Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Dear Roo;

 

Indie

And….are you going to answer the points raised? Can you actually address what they say or are you just going to ignore them like you have many times before?

As I’ve said you seem unable to defend your ideas from criticism in any rational or reasonable way – so why do you keep hold of them?

 

Indie

Its not animosity it’s about going what is best for the community as a whole.

When the US was doing well economically and there was a huge rise in the number of the middle class was in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal ideas. During those periods the top tax rate was much higher (94% in 1945) and the national debt was reduced from the war time high of 117% of GDP to a reasonable 32.5% in 81.

But in the thirty odd years of neoliberal ideas there was a huge increase in the wealth of a few while the real term incomes of those below have either stagnated or fallen. While the policies pursued have also caused a ballooning of the national debt and brought about a social and political system where wealth have great (and in the opinion too much) power and influence.

The problem I see with right wing libertarian ideas like yours and Ron’s is that it would most likely increase the power and influence of wealth while making life worse for most people in society through the implementation of even great neoliberal policies.


Here is something I posted earlier

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36


Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%


Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

 

25

Ron’s a right wing libertarian which basically means he wants neo-liberalism on steroids.

The freedom he is mostly promoting is the freedom of a few to control society; the liberty his ideas would bring about is the liberty of a few to exploit the many.

Right wing libertarians like him may want to stop expensive wars but only because they want to save the money so they can give it to wealth in tax cuts.

Same with ‘ending the war on drugs’ it’s not about helping society it’s about saving the money so it can be given to wealth in tax cuts.

The same goes for healthcare and welfare they will be cut or removed so that the money saved can be given to wealth in tax cuts.

In the last thirty odd years neo-liberal ideas have caused the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes to have stagnated or fallen while the wealth of a few has grown incredibly, Ron’s neo-liberalism on steroids would make that situation much worse for anyone but wealth.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that has hijacked the system.

 

Balbus, you are a strange soul. An Idea can't be republican, democratic and neo liberal all at once. The republicans and democrats got us into this mess. Not Libertarians like Ron Paul! So saying "neo liberal policies" with lots of numbers but no valid evidence, is just telling us what we already know; the democrats and republicans are fuck up. why? THE GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG! But you think Americans should reelect the social parasite AKA Obama? What the hell is wrong with you? Have you seen what he's been doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKjy0PDlKV4"]Obama signs bill 'in secret' making FREE SPEECH ILLEGAL! - YouTube

 

WOW! you're like a left-wing American on crack. Yes, government is EXACTLY the problem. The problem isn't "neo liberal" shit, because we don't have a neo libebral party in America nor has a Libertarian like Ron Paul ever been president. So stop with your bogus communist propaganda. It's not a secret that Ron Paul supports tax cuts (for EVERYONE,) but apparently people like you enjoy working for the taxman, and letting the government spend money in your name. America's problem is this welfare/warfare state that you obviously support.

 

Raw milk for EVERYONE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL-yWeElz4k&feature=related"]Ron Paul Speech: Our Time Has Come - YouTube

 

An astute observation:

An obtuse observation:

Neo-liberalism

 

Bal:

What is best for the community is NOT allowing government the power to take from others to provide a more equal quality of life between non-working members of the community and the working members of the community, but instead creating an environment in which all members of the community can be and are motivated to become productive members of the community.

How many communities are there in the 50 States comprising the U.S.?

I have to assume that when you use the term wealth, you mean money? Money can and does allow one having it to exercise some power and influence, which is why the power of the Federal government should be limited. Obviously you can't sell what you don't have. The origin of power, as Ron Paul proposes, should be the people not the elected politicians. The elected politicians are then entrusted to exercise what powers the people have consented to and no more. The U.S. is not a Democracy in which the majority rules, except as allowed within the Constitution.

 

Poor thing he is too old to run again now he will never have his dream

 

What's Ron gonna do now?

Romney clinches GOP nomination with Texas primary win

May 30, 2012
Associated Press


WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney clinched the Republican presidential nomination Tuesday with a win in the Texas primary, a triumph of endurance for a candidate who came up short four years ago and had to fight hard this year as voters flirted with a carousel of GOP rivals.

 

25

This is a warning any more of this and you will be banned.

 

If this is neoliberlism....doesn't sound so bad.

"Neoliberal" ideas were embraced by the Clinton Administration....and those on the left are constantly pointing at the prosperity of those 8 years.

"neo neo neo neo liberal liberal liberal"
The fact that this term is defined in no specific way, is making already difficult communication near impossible. It's not an effective term in America and our conversations here would improve (maybe) if it weren't referred to in every post criticizing Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

 

25

Why not?

Agreed, and one of the main reasons (as explained) is that they were both basically following neoliberal ideas.

Why?

I’m not a Democrat Party supporter.

Why?

The problem isn't "neo liberal" shit, because we don't have a neo libebral party in America

LOL – no you have several.

Ah and know we see the level of your indoctrination, you seem to be implying that anything to the left of your extreme right wing views is communist.

But as explained they only really make wealth more powerful and influential.

So in your view if I don’t support your right wing views I must support war?

 

LOL and yet more evasion – indie I know you’re views and I’ve heard your rhetoric but what you never seem to do is actually address the criticisms of your views.

But as pointed out you’ve proposed that wealth should have increased voting rights so it can block or veto the votes of the majority.

But as you well know the United States of America was not set up as a democratic state that’s why in most places only 10% of the population could vote and even fewer people than that could hold office. I sometimes get the feeling that you rather like such a limited franchise.

 

letlovin your back ok....

Oh the Social Darwinist approach (you do know that Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience, in other words quackery, don’t you?)

It argued that a person’s or groups social position had nothing to do with complex socio-economic factors and was simply a matter of ‘natural selection’. The disadvantaged were meant to be disadvantaged because they were inferior human beings and the advantaged were meant to be advantaged because they were superior to others.

It was ‘natural’ just as in a baseball game the seven foot person would have the advantage over the shorter person. The socially advantaged were just the socially seven foot giants in a society made up mainly of pigmies.

It was an idea much favoured and promoted by wealth and the wealthy because it seemed to justify their position and ideas.

The argument went on that since it was ‘natural’ nothing could be done to help the disadvantaged rise from their ‘natural’ position; it was therefore no use spending tax money on social programmes meant to help them since they couldn’t be helped. This lead to the view of some that nothing should be done to hinder this ‘natural selection’ that the disadvantaged should be allowed to die out naturally rather than having their lives artificially extended through social programmes or healthcare, of course some go further and think that what they see as inferior people or groups should just be eliminated.

So let us take what I said earlier about infant mortality and health, from the Social Darwinist standpoint the reason for higher levels of infant mortality and poor health amongst the lower classes compared to those at the top has nothing to do with socio-economic factors but is all down to the lower groups being of inferior stock.

Of course Social Darwinism is hogwash, throughout history the advantaged have claimed some reason for their position, from it being down to divine will or better ‘breeding’.

My view is that the ‘baseball game’ of life is between players of roughly the same potential, but that one always has the advantage of scoring into a basket that is much lower to the ground that the others. The game is rigged in favour of one group.

That it is not a natural advantage but a structural advantage - which the advantaged do their best to keep.

 

Letlovin a few musings on that list -

1)Governments should not run large deficits

No they should not - but neither should large corporations or institutions that if they collapsed would bring down a states economy forcing Governments (and the tax payers) to bail them out.

The problem is that neo-liberalist ideas make that more likely.

Try reading Utopia no just Keynes thread -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=328353

I’d also point of that the rise of neoliberal ideas coincided with the rise in the US’s huge trade deficit and the outsourcing of jobs to more easily exploited regions through the mechanism of ‘trade liberalisation’ (free market globalisation).

Try reading Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=353922


*

2) Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment


Well I’d say the largest ‘indiscriminate subsidy’ of recent times has been the shoring up of the neoliberal financial sector that was forced on the governments of the world and is the cause of the world’s current financial crisis.

Also in practice the cutting of public spending has an adverse effect on education, healthcare and infrastructure investment.

For example - In the 1930’s up to the 70’s government sponsored civil infrastructure was being built at an incredible rate. For example the big federal dam programmes like the Hover and Grand Coulee that began as part of the New Deal and Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 that has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History". And through the period there had been a push to extend the electrical grid and improve the sewage system.

Neglect since the 1980’s (when neoliberal ideas took root) has lead to the situation where in 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that yet again US infrastructure was in a bad condition.

“More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s waterways each year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us...8projects.html

*

Read – A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey

Utopia no just Keynes thread -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=328353

and

Why is neoliberalism not dead?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=432937&f=36

*

3) Tax Reform

Oh yes the wealth sponsored advocates of neo-liberalism love tax reforms which always seem to boil down to tax cuts that benefit wealth.

*

4) Interest rates that are market determined

LOL – oh yes the market would decide the rate and of course the market has done so well in recent times in bring us financial stability.

The problem is that this would just give wealth even more power and influence to the detriment of the majority. The people would loose the ability to raise interest rates to combat inflation or cut rates to stimulate growth.

5. Floating exchange rates;


Properly monitored and regulated with a Tobin tax on foreign exchange transactions.

6. Trade liberalization (e.g. economic globalisation, free market ideology)

Should only take place if it is accompanied by social globalisation. In other word it should only take place if provision is made to stop exploitation by wealth.

Read Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=353922

The other problem is that there is the danger that any moves toward a free market increases the power and influence of wealth.

Read - Free Market = Plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36


7. Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country


This was a measure very much supported by big corporations as a means of opening up states to exploitation.

Read - ‘Globalisation and its discontents’ by Joseph Stiglitz, and ‘The shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein

8. Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.(again free market ideology)

Privatization should only take place if it is in the long term interests of the majority and only if the majority still has control through monitoring and regulation with the possibility of nationalisation of any private business that it is in the public interest to take over (a number of banks had to be nationalised during the financial crisis)

For example the UK regulators of privatised utility companies have had to step in many times to make sure customers were not ripped off. The EU brought in laws that stopped phone operators from overcharging on international calls.

9. Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;

The problem is that neo-liberalist policies inevitably lead to a growth in the power and influence of wealth and it begins to promote its interests over those of the majority. That leads to a situation were the safety, environmental concerns and consumer interest of the majority come second to the short term interests of the few.

As to neo-liberalists and their supposed prudent oversight of financial institutions I can only scoff.

10. Legal security for property rights; and, Financialisation of capital.

LOL oh yes “Financialisation”
“Using the case of the US economy, Crotty argues that financialization has had a profound and largely negative impact on the operations of US nonfinancial corporations. This is partly reflected in the increasing incomes extracted by financial markets from these corporations; trends identified also by Duménil and Lévy and Epstein and Jayadev. For example, Crotty shows that the payments US NFCs paid out to financial markets more than doubled as a share of their cash flow between the 1960s and the 1970s, on one hand, and the 1980s and 1990s on the other...Financial markets’ demands for more income and more rapidly growing stock prices occurred at the same time as stagnant economic growth and increased product market competition made it increasingly difficult to earn profits. Crotty calls this the ‘neoliberal’ paradox. Non-financial corporations responded to this pressure in three ways, none of them healthy for the average citizen: 1) they cut wages and benefits to workers; 2) they engaged in fraud and deception to increase apparent profits and 3) they moved into financial operations to increase profits. Hence, Crotty argues that financialization in conjunction with neoliberalism and globalization has had a significantly negative impact on the prospects for economic prosperity.”
Financialization and the World Economy, editor Gerald A. Epstein

 

If all U.S. politicians are right wing neoliberals, then saying Paul is a bad choice because he is a right wing neoliberal is kind of like looking at a tray of fruit and saying that you shouldn't pick the apples because theyre fruity.

 

^ That’s not the only conclusion that can be drawn from your statement. Someone might not pick the apples because they are poisoned.

(In other words neoliberalism is poison, not merely "fruity.")

 

Letlovin

Don’t think in absolutist terms, either or - black or white, good or bad…start thinking in shade and hues.

I’ve never said that there is only one type and only one type of neoliberalism, there are many types from extreme and often dogmatic versions seemingly followed by many right wing libertarians to more pragmatic or soft versions that seem to be follow by some in the Democratic Party.

But as I’ve said many times all neoliberalism seems misguided because it seems to be based on some false premises.