Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

I believe your handle was attached, in error, to a post I made.

On the Social Security comment by 'outthere2' "...as he collects his social security check...", in response to that quote, I assume it was meant in reference to me as I am collecting social security, and although it IS a social program, and clearly economically unsustainable perpetually, I would have gladly exited the program had I been given the choice, but since I was not I will gladly contribute to its demise as it reduced substantially what I was able to accumulate to live off in my retirement years.

 

Indie

Oh indie you’re a hoot – anyway this often cited assertion of yours that ‘trickle down economic’ works just has never stood up to even mild scrutiny.

Making wealth more wealthy only gives it increased power and influence with which it corrupts systems to it own interests. That is why over the last 30 years or so the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have either stagnated or fallen why the wealth of the few has increased dramatically.

LOL again you make me laugh – you know we’ve been through this many times – you like to claim that your opponents are malicious utopians that want to force everyone to be equally poor.

It’s another of your con games.

As I told you many times, I don’t think total equality is possible, but I do think societies should be run in the best interests of everyone rather than just a few. I’ve also argued that their needs to be balance between the interests of wealth and the interests of everyone else.

I’d like to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the inhabitants of fulfilling their potential and having a healthy and worthwhile life.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a worse society.
And that is why I can’t understand your thinking or that of other right wing libertarians and neoliberals, because they and you do seem to want to live in a worse society.

 

Indie

Again we’ve been through this before and your views don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

OK lets go through it again…You’re talking about the process usually called quantitative easing the printing or these days the electronic production of money.

Now this is a policy championed by that doyen of the free marketeer’s – Milton Friedman. The basic idea seems to be that in a financial dip new money could be pumped into the financial system until the ‘free market’ recovered and then the money could be slowly withdrawn. It didn’t work for Japan in the 1990’s and I don’t think it has worked anywhere else were the problem has been anything more than a mild dip.

Keynes and many Keynesians are not such supporters of quantitative easing and Keynes even warned against its use. He seems to have seen it as a not very effective short term stop gap to give time so that other more effective solutions could be put in place such as getting wages back into the system, through direct government investment in an economy.

Read – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

As to the extreme neoliberal Austrian school’s ideas to me they always seemed ill thought through, with its emphasis on theoretical logic over empirical evidence (to me fantasy over reality).

It also comes up against the same problem with all ‘free market’ models it has no worthwhile mechanisms for dealing with a crash besides letting things fall.

Now you might say that under the Austrian model crashes are factored in and so wouldn’t be so bad but then I’d say the same for the Keynesian model.

We could just followed an Austrian School plan and let things crash and burn although it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theoretical logic turns out to be the fantasies they look like and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-mart (while those with wealth are cushioned from the hardships).

As I’ve mentioned to me the Austrian school seems a lot like an economic version of Social Darwinism that would always favour wealth over the rest of society.

Try -
http://www.slate.com/id/9593

 

Indie

Oh I’m happy to call myself a leftie, I’m comfortable with that, I’m not ashamed of my political views like so many right wingers seem to be, so I don’t feel like I have to lie and pretend I’m something I’m not.

It seems to me that many right wingers seem to want to pull a fast one, con, trick, deceive…they want to claim they are something they are not.

That is why they seem to hate it so much when the smoke is blown away and the mirrors are smashed and they are revealed for what they are.

Indie I’ll ask you the same question that storch seems to be refusing to answer - Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing?

 

Storch

To repeat - Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing?



*

 

As I’ve said before this thread points out perfectly just what is wrong with right wing libertarian ideas, they cannot be defended against the many criticisms leveled at them in any rational or reasonable way.

It seems to be a con game built on assertion and lies.

And the longer it goes on the more obvious it becomes

 

outthere,

Well, since you're into prodding people to answer questions, I should remind you that you left a few questions unanswered, yourself. So why don't we get to that. First, explain how not voting is a non-passive act. Then explain how it would send a strong message to those who have demonstrated that they don't give a shit about what message you send.

 

Balbus,

You are a broken record. It is as Individual has said. You attach labels to people so that you don't have to answer anything. I've clearly pointed out to you that no candidate has talked about ending the illegal wars that you oppose (go figure), or the grand theft being perpetrated on the people of the U.S. by an unconstitutional fanancial institution, and I can't even get you to admit to the illegality of either. So, what shall we deduce from your unwillingness to discuss a solution to these problems? Well, that's up to the readers, isn't it?

Which candidate do you support, Balbus? If you think no one notices you sitting on that fence of yours, you're not being honest with yourself. Here's what people see. Someone says, "Hey, there's finally a candidate who is talking about doing something about the illegal wars and that illegal, unconstitutional financial intstitution called the Federal Reserve, both of which are draining this country--not to mention causing the death and misery of millions of humans.", and you come along and say, "Well that makes you a Right-Wing Libertarian."

Your humanity brings tears to the eyes.

While you may have no concerns for the younger generation growing up to become more cannon fodder in service to the interests of imperialist wars fought in the name of protecting the dollar, others are quite concerned. And while you may choose to sit on the fence and look the other way as the younger generation is saddled with exponentially-increasing debt that they never incurred, and which they can never hope to pay off, others don't want to play that game! You think that sitting there pretending to be solving those problems by attaching labels to those who are concerned is not seen for what it is? You shouldn't insult the integrity of thinking people in such a blatant way. Also, when asked to comment on the threat of a future war based on no evidence whatsoever, your unspoken comment is, "I don't have to answer that because the question comes from a Right-Wing Libertarian."

I am against stealing other peoples' countries and killing and maiming their people based on bullshit lies. That makes me a Baptist, doesn't it? It does if we follow your line of thinking. But the truth is that I'm not a Baptist. I just think that crimes are crimes, and that they should be addressed by those with the courage to do so.

And you accuse others of con games?? Speaking of hoots . . .

 

At this point, I have to test you. What is the difference between four-hundred million dollars and four billion dollars?

 

And when you see this: "As of July 1st, the U.S. government had spent $355 billion so far in 2010 on interest payments to the holders of the national debt. An audit of the Fed uncovered a massive theft of the american people to the tune of at least fifteen trillion dollars," doesn't it just make your blood boil?

 

Balbus,

Think of it like this. You want your house to be in order and to have what is rightly yours. So you go off to work, and at the end of the week, you get your paycheck. But when you cash that check, there's a goverment official standing there who says he needs some of your money for some unjustified, illegal, bullshit wars. You don't want to give him any of your hard-earned cash for such a bullshit cause, but he tells you that you have no choice in the matter. It doesn't seem fair, and in fact is not fair, but as I said, you are given no choice in the matter, and you must give him what he asks for.

So, you leave the bank and head for your car. But standing there blocking your way is someone who tells you that you owe him interest on the money that he printed up out of thin air--money that your Congress was supposed to print up with no interest attached to it. And like the guy who took your money for the bullshit wars, you don't think it's fair, and you don't want to give it to him. But, also like the guy collecting your money for the bullshit wars, he won't take no for an answer, and once again, you have no choice in the matter. And you wonder why your elected civil servants won't do anything about the thief, but it appears that they're not even willing to ackowledge his existence. And it also appears that they're talking about going to war with yet another country when there's no evidence to support any wrong-doing.

The point I'm getting at is that if you want your house to be in good working order, you're not going to solve your financial problems until you do something about the thief in your living room taking from you that which is not his. And when someone comes into your house and says to you that they want to help get rid of that thief in your living room, you shouldn't allow your conditioned knee-jerk reaction to something like a Right-Wing Libertarian cause you to be blinded or non-responsive to the theft taking place in your house.

 

Storch

LOL – again lots of sound and fury but signifying little, it all seems to be bluster, evasion and misdirection.

Yes I think we all know you dislike the Fed, but in all your increasingly tedious bitching you still don’t seem able to address the question I put to you some time ago as to what to do, except for some hair-brained plan to replace the dollar with thousands of local currencies (I replied to that back in post 875).

My views on war - illegal or otherwise - are public and on record (on these very forums) you only ever seem to bring up ‘illegal wars’ as a means of promoting your chosen right wing candidate.

Oh and once again with the Baptists…just what is it with you and Baptists…

Anyway I’ll repeat the question you still haven’t replied to - Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing?

 

Well, Balbus, perhaps we set up our own reserve bank similar to what the thieves have set up, but unlike the thieves, we won't charge ourselves interest.

You still don't understand the difference between owned money and owed money, do you. I believe I've posted a lot on that subject. Do you recall that?

And once again, you forgot to say which candidate you endorse or support. What's up with that?

 

First, let's see if we can find some common ground. Do you believe that the Federal Reserve is a crime and a theft of the American people. And for god's sake, just a simple yes or no, please.

 

storch

Well err perhaps - that’s it, that your big idea, some vague perhaps?

As I say you just whine and whinge away but you don’t seem to have a coherent idea of what to do.

Yes, yes I think we’ve all got the fact you don’t like the Fed, but any rational human being who disliked something like that would have put together some rational, thought through, coherent and comprehensible ideas of what to do about it.

NOT YOU instead you fill post after post with your endless, monotonous bleating, droning on and on about how you hate the Fed and the reasons why you hate the Fed and…on…and…on….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Oh sorry where was I oh yes your seemingly total inability to think rationally?

 

Anyway here are some ideas by some people that seem to have given it a little more thought than storch's well err perhaps

• Nationalize the Federal Reserve Banks, reconstituting them and the Federal Reserve Systems Washington Board of Governors under a new Monetary Authority Board within the U.S. Treasury. The private creation of money or credit, which substitutes for money, will cease and with it the reckless and fraudulent practices that have led to the present financial and economic crisis.
• The Monetary Authority, with assistance from the FDIC, the SEC, the U.S. Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, and others will redefine bank lending rules and procedures to end the privilege banks now have to create money when they extend their credit, by ending what‚s known as the fractional reserve system in an elegant, non disruptive manner. Banks will be encouraged to continue as profit making companies, extending loans of real money at interest; acting as intermediaries between those clients seeking a return on their savings and those clients ready and able to pay for borrowing the money; but banks will no longer be creators of what we are using for money.
• The new money that must be regularly added to an improving system as population and commerce grow will be created and spent into circulation by the U. S. Government for infrastructure, including the „human infrastructure‰ of education and health care. This begins with the $2.2 trillion the American Society of Civil Engineers warns us is needed to bring existing infrastructure to safe levels over the next 5 years. Per capita guidelines will assure a fair distribution of such expenditures across the United States, creating good jobs, re-invigorating the local economies and re-funding government at all levels. As this money is paid out to various contractors, they in turn pay their suppliers and laborers who in turn pay for their living expenses and ultimately this money gets deposited into banks, which are then in a position to make loans of this money, according to the new regulations.

 

Storch

Anyway I’ll repeat the question AGAIN - Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing?





*

 

Well pardon me, then take out the word "perhaps" from my post.

And Balbus, I never said I hate the Fed; I said it is a theft. If calling a theft to the attention of those being robbed is what you call being bitchy, then I hope you run into many more bitchy people in the future.

Do you really think you have the room to talk about endless, monotonous bleating, and droning? I don't.

And again with your fence-sitting. Which candidate do you support?

And once again, you failed to answer the question: Do you think that the Federal Reserve is a crime and a theft? Why not answer that?

You're not good with simple yes or no questions, are you? Do you believe that the Federal Reserve is a theft of the American people? If you don't like endless, monotonous bleating, just say yes or no, and I'll stop asking. Just do it.

 

By the way, which candidates that you endorse--provided you let us all in on that little secret of yours--is willing to deconstruct the Fed? Is it Romney? Is it Obama? Who is it?

EDIT: Are you aware of the fact that which ever candidate you approve of, they're not going to do anything about the illegal wars? What do you think about that?

 

Did you know that when banks lend money that they didn't have in the first place, they are making 100% profit even without interest? Just another interesting little fact I thought people might be unaware of.