patrick.net

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?

"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?"

What about this graph:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g5

don't you understand, bap?

I realize you're not the spinniest top on the table, but hopefully if I point out that households were receiving $1T+ PER YEAR of funny money 2003 through 2006 things might begin to sink in with you.

By 2008 this massive firehouse of monetary injection into the middle class was failing -- it actually went negative RIGHT when Obama was elected:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g6

and has stayed negative since then.

This is an immense hit to consumers' spending power and the general employment picture, since the Bush economy had grown dependent on HELOCs and serial cash-out refis.

The difference between Clinton's economy and now is that the 1990 recession was engineered by the Fed to cool down the late 80s speculative excess:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g8

shows the Fed raising the fed rate (red line) to 10% (!) in 1989, which eventually translated in falling jobs. Plus there was post-Soviet realignment and defense cuts starting in 1990 IIRC, which was very recessionary to eg. California, which lost a lot of defense spending.

The blue line in the above graph shows the small amount of adjustment that was made in the recession -- 2 million jobs.

Extending the graph until now:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g9

shows the true scale of the Bush crash -- 8 million bubble jobs gone just like that.

The Dems actually raised taxes in 1991-93, and the Republicans were screaming bloody murder about how they would kill the economy.

Would you like their quotes from that time bap?

I'd be happy to provide them for you, to show you how utterly wrong you conservatives are about everything.

wrong? You just said the guys are in office prior are responsible for whatever happens to the guy in office at present. And I agreed. And you say I am wrong, and even toss in every conservative there is. Okie dokie.

The invasion created by the illegal activist judge action of blocking Prop 187 ---- graph that cost please.

"You just said the guys are in office prior are responsible for whatever happens to the guy in office at present."

Who? When?

You seem to be missing some details here that I tried to fill in for you.

The Bush crew utterly destroyed our economy 2003-2008. That is undeniable, yes?

Like Obama, Bush Pere actually had to deal with his predecessor's bullshit, which caused major difficulties once the Texas and Massachusetts bubbles burst,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

and we began drawing down from Ronnie Raygun's over-expansion of the military sector:

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

"Poppie" also did not veto the 1991 Dem tax rise ("read my lips") to his great credit, but as I said above, one of the main drivers of the Clinton recovery was the Fed switching from tight-money to easy-money once the 1991 recession appeared.

Again, the chart:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3g8

It seems that Greenspan was just a little slow with the stimulus, if he hadn't had held rates over 8% in 1990 the recovery would have appeared sooner for GHWB.

Another chart showing how the economy was actually recovering before Clinton was even sworn in:

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

The late 1990s economy was colored by the Wintel and internet productivity increases, but underlaying it all was a very dangerous rise in financial sector leverage:

Here's a graph:

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

showing how the late 90s financial boom was 150% the YOY intake of the 80s boom (actual leverage was 2X, but I'll spare you the chart).

And yes, Bush the Lesser had to deal with the Clinton team's mistakes from 1995 on -- Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R), his father's NAFTA, plus the rising trade deficit with China, medical sector cost/profit inflation, the dotcom stock mania as the baby boom got overinvested in stocks.

But if you notice, every. single. fucking. problem I've listed is a conservative-made problem.

You guys are great at making problems, not so great at making solutions.

Bellingham Bill says

The Bush crew utterly destroyed our economy 2003-2008. That is undeniable, yes?

To a rational human being, yes. But the people who deny that Bush was evil also deny:

- that that trillions of tons of pollution mankind has released into the environment has any negative effects including altering climate.

- that capitalists will gladly screw over everyone else to make a buck.

- that corporations are not the same thing as people.

- that Jesus Christ was a socialist.

- that Gordon Gecko wasn't Jesus.

- that Obama was born in the U.S.A. just like Bruce Springsteen.

- that Obama's middle name Hussein does not mean he is related to Saddam Hussein.

- that Saddam Hussein wasn't connect to 911 or Al Qaeda.

- that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

- that Bush and Cheney knew the previous two facts.

and I could go on and on.

The people who supported Bush/Cheney simply are not rational can cannot be reasoned with.

Dan8267 says

The people who supported Bush/Cheney simply are not rational can cannot be reasoned with.

What if ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo&feature=related

I agree with most of what Bill says generally, though I do have to interject one point.

The increase of consumer debt is merely a sympton of the larger disease, which is decreasing wealth for the masses. The wealth inequality causes all and it is the favor of capital over labor that drives this wealth inequality.

This favor of capital over labor is not specifically tied to Republicans. Clinton lowered capital gains taxes too, as an example. The only truley pro-labor tax policy in my lifetime was Obama lowering the payroll tax.

Increase the value of labor relative to capital and watch wealth equality return. Taxing one over the other, and increasing deadweight loss, is one way of accomplishing this. But it is not the only way.

Capital destruction by forcing mark-to-market and allowing debt default would work, though it may have the unintended consequence of lowering the value of labor (by decreasing short-term employment)

Focusing public consumption on public capital would be another way...that is, instead of spending $500B on welfare, lets spend $1T on publicly owned capital projects. As it is, that $500B is taken from taxes and borrowed, and given to the poor who use it all for consumption, which is inevitably funneled into the hands of the capital hoarders. This increased public debt is largely a burden of labor under our current tax sytem, but its benefits flow into the hands of th capital. You explain this well so I know you understand...

But my only point is regardless of the small tweaks to the system, the favor of capital over labor is the core problem. And sadly, neither (D) nor (R) is fighting for labor in Washington, and both have been fully implicated in constructing the current system. FDR didn't increase taxes on capital - he increased taxes on labor. JFK and LBJ fought for social programs that only help funnel wealth into the hands of capital. Clinton, capital gains, etc. Obama will have us funnel more wealth into the hands of capital with the requirement of private health insurance without offering a public option.

austrian_man says

What if ???

Excellent video. Gets to why I like Ron Paul even though there are quite a few things I strongly disagree with him on.

He's the only person in my lifetime that has been as strong of an advocate for human and civil rights as Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy were before I was born.

I'd even take his more extreme policies if I could also get his policies on war and peace, foreign affairs, and his general approach to government.

You want to change this country... fight to change the way our voting system works... eliminate the the party system all together. Nobody has the answers, nobody knows what Ron Paul is or isn't capable of. It's all just speculation. You want to change this country? Change the way you think! When major issues are on the table, we should be able to vote for them as they come up.. each vote counts as one. We need to create a whole new system and get rid of everyone in politics currently! America needs a fresh start! Nobody knows the future or what Ron Paul can or can't do!

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

We need to recognize that public health care in this country is dead. It was so much compromized by the insurance reform, there is absolutely no chance of fixing it for long long time. By the time it will come back in serious discussions Ron Paul will be dead, and probably both you and me too. Thanks, Obama.

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

I partially agree with you, but even this he can't do without Congress, so it won't happen during his 4 years in office. Most likely scientific and medical research will be still subsidised through different departments. (Maybe on a lower level than it is today.)

* 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.

That's what will probably happen mostly on the state taxation level. But it's again a very slow process. Won't be finished during just 4 years.

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.

Well, Ron Paul is not ideal, but he is the only alternative to a complete disaster. At least he will do whatever little a president may do to fix the most horrible mistakes US made for the last 4 decades. Everyone else will make it even much worse than what we got now.

Dan is correct in that all we need Ron Paul to do in the WH is VETO EVERYTHING. I mean EVERYTHING congress puts on his desk unless it reduces spending/government.

However we don't need Ron to lower the size of the Federal Government - I think bankruptcy/currency collapse will do this for us and the big spenders are accerlating this process even while the 'deficit commssion' meets the spending increases. lol.

Historically speaking the only way Big Gov gets significantly smaller is by BK, losing a war or both.

Look at how small 'the government' is in USSR now compared to 1988. THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. Its entropy. All things end. BTW afganistan war was probably the 'straw that broke thier back' according to some people. How much are we spending on our empire/jobs program?

According to my theory if Ron Paul got elected and vetoed all new spending/stimulous our 'spends twice as much as they take in ' government might limp along a few more years/decade BUT if we get 4 more years of Dempublican spending the government collapse/downsizing will happen SOONER? anyway all this is speculation. But it could be if you want smaller government vote for Democrats as they are destroying our system like a retarded kid with your credit card in the mall would destroy your finances.

Dan8267 says

- that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

He did. He advocated selling oil in other than US$ currency. Just like Ahmadinejad, Kadafi, and Hugo Chavez.

I won't vote for a candidate unless they pledge to impose an individual mandate for housing that says you MUST buy a house or go to jail.