up now that it's just government keeping shit together for millions.

Bellingham Bill says

Without that green spike of debt (the federal deficit) we wouldn't be wasting time on the internet

I understand what you are saying, but all of what you say works well only if you have efficient governance. Swedes are just 2M people and they can do it. We're 300M and we can't co-ordinate this monetary expansion. Plus, the Swedes screwed the banks and took care of the people. We did it the other way.

Which might explain the stubborn unemployment rate.

Its not true we would be 'eating each other' if they had to actually lay off some federal employees.

House prices are back to year 2001 prices. Lets set the federal budget back to year 2001 levels. Just cut every new program created since 2001 and set all their salaries to year 2001 and the pain is over. ez.

austrian_man says

In 1946, government stimulus was withdrawn and labor market adjusted.

2011 is not 1946. American households now have not been denied necessities either by war production or the recession for 15+ years.

In 1946 everybody had savings since nobody could spend any money on anything since 1942.

Consumer debt load was nonexistant -- the graph doesn't go back that far but you get the point:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3f9

There was in fact a transition period where employment fell substantially:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3fa

but as the Cato article said employment did bounce back in 1946.

Not enough to save the Dems in office:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1946

Our economy now is simply not structured to put 4 million people back to work; capacity utilization is still at recessionary levels:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCU

Mfg fell 5M in the postwar:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USGOOD

but US factories were the only ones standing (outside of Russia) so of course we'd get back to work meeting global demand for stuff.

But that chart shows we've lost 6M mfg jobs since 2000. What process is going to reverse that?

Cutting gov't would eliminate defense sector jobs, which is a big part of mfg in this country.

Service-providing jobs had been flat since 1943:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3fc

so people were glad to get back to work there.

but if you ask me we could now stand to lose another 5M service jobs, to take us back to 2000:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3fe

Construction, same story:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USCONS

War Construction had priority during the war so there was immense pent-up demand in the postwar, plus the returning vets, plus the baby boom these vets were creating.

Still, construction jobs fell from 2.5m to 1m in the immediate postwar.

Of course now we seriously overbuilt 1995-2008 and I don' think those 2M lost jobs are coming back, and I don't see how cutting $1T from gov't is going to bring them back, either.

Transportation, same story:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USTPU?cid=32314

a +2M job boost in 1946 as the economy got back on track.

We're still below the 2000 peak in this sector and I don't see why it will be coming back any time soon.

Education and health care:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USEHS

is the one solid sector, but I don't see how cutting a trillion from government spending is going to increase employment here. If anything, it will destroy this job sector (a large part of the allegedly "do nothing" stimulus was transfers to states to stop firing their teachers)

As for the article:

"The postwar era provides a classic illustration of how government spending "crowds out" private sector spending and how the economy can thrive when the government's shadow is dramatically reduced."

back then there was a massive tax on net income. This kept money in the paycheck economy and was a large reason why the economy boomed as it did.

Now, our paycheck economy has so many breaches in it -- our $500B/yr trade deficits, housing costs so frickin' high and still getting higher, health care costs that are totally out of control -- that it takes $1T+ of gov't intervention to keep it afloat.

Remove that in-flow and the middle class in this country would discover just how hosed it really is.

Comparing now to 1946 is really the height of intellectual dishonesty, even for the ideologues at Cato; 1995-2009 was a history of leveraging up to fake prosperity, while 1931-45 was one of deprivation and rebuilding from the ground up. I want to punch those Cato clowns in their clown noses.

PockyClipsNow says

Lets set the federal budget back to year 2001 levels. Just cut every new program created since 2001 and set all their salaries to year 2001 and the pain is over. ez.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2001_US.html

Indeed, easy enough.

Cut Medicare 55%, save $500B. I thought Logan's Run was an excellent movie.

Cut Defense 60%, save $500B. Nobody works in defense anyway. It's all just money lit afire every new FY.

Cut Welfare 60%, save $300B. Sorry 99ers, your benefits are now OVER. Time to stop avoiding work and GET THAT JOB. Food stamp people, your life of free food is OVER. Time to be a PRODUCER not a CONSUMER. Section 8 landlords, your easy life on Uncle Sam's dime is OVER; have fun collecting rent from your subhuman deadbeat tenants again.

Easy-peasy.

How people would replace this $1.1T of lost income, who the fuck knows.

PockyClipsNow says

Its not true we would be 'eating each other' if they had to actually lay off some federal employees.

House prices are back to year 2001 prices. Lets set the federal budget back to year 2001 levels. Just cut every new program created since 2001 and set all their salaries to year 2001 and the pain is over. ez.

Yeah, that's a great idea. Tell me: Are healthcare costs the same as they are in 2001? Is energy the same price as it was in 2001? What about food?

Next time think before you type.

Not Sure says

This is TRUE...
..one party has an ELEPHANT as its symbol, the other uses a DONKEY.
Good catch Tatu!

No, of course you are right. The parties are exactly the same. That's why the deficit commission is making short work of fixing the debt problem--because all congressmen think the same way. The priorities for both parties is the same.

(I don't have a picture to post--sorry)

Bellingham Bill says

2011 is not 1946. American households now have not been denied necessities either by war production or the recession for 15+ years.

During WWII people sacrificed consumption to defend freedom. During the Iraq War / Afgan War / War on Terror, people sacrificed freedom and human/civil rights to defend, what was it, oh yeah, corporate profits. We were told to shop to defeat terrorism. That's the kind of bullshit that hasn't come from Washington since duck and cover.

I would have gladly sacrificed consumption (SUVs, gasoline, energy use, etc.) like they did in WWII to protect my country from terrorists in oi-rich states. However, I am not willing to sacrifice the Constitution, the Magna Carta, human rights and dignity, or civil rights and due process of the law. We sacrificed a lot of things, but they were all the wrong things.

tatupu70 says

bmwman91 says

From now on, whenever I see someone counter a "that party is bad because X" statement with a "well the OTHER party is worse because Y" statement, I will inform them that they are arguing that rape is A-OK, as long as a condom is used.

OK--that's not what I was doing. Porky argued that Dems were bankrupting America and I said actually it was Reps that are responsible for the debt.

Your argument is idiotic. There are clear, important differences between the parties. If you can't see that, then you really need to get your eyes checked.

Of course they look different! One uses a condom and one doesn't. They are both bad for America, but they look very different because of the special interest groups that they are beholden to.

Now, looking at things objectively, I would agree that the Republicans have added more debt. The Dems and their social spending programs have added a lot, but the wars that the Republicans have started have added more. In the end it does not matter though. If either party had complete control of the White House, Senate and the House for an indefinite period of time, their policies would make us insolvent. Maybe the Republicans would do it faster, who knows. Either way...America loses.

Little Ronny Paul reminds me of my little brother. He wants to wear big boy pants and play in our clubhouse but he's too short, too poor, and just a little too eager to let us put the scorpion in his underpants.

Little Ronny will always be the small fucker doing anything he can to please men of stature and merit while his balls swell into cantaloupes. Fun for awhile but mostly annoying.

bmwman91 says

If either party had complete control of the White House, Senate and the House for an indefinite period of time, their policies would make us insolvent.

From 1993-1995, Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Did deficit EXPLODE? No it did not, it was being paid down. Facts trump "truthiness". Clinton left office with the prospect of deficit being paid down by 2012. GOP solved that worry for us.

As a GOPer for decades, I came to the realization the GOP is a bunch of raging hypocrites about deficit. Cheney said "deficits don't matter" well what he meant was they don't matter when GOP is in power.

Vicente says

bmwman91 says

If either party had complete control of the White House, Senate and the House for an indefinite period of time, their policies would make us insolvent.

From 1993-1995, Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Did deficit EXPLODE? No it did not, it was being paid down. Facts trump "truthiness". Clinton left office with the prospect of deficit being paid down by 2012. GOP solved that worry for us.

As a GOPer for decades, I came to the realization the GOP is a bunch of raging hypocrites about deficit. Cheney said "deficits don't matter" well what he meant was they don't matter when GOP is in power.

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

If you also track consumer debt & the expansion of credit over that period, it has a lot to do with the good-looking economy. Clinton gets the credit for the tech boom years, but so much of that was simply due to the build-up of the tech bubble and expanding consumer credit. So things looked good, but as we all found out in 2000-2001, it was not sustainable. The tech crash had nothing to do with Bush taking office (though I will certainly agree that he did a lot of things that only made it worse in the long-term).

I don't think that ALL things that either party does are bad. It does seem that the sum total of their actions comes out negative, though.

but Vincent, if Bush is the reason Barry is having a bad economy, then Clinton's great economy MUST be due to those who came before him ... right? WHo was that again?