Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Cane, I think you just don't want to accept that someone could actually be honest and that someone actually being a Politician. This is a projection of your own self because you know you would never be honest yourself in a campaign.

Humans like to project a lot. It is like when you are in a relationship and the man constantly berates the girl because he thinks she is cheating on him and lying to him. I would say a good portion of the time the reason he is projecting this fear of cheating onto her, is because he is cheating himself and he cannot rationalize in his mind how someone would not cheat.

But he will rationalize his cheating just like you are rationalizing your bias for the idea that no politician could ever be an honest man.

Paul's actions speak louder than his words. It is also reported that while Paul was a practicing physician he never accepted medicaid and would accept any form of payment from the individual. At one point even a boil of shrimp!

Attack the man all you want but the reason why people are calling you an Obama supporter is due to the fact that lots of Democrats in their criticism of Republicans call them racist. It is like they comb through all their words just to try and find some analogy that will make them seem like a racist and if they don't overtly say it then they must be consciously thinking it and if they arent consciously thinking it then they must be acting on it subconsciously.

It is rather absurd.

[DSpencer]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Seriously, you're still going to bring up Wright, when Paul gets a smiling pic with the founder of Stormfront, and that group's continued endorsement?

So if someone poses for a picture with someone who is evil, they are forever tainted? Name the presidents you have voted for and let's see if we can't find a picture or two of them posing with a murderous dictator.

I don't know the context of this picture but i think it's a safe assumption that every presidential candidate poses for hundreds or thousands of pictures on the campaign trail. I'm sure they don't thoroughly vet every potential picture mate. I'm sure the list includes rapists, murderers and most certainly racists for every candidate.

I love how anybody who brings up criticism of Paul is suddenly labeled an Obama supporter. I don't support Obama. But I'm tired of Paul being sainted. He's a career politician who said questionable things to further his career. He has done exactly the thing that you denounce Obama for. You may agree or disagree with his policy stands, but don't try to pretend that he is of some sort of higher moral fiber than the other candidates. (Okay, probably Gingrich.)

I've seen people who explicitly state that they DISAGREE with Paul on a number of issues, but still support him because they have this image of him as the only honest man in Washington. I just want to see Paul handled with the same kind of rationality and cynicism that are applied to every other political candidate by the posters on this site.

Who did you vote for last election? Who will you vote for this election?

The bottom line is this:

On one side of the scale you have this newsletter claim that RP is "racist. On the other side you have decades of time in the public eye. A massive volume of speeches, books, written statements etc that are more consistent than any other politician I'm aware of and that don't appear to contain any racist agenda whatsoever.

Both parties dislike RP and so we can basically guarantee that they have and are thoroughly scouring his past to come up with any mud to sling at him.

Millions of people have weighed the evidence and determined that RP is not the racist bigot you want him to be and is in fact a much more honest and moral politician than most. Sorry their conclusion doesn't mesh with your desires. But don't despair, I'm sure in the end that the USA will get the type of President it deserves....we always do.

[Raz]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

I won't even get into debating whether Wright actually said anything racist. Let's just say that, okay, Wright did say lots of racist stuff.

Why is Obama is accountable for Wright's racist rhetoric, but Paul gets a pass on his own? It was published in his own newsletter, under his own name, and there was no "the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect" boilerplate. And then Paul later made mealy-mouthed, half-assed attempts to deflect his own involvement in disseminating this tripe. Yet you somehow see one of these men as an empty suit and one as a paragon of virtue.

I see two politicians doing whatever seemed to best help their political career at the time.

Seriously, you're still going to bring up Wright, when Paul gets a smiling pic with the founder of Stormfront, and that group's continued endorsement?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4193[/ATTACH]

Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. Years ago, Paul was trying to appeal to the lowest (and I mean rock-bottom) common denominator of the 14th district of Texas. He didn't calculate how these statements would play later when he was trying to run for president, and when they came up, he didn't handle it honorably, he handled it like the usual two-faced politician who has been in Congress for over 20 years. He issued the typical cowardly politician non-apology apology that was vague enough that none of the folks who really liked what was in those newsletters (like Stormfront) would think he really meant it:

I love how anybody who brings up criticism of Paul is suddenly labeled an Obama supporter. I don't support Obama. But I'm tired of Paul being sainted. He's a career politician who said questionable things to further his career. He has done exactly the thing that you denounce Obama for. You may agree or disagree with his policy stands, but don't try to pretend that he is of some sort of higher moral fiber than the other candidates. (Okay, probably Gingrich.)

I've seen people who explicitly state that they DISAGREE with Paul on a number of issues, but still support him because they have this image of him as the only honest man in Washington. I just want to see Paul handled with the same kind of rationality and cynicism that are applied to every other political candidate by the posters on this site.

Mr Cane,

The foaming, raging tone of your post clearly implies that you don't like Ron Paul, or many of his supporters. That is your perogative. I'm going to address the remarks I highlighted.


1.) Obama is accountable for Obama. Personally, I find Mr. Wright to be a foul-mouthed, hate-filled heretic. And I wouldn't feel comfortable with anyone who joined his "church" and supported it with time, attendance and financial contributions. So I didn't feel comfortable with Mr. Obama back in 2008 - even before I heard him say that "he didn't hear all those things when he attended services", or words to that effect. It's far easier for me to believe that Ron Paul didn't read every issue of his newsletter than it is for me to believe that Mr. Obama never heard any racist, hate-filled venom from the man who performed his marriage ceremony, ate dinner in his home, and pastored the "church" where he attended for twenty years. That's a lot closer to home than a newsletter Mr. Paul didn't write.
That being said, it iS Mr. Paul's responsibility to vet any publication issued in his name. So he certainly bears some responsibility for this episode. Questioning him about it is fair game; branding him a racist because of it is not.


2.) Stormfront's endorsement doesn't mean that Ron Paul supports them or their agenda. It does, however reveal the practical danger of libertarianism with a big L. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Mr. Obama was and is specifically because of his support of abortion. That is evidenced by the entirety of their political careers, and, in Mr. Obama's case, reinforced by the statement I heard him make in 2008 comparing pregnancy to a venereal disease.

3.) Your opinion is your own and you're entitled to it as I am to mine.
I do NOT agree that Ron Paul has "done exactly the thing that I denounce Obama for".


4.) I don't believe that you "just want to see Paul handled with the same kind of rationality and cynicism that are applied to every other political candidate" .
I'll apologize in advance if I'm mistaken, but I believe that you (a) don't like Ron Paul, (b) you see him as a racist, and (c) you don't agree with his political philosophy or most of his positions on issues.

(In the interest of transparency you may certainly apply (a) and (c) to me when it comes to Barack Obama. I see the man as corrupt, disinginuous, and an economic illiterate whose only correct position was voting against the war in Iraq.)

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

The foaming, raging tone of your post clearly implies that you don't like Ron Paul, or many of his supporters. That is your perogative.

Raz,

Thanks for your reply. I did not intend my post to come across as "foaming" or "raging", I think our disagreement colors your impression of my tone. However, I appreciate your response, and I found it came across as pretty calm and thoughtful, so thanks for that.

I can see that I am probably not going to change your mind, nor you mine, so I'm not going to respond to every point in your reply. We'd be here all day, to little positive effect. So I just want to bring up a couple of things.

It's far easier for me to believe that Ron Paul didn't read every issue of his newsletter than it is for me to believe that Mr. Obama never heard any racist, hate-filled venom from the man who performed his marriage ceremony, ate dinner in his home, and pastored the "church" where he attended for twenty years. That's a lot closer to home than a newsletter Mr. Paul didn't write.

I guess I just have a hard time believing this. Paul published this newsletter, with his own name on the masthead, for as long as Obama went to Wright's church. And the idea that he didn't even read this newsletter is somehow a pass? Publishing a newsletter is an active endeavor, while listening to a sermon is a passive one. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

3.) Your opinion is your own and you're entitled to it as I am to mine.

One of Paul's other statements from the newsletter was "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." When asked about this quote, a spokesman from the Paul campaign responded:

Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race,


Sullivan said. "Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]


"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

I have a problem with this idea that "anyone who disagrees with me is not sensible". This seems to reflect the same mindset you see in candidates like Perry and Bachmann, who Paul is trying to position himself as the antidote to. It isn't exactly a suitable attitude for someone seeking a leadership position in a democracy, where he will have to frequently work with people who do not share his views. Frankly, I also see this attitude reflected in Paul's supporters, who find those with views different from their own to be "foaming and raging" even when quoting Paul's own words and holding him accountable for them.

Don was called to task in another thread for "making things partisan" when posting a cartoon lampooning Republicans. Another poster responded that "I'd go as far as saying that anyone who gets upset at a party's criticism (either one) is 'part of the problem'." I'd say this goes for candidates, as well. I'd have a hard time coming to Obama's defense for any criticism on this forum.

I do actually agree with Paul on a number of issues. That is why I am disappointed that he has become the spokesman for these (very sensible) positions. Because he does a poor job of representing these viewpoints, and these ideas are relegated to the dustbin as "fringe" ideas when Paul is their most visible proponent.

[Raz]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

So if someone poses for a picture with someone who is evil, they are forever tainted? Name the presidents you have voted for and let's see if we can't find a picture or two of them posing with a murderous dictator.

I don't know the context of this picture but i think it's a safe assumption that every presidential candidate poses for hundreds or thousands of pictures on the campaign trail. I'm sure they don't thoroughly vet every potential picture mate. I'm sure the list includes rapists, murderers and most certainly racists for every candidate.

Who did you vote for last election? Who will you vote for this election?

The bottom line is this:

On one side of the scale you have this newsletter claim that RP is "racist. On the other side you have decades of time in the public eye. A massive volume of speeches, books, written statements etc that are more consistent than any other politician I'm aware of and that don't appear to contain any racist agenda whatsoever.

Both parties dislike RP and so we can basically guarantee that they have and are thoroughly scouring his past to come up with any mud to sling at him.

Millions of people have weighed the evidence and determined that RP is not the racist bigot you want him to be and is in fact a much more honest and moral politician than most. Sorry their conclusion doesn't mesh with your desires. But don't despair, I'm sure in the end that the USA will get the type of President it deserves....we always do.

The Atlantic
Grappling With Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters

By Conor Friedersdorf



Dec 21 2011, 10:35 PM ET


The biggest obstacle to his candidacy is making headlines again. If he wants to win anything, he's going to need to confront it.

Did you know about the racist newsletters published in the late 1980s and early 1990s under Ron Paul's name? As the Texas Congressman surges in the GOP primary, the story of the newsletters is garnering headlines, as it did during his 1996 House campaign and his 2008 presidential run. He's always insisted that he didn't write the egregiously offensive material, and long ago repudiated it (though not as soon as he should have). Is this an old story voters will look beyond, like Newt Gingrich's affairs? Or a new story for the vast majority of voters and the plurality of journalists who are less familiar with Paul than the other GOP frontrunners? Is it coming up now "for political reasons"? Or because it's a legitimate subject of inquiry despite having been aired before in the media?

It seems to me that the story's reemergence was inevitable and necessary to fully inform primary voters about their choices. This level of scrutiny is rightly what comes with contending for the presidency.

In any case, the story is once again in the news.

In The Weekly Standard, Jamie Kirchick has returned to the subject, which he first tackled in a 2008 piece for The New Republic. Jonathan Chait has titled a New York magazine item on the matter "Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist." At The Washington Examiner, Tim Carney complains that if Ron Paul wins Iowa the GOP establishment is going to try to illegitimately tar him as a racist. Jonah Goldberg says at National Review that it's perfectly legitimate to rehash these questions.

Philip Klein agrees.

Who is right?

The question is complicated by facts not in evidence and inherently subjective judgments about politics, race, and the norms that govern how much a candidate's bygone associations matter. My conclusions are conflicted -- more on that shortly -- but this much I can say: a thorough airing of the facts is the best place to begin. (If you've read the major pieces already skip down to the next subhead).

Let's start with Kirchick's piece from 1998:

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
...whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays.

In 2008, the libertarian magazine Reason reacted to the Kirchick story by trying to figure out whether Paul in fact wrote the newsletters -- or if he didn't write them, who was directly responsible. Two journalists, Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez, were assigned to the story.
Here's what they found:

In interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists--including some still close to Paul--all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr. Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared--roughly 1989 to 1994--Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul--accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.
Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment. But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. "If Rockwell had any honor he'd come out and I say, 'I wrote this stuff,'" said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. "He should have done it 10 years ago."

They go on to report that the publishing operation was lucrative, generating almost $1 million dollars per year, and that "if Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback." At best, he didn't ask questions about an association that brought him a lot of money.

IS RON PAUL GUILTY OF MORE THAN NEGLIGENCE?

Do I think that Paul wrote the offending newsletters? I do not. Their style and racially bigoted philosophy is so starkly different from anything he has publicly espoused during his long career in public life -- and he is so forthright and uncensored in his pronouncements, even when they depart from mainstream or politically correct opinion -- that I'd wager substantially against his authorship if Las Vegas took such bets. Did I mention how bad some of the newsletters are? It's a level of bigotry that would be exceptionally difficult for a longtime public figure to hide.

For that reason, I cannot agree with Kirchick when he concludes that "Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing -- but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

On the other hand, it doesn't seem credible that Paul was unaware of who wrote the execrable newsletters, and although almost a million dollars per year in revenue is a substantial incentive to look away from despicable content, having done so was at minimum an act of gross negligence and at worst an act of deep corruption. Indeed, Paul himself has acknowledged that he "bears moral responsibility" for the content.

Given its odiousness that is no small thing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...etters/250206/

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Raz - for what it's worth, that's a good piece and it does a good job of representing my own thoughts on Paul and how he has dealt with these newsletters. It is refreshing to see this topic addressed with some nuance, rather than waving the issue away as most Paul supporters do.

[c1ue]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Here's the difference: Barack Obama was a LIAR from the outset - as if he sat in Jeremiah Wright's "church" for twenty years and never heard all the racist, neocommunist venom. His entire political career is baked in corruption - you can't wallow with pigs and not smell like them.

Agree or disagree with him, Ron Paul illustrates the qualities of a statesman - the man who thinks about the next generation, and not just the next election. (Or his golden parachute.)

And in response, I will say the exact same thing I said in 2008 to EJ concerning EJ's 'Hope' for Obama:

I hope you are right, but I fear you are wrong.

I can easily see Ron Paul doing immense damage via 'principle' what Obama has done (or not done) through lack of principle.

More importantly and critically, Ron Paul has shown zero understanding of the current crisis nor has he put forth any type of platform which could even remotely be seen as a way to move forward.

Ron Paul in many respects is a conservative version of Obama: looks nice on the outside but we do not really know what goes on inside.

Do we really need to roll the dice again?

[Raz]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

And in response, I will say the exact same thing I said in 2008 to EJ concerning EJ's 'Hope' for Obama:



I can easily see Ron Paul doing immense damage via 'principle' what Obama has done (or not done) through lack of principle.

More importantly and critically, Ron Paul has shown zero understanding of the current crisis nor has he put forth any type of platform which could even remotely be seen as a way to move forward.

Ron Paul in many respects is a conservative version of Obama: looks nice on the outside but we do not really know what goes on inside.

Do we really need to roll the dice again?

Such a reasoned and polite response is why I have true respect for your opinions.

While I don't agree that he's shown no understanding of the current crisis, I do agree that he's made no clear proposal
to get out of this present mess and move forward.

Looking at President Obamajoke and the Neocon nitwits (Warmongers) put forth as candidates by the GOP, I believe whatever our choices may be, voting for the RepubliCrat candidate is not a coin toss, but a clear vote to continue on the road to ruin.

IF Ron Paul "breaks out" and appears to be destined for the GOP nomination, I'll need to hear some realistic proposals - or I'll again vote Third Party.

[Raz]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Raz - for what it's worth, that's a good piece and it does a good job of representing my own thoughts on Paul and how he has dealt with these newsletters. It is refreshing to see this topic addressed with some nuance, rather than waving the issue away as most Paul supporters do.

Thanks, Sutter.

I'm quite sensitive to chargers of racism. It's become the cover-all-smear of the American Left and it can stick to a man once charged even though he's not one.

Ron Paul might be the type of person who sticks by his friends even when their actions should cause a true friend to confront them. Just speculation on my part. But I don't believe he'll ever be a presidential nominee because the PTB who control the $$$ hate and fear him since he apparently can't be bought.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Cane, I think you just don't want to accept that someone could actually be honest and that someone actually being a Politician. This is a projection of your own self because you know you would never be honest yourself in a campaign.

Humans like to project a lot. It is like when you are in a relationship and the man constantly berates the girl because he thinks she is cheating on him and lying to him. I would say a good portion of the time the reason he is projecting this fear of cheating onto her, is because he is cheating himself and he cannot rationalize in his mind how someone would not cheat.

But he will rationalize his cheating just like you are rationalizing your bias for the idea that no politician could ever be an honest man.

Paul's actions speak louder than his words. It is also reported that while Paul was a practicing physician he never accepted medicaid and would accept any form of payment from the individual. At one point even a boil of shrimp!

Attack the man all you want but the reason why people are calling you an Obama supporter is due to the fact that lots of Democrats in their criticism of Republicans call them racist. It is like they comb through all their words just to try and find some analogy that will make them seem like a racist and if they don't overtly say it then they must be consciously thinking it and if they arent consciously thinking it then they must be acting on it subconsciously.

It is rather absurd.

My first reaction was to not even dignify this with a response, but after letting my annoyance build for awhile, I have decided (against my better judgement) to reply.

You will notice that while Raz and I, for example, may disagree quite strongly, neither of us have stooped to questioning the basic decency of the other as you have done to me.

Really, you are psychoanalyzing me, and accusing me of being basically immoral and dishonest, for criticizing the political candidate of your choice? And you think with this you have scored some sort of point in your favor?

If anything, supporters like you further discredit Ron Paul, even more so than his own published statements.

[astonas]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

You will notice that while Raz and I, for example, may disagree quite strongly, neither of us have stooped to questioning the basic decency of the other as you have done to me.

Really, you are psychoanalyzing me, and accusing me of being basically immoral and dishonest, for criticizing the political candidate of your choice? And you think with this you have scored some sort of point in your favor?

If anything, supporters like you further discredit Ron Paul, even more so than his own published statements.

+1

Even those who AGREE that Ron Paul is a promising candidate should find such a craven ad hominem repulsive.

[DSpencer]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Do we really need to roll the dice again?

Who do you recommend be elected that would not be rolling the dice?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Hey PoZ, sorry for the delay. I'm finding normal activities taking up more of my day while on crutches, so I have not had as much time as usual to post.

Actually Carig, I agree with you that the world is full of predators and that they should be policed. In fact I have no problem with a police force and states/cities being able to tax the citizens to establish a police force. This is the way things were suppose to work. But as we have seen no Federal organization can stop a Madoff. He kept the game going for well over 10 years and 99.9% of people did not even have a c1ue including the Federal regulators.

The SEC could have stopped Madoff. Markopolous sent the relevant info in. He's doing it now with State Street and state pension funds. Others are out there. The government simply did not act. The SEC once, and not all that long ago, actually worked out a lot better. There have been varying solutions to this - ending the revolving door - etc. Lind proposed more career bureaucrats.

Regardless, just because a government agency has been caught not performing its essential function does not mean that getting rid of the function will be an acceptable solution.

Even when the S&L crisis happened, people went to jail. Something different has been operating for the last 15-20 years - something sinister. Corruption should be routed out - not made expressly legal through deregulation.

How is more regulation going to stop the next Madoff when it is the same regulators who were tasked with finding the original Madoff? What is this mythical regulation that everyone speaks of but humans acting on their own hunches or information they have received? People think because you add another layer or more regulators that you will find more fraud. It is preposterous and a function of Senators/Congressmen trying to write legislation that shows "they care" and are "doing something" about X event. Most of the time the solutions become the problem.

This scenario may happen sometimes, but it is often a result of bad legislation. When one spends time working on crafting legislation one can quite readily see the difference between laws which were drafted with care, vision and strategy and those that were not.

So perhaps we do not need more regulation, but better legislation that leads to more simple regulation. E.g. Outlaw complex financial instruments outright with stiff criminal and civil penalties rather than regulate them. (I purposely kept this example vague as merely an overly-general illustration).

RP actually advocates the elimination of the Federal Income Tax but has stated before that he cannot eliminate the Income Tax until we cut government to a minimum level. I believe he would gradually lower the Fed Income Tax as he brings the level of spending and size of the government down. Again it is a process not an event. Sometimes people continue to think as a suddent event than as a gradual process. Politicians do a horrible job of managing this expectation.

RP is for the elimination of most taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy. The states on the other hand should be allowed to tax which is part of creating competition between the states. Again this is not idealistic, this is the way our Republic was originally established.

I understand the process vs. event argument all too well. But why go straight for eliminating capital gains and estate tax first? Why is that the only proposal? Why does he not put directly on his website a proposal to eliminate some taxes for everyone? Why does he put only taxes that effect the wealthy on there?

I would rather work toward a closer conceptualization to that Republic Ideal than to work toward more government and more tyranny or social and economic intrusion.

I find more tyranny of government intrusion on the town level than I ever did on the state level, and more on the state level than I ever did on the federal level.

Ever try to build an addition? The feds don't intrude on me so much. Sometimes I think the federal intrusion argument is more of a red-herring. Most people have much more reason to have conflict with their local building code inspector, DMV or Police than they do the EPA, DOT, FBI or ATF.

Carig, you took my bait here. I expected you to look up where the government derives its revenue and to realize that large corporations pay less tax because they are politically connected in ways that a small corporation is not.

That's fine, we're in agreement here then. So how does eliminating the corporate tax rate across the board help this?

This is the reason that RP advocates elimination of corporate taxes because he knows that he will help small corporations or small business 10x the amount it will help large corporations since they already pay minimal taxes! I will not address the individual tax levels because I did so in the previous paragraph.

So here's the answer - because it helps the much revered "small business owner?"

Maybe so. But most small businesses I know are not C-corps. So maybe it helps smaller (but still medium-sized) businesses that go that route? The whole incorporation structure would probably have to be changed to have eliminating the corporate tax make any sense at all.

And again, it doesn't help the average middle class American in any way that I can see. If there's no demand, there's no expansion. This is true regardless of corporate tax cuts.

The biggest customer in the world is the U.S. government. Cut a Trillion in a year, and there's going to be soft demand. Not to mention the already soft demand on the consumer side.

Perhaps if the proposal was better thought out, eliminating corporate taxes would make a bit of sense, but I don't see how it helps the economy in the state it finds itself in now.

It seems I am in error and did not know the estate tax is for 10mil+. But again the concept here is that taxes should be at minimal levels on most individuals. Maybe a solution could be set up where once you make X (say 5mil) amount you pay 10% of your income in taxes but I could see caveats with that.

This is where RP comes in because as I stated above he wants to eliminate all the taxes he can on the individual, he is not working for either side he is working on the ideal that was the original constitution.

This is what I hear from supporters, but I don't see it on his web page. Nothing to help average John Doe with his $45,000 per year job. Not a single damn thing other than eliminating the federal gasoline tax. Lots to help out his bosses' boss. But nada for him.

And I'm not explicitly talking 'redistribution' or anything. I'm saying that if you're going to cut government and eliminate taxes, why start with only those that effect the very wealthy?

Federal Taxes only exist to legitamize the Federal Reserve.

Okay, I'll put my tinfoil hat on. (I'm not being facetious, I'll follow you here for a bit).

Ask yourself what year was the Fed created and what year were Federal Income Taxes made a permanent fixture with the 16th amendment and tell me that they are not directly correlated!

I don't know that I buy that. I am familiar with Nelson Aldrich and the origins of the Federal Reserve Act. But that was one thing (ostensibly a response to the panic of 1907) and the 16th came as a response to Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co.

Sure, they did happen in the same year. Beyond that, I don't see how they fit. Even without income tax, the Fed can do everything it does now, could it not?

"

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A00059...#ixzz1h5kFtDrk"

Yes, but was this not a response to a first-world-wide phenomenon of lowered tariffs and the implementation of direct taxes on individuals? It's not as if the US was the only place in which this was occurring...

It wasn't enough that Congress now had full authority to tax at X level but both parties also wanted to eliminate the gold standard in order to deficit spend into oblivion for the military complex and for the welfare state. It is statists of all persuasions who want to continue the status quo and to create more money to spend on X products. Please read this article by Alan Greenspan titled "Gold and Economic Freedom."

http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html

EJ actually linked to this article. I cannot say it any better than Greenspan did in 1966.

In my view if you are agaisnt a form of gold standard than you are agaisnt liberty and freedom for a nation. This is why I oppose the Federal Reserve. I will touch more on this at the end of my writing.

Okay, I guess...but when I think inalienable rights, the gold standard doesn't hop right out to the top of the list. I find words like "liberty" and "freedom" to be essentially contested concepts that no longer move me. I do not understand how I gain "liberty" by letting the great grandson of Sam Walton live tax free. Nor do I understand how I gain "freedom" by having a currency tied to a hard asset.

Inflation did exist before fiat currency. Inflation has nearly always existed. I first realized this as a child reading "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

Granted, there are other arguments out there for ending a central banking system - particularly the fed - or for tying currency to hard assets.

Frankly, I think a modern credit-card age gold standard would be damned hard to implement.

It is not impossible, though. Maybe it would come in time if things get bad enough...

Tell me, what do you think of the concept of a publicly available ACH-type system? People with personal accounts that did not need "servicing" by banks who take points for shuffling money around?

I mean, we pay taxes for banks to get free use of the ACH system, but we have to pay them for them to use the system that we bought for them with our tax dollars...

Actually BOTH sides protect the rich and neither side protects the poor or middle class.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I would be weary of anyone who said to me I am from the government and I am here to help.

Not as weary as I'd be of anyone who said to me "I'm from the bank, and I'm here to help."

There is a reason why Democrats have controlled the inner cities of out nation for the last 80 years and yet they have only become progressively worse.

Ummm...okay. This would take a while. Firstly, it's not entirely true. - although it is perhaps mostly true that Dems were more popular in cities for the last 50 years. Not all has gotten worse, either. In fact, homicide rates are way down from their peak in the 60s. Even now.

Plus there was suburbanization, white flight, etc. etc. A lot goes into that packed statement of yours. Does welfare have something to do with it? Absolutely. Is it the whole answer? No.

When one party comes out and says "We are the party of the common man and we are the party that protects the poor" that is akin to a car salesman saying " I have the best used cars and 100% satisfactory rating with no lemons!"

Look, I won't be defending one party or another. Mostly, I think you're right here. I'll defend individuals and their actions.

And to be an equal opportunity critic of American political parties, the other party says, "Look, here's your lemon, buy it and like it. Maybe if you're real lucky you can sell lemons one day just like me."

Meanwhile Toyota builds a car that doesn't suck...

I have great distrusts for most Liberals who state this because they have an agenda and their agenda is power and control by keeping the poor POOR! If they enacated policies that really helped the poor and helped them create their own business and rise into the middle class than naturally they would lose their voting block. When people own their own business usually they are republican.

I don't buy into the ownership society thing. I'm sorry, but most people aren't cut out to own their own business. I'm talking as someone who has created and dissolved corporations, for what it's worth.

Plus businesses need employees. This "everyone can be a chief and nobody has to be an indian" argument is part of the distorted, weird, view (and probably somehow the entitlement culture) that got us in this mess. We need indians.

It's just a fallacious as the "knowledge economy" and the "innovation economy" where everyone will learn to be a biomedical nano-engineer travelling at warp speed or something. It's nonsense. It will work for a few people and a few startups. But some (I'd argue most) people aren't cut out for it.

Plus, if you came up here and visited me, I'd introduce you to far more democrat-only voting business owners than you'd probably care to meet. Then I'd say, "Welcome to Boston." It's kind of like San Francisco, only with worse weather and meaner people (but at least you don't have to hear as much about yoga).

Remember politics are about who can get the most votes and power. Liberals are incentivized to keep their voting block poor and non-white.

Have you ever been to a Starbucks?

I mean, in 2008, 52% of people making over $100,000 per year voted Republican. That's not an overwhelming majority. 47% voted Democrat.

As far as the non-white thing goes, I don't know about that either. Hispanics and Asians voted for Democrats more in 2008, but in the 60% range, not overwhelming numbers. Obama did get in the 90% range for the African-American vote, but I think the historic nature of the election (which nobody can deny) skewed that number up some.

And furthermore, how did we get back to the topic of race again?

I'd rather get off of it.

But the average individual should aspire to invest and save for the future. The problem is we tax them then we tax their investments and they think they can never get ahead so they don't save and invest.

Here's my new joke:

When banks start giving me an interest rate higher than my blood alcohol level, I'll start saving again.

(Yes, I know this is the Fed's fault). Taxes were never a consideration for me to make money investing, though.

I never thought, "Well, I'd save and invest my money, but if I make too much in the process, I'll have to pay a larger percentage out, so screw it, let's blow it all at Tiffany's."

I'm willing to bet you never thought that either. I mean, I may have thought, "Crap, it's the end of the tax year, this sucks, I've got to come up with some cash"

But I never thought, "Forget making money, I quit."

Sorry but a house is not an investment or a nest egg, I would hope people would realize this by now.

I know that. What I was saying is that it's average joe's biggest (and only save a 401(k)) source of stored capital. And neither one gets hit with capital gains taxes.

Correct the government should not favor one income over another, they should both be taxed at Zero just like RP says. Again this happens as a process not an event.

Okay. If it's a process, why not start with the tax that effects most working people and get to the one that effects heirs of $10M or more later? Every process must have steps, no?

Obviously RP has reasons other than "we don't have the money for it anymore." It is in the Constitution NOT to have all these agencies.

No. It is not.

It is as simple as that. The other night Jay Leno asked RP who his favorite president was and you want to know RPs response?

He said Groover Cleveland, and you want to know why? Because Cleveland vetoed bills at an astronomical pace compared to all other presidents and he loved the Gold Standard. He was also a democrat.

Fair enough. I don't know much about Grover.

Watch this video from the other night on Jay Leno. RP on Jay Leno. I would watch all 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pykFc...ture=endscreen

Listen to the reactions he gets from the crowd and I would say most of that crowd at the Leno show are Democrats. He will easily beat Obama in a general election, it is the primary he will have a hard time winning.

I buy the 538 monte-carlo-style estimates before I buy the polls before I buy anecdotes. Right now, he has a shot. And he will probably take the Iowa caucuses. But saying he'll easily beat Obama in the general is hubris, not to mention not represented in the numbers.

If you want you can fast forward to 5:20 on the video where RP starts talking about taxation, welfare state and policing the world. He says that we cannot eliminate Fed Taxes without eliminating those first!!!

I don't believe most people are really listening to what Paul says.

I think I have listed to him. I think I continue to do so, at least where I have the time.

Look I think the jobs issue and the economy is addressed on this site a lot. Again the problem is we should have never allowed the bubbles to exist in the first place and I am confident that Paul as President would foresee this because he has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o Ron Paul predicting the housing bubble back in 2002.

Yes, we should have foreseen and stopped bubbles. But I still don't see anything approaching a solution to the unemployment issue here. Unless the solution is not to care about it, that is.

The only solution currently in my mind to fix the economy is to cut the debt at least 50% across the board. This will cause the capitalist class who were supposed to take the losses to actually take the losses! Capitalism is about loss plain and simple.

Actually, I'm in agreement here to. We need to write down debt.

But it puts the whole debt-power system at risk, so (the ever ominous) they won't let it happen. There will be brutal austerity, layoffs, and heavy inflation before it will be allowed.

Actually, were RP stating this as policy now, I'd feel better about him.

Unfortunately you cannot legislate criminals away, the same way you cannot legislate murderers away or stop them from murdering.

But as I said before, the homicide rate has gone down considerably.

This is a fallacy. My position is that no human can stop a firm from being faudalent or from committing fraud for the most part. If they want to do it they will do it.

So the lesson is don't try to catch them? So the lesson is have no consequences for fraudsters? I don't follow your logic here.

You have to change the people and the culture of people but we ALL must accept that there are adulterous, vile, evil, criminals, murderers, happy, sad, energetic, hard working and saintly people.

Again, so do we go after the bad ones, or just let them do it? I don't understand where your argument for a lassies-fair approach to financial criminals leads.

This is what makes us human and you cannot take that away. This is also what provides variety in life. There are supposed to be monumental failures and successes. There should be fraud, you cannot take it away and once you accept this fact people will sleep better at night. All of these things are healthy for a society.

I maintain that fraud is not healthy for society.

Please read this paper on Risk by Nassim Taleb. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/ForeignAffairs.pdf

I very much enjoy reading Taleb. I have yet to pick up his aphorism book, however.

Part of the reason there are so many problems in the Middle East is the fact that we propped up dictators that surppressed the fundametalist view of a portion of the citizens in those countries. So natually when that dictator is ousted the group who takes control is the radical fundamentalists! Like what you see happening in Egypt.

Perhaps, but I fail to see the relevance to the matter at hand. Are you saying that if fraudsters and criminals were not persecuted nobody would want to be one? I don't buy that either.

http://reversemortgagedaily.com/2011...-report-finds/

Look I can tell you that GS, MS, JPM have all shut down their prop trading part of the broker dealers due to Dodd Frank. I have personal experience with it. But read that article.

Okay, look, I know not everyone working at these places is bad, and I do feel for anyone loosing their job at a time like this. But if the only jobs that are effected are at Goldman, Morgan, and the other Morgan, I don't think many Americans will be shedding the tears like that little emotion above.

FYI I never said the Dodd-Frank bill caused the employment problem because it didnt. But I will say that it is affecting employment in the financial services industry now.

And I maintain that financial services has maybe gotten a bit too big for its britches and needs to stall for a bit while the real productive economy catches up with the debt manufacturers.

I mean FIRE is now what, 23% of the economy, if memory serves, and about 5% of the workforce? It's not a healthy sector to begin with.

we agree here. but SS is a ponzi scheme and I disagree with it fundamentally.

So are all annuities ponzi schemes, or just those that are government run? How far does that logic go?

Yes we are the least ugliest duckling in the pond for now. We shall see what happens but I do know in the next 2-3 years the US will have the worst balance sheet term structure of any nation in the world.

But in a game of force who cares about balance sheets?

Too often it seems to me that America has lost its creativity. If you're loosing the game; change the rules. That's how hegemons stay on top.

Every 1% increase in the cost of capital increases our debt by 140 Bil and it gets exponentially worse after the first 1% increase. We roll over 50% of our debt every year and if we have X amount of our debt rolled over at ever lower interest rates then when interest rates do rise (if they can or do) then we will have to renew more than 50% of our debt at ever higher interest rates.

Forget higher interest rates. We're the strongest kid on the block, the most stable, and armed to the teeth. Plus the Fed still exists. Interest rates aren't going anywhere.

Plus I want to go out on a limb here. What if you look at this from the soldier's point of view rather than the bean counter's?

Again, we may be in so deep that it doesn't matter. At some point a nation has to look up and ask the hard question "Is the current world financial system beneficial to me?" If the answer is no, then screw it.

I'm trying to be a realist here. Debts only matter if you pay them back or can be forced to pay them back. Nobody's forcing Uncle Sam. Not for the next couple of decades anyhow.

If US decides not to pay up, then the suckers are the ones who lent it to him.

Acting as though default is not an option is absurd. Acting as though defaulting without calling it a default is not an option is absurd.

And foreign nations will still lend to us.

Look EJ has already addressed this in his paper on The Boston Fed Meeting. The Fed is in an improbably position. If you havent read it I suggest you go read it. The Fed needs inflation and ultra low interest rates but the problem because when they arent able to control that inflation aka raise interest rates above the inflation rate when needed. This could cause a bond collapse in the US.

I'll believe that when I see it. I am very, very, very, very skeptical of the "U.S. bond collapse" argument. It's still the best bet on the table. I don't care what ratings agencies say (and indeed so far the markets have born this out).

If the yield were to go so much higher, then why would Bill Gross have taken the actions that he has?

Look I have read about all the panics including the first panic of 1819. I understand that under a gold standard there are panics and severe devaulations.

I was just making sure.

The long depression was really just a recession the real depression was in the 1930s, it is funny how the names change over time. This is currently being called the Great Recession but in the future it may be called the Longest Depression, who knows.

I never stated that there werent recessions or severe collapse before the Fed. I am saying our current problems are directly caused by the Feds monetary policies. In fact right now I am reading a large analytical write up on Fiat Money Inflation in France to get an understanding of what may transpire here. Obviously we need higher inflation but I am not sold on the Fed being able to control it before it reaches a hyperinflationary event.

I'm fairly certain the old greenback still has enough fairy dust in it to prevent hyper-inflation. (That's my scientific way of going about it. ) High inflation
- now I see that as likely - but not hyper. Again, anything's possible, I'm only talking probable. Regardless, commodity inflation will be tough. Especially for average joe. It already has been. Add in the potential for petroleum supply shortages, and I think we're in for a tough springtime.

The problem with my statement above is "control" There should be no CB controlling the money supply.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. They don't control so well or so much as they think anyhow. To me the favoritism is the major problem with the institution. The control aspect may be fools errand - it may help, hurt or do nothing in the long-run. The system is to complex for certainty.

It was Mayer Amschel Rothschild who said

"permit me to issue and coin the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws"

This was sagacious writing for his time. Congress is supposed to coin the money of our nation NOT the Fed.

And not you when you use your credit card down the street, right? (I figure that you understand where I'm going with this - that we all create money now).

The Fed is the root of our deficit spending and ever increasing money supply coupled with going off the gold standard.

Here is a chart I created to illustrate the problem. This is the CPI data from 1800 until now. I think the chart will speak for itself.

There is no doubt in my mind that inflation has been much higher since '73 than in many of the preceding years in the U.S. (That wasn't true in every country though, regardless of a metal standard - the difference may be the U.S. market share - who knows?)

I did like RP's quip about still buying a gallon of gas with a silver dime he threw out there on TV though. It's good food for thought - and perhaps good advice.

[c1ue]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Who do you recommend be elected that would not be rolling the dice?

Right now, my vote goes to GetMoneyOut.org

The actual hollow suits vying for the Presidency, as well as the hollow suits occupying Congress, as well as all the wannabe hollow suits, are completely pointless.

If GetMoneyOut.org succeeds, only then can we have any possibility of a candidate who might actually see and do what needs to be done.

[DSpencer]

Re: Conan Parodies Ron Paul Ad

Right now, my vote goes to GetMoneyOut.org

The actual hollow suits vying for the Presidency, as well as the hollow suits occupying Congress, as well as all the wannabe hollow suits, are completely pointless.

If GetMoneyOut.org succeeds, only then can we have any possibility of a candidate who might actually see and do what needs to be done.

So you will not vote for President in the upcoming election?