Ron Paul in N.H.
I noticed last night and today that the media seem to be giving Ron Paul a break, as they recognize his unquestionable appeal to the young and independents, and his allure generally as a change agent. "Bring Them Home!" the audience was chanting last night in Manchester, about troops overseas. Paul gets at that traditional tension between elites and populists in American politics, and at some point even media toffs have to grant him respect.
American Thinker is a hardcore neocon site. It concedes that Romney and Paul were big winners last night. Thomas Lifson:
South Carolina now becomes a major test for all the candidates. This is far from over, but Romney is clearly gaining momentum. Ron Paul's clear appeal to younger and independent voters is something for the GOP as a whole to ponder. Whatever the downside of his foreign policy views, Paul's willingness to speak frankly and talk about major change obviously resonates with constituencies the party needs to win.
Business Insider headlines its piece on Paul, Admit It: Ron Paul's Performance in New Hampshire last night was impressive... Henry Blodget:
Ron Paul's current policies are still too extreme for him to win the general election.... And the more Paul's candidacy is taken seriously by the mainstream, the more directly he will have to answer for issues like the offensive and racist newsletters that were once published under his name. So unless Ron Paul tacks sharply to the center or pulls off a true stunner in some of the upcoming primaries, he'll continue to be perceived by the mainstream as a fringe candidate.
But if Ron Paul does amass enough delegates, which he appears to be on his way to doing (especially now that Florida may split delegates), he will get more of what his advisors appear to believe they wanted from the beginning: Influence. Why?
Because if Ron Paul decides to run as a third-party candidate, which some analysts consider possible, he could capture enough of the vote to destroy any chance the GOP has of winning the general election.
Thanks to Mark Wauck for this post.
Notice that Huntsman called for a pull out from Afghanistan.
And that means 40% of the votes yesterday were for a pullout from Afghanistan.
That’s more votes than Romney got.
Absolutely, Les. I listened to Huntsman’s speech and it was clear to me that he was trying to tap into the anti-war sentiment going Paul’s way. It seemed to be his major point and though I don’t recall specifics, withdrawal from Afghanistan was not the only anti-war thing he said. And while he’s still a minor candidate, he went from virtually nothing to a very decent showing in NH.
Yeah, that makes 1/3 of NH voters voting for candidates who want out of Afghanistan now. What a change from just 4 years ago in the GOP, when that horrible warmonger McCain leveraged NH for a SC win and the nomination.
You mean the McCain Romney wants to make Secretary Of State? The one who never saw a war he didn’t want? Son of Daddy who joined redneck power asshole Johnson in keeping the USS Liberty incident under wraps? That McCain? I recall Romney has five sons and none have been in the US military–good sign he will get the main vote against Obama, who has never worked a normal work day in his life to make ends meet, the Affirmative action boy, lackey of AIPAC.
And maybe Obomba also might be destroyed in a general election with Dr.Paul as a third party candidate.All he needs is 34% at the least for that possibility,(of course probably a little more)as Romney and Obomba are carbon copies of bloviation and policies of corporate origin and implementation,to our national chagrin and decline.
Given the way the electoral college favors small and rural states, I think Paul could win in a three-way race with even a bit less than 34%.
“Given the way the electoral college favors small and rural states, I think Paul could win in a three-way race with even a bit less than 34%.”
No, because those states are the ones either Romney or Paul would have to win to have a shot, and a strong Paul would split that pot. If anything, if the strategy for Paul is “small and rural,” then Obama’s electoral victory is a landslide. For Paul to have a chance, he would have to take a significant bite from 2008 Obama states that are still likely to go Dem this year. Do you see any of those on the map?
“All he needs is 34% at the least for that possibility,(of course probably a little more)”
He would need much, much more. The problem is that in the American system, more than two parties in inherently unstable. Paul would not pull support from both parties equally and would likely draw more Republican votes from Romney than Democratic votes from Obama, which could result in an Obama victory even with a larger combined Romney/Paul vote.
The only way he could overcome the structural problem is by beating Romney by an enormous margin, which presents the conundrum. If he gain that much support in the general election, he would have been the nominee.
3rd parties are notorious for (1) drawing so little support to be meaningless to the outcome of the election, or (2) being a liability for the party from whom the third-party candidate sprang or draws its support. (Think TR in 1912 or even, in microcosm, Nader in Fl in 2000.)
“I’m asked this all the time and every time my answer is the same. I have no plans on running as a third party,” he said at the Republican Debate being held at St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH.
link to forbes.com
And it looks like Paul ain doing to well in Dixie: they like mitt and santorum
link to politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
New Hampshire just ain’t like the rest of the Republican electorate, its between Mitt and the Rick’s from here on out….
If and when it becomes clear that Paul is the only one who can stop Romney, those Southern voters may change their minds about him.
Those poll numbers are old. It will be interesting to see some new ones which reflect the New Hampshire results.
Looks like they are pretty consistent, Light
link to politico.com
Making assumptions out of poll numbers regarding Ron Paul is useless.
He is not an establishment candidate nor a far right radical seeking the crown. He is a revolutionary and he has spawned a revolutionary movement within the Republican party, much to the ire of the establishment’s elected politicians, party bosses, operatives and nouveau riche that have displaced country club Republicans.
His goal is not gaining the presidency, its gaining the stage from which to argue and proselytize his beliefs and views. The more public access he has the more people flock to his standard, the less extreme his policies become to the public.
hahahaha!! ahhiyawa, wow, that is pretty good…. your not serious, are you?
He may be getting respect from some MSM sources. But last night on MSNBC
The MSNBC pundit class have a war against Rep Ron Paul. Now don’t get me wrong would never ever vote for Rep Paul based on domestic issues. But why the MSNBC crew do not get that his anti war based on false claims stances unites Democrats, Independents and Republicans against unnecessary wars based on lies. He has huge support amongst the military. Yet Chris Mattews, Ed, Lawrence O Donnell, Al Sharpton continue to rip him up. They really have a war against him. Here are a few of their comments last night during their coverage of the outcome of the New Hampshire results.
Lawrence O’Donnell ” nothing Ron Paul can do that is relevant” “I just don’t count him. A joke. A srew up.”
Chris Matthews: ” If the second place is taken by Rep Paul blah blah(those words Chris’s words) who cares”
Al Sharpton: “discounts” Ron Paul “whacky”
Bob Shrum “irrelevant”
Yesterday I got on the Ed Schultz radio show and Ed called Rep Paul “a jerk” that those who support “do not want wars” Ed said this in a high pitched whiny voice. As if all of the military folks who support Rep Paul are whiners or chicken hawks like the MSNBC pundit class.
What is it that MSNBC has against Rep Paul and why is it that they do not get that his message unites the anti war crowd…including active military.
Really seems the MSNBC crew is at war against Rep Paul and the anti war folks.
It’s no surprise they are all squeaking about a candidate who threatens
the current political establishment with its complacent media punditry.
Think of them as the Bolsheviks in power whose agitprop is going into fear-mode.
Even Bob Shaeffer, who puts on a good performance for the most part, looked panicked when Paul was interviewed on his Sunday morning show. They are only guilty of conspiring together to maintain the status quo. They are there to keep Obama protected, and Paul’s antiwar and anti-interventionist message undermines the false change that the incumbent promised only 4 years ago.
Yes, no doubt that Ron Paul scares the crap out of both the DNC and GOP, precisely because (1) Obama has shown he’s no change agent, and (2) Ron Paul folks recognize a real change agent–a 30 yr record of going against the bipartisan real status quo party which plays musical chairs every 4 to 4 yrs.
I mean, who on earth is capable of showing such support in the rigged US campaign system while still saying Israel should be treated like any other foreign country? The longer Ron Paul stays in the race, the more Dick n Jane get some real factual information, both about welfare and warfare.
I think everyone is missing a very important point about the commentators in the traditional or mainstream media. They are employees. They can’t say what they want. The say and speak as they are instructed to do by their masters. If there were to say anything important that would be contrary to those who own them, they’d be out the door in a microsecond.
This is why what they do or say is completely irrelevant. We only need to convince more people of that fact.
Then maybe the irrelevance of the pundit class is going to be a campaign issue. Anyone considering this? Rather than these rambling opinions on cable, the pundits are going to have to pay some form of obeisance to what the net is saying in areas they hold their noses to cover.
The rantings of quislings and sycophants on the left no more affect Ron Paul and his movement than similar gibberish from quislings and sycophants on the right.
Military folks should call into Ed Schultz’s radio program today. Ask him why he calls Rep Paul “a jerk” makes fun of the anti unnecessary war crowd (yesterday on his show in a whiny dismissive voice Ed said to me (Kathleen/Dayton Ohio) that oh Paul represents the “we don’t want a war” crowd. Uh the chickenhawk pundit class at MSNBC including Ed do not seem to get that the anti war crowd…including many people serving in the military support Rep Pauls anti unnecessary wars stance.
Many would not vote for him based on his stance on domestic issues. But know if Rep Paul is shaken out of the race the anti war message is shaken out. Ed needs to visit more VA’s like the one in Dayton Ohio that I visit quite frequently taking my WWII/Teamster 85 year old father and talk with the Iraq and AFghanistan war Vets sitting there with out limbs and often half of their minds. Yeah Ed you were a real arrogant ass—- on the radio making fun of the anti unnecessary war crowd who support Rep Pauls message. Have you noticed Rep Paul served and you MSNBC folks have not.
Military folks should hammer Ed and the rest of the MSNBC chickenhawk pundit class
I go to the gigantic Bay Pines VA institution nearly monthly, sometimes up to 3 times a month–all the vets old and new favor Ron Paul. They actually know what war is and what happens to those who survive, whether our guys or their guys, and their families. They see no difference between say, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Obama, and all the GOP candidates, all chicken hawks, but they do support Ron Paul and his followers–there’s the old as well as the young who support Ron Paul. They know that the DNC & GOP regulars do not, that between the real and the ideal, falls the shadow, because that shadow falls heavily on them. How many MW regulars have had to work full time to get a higher education, and how many have served in the US Military? Just asking. I’d bet neither Phil or Adam qualify. Don’t get me wrong, I love the MW regulars (not Witty & ilk), but just asking? Also, what did Obama just say, ” that the next election will determine the future of minorities in America”? So, won’t it also mean the future of the whites, who only have a few more years to be nationally a majority, and are already a minority in many cities?
What is Obama doing playing the race card like that? Other than revealing his basic mindset? How does he there differ from, say David Duke? Other than he has power and mainstream acceptance, and David Duke is left at the illegitimate fringe?
Give a call into the Ed show on right now On until 3 pm est. 877-934-6833. Give him an earful about why so many military folks support Rep Paul. Ask Ed why he seemed to be poking fun at those who support Pauls anti unnecessary war stances? Why is he and his MSNBC cronies so disrespectful of Rep Paul and those who support him? Seriously the whole MSNBC team was so arrogant and dismissive of Rep Pauls second place win. Give Ed a call…challenge him. Suggest that he go visit your VA talk to Vets who support Rep Paul
Be polite but challenging with the screener. Let him know you are a Vet. Go for it. You will do a great job.
Lawrence O’Donnell was especially disrespectful and angry about Rep Pauls second place win. That whole MSNBC crowd (well with the exception of Rachel) were attacking Rep Pauls win. It was astounding. They just do not seem to get why such a diverse group of people support his anti unnecessary war message. As if they have a war against Paul and those in the military who support him
Kathleen, they really don’t get that more and more average Americans are against the welfare-warfare state now that Ron Paul has emerged to tell them about it despite the best efforts of the bipartisan press and both main political parties. Ron Paul stands for ideas, end-result facts, and factually obsessed ideals that e.g., MSNBSC, FOX, PBS & CNBC completely miss–because they are owned and/or controlled by the 1% and their agents & anchors and pundits grew up in socio-economic bubbles. Proof in pudding: Ron Paul’s $ comes from tiny Americans with little free cash, and both main parties get BIG CASH from the ruthless fat cats, who are either totally selfish or both selfish and Zionist, pretending Zionism is American.
from BI:
And although mainstream media and voters will likely still dismiss Paul as a fringe candidate, it’s worth thinking about what his surge means and what impact it will have on the rest of the campaign.
and then
So unless Ron Paul tacks sharply to the center or pulls off a true stunner in some of the upcoming primaries, he’ll continue to be perceived by the mainstream as a fringe candidate.
if nothing else, i hope that the paul candidacy educates more people about the fundamental disconnect between the interests of the mainstream media and the popular ‘mainstream’. despite these articles, coverage of the NH primary results on the local NPR affiliate were crudely dismissive of paul. on the last news segment i heard on the way to work, the news reader noted romney’s win and then went on to comment on the battle in south carolina between romney and . . . santorum. not a word on paul’s impressive showing in nh and what it may mean for the next primary. i’ll say it again, i am no great fan of paul, but this is lunacy. i guess this is what romney means when keeps vomiting the line about the politics of ‘envy’. it must be envy that causes me to question why wonder bread mitt is getting 10X the coverage of paul, or is it the impression of favoritism?
I was about to quote one of the same lines, but what led into it was also interesting–
“he will have to answer for issues like the offensive and racist newsletters that were once published under his name. So unless Ron Paul tacks sharply to the center or pulls off a true stunner in some of the upcoming primaries, he’ll continue to be perceived by the mainstream as a fringe candidate.”
Notice the logic. Paul has the problem of offensive and racist newsletters (true enough), but apparently that could be solved if he “tacks sharply to the center”. But how would that solve it? Those newsletters would still be there.
what is not discussed much either donald is the projected showing of paul against obama, rather than the implicit ‘he is unelectable’ hysteria in the MSM.
in this CBS poll, paul does better than all other republican candidates against obama, except romney, who he is in a statistical dead heat with.
link to cbsnews.com
Both Romney’s lead over Mr. Obama – 47 percent to 45 percent – and Mr. Obama’s lead over Paul – 46 percent to 45 percent – are within the survey’s three percentage point margin of error.
The poll found Mr. Obama with leads of at least four points over the other major Republican presidential candidates. The president leads former Sen. Rick Santorum 47 percent to 43 percent; he leads Texas Gov. Rick Perry 49 percent to 42 percent; he leads former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman 48 percent to 41 percent; and he leads former Newt Gingrich 49 percent to 41 percent.
The survey was taken from Jan. 4-8, in the wake of Romney’s narrow victory over Santorum in the Iowa caucuses.
marc b, on many right wing talk radio shows, when they are talking about the current race for POTUS they don’t even mention Ron Paul by name–they honk a clown horn in any sentence they orally say in reference to him.
I’m glad he’s getting some respect, a hearing, maybe a fair hearing.
He’s anti-war (or anti-unnecessary-war, almost the same thing these days) which means that he’s anti-imperial (because our wars are fought to get USA control of resources (such as those delicious bananas of all those “banana republics” we installed dictators to protect) and/or to allow further and further and further expansion of the military empire). GOOD.
He’s pro environment (or so I have read) and while he may be against much valuable regulation of business, he seems not to be against environmental regulation, some of the most important. GOOD.
Otherwise, well no-one is perfect, and Obama (for instance) promotes torture and indefinite detention and kidnapping (“rendition”) and near-unlimited support for Israel. BAD.
(No, sadly, I suppose I wouldn’t vote for him, but I’m SO GLAD he’s raising these ideas and having an impact on the young.)
I think we need to draw the “unnecessary” distinction. The man served in a war. He voted for the intervention in Afghanistan. He does not say no wars specifically if the US is attacked.
And he is in favor of the green in sense of individual property rights, e.g. you don’t have a right to burn old tires on your land if my air over my property is negatively affected. And so on. Liberals do not understand that he is more for individual rights than they are–or maybe they do–now that’s a big problem knee-jerk liberals won’t admit.
There’s a huge generational divide along with a huge divide between officers and enlisted in the U.S. military. Last Veteran’s Day our church did a program honoring our veterans and current military. There was 8x as many WWII veterans than anyone who served since when Ford was President! There was only one active duty military soldier at the event. The speaker was a general officer (I forget his rank) who denigrated the occupy movement. He also got rich serving on boards of directors of corporations. He saw the military as part of the 1% rather than the 99%. The speech was a big hit.
The right thinks they support the military but just as Israelis have no contact with Palestinians they have no contact with current military and recent veterans. Thus Paul confuses them and they don’t understand why the younger military supports him. There is one sense where the speaker was correct. The neocons and the chickenhawks get us into unnecessary wars and the 0.4% pay the price, even the ultimate price. It’s not a coincidence nor surprising that the younger military support Paul.
richb, out of curiosity were there any Vietnam vets? I’ve been to a few American Legion posts recently and the Vietnam vets are aware of and support Paul. I’m thinking generational divide if that’s the case. WWII vets come from an entirely different era. My dad was forcibly drafted during Vietnam and has always said that he felt like a merc more than a US soldier. When a recruiter talked my ear off for an hour in high school my dad came home and told him to get the eff out of his house and never bother his son again. Then he scolded me for even considering it. True story
The average age for a combat grunt in Vietnam was age 19; there was even a popular protest pop song with the refrain, “nu-nu-nu-nine-teen (repeat. repeat). Unlike today, the reserves was a haven for draft dodgers, along with college deferments for those with rich daddies. My hope is one day they will call up those who still legally are suppose to register for the draft, and nobody will show up. A war on Iran could have unintended long term consequences. The planning and war drums for war on Iran appear in the sky everyday and the same old creeps who got us into war on Iraq appear on Fox News as gurus incessantly–how about John Bolton as VP?
Thousands of Vietnam Vets at the anti invasion marches in DC in 2002 and in Feb 2003 in New York City. Vets from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm led the anti invasion march in early Feb 2003 New York with 9/11 families against the invasion of Iraq. I get chills talking about this. Had the honor of pushing an 93 year old WWII vet in his wheelchair for part of this march
There was a handful of Vietnam vets. But anything Vietnam and after doesn’t seem to play into the rah rah of the event we had. The head of CU-Divest is a Vietnam Vet. He planned to say the following when the Israelis tried to show how “moral” their military was in Boulder:
Whether he used those words here is what actually happened.
All Rep Paul needs to do is go independent and the whole game is up for Romney. Rep Paul is the counterbalance for the neocons dominating US foreign policy and their push for a military confrontation against Iran
The problem with third party is that there’s no funding for such a campaign. There’s a strong likelihood you’ll be excluded from debates.
It’s an MSM meme meant to discredit Ron Paul as a faux Republican (and a traitorous one at that). Don’t buy into the tripe.
If he is going to make a move like this it will not be for months. He is the counterbalance to the Aipac, Israel firster crowd.
The moneybags Israel Firsters are fighting with each other whether to support Obama or Romney. Some have even tossed big cash at other contenders–but none have tossed cash at Ron Paul; in fact, Ron Paul’s campaign is funded solely by little dollars–he has no Establishment Republican backing at all.
Paul has stated several times he is not interested in going third party. IMO, his finish is pretty respectable. This is going to be very interesting. At the very least, he is getting a message out there and stirring up debate of critical-thinking questions we should all be asking. I don’t like Romney, but it was pretty cool to see him acknowledge Ron Paul when faced with a state-power-related constitutional question. IMO, Romney respects Paul. He just has his own backers and beliefs.
At his “victory speech”, he spoke at some length about “sound money”, and some implication of gold standard.
He spoke about inflation, as if there is some. There is none currently, even with the “debasing” of the currency.
Peter Beinart wrote of the parallel of Ron Paul to Calvin Coolidge.
Do you know of the administration and policies of Calvin Coolidge? His “sound money” policies (nearly identical to Paul’s) caused first the formation of an aristocracy in libertarian US (that is a contradiction in terms), then the stock market crashes and then Great Depression, and then global political turmoil that resulted in WW2.
Silent Cal did all that. Libertarian Cal.
He, as a person, as a commentator on the military adventurism of the recent past, deserves respect. He just doesn’t deserve political support.
Richard Witty, there is rampant inflation. Have you been to the grocery store lately? You consider $3.70 a gallon gas not inflationary? The government stats are intentionally cooked to avoid the COLA adjustments to recipients of government entitlements.
You’re absolutely correct. Gas prices have quadrupled in the last 15 years
There are two different definitions of inflation, and they are both abstract, and related.
1. The value of the dollar relative to other commodities, mostly currencies and/or gold.
The relative value of gold to the dollar is that gold is worth many more dollars now than recently. So, in that respect, the dollar has been subjecct to inflation.
In relation to the Euro, or the British pound, the dollar has vacilated, and is worth more than previously. You could say that the Euro or pound have been subject to more inflation than the dollar, relative to gold.
Or, you could acknowledge that gold is just another abstract commodity with NO intrinsic value, the only value derived from the agreement that it has value, same as the dollar.
2. Relative to a basket of commodities. From 2007 until 2009, the price of food commodities inflated grossly. (I worked as a financial executive for a food manufacturer primarily using grains.) The cost of corn and oats and all grains doubled or more in a single crop year.
The reason for that was demand, constructed by unnatural government subsidy in corn-based ethanol, which then translated into competition for utilization of acreage, and multiplied by speculation. People were “flipping” grain futures.
Then, when the market in stocks and real estate crashed in 2008-9, the price of food commodities, and of gasoline also tanked.
Both the markets for oil and for grain are fungible, as market driven as you get (relationship of supply to demand), both for products for which there are few replacements (not a lot of replacements for grain).
Not inflation in the sense of a monetary crisis.
Bad analysis yeilds much much worse remedy.
Maybe in the future, but I don’t see the monetary analysis, the “return” to “sound money” as having really any merit, as least as far as the Austrian school is concerned.
RW: “The reason for that was demand, constructed by unnatural government subsidy in corn-based ethanol, which then translated into competition for utilization of acreage, and multiplied by speculation.”
Stopping these abuses is another thing Ron Paul’s right about, Richard. Why haven’t you told us yet?
Look Witty, you can justify whatever you want with words but they don’t change the bottom line. And that is oil prices and commodities have skyrocketed.
@Witty: “Or, you could acknowledge that gold is just another abstract commodity with NO intrinsic value, the only value derived from the agreement that it has value, same as the dollar.”
1. Gold is not abstract. 2. The metal is seen as having value because it has kept its purchasing power over very long periods of time, unlike just about anything else. It is also reasonable to expect that it will keep its purchasing power going forward because of its unique characteristics, characteristics not found in other commodities nor in paper money.
As for inflation, look at the Fed’s balance sheet fer christ’s sake. -N49.
Witty apparently has not noticed the rise in the price of a basic loaf of supermarket brand white bread over the last 5 years. And Witty’s explanation of inflation in real terms is exactly what Paul seeks to end. The US dollar hegemony is on the way out; and the days of the sole ability to print the world’s sole reserve currency are numbered too. At the least, Ron Paul would fully audit The Fed and make it’s doings transparent. Does what a hedge funder does contribute to our GNP as much as the employment of a burger flipper or US shoe maker employee?
Sure wish some of the pundit class would focus on the swaying prices
The dollar is really pegged to oil, if you think about it. The price of oil reflects the dollar loss. The only thing the Powers That Be (PTB) fear is populist revolt, an informed public, and these pundits (ABCFOXNBCMSNBCCBS) are playing with fire sitting in their NYC/DC/Atlanta studios sneering at vets, an impoverished middle class, and disaffected youth (the huge-oh-so-huge Millennial generation) for wanting things to be different.
Gonna be interesting.
There are so many reference commodities that to say that gold is money, or that dollars is money, or that silver is money, is all a very vain and very strained rationalization.
The price of corn, and then in the competition for acreage, all grains, are intimately tied to the price of fuel.
As the fuel is finite in ultimate supply, and finite in throughput, but demand is constantly increasing (China and India), the price of fuel will increase, and the price of grain will increase.
There is no way that Paul is going to change the economic relations between the US and China, except perhaps to institute tariffs, thereby pulling the US out of GATT, and then an actual run on the dollar with Chinese selling off US bonds, rather than delaying that.
I guess that is a good outcome from the Austrian point of view.
Witty, what’s so great about the US current economy for most Americans? Even creative accounting eventually is shown to be a fraud.
@ Witty: There is no way that Paul is going to change the economic relations between the US and China, except perhaps to institute tariffs, thereby pulling the US out of GATT, and then an actual run on the dollar with Chinese selling off US bonds, rather than delaying that.
Paul stated program would be to ease the US back onto a gold standard. Actually, the way Paul puts it is to leave the choice of preferred money to market forces. Because of its utility, gold would be expected to become that preferred money.
Most of what you say above is ribbish. –N49.
Richard, I do not expect you to agree with this, but Coolidge meant well and the Great Depression was externally engineered. In today’s society I cannot see such a thing repeated. We are too connected and we question everything the least bit shady.
On inflation, you may be right for the past two years yet housing values continue to plummet and the rich get richer (no pun intended). Things will never in my lifetime be at 2006 levels, I’m pretty sure of it (and in my 30s).
I’m sure that Coolidge meant well. It was his ideas and policies and those of Congress that created havoc.
How do you conclude that the Great Depression was “engineered”? Do you understand how that makes you sound?
The rich get richer because of their rate of return, that results from a transfer of wealth from working people/activity to owning.
It is natural and comprised of four features:
1. Time value of money – What someone would be willing to accept today, for a $1 in a year, independent of risk and comparable return from other investments.
2. Prevailing rate of return – What people seek for their money, affected by comparable return from other investments.
3. Inflation – What people need to earn to keep up with inflation.
4. Risk – Some premium for the degree of risk that an investment won’t honor its obligations, or decline in value, or experience volatility
Each of those represents a transfer of assets from work to ownership, slowly, but persistently.
The libertarian view speeds that process up, geometrically, until the pond half-full is full (the old story of pond algae doubling every year, from 1/128th of the pond in year 1, to 1/64th in year 2, to 1/32nd in year 3, to 1/16th in year 4, to 1/8th in year 5, to 1/4 in year 6, to 1/2 in year 7; 7/128ths of the pond covered in the first three years – 6+%, 7/8 in the last three -87.5%).
We need widely distributed capital, not centralized, abstractly “sound money” or unsound.
Hence we need redistributive taxation that creates public assets, and provides socially originated capital for intentionally decentralized new enterprise.
For starters, we need to do away with all the off-sets, loopholes, special treatment favoring capital as currently distinguished from ordinary income and the same re tax code treatment to lock in votes on the other side.
Here is an explanation of “quantitative easing” by the Fed for Witty: link to youtube.com
Thanks for this post, Phil. The moment last month when Fox News’ Bret Baier told Ron Paul he was to the left of Obama on the nation’s war policy touched off a firestorm of identity crisis among progressives. Problem is: for all the soul searching of progressives, for all their knee-jerk rejection of RP as crazy on domestic issues, their dilemma is irreconcilable.
Why is a candidate in the GOP primary more progressive as an anti-war candidate than Obama? Why are liberals mere enablers of Obama’s destruction of civil liberties and promotion of endless wars in the middle east?
Not sure why commenters are focused solely on MSNBC. Yeah, Chris Matthews is horrific when it comes to Ron Paul, as is everyone other than Rachel Maddow. But NPR cuts off his speech last night. CBS’ Jan Crawford intentionally omitted him in a poll yesterday in a comical attempt to censor any mention of his name. CNN’s Dana Bash admits on air that she’s concerned that RP will be in it all the way to a brokered convention (yes, he will, Dana!). Though he is the only real challenger to Romney, Fox News constantly tells their Sheeple he’s unelectable. Do not trust these charlatans — they are all plugged into the military industrial complex.
And for those of you who won’t vote for Ron Paul because of his stance on domestic issues, how has Obama’s hope and change worked out for you? Anyone who still supports Obama after he insisted on the indefinite detention of American citizens clause of the NDAA is surely not a progressive. You’re a partisan who’s been duped into believing in a false left-right paradigm.
Yeah, I love that Phil looks at the interstices.
All I could think about after the MSM kept repeating Romney’s “fire people” comments out of context I kept imagining Sprint, etc taking that line and having folks in their commercials saying “I fire Verizon” etc…you get the picture. Bet they are working on it right now.
Who bets that Romney and Romney pacs will come out with ads where citizens are saying “Obama you are fired” It’s coming
LOL. Kathleen, you’re always a treat. Keep it up.
Micheal Schuer has a new one up about the Israeli firster ad
Mr. Gary Bauer — The Supposed Christian as Slanderer, Israel-Firster, and War-Monger
By mike | Published: January 10, 2012
I just watched a television commercial paid for by the “Emergency Committee for Israel” in which Mr. Gary Bauer spends a minute or so defaming Dr. Paul as: a spinner of 9/11 conspiracies, an America-hater, an opponent of the U.S. military, a friend of Iran, and — that most lethal of all sins — a foe of “our ally Israel.” Now, that is a lot of lies to pack into a minute, but as a crazed-Christian one cannot expect the war-mongering Mr. Bauer to know that one of God’s commandments is “Thou shall not lie.”
The Republican Party’s fear of the potentially enormous popular appeal of Dr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to foreign policy is palpable and understandable. Listen to Mr. Bauer’s commercial and you will know what the Republican establishment wants:
Schuer makes my heart sing, Bauer makes me dour.
“I noticed last night and today that the media seem to be giving Ron Paul a break”
He sure wasn’t getting a break from Blitzer and the gang on last night’s concluding 2 hours I picked up on CNN. They didn’t talk at all about him and kept going on and on about Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and of course, Romney. It was as if Paul had nothing to do with the results. The night before, I listened to Erin Burnett talk about Paul for about 4 minutes but only to ridicule him and repeat it about 3 times that the guy is going nowhere.
he was called the ‘cockroach of the republican party’ by some snarky nitwit on NPR earlier this afternoon, because he simply won’t die quickly enough (‘despite being stomped on repeatedly’, i suppose is the follow up.) (‘paul is an idea, not a real person’, they mused. well, there is a valid point in that observation somewhere.)
“Show me you enemies ,and I will tell you who you are”.
Who are Ron Paul’s enemies??
Why are they his enemies?
Is he in a way of something they are planning??
Why are they getting more and more upset with him??
Jack Cafferty revealed on air a couple of months ago that CNN management had sent the talent a memo which either prohibited or discouraged coverage of Ron Paul.
I watched another 4 or 5 minutes of Paul on Burnett’s CNN program last night and again, it was to ridicule him and make him the village idiot. It’s like you said, lysias, he won’t be getting any fair coverage on CNN. The guys that came last and second to last in New Hamphshire were given more respect, analyses, and coverage.
interesting…do you have a link?
To judge from this comment,
it was in the video linked here: Oh, Snap!!! Bump for Jack Cafferty, because he just bumped RON PAUL! (now with video).
(Sorry, I can’t verify it, since I can’t look at a video on this computer. The thread is about the reaction to the media treatment of Paul’s near-victory in the Ames straw poll last August.)
Kathleen, couldn’t find a link to what I saw last night or the night before but landed on a CNN fun and games one of January 4th with the pro-Obama PIMCO’s Bill Gross giving Paul a back handed compliment by saying he’s the best Republican candidate on the economy as Romney doesn’t have a clue about it, although Paul may not be the best overall candidate because while he does have some good ideas, he still goes way too far out and he ends his hatchet job by saying Obama is best. Erin Burnett does her part with her mocking grimaces while talking about the things he wants to eliminate.
link to outfront.blogs.cnn.com
This video is definately worth seeing and distributing whenever possible.
Bruce Fein-”Ron Paul Is THE ONLY ONE Who Is Hawkish
On Defending Americans In America”
link to youtube.com
If Ron Paul is not going to be elected the next president , America may soon resemble hm…….North Korea??
Here is the latest of paranoia news from this almost unreal, yet as real as real can be communistic country.
“The Daily NK, an online newspaper based in South Korea and run by opponents of the North Korean government, said it had learned from a source in North Hamkyung Province that:
“The authorities are handing down at least SIX months in a LABOR-training CAMP to anybody WHO DID’T participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t CRY AND didn’t seem genuine.
link to ki-media.blogspot.com
Maybe those, who oppose Ron Paul are planning to move there??
So now we know why all of them were mouring and crying sooo loud, when their leader, who was a despot and tyrant died.
It is scary to watch how a small group of people takes over the whole country and imposes their cruel, totalitarian, diabolical laws on them.
How do you break free from that??
America, you better watch and learn. FAST!!!
Is it not interesting that the average N Korean is 3 inches shorter than the average S Korean? N Korea also pushes its people to study the Talmud because their government thinks that is the key to being smart. Wonder what translation of what translation the kids are studying over there…
Very good, chilling video.
It shows what is already lurking behind the corner. But we are still in the state of a collective autism, or we choose to refuse to take a long, honest, hard look at the reality because it seems too UNREAL, too scary, too disturbing.
Give me more of cheap bread and more of mind-numbing circus ,and I will go on.
link to youtube.com
There is an irony with Ron Paul’s large following among the military.
That is that he desires to GREATLY shrink the military budget, number of personnel, I assume benefits, institutional status in the country (personal respect, smaller political and economic importance).
That is a good thing that the military, as in military industrial complex and military itself shrinks in emphasis.
I just find it an irony that so many military personnel might willingly vote themselves out of a job or benefits, with no job to come home to.
The concept of defending one’s country rather than one’s countries interests, is appealing.
But, that logic also says ‘damn the realists’ who frame their arguments in terms of America’s interests, usually meaning economic.
No irony, Dick Witty. The military supporters of Ron Paul mostly come from the ranks, not the brass, from those who’ve seen what our country is actually doing overseas on the ground and to the people it seeks to control, among them, the grunts themeselves–and what that is costing us in terms of money and our country’s future. They see, hear, smell what are abstractions to you, abstractions you have no affinity for–for example they way you do for the history of your in-law family. All the studies show most of our soldiers come from rural and lower middle class white gentile families, very often with a family of history of services that includes more than just WW2 but all the wars following it. And they are a generation tuned into the internet, which at present at least, is beyond the muzzle of their government and mainstream press, and so now they know that what brought them to join up, the need of a job other than burger-flipping and old-fashioned patriotism, are not adequate reasons to continue the status quo. They also think it’s a bit much to have them go on 5 tours of duty, which is like how the same small bunch of GIs were sent back again and again to fight the Battle of the Bulge. They are very aware of what the contractors have been doing over there too. Ron Paul appeals to what’s left of their youthful idealism and sense of fairness all around. They realize they are not TBTF and they face a hard scrabble job search here in the USA.
Turns out Ron Paul was also #2 in the Democratic primary in NH, getting write-in votes amounting to 5% of the votes: Ron Paul #2 in NH … Democratic Primary!
What’s all that about his being unelectable?
On economics I think Witty is worth reading carefully. I agree with everything, although I think that not all understood him. I think that the basket of goods for lower middle class: rent, food, gas, medical — grows faster then general inflation which perhaps includes electronic goods and houses. And Witty explained correctly that ethanol policies are an idiocy that fuels food inflation — which contributed to food riots and Arab spring, but even so is idiotic (unless you receive the respective subsidies).
Gold standard is as arbitrary as any other single commodity standard. Either the amount of goods grows faster than gold and we have deflation, or slower, and we have inflation. Geological discoveries and technological progress may lead to big increases in supply (and unnecessary havoc in the environment — gold mining is a dirty bussiness).
And I agree that barring progressive taxes and redistribution via benefits the rich/poor gap will increase — as as rich/middle gap.
But on foreign policy, Paul is more right than most other politicians. Basically, libertarians assume that government does everything badly so it should do as little as possible. And our wars, foreign aid etc. confirm that worldview, so the prescriptions are sound. WE
On economics I think Witty is worth reading carefully. I agree with everything, although I think that not all understood him. I think that the basket of goods for lower middle class: rent, food, gas, medical — grows faster then general inflation which perhaps includes electronic goods and houses. And Witty explained correctly that ethanol policies are an idiocy that fuels food inflation — which contributed to food riots and Arab spring, but even so is idiotic (unless you receive the respective subsidies).
Gold standard is as arbitrary as any other single commodity standard. Either the amount of goods grows faster than gold and we have deflation, or slower, and we have inflation. Geological discoveries and technological progress may lead to big increases in supply (and unnecessary havoc in the environment — gold mining is a dirty bussiness).
And I agree that barring progressive taxes and redistribution via benefits the rich/poor gap will increase — as as rich/middle gap.
But on foreign policy, Paul is more right than most other politicians. Basically, libertarians assume that government does everything badly so it should do as little as possible. And our wars, foreign aid etc. confirm that worldview, so the prescriptions are sound.