I can’t help but think that all the chaos in D.C. is caused by, and well deserved by, it denizens.

Too bad that collateral damage comes to the U.S. citizens.

They smell blood.

Ponder this: What would the media say if Barack Obama wrote on his hand and checked it for his core principles…

Morning eCAHN.

i find the battle, not just to control, but also to define and brand the tea party participants, ideology and goals from both the inside and the outside just fascinating.

are are two bits from the beginning and end of mosler’s address in dallas recently:

How tea party democrats can run successfully in the primaries

Honesty in government is a core value of the Tea Party movement and the most basic value in any representative democracy. Accordingly, my first proposal is that all candidates for public office be sworn in: ‘I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.’ As a consequence, any subsequent lies are perjury, and punishable by law.

I am here to discuss how I believe Tea Party Democrats can win in upcoming Democratic primaries. The answer is to emulate and extend the success of the Tea Party movement by getting back to basics. The Democratic party is the party of Jefferson and Jackson. The founders believed that the public voice should be heard. They believed in limited government. And they never kowtowed to special interests or cowered before purveyors of the conventional wisdom. This means Tea Party Democrats should be running against the Obama administration’s policies which are counter to both traditional Democratic values and Tea Party values.

It is the Washington elite that have moved away from the ideals of Jefferson and Jackson with policies that are, at best, regressive, elitist, and destructive to our quality of life. For example, with unemployment rising, real wage growth falling, and GDP now growing at over 5%, who’s getting all that increase in real goods and services?

Not the millions who voted Democratic who are losing their jobs and their homes, and watching wages fall even as their cost of living goes up. All that real wealth being created is instead rising to the top, due to impossible trickle down policies that would have made even Reagan blush.

The large majority of Americans that elected this administration did not do so to enrich the bankers, insurance executives, drug companies, and union leaders at the expense of the rest of us, in a perversion of true core Democratic values. But it’s clearly happening as even a blind man can see.

Conclusions:

Tea Party Democrats have a unique opportunity to be a part of history and overturn the ideas the current administration is employing that are, at best, regressive, elitist, and destructive to our quality of life.

With unemployment rising, real wage growth falling, and GDP now growing at about 4%, who’s getting that increased GDP? Not the millions who voted Democratic who are losing their jobs and their homes, and watching their wages fall. That real wealth being created is instead rising to the top, due to the Obama administration’s impossible trickle down policies. This administration was not elected to enrich the bankers, insurance executives, drug companies, and union leaders at the expense of the rest of us, in a perversion of true core Democratic values. But it’s clearly happening, and all because they don’t understand the monetary system, the don’t understand how and why government spends and taxes, and the don’t understand why we don’t owe China anything more than a bank statement.

The door is wide open for an enlightened, populist Democrat to lead the way to a new era of unsurpassed national prosperity.

his core principles…

Some would argue “blank canvas”, or “invisible ink”.

Nah, they’re still blathering about teleprompters.

And that FT article on Obama is an eye opener about his “governing” style (scare quotes intentional).

Obama: A Fearsome Foursome

Morning LooHoo.

Cohen waxes poetic on how Mrs. Sanford just isn’t the woman that Mrs. Spitzer is…

I wonder if Obama has given that any thought.

Rahm is Obama’s blankie.

Ron Paul has made a lot of enemies in the Republican establishment. Primarily for his stance against the war in Iraq. But also for his vocal opposition to Bush’s Patriot Act, CIA running amuck, FED corruption.

Of course they are going to primary challenge him. And despite what MSNBC infers, it’s nothing new. They’ve already tried gerrymandering him out in the past. He basically gets the Cynthia McKinney treatment for being “off message” far too often.

ron pauls opposition has $15,000 pooled– paul always draws competition some ex-democrats supported by bush– clearly a non story–maddow reaching–was not worth the print

Someone still needs to remind Rachel Maddow [and progressives of her ilk] how libertarian politcal [and economic] philosophy reacts to the New Deal and the Great Society. It generally despises both. It sees them as an egregious intrusion of the government into the infallible [Ayn Randroid] contraption that is their beloved free market economy.

On the other hand, Ron Paul libertarians are our pals with respect to four things:

1]

they oppose the military industrial complex and American imperialism—often called “interventionism” by them

2]

they oppose crony capitalism and state socialism—TARP, health care “reform” etc.

3]

they opposes [by and large] government intervention that seeks to legislate the social agenda of the evangelical faction the tea party movement

4]

they do not embrace the reactionary agenda that revolves around tea party nativism, racism, homophobia, sexism etc.

That these folks would distance themselves from Paul’s agenda however is not really all that mysterious. What would you expect from folks who marry a literal interpretation of the Bible and capitalism?

What is most crucial here is the extent to which the Republican arm of the Bilderberg agenda is able to co-opt both the libertarians and the evangelicals into basically accepting the status quo. In my view, folks like Sarah Palin and Scott Brown [like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh] are more than willing to be bought off. They’ll play ball with the ruling class on Wall Street. They certainly have so far.

Paul and his libertarian supporters on the other hand do, in fact, adhere genuinely to their principles. But that’s just another way of saying they will remain irrelevant inside the beltway.

Like, to cite another example, radicals on the left are.

well put, the fact that the right has been the primary beneficiary of the anger at both corrupt parties is only made possible by the lack of understanding-we are unnecessarily losing people we have common cause with

if you define irrelevant as taking senate and house seats, that unlike democracts and repuiblicans will not be owned by the machine-your list of paul accolades is a little light– pro-habeous,no patriot act, no renditions,no drug incarceration, sound money(you have lost 9% value of cash purchase power this year alone), for third parties. while dems were whispering about the war, paul stood four square and spoke loudly and clearly against- has been a prophet on th economy, wants to use war money for social services- he is more progressive than obama the warmonger

Mornin’, BT, pups

I wonder if Obama has given that any thought.

I do too. But if he is locked into that limited group of advisors, THEY aren’t likely to be telling him he isn’t hearing from enough people.

The FT article really concludes that Obama is running the government like a campaign. I just bought “Game Change” and even though I know there are a lot of problems with the content (mostly unsourced, for one thing), it is a fascinating read so far. In the beginning it talks about Obama’s cockiness, his outsize ego. And it talks a lot about Hillary. Fascinating. Just need to keep the saltshaker handy.

This administration was not elected to enrich the bankers, insurance executives, drug companies, and union leaders at the expense of the rest of us, in a perversion of true core Democratic values.

Notice how they stuck union leaders in with the rest. I’m sure Trumka and Stern feel enriched. If I were either one I’d have taken a different course long before now.

Completely agree.

And I gotta say, it’s frustrating to be considered as a left wing radical for merely supporting New Deal style policies.

I wonder if the beltway insiders ever stop to consider that much of the nations infrastructure was built under the New Deal. Including, in supreme irony, Reagan National Airport.

Didn’t we say that the Shrub administration was in campaign mode for 8 years? I guess campaigning is easier than governing. I wish they’d give the latter at least a try.

From the FT article, my bold:

…Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

My experience with the Paulites is that they are indeed racist. The signs they carried and their verbalizations at Ghouliani’s fundraiser in St Pete during the early days of the campaign couldn’t be missed. We had a couple who had come out to demonstrate for the 1st time join us, St Pete For Peace, because they were appalled by the Paul supporters.

Are you surprised?

A “different course”, for certain, yet “now”, there appears but quiet on all the union “leaders’” um … “fronts”.

Appearance NOT substance, SD, seems to be the kabuki role assigned … in the “go along to get along” (and get wealthy) sensibility of virtually all so-called “leadership” today.

If they wished to do so, union leaders could still stand for justice, but then, they would become vulnerable to the “common” experience …

DW

Who are these “Tea Party Democrats”?

The core beliefs of limited government and fiscal restraint are an anathema to today’s inside the Beltway or incumbent Democrat.

Those who deride fiscal conservatives who seek more responsive, limited government as “Teabaggers” now seek to claim this mantle? Good luck with that.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,375

US KIA Afghanistan: 984

Iraki and Afghan casualties: estimates vary to over 1.5M

US MBS 2010: 4,836 and counting

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

In Europe a politician like Palin would be exposed as an imbecilic charlatan by a vigorous press and a more informed public. Much of the U.S. press, however, treats her as a legitimate political force. It would seem that the U.S. media is collectively an bigger imbecile than Palin.

Obama will likely not change on his own unless forced. If there are substantial defeats of Dems in 2010 he’ll be forced to change but he will only move farther to the right because the corporate media will insist upon it and it offers him the path of least resistance.

Unless and until the leaders of AFL-CIO and SEIU return to the core values of the union movement union members will continue to get the short end of the stick. When every union contract contains a “no strike” clause the union loses all it’s bargaining power.

paul eviscerated maddow on the previous appearance-a good watch

New post up…

not one of those people would have died if we had listened to Ron paul–superhero

it’s just one guy’s speech and only represents his views. no speech writers as far as i know (although he has been posting stuff on line for feed back).

(p.s. re if you were in their shoes and the different path you would have taken: i only wish *g*)

What, Ron Paul is the only anti-war dude out there? I wouldn’t piss on Paul if he was on fire.

Stephen Colbert said it best.

Nope, not surprised. One can hope…

Ya lost me on the p.s. What am I missing?

On edit: OK, only had to read it about 6 more times. LOL gimme a break, it’s early

as the dems pissed their pants and whispered about the war ron paul spoke loudly and clearly and often unlike any democract

just one guy making a proposal. btw, the bolded title in my comment above is a link. if you click on it, you can get more info or even ask mosler yourself.

The few people that I know in the Tea Party Movement remain anti War, pro Ron Paul. There has been a massive effort on the part of reactionary Republicans to neutralize and discredit those who support Libertarian approach to Government. This is understandable. They are a threat to the power of the Oligarchs that rule America.

Interesting that true Progressives are also chagrined by the Pro War camp in the Democratic party. Those who are in control of the Democrats are also scrambling to neutralize the anti War, anti Corruption forces on the left. Sadly, Progressives do not seem to understand that increasing the size and power of Government plays into the hands of the Oligarchs. Legislation is held hostage to those who hold the real power in DC. Each new program comes with payoffs for powerful Corporations and Special Interests. This attracts more and more of the vermin that infest the nations capital. People are recognizing that the deals are being cut at their expense, and it is fueling the rage Americans feel. The only way to reduce their power over the People is to limit the power of the Government. That is the essence of the Tea Party Movement.

The pro War crowd in both the Republican Party and Democratic Party will be discredited in the end, as they have been in the past. Empire is a concept that always fails. More powerful Government always includes the price of reduction of liberty and personal rights. The question becomes will we survive the increasingly desperate actions of a system that largely exists only to perpetuate itself.

my bad. am kinda brain dead today. my ps was in reference to your “If I were either one I’d have taken a different course long before now.”

See my edit above. *g*

continue your blind loyalty to the parties. it has brought us to the point of bankruptcy. from complete dominance in all aspects. it took two parties working together to screw the American people-a herculean feat deserving of your continued “sheeple” vote

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Blue Texan and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

The blowing up of Ron Paul now is nuthin’ more or less than the public announcement that the oligarchy has coopted the Tea Party and mainstreamed it into the Republican Party. What this means is that the money and ideological faction of right-wing “libertarians” that Paul represented are now leaderless and that there is no longer an “isolationist”, anti-war, small government gene in the Republican chromosome string. What is left is pure American corporate fascism and the only thing it lacks is a “strong leader”…what they are intending, I believe, is to stale mate Obama and grind government to a complete halt and wait for the new military father figure, read General David Paetraus (sic), to come to the rescue in 2012.

Let’s all remember that the corporate power structure is now stronger than the federal government and it benefits from further collapse of the economic and social structure of the country…the corporate fascists don’t need no stinkin’ government but if they have to have one they want it to be military.

So let’s not lamant the “disappearance” of Ron Paul from the metastesis that is our politics but let’s not celebrate either…if we don’t kick Obama into conscieousness then we’re all gunna be comparin’ notes in the re-education camps.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, LET’S NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT!!

well put-that understanding will lead to a better future if we act on it

You’re assuming I’m a Democrat? I’m not. And how many other Rethugs were against the war?

OT, it’s worth taking a look at a PBS series entitle “Blueprint America.” Last night was “Beyond the Motor City”, a sobering look at how the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in it’s investment of infrastructure. Just another indication of the downward spiral of the U.S. as a world leader.

the isolationist are those who believe in sanctions ands force of arms to change the world ron paul is a non-interventionist who believes that we should get our house in order and have people want to emulate us. but not to think your can impose are values by force. that would be unlike democracts or republicans

you think in terms of parties- paul does not care about parties-just ideas

LOL. i’m hoping more coffee with help on my end.

ron paul wants to be the president of the nation not the republican party and unlike any politician tells the repubs “you have lost your way” calls bush a war criminal–tell me one other politician who does that like paul

Citizen jbade:

Ron Paul spoke “loudly and clearly and often unlike any Democrat” because he ain’t one!! He is an original American fascist that traces his political origins back through the Dixiecrats, through the isolationist America First movement, through the Know-nothings and directly back to the southern fried firebreathing nullifiers of the old slave South. He represents the pure right-wing libertarian gene in American politics that is not only UN-democratic, it’s ANTI-democratic.

And why are Dems losing Independents?

Let me see:

Broken promises and a loss of confidence. Transparency, earmarks, no lobbyists, just to name a few.

Sweeping HCR, corrupted by ‘politics as usual’, that WAS NOT the priority of an electorate who watched the economy tank before their eyes.

A failed stimulus plan that was nothing more than a payoff to favored Democrat constituencies and Democrat controlled state governments.

Bailouts.

The explosion of the national debt that began under Bush and has grown to incomprehensible, unsustainable levels under Obama.

How is Obama seeking to restore the confidence and trust of the independents who swung the general election his way?

He continues to push the Democrat-only version of HCR even though a clear majority of Americans prefer to start over or do nothing.

Propose a ‘jobs bill’ that will actually do little to create jobs. As a small business owner, I can tell you that a tax credit will not entice me to add employees. Sales growth and demand for my product/services are the key to job creation.

Raise taxes during a recession.

Propose the largest budget in the history of the Republic using money borrowed from future generations and foreign governments.

Parties are what we have. Ideas they’re short on. Paul has a few good ideas, the rest suck big time. IMO his stance on immigration makes him a racist. That makes him a non-starter in my book.

Forgot to include the link.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/

Words. All horseshit.

Well said.

if you understand the fact that the constitution was designed to protect you from your government. then a strict constitutionalists like paul is a SUPERHERO

Citizen jbade:

Take a pill Citizen, Ron Paul doesn’t wanna be president of anything that looks like a nation…in fact the ideology he represents is only “nationalist” for white, uneducated fools.

just babble no facts the usual for one without an argument

We seem inundated, SD, we’ve Bull-shit, Horse-shit, and Happy Horse-shit.

Triangulation?

lol

then a strict constitutionalists like paul is a SUPERHERO crackpot.

Fixed it.

We’re “sheeple,” and you’re worshiping a politician as a superhero. ok, got it. All i need to know.

“FLAMETHROWER” your support for the corrupt status quo matches argument

Citizen jbade:

Take a breath Citizen before you go deaf from the sound of your own bullshit…Ron Paul represents the purest form of fascism and it’s the model for what showed up in Italy, Spain and Germany in the 1920′s and 30′s and it most definately doesn’t believe in no fuckin’ Constitution.

your two parties have come close to destroying the country with your corruption and wars–keep voting for them, things are bound to change

look up the definition of facism you will see that your dem repub support for a trillion dollar bail-out for banks no strings attached DEFINES THE FACISM YOU UNWITTINGLY SUPPORT–get a dictionary

Citizen jabade:

ROFLMAO…Jesus H. keeRIST on a God damned crutch, because I don’t believe your lunatic bullshit I must represent the “staus quo”…now THAT is reasoning beyond my meager capabilities.

nobody with a brain does not understand that paul is a strict constitutionalist- [edited by moderator]

[Mod note: Spirited debate is encouraged, but please do not insult other commenters. Thank you.]

Ours?

Those two whole political parties, which are really just one, jbade, are “yours” just precisely as much as they are “ours”.

You’ve obviously no clue as to what this site is about.

Why don’t you (and certain “others”) try to get one?

Start with one.

Then, perhaps, you can work up your dander to two …

when you vote for dems and repubs and nothing changes in foreign or monetary policy and dems support-no habeas, patriot ,bail-outs renditions, wars ect ect–what do you think your voting for CHANGE give me a break

Interesting that you consider Ron Paul a Fascist. Do you have any background in History?

Consider: People don’t understand that the early supporters of the Nazi regime in Germany were indeed Socialists. Those who opposed them were called “Liberals”. That last name does not bear a resemblance to current “Liberals”. The opposition to the rise of German National Socialism today would better fit “Libertarian” or “Jeffersonian”.
Those who opposed the rise of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” did so on the basis of resistance to Big Governments control over all elements of the German Republic.

—–A Government that claimed to be for the German people and made extravagant promises ..
——A Government that was heavily connected to powerful private business interests including their Military Industrialists, and Banks.
—— A Government that came out of the hyper inflation of the Weimer Republic, as the German Government printed huge amount of money to fund the Governments attempt to come out of the Depression. (By the way, the Bankers made a lot of profit out of this.)
—–A Government that was empowered by the demise of the German Middle Class, which had been destroyed by the twin curses of the Great Depression and the inflationary practices of the Government printing money.

The Enabling Act (Gleichschaltung), gave the German Government the power to enact laws without parliamentary approval. (You might compare this to the infamous Executive Orders that became so common under the Bush regime. Those Executive Orders have been defended and expanded under the Obama Administration.)

By the mid 1930′s the German Federal Government had, essentially, taken over most state and local legislative powers. (Consider the effect of unfunded Federal Mandates to the States that take up 2/3′s of the States budgets)

Citizen jbade:

sigh…you are outta your league here Citizen so go take a pill, jump into bed, assume the pre-natal position and turn the electric blanket up to “10″ and dream of Fearless Fosdick and his trusty sidekick, the Honorable Ron Paul.

i do not vote for members of either party i can not support that level of corruption- i work for change

it is clear that it has never been better for supporters of paul–can you say Massachusetts you take your pill–independents are on the rise not the parties

Just a friendly reminder folks: please keep the debate civil and stick to the facts, not insults.

Thanks!

Citizen tango57:

Yeah, I got a little bit of “background in History” (a few years of graduate school on the East coast studyin early national political history)and I am here to tell you that what you are spewin’ is Ahistorical nonsense.

So you imagine that people at FDL support the R’s?

Or unthinkingly plump for the D’s?

Most here are no happier than you, believe it.

“Change” requires meaningful communication among like-minded people or at least among those who can agree on some things, starting with respect and civility toward those with whom we wish to engage in thoughtful and considered discussion.

You have told us we are all stupid.

Heck of a place to start, there, brownie.

I admit I am curious. Do you by any chance get your talking points from emails that come in from a PAC group supporting Government Legislation? Do you even realize that the sources of funding for that PAC comes from Corporate sources? Those very Corporations that you believe you oppose?

[Comment deleted by moderator. Do not insult other commenters. Thank you]

W

Oh, tango57, you pore thang …

Norske is not one with whom one wishes to tango foolishly.

However, as you will.

Unless your scholarship is impeccable, and your wit well-honed …

;~)

DW

that was not my intent; i apologize it was directed at a mindset that blindly supports the status quo- the intellect is high here it is why i come- i merely like to point out there are other options to d and r–jane finds much common cause with libertarians–liberal or progressive libertaian is my favorite flavor-again sorry

Wow, Let me know what schools you are talking about. I’ll make sure to scratch them off the list of creditable Colleges.

Man, we got some NFGs who fell off the turnip truck right into the Lake.

that was very well said. thank you.

Google alert set for superhero ron paul?

Let me know when the “wit” starts.

Paul is a staunch defender of unfettered capitalism. Now, if you can square that with the manner in which most progressives embrace the need for government to intervene in the economy and construct a rock solid social safety net, fine. I can’t.

What specifically would Paul recommend the government do with respect to poverty, inequality, education, social security, medicare, taxation. Simple: Get out of the way and let the John Galts ply their trades.

Right.

my apologies i was attacking a mindset that has most people voting for corrupt parties i did not mean to make it personal. i will continue to advocate against a mindset of the parties are the answer-they are not. support for them is the problem not the solution

Understood, jbade.

Let us represent ourselves, not any politician, nor any party cant, in our civil and (mostly) respectful sharing of ideas and hope, if anyone has some (share, if you’ve got ‘em).

DW

A second friendly reminder folks: please keep the debate civil and stick to the facts, not insults. Comments that insult other commenters will be deleted.

Thanks!

Now, if you can square that with the manner in which most progressives embrace the need for government to intervene in the economy

maybe we can find some agreement about opposing the government intervening in the economy to the benefit of cronies and banksters and transferring the country’s wealth up?

i am glad you asked -unlike dems who want to do a commission to cut ss and medicare. ron paul wants to bring home the troops, end the war use the money fund education, medical and social security for one. ss a good program, there is not a penny in it thanks to dems and repubs–successful program –there are many other ron paul ideas that are quite progressive

You simply don’t get it, do you?

Who, here, do you imagine has any interest in your comments?

Perhaps, tango57, you need to spread YOUR wit, such as you may possess, elsewhere, where it might be more highly appreciated?

Just a thought.

Best of luck, in the big world out there, tango, I suspect you’ll have need of it. Unless you are one of those who make “reality” whatever YOU want it to be, in which case, heaven help you, ‘cuz the rest of us are busy.

DW

your government and corporations have set-up a fascist state-libertarians understand that you can only prevent that by not letting corps feed at the trough–what we have today used to be a howard dean democract- could never be successful to many powers-next best choice ron paul

For all, again I’m curious what would you differ with in the following. Please be specific, and avoid knee jerk responses:
……………………………………………………………
Speeches And Statements

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

What If?

February 12, 2009

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan – and bombing Pakistan – is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” is self-destructive and produces no useful information – and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

Excellent point.

The New Deal was a complex intertwining of 1] a genuine commitment on the part of many to expand the role government plays in intervening in the relationship between Wall Sreet and Main Street and 2] the realization on the part of many on Wall Street [and in Washington] that without this intervention capitalism would implode over and again.

Eventually, it was feared, imploding all the way into socialism.

From this came the liberalism [fuelled by genuine mass movements] of the Great Society. But this “social contract” began to disintegrate with the advent of a new “global economy” whereby the manufacturing sector of the economy [with its unions and living wage] was shipped overseas.

Now crony capitalism is “the system”. In some important respects progressives and libertarians share a critique of this. But let’s not folol ourselves regarding how far this can really go. Paul and his ilk simply want to reconfigure Wall Street into Galt’s Gultch.

yesssssssssssss

Much better, tango, 57, much better,

Do you imagine that any here would disagree with most of those statements?

Do you think Dennis Kucinich would disagree with most?

Do you care to have reasonable responses from others?

Would you consider a bit more patience, and also, listening to what others, here, have to say?

DW

Yes, sadly, this is probably true. But I have known [and worked with] many Libertarians [and Objectivists] who were genuinely apalled by religionists, evangelicals, racists, sexists, nativists etc. For them everything revolved around the rights of individuals.

But I don’t doubt there are libertarians out there who contradict their own philosophy. Or rationalize many behaviors that contradict it.

Again, interesting. You don’t seem to be willing to even view opinions that do not agree with your own.

Like it or not it’s your government as well. As much as many of us would welcome an alternative, a 3rd party if you will, that’s not going to happen any time soon, certainly not by this November and probably not in time to effect elections in 2012. In the meantime we can do a couple things. We can try to elect people who honestly share and respect our values or we can sit on our hands and complain. I choose the former. My chief concern with “libertarians” is they want to dismantle what few safety nets exist for people. IMO many libertarians follow an ideology close to that of Ayn Rand and I find that unacceptable.

If such “opinion”, tango57, is respectfully stated, and not dripping with arrogance and putting everyone else “down”, then you’ll find I am rather friendly to ideas that didn’t hatch out of my own head or the heads of my philosophical cohorts.

Unless such “ideas” are nonsense or gibbersih.

I bet you feel the same way?

DW

Surprise! I supported Dennis Kucinich and sent money to his campaign. I voted for Cynthia McKinney. And I’m a fan of Alan Grayson and Marcy Kaptur.

i think i’m sort of a lefty libertarian. which would put a lot of room for varying povs between me and greenspan. *g*.

Ah, tango57, we is not in disagreement ’bout much, then.

Just “technique”.

All of us must be prepared, however, to “do” much more in concert.

Risking our lives, our fortunes (whatever they might comprise ) and our honor (without which nothing “GOOD” will come of all “this”) …

Understand, I am more comfortable with making common cause, than some may be, but such “cause” depends upon common (if rare), shared, principles.

DW

if you can watch youtubes, you might be interested in the short vid at update #2 in this old post from glenn greenwald.

Hmmmmmm… Wow, Dripping with arrogance??????… Like: “,,,,,Much better, tango, 57, much better,
Do you imagine that any here would disagree with most of those statements?

Do you think Dennis Kucinich would disagree with most?

Do you care to have reasonable responses from others?……

You simply don’t get it, do you?

Who, here, do you imagine has any interest in your comments?”

OR: “We seem inundated, SD, we’ve Bull-shit, Horse-shit, and Happy Horse-shit.”

Or: ……Perhaps, tango57, you need to spread YOUR wit, such as you may possess, elsewhere, where it might be more highly appreciated?”

OR: “Best of luck, in the big world out there, tango, I suspect you’ll have need of it. Unless you are one of those who make “reality” whatever YOU want it to be, in which case, heaven help you, ‘cuz the rest of us are busy.”

OR: “Oh, tango57, you pore thang …

Norske is not one with whom one wishes to tango foolishly.

However, as you will.

Unless your scholarship is impeccable, and your wit well-honed …”

You is?

I nevah have found you to be “Rand-ian”, so, might you enlighten me?

Most libertarians I know, even those with leftist leanings, are all about money …

However as to the “rights” of individuals, you is in the forefront.

(You also insist upon personal responsibility, on every level, which doesn’t seem ubiquitous among them what think money is most important, you, obviously, think people are most important. As you know, I agree.)

:~DW

My apologies, tango57, for being grumpy and curmudgeonly.

Perhaps you can find it in your heart, to forgive me?

It must be all the shoveling I’ve had to engage in recently.

DW

My point is many on the Left marginalize themselves. They alienate those with when they would be better served by finding common ground. So, where is the common ground? The answer to that should be obvious. That was my point in Ron Pauls speech. There is a lot of common ground.

not randian at all.

not so sure about the labels, but i have anti-authoritarian leanings for sure. i also think that for most human beings, and certainly when living in complex societies, individual freedoms flourish best in community. but not every community.

label me confused if you find that more accurate. i won’t object. *g*

p.s. re money: a life devoted to the personal accumulation of $$$, or even measuring success by $$$, strikes me as something pretty close to abhorrent so long as there is one person in need.

Agreed.

The common ground is our shared humanity.

And the fact that all human beings ever really get to “spend” is time.

Let us not waste it with invective and misunderstanding.

What say you, tango57?

Respect and peace between us?

DW

There is clarity and humanity in what you term, “confusion” …

They say that “opportunity” always attends “confusion”.

(Realizing the difference between “learning” and deliberately creating disarray and despair.)

May we all become so?

DW

DWBartoo…..Apologies accepted and asked for in return. People of good heart are being frustrated by a system that perpetuates corruption and needless suffering. The fight against greed and hate is exhausting. The People are being divided in an cynical attempt at controlling them.

Peace.

;~D

People of good heart are being frustrated by a system that perpetuates corruption and needless suffering. The fight against greed and hate is exhausting. The People are being divided in an cynical attempt at controlling them.

amen.

So if Ron Paul is such an ardent anti-Republican, why does he call himself a Republican and run for office as a Republican?

Why do pro Corporate fake Liberals run as Democrats?

My two parties? I’m sorry. I didn’t know I owned them. Where are my residual checks?

Don’t be presumptuous, Ace. All you’re doing is flaunting your ignorance.

Oh and, FYI: Ron Paul is a Crackpot.

Nice try to deflect. Do you have an answer or is it because at heart Ron Paul (and Rand as well) ARE comfortable with the hate wing of the Republican party?

(and since I’m not a fan or pimping for the Corporatist wing of the Democratic Party, it really is a non-issue for me)

Interesting story…yes, the teabaggers and Sarah’s followers are certainly clueless and rudderless. But I give the story some credence as Ron Paul’s ideas, like them or not are more established in congress and he has many supporters there on many issues, including Kucinich and Grayson. As a progressive, I don’t want the bulk of my taxes going to the military and foreign interventions and wars, and Ron Paul agrees with this (whether his so-called followers agree or not). I would rather build bridges and alliances with someone like him in congress than with the whole lot of the Republican party. In the end I think the story measures the fact that Ron Paul is no longer the leader of the teabaggers (and he probably doesn’t endorse most of the new movement) and Sarah is the new sensation, so they are basically leaderless. More ignorant voters in America, but at least they vote and demonstrate. Where’s the rage on the left?

I’m late on this thread, so forgive if already covered…but why is RP a crackpot? Because of his ideas about the need for fundamental change in our government? I have been lurking this site for quite a while now, and that seems to be a common goal among everyone who visits this site. So what ideas in particular make him a crackpot?

Dakine01 – Do you have any links or evidence to support your claim that RP is “comfortable with the hate wing of the Republican party?”

Paul on the “right” and Kucinich on the “left” are the two most anti-establishment candidates in their respective parties (and they both have my respect for that), but I dont hear alot of “Kucinich is a Crackpot” from this site…I usually have to lurk RedState for that.

The idea that putting the country on the “gold standard” will solve everything is just a bit too simplistic for my taste.

It was Nixon who took us off the gold standard to finance the Vietnam war with deficit spending. Now we got endless wars and CIA run amok with the same principle…regardless who’s in charge. Not sure about the monetary solution since I’m not an economist, but wondering about the soundness of printing money primarily to fund wars (and not a good HRC for example).

Printing money to fund foreign (mis)adventures, Bad. Printing money to build infrastructure and get us out of this “recession,” better. The growing chorus of yammering about deficit spending is ill-advised, to put it nicely.

The country has real problems, and we need real people with real solutions to address these problems. To the extent Paul speaks rationally – opening up the FED, disentangling our country from foreign adventures, etc – then he should be taken seriously. Simpleton crap about “lower taxes,” “deficit spending,” “gold standard,” etc…not so much.

Can you provide links where he states that the gold standard will solve everything? He is an advocate for sound money and/or competing currencies…and yes he does lament the removal of gold backing for our currency, but this does not amount to an assertion that a gold standard will “solve everything” (as if everything could ever possibly be solved!). I think we can all acknowledge that there is no “magic bullet” solution to our problems, and only a fool (see Palin, S.) would believe that to be the case.

I am personally thrilled that Bozo the Palin spoke at that Memphis TP. She can drag the GOP’s clinging detritus away from any legitimate grassroots movement that RP started. The GOP has already demonstrated that it will not lend it’s stamp of approval to any independant-minded, anti-war, pro civil-liberty movement. I am eternally grateful that RP does not seek GOP approval of this type.

Rand Paul on the other hand is an unknown commodity…he threw the headfake of the century when he solicited Palin’s support, and quite possibly lost the support of many of RP the Elder’s supporters as a result.

At FDL, Kucinich is regarded as “short”, and therefore, presumably, is NOT presidential “timber”.

He is also a vegetarian crockpot.

(Full disclosure, my legs are long enough to reach the ground, I have no desire to be “in charge”, and I am also a vegetarian, but of the curmudgeon type and sometimes I find that my fingers do not cooperate so my typing is atrocious.)

Some of Ron Paul’s ideas find resonance here, but others do not …

ShotoJamf has provided you one example of the latter …

Others of Ron Paul’s ideas are complete anathema because they are premised upon equally simplistic if not inhumane “notions”, especially as regards those whom Paul regards as lesser beings. Perhaps Ron Paul may come to reconsider some of these “ideas”? That willingness to reassess, being the essence of “change”.

Perhaps you might help him do so?

If that wouldn’t lessen your cromulent perspective …?

;~DW

Nixon nixed Bretton-Woods because while on the gold standard our gold reserves were being decimated by paying our obligations to other countries in gold. See Bill Grieder’s Secrets of the Temple.

Yes, the New Deal worked very well. And Wallstreet absolutely hated that fact. And still hates it to this very day.

As for our new “post industrial” economy and globalization. There’s nothing new about it. It’s a rehash of the old British Empire trade policy… with the same effects I might add. An oversized financial sector and a withering manufacturing sector.

And yeah, I don’t see men like Ron Paul as our saviour. Merely as potential allies on a few key issues. Ron Paul’s Austrian School Economics are completely non-viable.

I think we agree on the just use of resources and the problems with the MIC…but I am not convinced that printing money is the right solution. Look who controls the money and who got it in the first stimulus(stimuli), plus the military budget that followed. Call me a skeptic, but I don’t think they print it for everyone to use. Perhaps continuous growth is not the best thing for our society and our planet…a whole lot to consider when you really think about it.

Dakine01 – Do you have any links or evidence to support your claim that RP is “comfortable with the hate wing of the Republican party?”

Well, he still calls himself a Republican, he hasn’t prominently denounced the Tea Party hate wing folks who display the signs equating Obama to Hitler and/or Stalin, he is anti-choice (seems to be selective in the whole libertarian thing with that).

Given that a lot of the Corporate wing of the Dem Party are folks who at one time would have been Republicans but now call themselves Dems because so much of the R party is Nuckin’ Futz, why shouldn’t I think Ron Paul is comfortable with the hate?

“Others of Ron Paul’s ideas are complete anathema because they are premised upon equally simplistic if not inhumane “notions”, especially as regards those whom Paul regards as lesser beings.”

Can you expand on this? What particular notions are “inhumane” and who does he consider “lesser beings”?

I very much appreciate the fact that FDLers are in general more receptive to RP’s ideas. This site is fertile ground for anyone seeking alternative (if not politically expedient) avenues for reform.

I guess my question is this: Which of RP’s ideas in particular are odious enough to completely discount the rest of those ideas which find resonance here? I have been scratching my head about this for some time now. It was easy enough to see that the GOP blackballed Paul during his presidential bid, but my mistake was in assuming that this GOP shunning would lead to more outstretched hands from the progressive left. Any ideas about why this is the case?

BTW, “vegetarian crockpot” was great…and +1 for getting the “cromulent” reference, it embiggens my heart to see Simpsons fans everywhere.

Well, he’s a complete reactionary on economic matters but frankly his libertarian anti-war anti-police state policies would be reason enough for reactionary elites to strongly dislike him.

Reagan sounded a bit like Ron Paul *BEFORE* he was elected. Rich friends of the Bush family shot those libertarian leanings right out of Reagan within 2 months of becoming elected.

Yes, he carries that pesky “R” by his name (I hate it as much as you do), but would you acknowledge that the “R” or “D” beside someones name is almost a requisite to be taken seriously in politics? He ran for Pres. as a Libertarian in 88, but was more easily marginalized then than he was in 08 with the “R”. It is more about access than political affiliation.

Let me see if I have your assertion about his “hate” correct. He has not sufficiently denounced the sign holders, therefore he must be sympathetic to the messages written by them? That is a logical stretch at best.

Paul is indeed Pro-Life. This position is difficult for me to personally reconcile also, but I take heart in the fact that he believes that policy decisions such as this should be made at the state and not federal level. Paul has no interest in creating any Pro-Life policies at a national level…quite the opposite, he wants to keep all such policies at the state level. The result (as I like to imagine it) would be minimal change in Blue and Purple states, but in ass-backwards regions like Mississippi and Texarkana there may be some Pro-Life sentiment that leads to new policy. That is regrettable, but easy to reconcile since people are free to relocate (and would in droves should such policies pass).

My views are similar to yours on this. I respect the views and personal integrity of Grayson, Kaptur and Kucnich as well as Ron Paul. Unlike many on the Left I never abandoned Kucnich for the Obama glitz. Kucnich’s consistent and courageous stands earned my admiration.

I keep hearing about the hate, yet what about the rhetoric of many on the Left? The name calling have made me uncomfortable and saddened. It seems that any disagreement with them results in a instant attack. Indeed, many I know who would have supported them have turned away. Their anger has proved to be their own worst enemy and have undermined their own creditability.

As for me and many others, we will continue to attempt to broaden the support for reform in our Government. We will remain open to the ideas of others. We will continue to support the goals of liberty. We will continue the resistance to wars of aggression, intervention and empire. We will not be deceived by those who seek to control and dominate the People by the tactics of “divide et impera”.

glad you asked- ron paul understands that at the federal level it is impossible to break in– the two parties have rigged the system against outsiders( ralph nader and paul worked together to change). the easy clarification is the recent rachel maddow interview. nobody hates ron paul more than the republican party. example they run candidates against him, they get rid of his finance chairmanship, look to the repub debates – ron paul speaks couragiously- he says “republicans dont want to have anything to do with me-they do not want to go to the campuses and explain why more war funding is good but not child health care spending-even ss he has the only real plan to help- shut down the war machine and spend on social services

Let me see if I have your assertion about his “hate” correct. He has not sufficiently denounced the sign holders, therefore he must be sympathetic to the messages written by them? That is a logical stretch at best.

Ron Paul ’90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

it would be more interesting if you indicated why he is a crack pot

Tango, We may be talking to ourselves at this point since this article is old, but FDLers in general have been the target of “left-wing hate” moreso than a distributor of that vitriol. The party line that Rahm wishes them to follow is untenable with their beliefs, and I admire them for staying strong. Work is calling (ever so faintly) so I must leave.

Thanks for your site Jane!

how far off the mark is someone who calls paul a reactionary–he has espoused the same ideas for twenty years, 30 years-you have right to your opinion not your own facts–look-up reactionary

ron paul a racist, reactionary ect ect john stewart questioning ron paul “you seem to have consistent principled integrity…. the american people usually dont go for that” bill maher ” ron paul is my new hero” their is a couple of racist

So let me get this logic straight. If he does NOT repudiate remarks of this nature then he is of questionable character.

See your comment above: “he hasn’t prominently denounced the Tea Party hate wing folks”

And when he does denounce something (as he did in the article you linked to), his character is still questionable?

From the article you posted:

“None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul’s name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.”

“When you bring this question up, you’re really saying, ‘You’re a racist’ or ‘Are you a racist?’ And the answer is, ‘No, I’m not a racist,’” he said.

“Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments.”

“I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines,” he said, adding he wanted to “make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it’s obviously wrong.”

That is truly a lose-lose situation.

why is that ron pauls responsibility. you be responsible for what tea partiers say–he is a libertarian he is not connected to that- caimpaign for liberty is paul association

good honest facts-well done

My father was a contemporary of John Maynard Keynes, and attended seminars at Cambridge. Unfortunately, due to a family tragedy, his book on this subject was never finished. It was, however quite illuminating……

Keynes applauded the intervention of Hoover into wages and prices in 1929-1930. As my fathers book pointed out, this intervention set the stage for the Great Depression. Unlike the initially deeper economic downturn in Post WW 1, (1920-1921), the lack of Government intervention was followed by a rapid and powerful economic recovery by 1922-1923. In contrast, despite FDR’s policies, the Great Depression endured for over a decade after his election. It remains an open question on the effect of those policies.

I’m probably setting myself up for another attack based upon questioning another icon.

Yeah, I guess it was just that invisible man behind the curtain that published those letters under his name. He was just the innocent by-stander who let this happen on his own newsletter.

Rather convenient memory lapse he’s got going there.

I never said he was an innocent bystander. He was ultimately responsible for anything published in his name. I do however think that it is unreasonable to villify or completely dismiss someone for something printed in a pamphlet from 20 years ago, even though he has distanced himself from and repudiated those remarks multiple times in those 20 years since.

I said his economic policies are reactionary, I didn’t say he was a blanket reactionary on all issues. The “Austrian School” of economics (Von Mises etcs…) is entirely reactionary, old failed ideas.

As for his anti-war and anti police state policies, I’ve already said that I support his positions in those matters.

“The “Austrian School” of economics (Von Mises etcs…) is entirely reactionary, old failed ideas.”

Can you reconcile that claim with Niall Ferguson’s view that:

“…the biggest winners, among economists at least? Step forward the “Austrians” — economists like Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), who always saw credit-propelled asset bubbles as the biggest threat to the stability of capitalism.”

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/dead_men_walking

Yes, I’ve heard that argument before but I don’t buy it. Hoover did very little one way or another. And FDR didn’t come into office until march of 1933, well after the crash of 1929. Anything that could be described as short and sharp would have occured before FDR entered office, let alone once he actually managed to start rolling out his new deal programs.

And then there’s the issue of FDR giving in to Republican demands for budget cutting in 1937 which led to another downturn.

Also, I’d add that the post WWI downturn seemed rather different in character from the 1929 crash. 1929 was a massive deleveraging and money contraction event.

Bottom line, any numerical system we attach to our economy is going to be imperfect. Basically the numbers will occasionally tell you to do obviously dumb things. It’s dumb to starve the public when your farmers are capable of producing enough food. It’s idiotic to leave the public homeless when there are an abundance of homes. And it’s beyond lunacy to ever leave a large portion of the workforce idle. FDR understood this and slowly but surely brought the fabric of our nation back together. He wasn’t perfect, had his share of successes and failures but on the whole I think he saved the country.

Yes, I believe that I can reconcile that in the sense that a British historian with a known sympathy for the British Empire is of course going to be receptive to rather reactionary idea’s. Besides, he’s an historian, not an economist.

What do progressive economists say about the Austrian School of economics?

Here’s a couple samples:

“the Austrian theory of the business cycle: a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire.”
- Paul Krugman
http://www.slate.com/id/9593

“when the Vienna Economics Institute celebrated its centennial, many years ago, they invited, as their keynote speaker, my father [John Kenneth Galbraith]. The leading economists of the Austrian school—including von Hayek and von Haberler—returned for the occasion. And so my father took a moment to reflect on the economic triumphs of the Austrian Republic since the war, which, he said, “would not have been possible without the contribution of these men.” They nodded—briefly—until it dawned on them what he meant. They’d all left the country in the 1930s”
- James K. Galbraith
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=3031

I didn’t expect you’d understand it……. So, it only took 10 years of the correct policies to end the Depression? Oh wait, it didn’t. And the Government stopping spending in 1937 and 1938 derailed the “recovery”. Please. The time lag in the effects on FDR “stimulus” has been used both to explain the lack of effectiveness of the FDR programs in the early years, but is ignored in 1937. Data shows that the “recovery” was already failing before the reduction in stimulus spending/programs even had a chance to effect the economy.

But we’ll know pretty soon now who is/was right. Perhaps this recovery will be sustainable. If so, the Keynesian theories have merit. If this recovery fails and things don’t get better, or if it ends up bouncing along the bottom like the application of those policies have caused in Japan, then I’m sure people like you will just claim that enough wasn’t done. After all if the round peg won’t fit in the square hole, use a bigger hammer. Or if you want it to be a blue color, shine a blue light on it.

Oh, I never said that Obama’s economic policies were good, they aren’t and I don’t expect them to lead to lasting recovery.

For the most part, Obama’s team has focused on bailing out the fictitious debts created by the bankers. I think it’s an insanity.

Sure I think we need to deficit spend, but that doesn’t mean we should be stupid about it and throw money down a rathole. There is such a thing as good spending vs bad spending.

I’d focus funds on stabilizing state budgets because firing civil servants will only hurt us down the road(teachers especially). And I’d plow a ton of money into rail freight lines and light rail public transport. Obama’s spending a tiny amount on rail, he needs to be talking in the hundreds of billions, not in the tens of billions.

Why rail? It’s cheaper than cars&trucks and will also have the potential to reduce oil imports.

As for your comments on FDR, I simply don’t agree. You seem to think economies always auto stabilized quickly if left to thier own devices. I think that’s a Wallstreet myth. Minor bumps in the economy are far different than the massive deflation spiral that started in 1929.

By the time that FDR took office people had already been out of work for 3 years. How many more years to “auto stabilize” and return employment to full if nothing was done? And exactly how many years do you think a third of the population could survive without a job?

Honestly, 4 more years of Hoover style do nothing policies and there would either have been a revolution or the unemployment problem would have solved itself via starvation.