# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/221 "2010-08-21T02:37:16Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I have one question – has there ever been a time in history in any modern post-industrial state in which the economy and public policy operated reasonably close to Austrian principles? If not in what time and place did the economic system and public policy get closest tonoperating under Austrian principles? Fair question. From our founding to 1933 we had a gold standard and a free economy (for the most part). During the Industrial Revolution we saw the greatest and fastest growth and creation of wealth in human history. Industry thrived and people were lifted out of poverty. Many ancient great civilizations denominated their money in gold. In modern times, From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Dates of adoption of a gold standard > > 1704: The British West Indies ‘de facto’ following Queen Anne’s proclamation. > 1717: Kingdom of Great Britain ‘de facto’ following Isaac Newton’s revision of the mint ratio, at 1 guinea to 129.438 grains (8.38 g) of 22 carat crown gold .[1][2][3] > 1821: United Kingdom ‘de jure’ at one sovereign to 123.27447 grains of 22 carat crown gold. > 1818: Netherlands at 1 guilder to 0.60561 g gold. > 1853: Canada in conjunction with the American Gold Eagle coin equal to ten US dollars and also the British gold sovereign equal to four dollars eighty-six and two thirds cents. The Canadian unit was made equal to the American unit in the year 1858. > 1854: Portugal at 1000 réis to 1.62585 g gold. > 1865: Newfoundland The only country in the British Empire to introduce its own gold coin apart from the British gold sovereign. The Newfoundland gold dollar was equal to the Spanish dollar unit that was being used in the British Eastern Caribbean Territories and in British Guiana. > 1873: German Empire at 2790 Goldmarks to 1 kg gold. > 1873: United States ‘de facto’ at 20.67 dollars to 1 troy oz (31.1 g) gold. (See Coinage Act of 1873).[4] > 1873: Latin Monetary Union (Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, France) at 31 francs to 9.0 g gold > 1875: Scandinavian monetary union: (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) at 2480 kroner to 1 kg gold.[citation needed] > 1876: France internally.[citation needed] > 1876: Spain at 31 pesetas to 9.0 g gold.[citation needed] > 1878: Grand Duchy of Finland at 31 marks to 9.0 g gold.[citation needed] > 1879: Austrian Empire (see Austrian florin and Austrian crown).[citation needed] > 1881: Argentina at 1 peso to 1.4516 g gold.[citation needed] > 1885: Egypt.[5] > 1897: Russia at 31 roubles to 24.0 g gold.[5] > 1897: Japan at 1 yen devalued to 0.75 g gold.[5] > 1898: India (see Indian rupee).[citation needed] > 1900: United States de jure (see Gold Standard Act). > 1903: The Philippines Gold Exchange/US dollar.[5] > 1906: The Straits Settlements Gold Exchange/pound sterling.[5] > 1908: Siam Gold Exchange/pound sterling.[5] There is obviously more to the Austrian School than the Gold Standard, but it emphasizes the superiority of the Market to that of central planning and socialism. We can clearly see that the freer the economy of various nations, the greater prosperity is generated and the higher the standard of living for its citizens. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/222 "2010-08-21T02:38:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Where do you guys get the silly notion that you deserve to keep every damn dollar you earn? I hope you are being sarcastic here. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/223 "2010-08-21T02:39:30Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > Where do you guys get the silly notion that you deserve to keep every damn dollar you earn? > > Where do you get the silly notion that you have a right to money others have created? > > Slee Couldn’t have said it better myself. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/224 "2010-08-21T02:44:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@sleestak](#): > > > > Where do you get the silly notion that you have a right to money others have created? > > Because people should pay what they owe. And everyone owes society in general; even the existence of money itself depends on the larger society. And because such an individualist position is logically inconsistent; if he shouldn’t pay because he doesn’t owe other people any consideration, then those same other people don’t owe him any consideration and might as well take whatever they please from him. Of course, such “rugged individualists”\* hypocritically only want such a lack of concern for others to be respected when it’s how they treat others; not when it comes to how other people treat them in return. > > - Quotes, because in reality they are neither rugged nor individualists, just parasites who want the government to protect them from their victims even while they refuse to pay for it Pay what they owe? Get this in your head GOVERNMENT IS NOT SOCIETY! People should be free to keep their money and give to those who need it on their own. Or associate with like minded people and form charitable groups to really help society. Giving my money to government, having parasitic bureaucrats take some off the top and MAYBE some of it getting to people who need it is outrageous. Americans are and should be very generous. People should volunteer and help the poor. They can do it far better than the government can. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/225 "2010-08-21T02:45:43Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Again, who gives a fuck? If Obama had any balls he would say “The Rit of Habeas Corpus is not negotiable” and tell the Republicans to eat a dick. Seriously, the idea that we can detain people indefinitely without trial is abominable. We probably disagree on a lot of things, but not this. It IS abominable and inexcusable. You don’t protect the country by destroying its most basic underpinnings. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/226 "2010-08-21T03:13:09Z")
> [@](#): > > I have several questions about the OP. I hope he can explain himself in depth. > > 1. While not all Tea Partiers are racists, why does it seem that racists attracted to the Tea Party? Obviously anyone who IS racist will not like Obama. Thats a given. We knew that the moment he took his oath. I think the racist element is overblown. How do you know that there are so many racists in the Tea Party? Did Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews tell you? Until I hear someone shout “nigger” at a rally I will withhold judgment. I am not a tea partier and I live in California. If you go to the deep South I don’t doubt there is racist sentiment and ignorant people who show up at rallies. The point is how would you feel if you are angry at Washington and spent time organizing with your friends for rallies and kept hearing yourself called a racist on national television? We have to consider these things. Its not fair. It distracts from the fair criticism that exists. > [@](#): > > 1. What are your views on Michelle Obama taking a vacation in Spain? I really don’t care. It was probably a bad move on her part. It showed perhaps her being out of touch with what people are going through. From a PR standpoint it was bad. There are really too many critically important policy issues facing this nation to be dwelling on small things like this. > [@](#): > > 1. Name three issues that Ron Paul has been wrong about. Even on issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on, I respect his opinions. I am pro choice, Ron Paul is pro life. Ron Paul is a little more focussed on “securing the border” and illegal immigration and I don’t particularly care about this issue. Not to say we don’t need immigration reform but I don’t feel the least bit threatened by Mexicans coming to mow our lawns. I really have trouble coming up with a third thing I disagree with Ron Paul on. On a lot of controversial issues Ron Paul usually takes the non threatening position that “Its not the Federal Government’s business”. Although he is very libertarian in his voting record, I know he is very conservative in his habits and his personal lifestyle. Not that that is any of my (or anyones) business but I am much more personally liberal in my habits. Of course this doesn’t effect me so I don’t care. > [@](#): > > 1. What is your favorite American movie? Thats a hard one. I actually like a lot of foreign films. I don’t know about “best”, but I will go with Pulp Fiction. I am a big Tarantino fan, although his movies have gotten worse in the last decade in my mind. > [@](#): > > 1. If the OP were a member of Congress, and a bill came up to extend the Bush tax cuts without offset, so that the deficit would continue to increase by trillions of dollars, and the OP was the deciding vote, would you vote for or against the bill? I favor tax cuts but not without spending cuts. So I would push for spending cuts before I would vote to extend the Bush tax cuts. > [@](#): > > 1. Does the OP believe that the Federal Reserve is guilty of “criminal” acts? Yes. Without an audit we may never know. But seriously if you had that much power and operated in secrecy for almost a century, don’t you think it is likely they have participated in funding some criminal activity? I don’t doubt it for a second. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/227 "2010-08-21T03:19:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Another point: You want to be able to trade in your paper money for gold, since you don’t trust the government? Fine, you can do that. Private industry has already seen to that problem: In any city in the country, you can find a place that’ll give you gold in exchange for your paper money. > > What’s that? You want the government to take over that function from private industry? What do we call it again when the government takes over functions from private industry? And you want to always be able to get the same amount of gold for your paper money? Why, don’t you have any faith in the free market? That’s what determines the price of gold now. You don’t understand. I am not talking about buying gold. I am talking about pegging the value of the dollar to gold so it restrains the printing presses. Gold continues to get more expensive in dollars. Smart citizens already own some gold as a hedge against inflation. With a gold standard the price of gold stays the same over time. Gold is now $1200 per ounce. Maybe I buy some now. In two years I want to buy some more. Then it is $2200 per ounce. Unless I am holding ALL my money in gold, which is impossible I am losing out. If the dollar was worth more and say that gold was $100 per ounce, then year after year $100 dollars buys the same amount of goods and services. It maintains its value. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/228 "2010-08-21T03:20:36Z")
> [@bdgr](#): > > whenever someone who knows a lot less about a subject than I do starts off by telling me they are going to educate me…that’s when I stop reading. Put up or shut up. Show me how much more you know than I do. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/229 "2010-08-21T03:30:07Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > See, thats the problem. Mises’ magnum opus is called Human Action because he argues that human behavior is too complex and irrational to be understood using mathematical theories and centrally managed. In fact, Keynesians use complex mathematical models to cover up the fact that their ideas are so irrational that even a child could understand how ridiculous they are. A scientific gloss does not impress me. > > > > Common sense and self evident axioms are critical to the study of human beings and their desires and behavior. The value of money is critical. The issue of morality and power is paramount. Read _Human Action_ and you will be sure to be blown away by Mises’ intellect and reasoning. > > > > The central issues are this: > > > > 1. We (the Austrians) want to limit government power and maintain the value of the currency. > > > > 2. We want a low public debt and to maintain an accountable government by allowing people to exchange their paper money for gold should they lose trust in their government. > > > > 3. We understand that paper money always self destructs throughout history. This is easily understood to a student of economic history. The nations with Sound Money survive and thrive. The nations who embark on inflation and fiat currencies self destruct under an avalanche of debt. > > You are asking me to give up on this rational, common sense, to embrace a bullshit economic school that uses a scientific gloss to convince me that deficits don’t matter and we can survive indefinitely on the “creation” of wealth through a printing press? > > > > Are you kidding me? Think about what you are really saying. > > Actually I’m saying that starting from axioms and wandering to conclusions without empirical evidence in a social science is much like mental masturbation - pointless. > > By the way did you Austrians (cheeky labeling yourself in such a grand manner) notice that the territory to the north has reduced it’s _ **debt** _ and run a surplus for about a decade before the economic collapse? The fact is US politics and global commitments (and temptations) makes it very hard for any government to restrict spending. Presidential authority means nothing in relation to domestic spending. Coherent party platforms and programs barley crawl out of their cradles before being consumed by the political reality that the legislative branch is run by hundreds of independent actors, not 2 or 3 parties. Well, perhaps the actual track record of correct predictions would persuade you? Did you know that Mises correctly predicted the crash of '29 and Keynes lost his personal fortune in it? How about this: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/2I0QN-FYkpw/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/2I0QN-FYkpw?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque [http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/98099](http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/98099) As far as Canada being better off than many others in this recent meltdown, what is your point? Yes it is very hard politically to cut spending given the commitments we have made. That doesn’t change the necessity of us doing so. We could wait until the entire system collapses, but I would suggest we do everything to avoid that fate. What other choice do we have? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/230 "2010-08-21T03:34:47Z")
> [@The\_Facts](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Page 1/3 > > > > I haven’t posted on here in a while, yet I have been reading through some of the threads on this site and some of the comments have left me quite discouraged for the future of our nation. I am directing this thread to the “Obama loyalists”, for lack of a better term. From certain members, I have witnessed a stunning lack of understanding of even basic principles of economics, a naive faith in public institutions and authority, and a world view and understanding of US history no doubt shaped through decades of propaganda and misinformation. It is quite sad, actually. I am directing this thread towards the education of these members who remain enamored with the possibility of “change” and “hope”, even at this late hour. The most tragic element of the willful ignorance or blind loyalty to a political party is that those of this mindset will be hurt the most when the most negative repercussions of current government policies come to fruition as this crisis deepens. I hope I can open some eyes and turn a few of you towards the truth. > > > > **On “The Opposition to Obama”:** > > > > Many on this forum seem to parrot the line that all opposition to Obama in the Tea Parties or the grassroots is based upon racism, religious extremism, or xenophobia. You characterize the opposition almost exactly as outlets such as MSNBC do, as far right “extremists”, always “exclusively white, older” and “dangerous, armed, militia members”. Possibly they are “unhinged”, or “domestic terrorists” who could snap at any time and turn into the next Timothy McVeigh. Obviously, most of this is fear mongering and scare tactics to keep otherwise sympathetic people from engaging with the members of these protests. In reality the “opposition” to Obama is very diverse and includes many people who have never in their lives been associated with the Tea Party, such as myself. Are there some of these extreme elements in this country? Certainly. But they are a very small percentage and to the extent that they do exist, I am reminded of a saying by the brilliant and stunningly prescient Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente, who says “When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it.” Meaning, there is a profound anger toward the incumbent politicians that manifests as yelling at town hall meetings and some make a spectacle of themselves and go overboard. I don’t intend to defend every action of the protesters, but the reasons for the anger is very valid and have nothing to do with the color of the President’s skin. > > > > I don’t know any of you personally, but I will wager that most have never attended a Tea Party rally. You likely have never even talked to a participant. To make such blanket statements and accusations against so many people is beyond irresponsible. You should know by now that the media’s portrayal of reality is frequently not accurate. I have made a point to attend a few rallies and protests to gauge for sure the tenor of the political climate in 2010. I live in California and yes there are Tea Party protests in California. A few things that I noticed: > > > > 1. One protest was at least 15% African American. Another rally I witnessed many Hispanic voters in the ranks. Yet another was filled with many college age protesters signifying a significant youth demographic. > > > > 2. There was very little mention of Obama specifically. I heard much about Congress, some complaints about the spending and plenty of blame for both parties. > > > > 3. The tone was distinctly Libertarian. I heard no social conservative issues like gay marriage, abortion, religious issues, or anything of the sort. It was focussed on balancing the budget, cutting spending, ending the bailouts, and following the Constitution. I heard some complaints about the Federal Reserve. I even heard some complaints about the war in Afghanistan and of our foreign policy in general. There was also a distinct opinion that Obama’s economic policy has failed and will continue to fail going forward. > > > > 4. Of the protests I have attended and some that family members and relatives have attended (in different States), I know that they are not affiliated in any way with the Republican Party. Obviously the GOP will try to woo these voters, but many operationally are more interested in defeating the establishment backed candidates and running on their own platform. There are even Tea Party candidates running as Independents. > > > > 5. Sarah Palin’s popularity is VASTLY overestimated by the mainstream media. They are trying to create a excitement for her that for the most part doesn’t exist in most parts of the country. Even those that I talked to who liked her were happy for her to remain a sort of conservative “celebrity” rather than someone they considered a serious person for higher office. Nobody thinks she is qualified. The people I heard mentioned were Ron Paul, some economic intellectuals like Mises and Hayek, as well as founders such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson, and Madison. I feel like Palin is designed to feed into this media storyline that portrays very simple minded, anti intellectual social conservatives as the main people in this movement. > > > > 6. I came away convinced that by 2012 this “revolution” will expand beyond the confines of “conservatism” and even the tea party label to become broader and more inclusive. The reality on the ground is so far from what you may have seen on tv that it can be staggering. > > Some rallies in some parts of the country include some of the more standard conservative voices in the country to be sure. But there are people who don’t attend any of these rallies who are upset and would easily join a third party (or movement) that isn’t attached to the stigma associated with the Republican Party. This is what is happening. As I said before, I am not a Tea Party member. I am not a conservative. > > > > **I am a rationalist, an anti war libertarian, and an intellectual. A seeker of truth.** > > > > The truth is that we are living in a fantasy world. Our welfare/entitlement programs are insolvent. Within a couple of decades they will face a shortfall of tens of trillions of dollars. The housing bubble is bursting and the dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China everyday to continue our extravagance. We are escalating our commitments in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and threatening Iran. We’ve known for a while that we cannot fund our government and its obligations, yet all our political class can come up with is more of the same. > > > > I find it funny in a depressing sort of way that those who really have a problem with the above, those who see us speeding towards the cliff and advocate that we change directions, that is, _really_ cut spending and rethink the role of government in modern society in relation to fiscal reality and common sense are considered not just right wing, but far right, fringe, lunatic and crazy. Thats what I have noticed. That is the dominant theme in the grassroots in this country right now. There are many differences between grassroots groups in race, age, religion, state, etc. The unifying theme is concern about the debt, the unfunded obligations and a recognition of the need to have a smaller government in light of the ongoing financial crisis. The day of reckoning is here and people are recognizing this. > > > > Yet certain members of this forum, with a broad brush, label all these people this way (from another thread): > > > > And: > > > > I sincerely hope that most here do not truly believe this kind of hyper partisan generalizations. You all should learn to lay off the destructive red state/blue state bickering and articulate your views with more care, more thoughtfulness. > > > > I have read many comments from various members who will defend Obama to the very end, and many have responded to my posts in the past. I find it fascinating to understand how one comes to believe the things some of you apparently believe, and what education or societal stimuli have shaped your world view. From my perspective, through my years of research and delving deeply into the various subjects, I can see very clearly the devastating effects of government policy and the culmination of the disastrous modern trend of runaway government spending, endless stimulus, globalization and the impoverishing of the poor and middle classes through inflation and debt. It saddens me to see people so obviously in the dark about the nature of the times we live in. Perhaps you could lay off the knee jerk partisan stuff and enlighten us on your more broad understanding of political issues and your educational background? I’m sure it would be fascinating. > > > > For now, however, school is in session. I want to raise a few issues for all of you and I am looking forward to your feedback. > > **Lesson 1: “Big” Government vs “Limited” Government:** > > > > It seems to me that those who could be considered loyal liberals scoff at anyone who seems to be anti government or believes in small government, as if this is such an absurd point of view that it barely merits discussion at all. The perspective that perhaps we should shrink government spending or cut back in an effort to regain solvency is hardly broached in liberal circles I know of. The discussion is the need to provide “Universal” health care to everyone who needs it, and the desire to implement new social programs and agencies to combat any number of perceived threats or societal problems. Although there may be a token discussion on a few things that would merit cutting (like the Defense Budget), hardly ever is the discussion on cutting spending overall. In fact, from my discussions with many of my liberal friends, I have come to the conclusion that: > > > > The term “Progressive” means year by year expansion of government power and authority over all aspect of society and that any resistance or desire to “roll back” in a significant manner this power is considered a threat to this mindset. > > > > It is a fallacious argument to equate expanding government power with “progress”. This is absurd. Progress comes through the evolution of culture and principles of the people toward a more enlightened, kinder society than the one that came before. Many times we have not progressed, but rather devolved as a society. For example, our standards of education have dropped drastically in the last fifty years. Health care also has gotten worse. We have obviously not “progressed” despite dramatic increases in government control over these two areas. > > > > I feel like libertarianism is the truly progressive movement that seeks to progress humanity out of the dark ages of totalitarianism and authoritarianism into the light of human liberty, equal justice, non violence, tolerance, and egalitarianism. > > > > In terms of “Big” Government vs “Limited” Government, I propose the followed two principles all rational beings should be able to acknowledge: > > > > **1. No matter what one thinks of the role of government, the functions that it takes on must be fully funded without dangerous levels of debt and inflation.** > > > > And: > > > > **2. We recognize government as a potential threat to liberty, therefore we “limit” government to a set of explicit functions (no matter what they are or how many) that they may engage in. We are vigilant in the enforcement of these limits.** > > > > How could anyone disagree with these two principles? The first is the one I want to explore, because anyone who knows basic arithmetic can easily figure out that our government is completely insolvent and we have no choice but to cut spending drastically, including “sacred cows” like Medicare and Social Security. > > > > As to the second point, the document that is supposed to limit the federal government is called the Constitution. We The People, being sovereign free individuals, delegate certain limited authority and responsibilities to a central government. Everything not expressly delegated, is reserved to the states or to the people. Now, you could argue that we need to _change_ the Constitution. If you desire to have government take on new and expanded functions, we must amend the Constitution. There is no way around it. Our government should evolve slowly and deliberately, with much caution and respect for human liberty. This is how our system is supposed to operate. > > > > As far as the debt is concerned, I want to give you a few numbers to think over: > > > > The National Debt = $13,330,000,000,000 (Thats Thirteen Trillion Three Hundred and Thirty Billion) > > > > Look at this graph of the monetary base over time (number of dollars in circulation): > > > > [http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/money-supply.gif](http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/money-supply.gif) > > Now, consider the rate of increase in the national debt over the last few decades: > > > > When Nixon was sworn in (1969), the national debt was: $354,000,000,000 > > When Reagan was sworn in (1980), the national debt was: $908,000,000,000 > > When Clinton was sworn in (1992), the national debt was: $4,065,000,000,000 > > When G.W. Bush was sworn in (2001), the national debt was: $5,760,000,000,000 > > When Barack Obama was sworn in (2009), the national debt was: $10,124,000,000,000 > > Now, in eighteen months the national debt has gone up by more than three trillion dollars! The numbers aren’t working. The early stages of hyperinflation are here. Don’t you see that the rate of increase has been exponential? The Federal Reserve has more than doubled the money supply since 2008. > > > > The system is being held together only by the fact that many don’t understand how bad things _really_ are, so a residual confidence remains in the system. > > > > What the liberals need to understand is this: > > > > **The era where the American people could be sold on the idea of massive government interventions like The New Deal or The Great Society are finished. Nobody believes in the promises of politicians any more. The era of frugality and government reform (meaning cutting spending drastically) is here to stay. That is what the electorate wants.** > > > > The liberal, Keynesian arguments that deficits don’t matter and we could afford the welfare state and entitlements are being exposed. The people with credibility are the Austrian economists and those who warned of the long term consequences of the mentality that we could create wealth out of thin air and give everyone a house and health care are being vindicated. > > > > So, regardless of whether you and I would agree on exactly what the government should be involved in, you should see that we should cut back immediately, balance the budget, get back to a solid fiscal standing, and restore solid economic growth. Then we can have our debates within the context of reality. > > > > Because, really, isn’t it wrong to promise people a government service that you know you won’t be able to deliver? > > It takes three pages to say “I hate our black president?” Are you calling me a racist? Is that it? I LOVE the fact that we have a black president. I think that is wonderful. The problem I have is with our government policies that would be the same whether Barack was in the White House or someone else. I don’t see race. It is your obsession with race that is troubling. Is that the only way you know to engage with criticisms of Obama policies is playing the race card? Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/231 "2010-08-21T03:36:07Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@bdgr](#): > > > > whenever someone who knows a lot less about a subject than I do starts off by telling me they are going to educate me…that’s when I stop reading. > > Put up or shut up. Show me how much more you know than I do. To whom are you addressing this? As stated, **bdgr** stopped reading. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/232 "2010-08-21T03:36:20Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Pay what they owe? Get this in your head GOVERNMENT IS NOT SOCIETY! People should be free to keep their money and give to those who need it on their own. Which they of course wouldn’t. Why should they ? They don’t know anybody in Kentucky, or the status of education in southern Maine, and don’t give a toss about anything outside of their own neighbourhood and job sector really, and a small part of it at that. As for helping the poor and healing the sick, fuck \*that \*noise - they din’t earn what I gots cuz I made myself on my own and don’t owe nuthing to nobody ! Basically, you’re advocating a return to the statu quo circa 1870. Those weren’t pleasant times, least not for the working class. > [@](#): > > Or associate with like minded people and form charitable groups to really help society. Giving my money to government, having parasitic bureaucrats take some off the top and MAYBE some of it getting to people who need it is outrageous. > > Americans are and should be very generous. People should volunteer and help the poor. They can do it far better than the government can. Yes, they should. But they don’t. Hell, I don’t either. Places to see, people to go, you know how it is. Which is why I have no problem with the setting up of organizations which do it for me, and handing them my money so that they can do it efficiently. I could send it to a private charity, I suppose - but then there’s no guarantee anyone but the top would see a cent (as in the case of the French Arc scandal, a major cancer research fundation which was found out to be actually funding BMWs and junkets for the president), whereas I can vote\* the people who squander my charity money out of government. Or the people who think government shouldn’t give a cent to the poor & unemployed, come to that. You don’t like the way the government handles your money ? Change the government - it’s what democracy’s for. You want a smaller government ? Vote for that, or run for that yourself. Just do it, as they say. But beyond that, yes, you do owe a lot to society. Society built the road you drive on. Society built the school you went to, and the hospital you got your vaccinations at. Society protects you from the kind of people who wouldn’t think twice about punching you in the kidneys until you give them all you’ve got, then rape your mum for good measure. Society also protects you from people of the same kind who live in other countries, and would like to shoot you in the face until they live in your house. Society protects you from employers who would fire you if you don’t suck their dick or work 86 hours per day for 12 cents and a bowl of moldy rice - which, as history proves, is _all of them_ when employment isn’t moderated by labour laws. Same deal with your landlord. Society ensures there’s no lead in your baby’s food, and the chemical plant upstream doesn’t dump radioactive waste in your garden. Society makes sure you don’t starve and freeze to death when life takes a steaming dump on your head and expects you to say thanks for the hat. _pant, pant_ We did and do all this for you every day of your life, you special snowflake you. Now pay up and fucking like it. - theoretically, since I don’t vote. But it’s the principle that counts 😛 ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/233 "2010-08-21T03:42:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > The purpose of this thread is not to criticize Obama. The purpose is to critique the ideology of his “Progressive” supporters and their inability to comprehend the growing movement concerned with fiscal restraint and “smaller” government. And also, to show how the Progressive ideology and Utopian notions that characterized the theory that government could provide a “safety net” and take care of everyone is being exposed. > > Here;s where I think a lot of people have it wrong and panic. With cries of socialism and wealth redistribution they assume that taking care of everyone is the ultimate goal. The goal is for society to function better as a whole and sometimes that means those that have helping out those who have not. It means creating more jobs that pay some kind of living wage and education and health care available for more people. > There are no easy answers or idealisitic principles that solve the problems. We have to adjust and react to a changing society. > > I have to agree with others that it seems suspect that we didn’t get this outrage over a years long god awful war as the deficit rose. Now a little over a year into a crisis he didn’t cause we get tons of outrage. > I do understand that for a lot of people it’s for he government in general and I agree. Too many elected offcials are bought and paid for in both parties. However, I also see a lot of blame heaped on the democrats by people who mistakenly think restoring corrupt republicans to power will fix things. It won’t. The GOP has demonstrated that many of them don’t give a dam about actually solving problems. I agree with you about the Republicans. The point I was making was that in efforts to help people (give health care or a home or a retirement fund) we are actually impoverishing people through inflation and debt. Our government cannot provide these things. Of course a healthy society should help the less fortunate, but why not leave these things to individuals and local governments? If government policies are creating more poor people all the time then it is a never ending task to try and help these people. It is better that the Federal Government give us our freedom, saddles us with no debt, and allows us to keep our money to do with it what we want. The prosperity created through the free economy will greatly reduce the number of poor and helpless and enable more people to give to charity. Because, like I have said, our entitlement system is completely insolvent. The only choice we have is privatizing it at some point in the next decade or two. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/234 "2010-08-21T03:48:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Cap and Trade is not, and has nothing to do with Free Markets. It is a corporatist scheme designed to enrich certain favored corporations by selling and trading “carbon credits”. It won’t help the environment, it will only enrich certain individuals (including Al Gore). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood that, in a free market, those who use a resource pay for it, while in a socialist system, everyone pays for the resource, whether they use it or not. Under the current system, everyone is forced to pay for CO2 pollution, while under cap and trade, it’d only be the polluters who pay for it. > [@](#): > > You don’t understand. I am not talking about buying gold. I am talking about pegging the value of the dollar to gold so it restrains the printing presses. Gold continues to get more expensive in dollars. Smart citizens already own some gold as a hedge against inflation. With a gold standard the price of gold stays the same over time. Gold is now $1200 per ounce. Maybe I buy some now. In two years I want to buy some more. Then it is $2200 per ounce. Unless I am holding ALL my money in gold, which is impossible I am losing out. If the dollar was worth more and say that gold was $100 per ounce, then year after year $100 dollars buys the same amount of goods and services. It maintains its value. Why in the world should the price of gold stay the same with time? Gold is subject to the free market just like any other commodity is. If styles change and people decide they want to wear more bling, the free market will naturally drive the price of gold up. If someone makes a lucky strike and discovers a new motherlode of a mine, then the free market will naturally drive the price of gold down. This is how the free market works. Trying to prevent this from happening is a completely unjustified government intervention in the free market. It’s hard to take your claimed desire for smaller government seriously when you advocate a government takeover of the precious metal industry, an industry which is doing just fine under the free market. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/235 "2010-08-21T03:56:23Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > Where do you guys get the silly notion that you deserve to keep every damn dollar you earn? > > I hope you are being sarcastic here. I could not be more serious. The Constitution is founded on the collection of taxes, to be spent according to the will of the voters as expressed through their elected representatives. I would like to hear how you propose to undo that without the complete and utter overthrow of the Constitution and our representative form of government. There has never been a more economically stable system than Tyranny by the Majority. To that end, whatever coercion is necessary to collect a progressive tax from the wealthy is justified. Let me say it again: **Coercion is justified. Because it works.** In compensation, they still get to live vastly more extravagant, self-indulgent lives than 98% of the people in the country. It ain’t perfect, but it is still way ahead of whatever is in second place. No, in America you do not have any right to keep every damn dollar you earn. It says so in the Constitution, as the founders intended. Keep your hands off our Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/236 "2010-08-21T04:00:05Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I would really like to debate some of the points in those posts, but they’re presented in a format that discourages serious discussion. I guess I’ll start at the beginning. > > In the 1/3 post, you said you attended a Tea Party rally that was 15% black. If we are to accept this as true, you’ll have to give us something more than your word to prove it. I have seen tea party rallies, as my state (Nevada) is particularly active in tea party politics, and I saw nothing but a sea of white people. I have never seen a youtube video or news media photograph or video depicting a tea party rally as having more than a seriously tiny minority of nonwhites, and I am unaware of even a single black person with a significant leadership role in any tea party organization. This doesn’t make the tea party a necessarily racist movement, of course, but it is certainly not significantly representative of nonwhites. > > In the same post, you make observations that seem to imply the tea party movement is outside of demcorat/republican politics, and has equal disdain for both sides. This is not unusual for political movements. So many of them claim to be bipartisan or nonpartisan, but as is typical for such movements, the tea party can not make that claim legitimately. The only data available for the political beliefs of tea party members is a group of studies done by the Winston Group, which doesn’t even deny its Republican bias. Even those studies show tea party members are three times more likely to self identify as Republicans than Democrats (about 57% vs about 17%). Tea party members are 8 times more likely to self identify as Conservative than Liberal (about 66% vs about 8%). 71% of Tea Party members have a “favorable view” of Republicans in general. 75% of Tea Party members have an “unfavorable view” of Democrats in general. Tea party members are astronomically more likely to get the majority of their news from Fox and talk radio than the average person. And all of that was found in a study performed by an organization with a conservative bias, who were doing the study for the purpose of proving Tea Party members were just average citizens! They are absolutely not representative of average Americans. They are representative of Conservative Americans. > > So now the question is, why would a Conservative, primarily Republican group even WANT to portray itself as nonpartisan? Why do people arguing for the Tea Party deny the purpose of their movement? Is the Republican or Conservative label so poisoned that Conservative Republican groups don’t want to wear it? I can only speak for what I have seen. Of course I can’t prove it to you. Plus I am not a tea party member. The problem you have is that if it is proven that the Tea Party group is more conservative than not, you will dismiss it without a second thought. That is not fair. Plus you are discounting people who are not member of the Tea Party who are also angry at their government. The real issue is whether or not these people will stay independent of the Republic Party and push honest ideological libertarian types into office or if they will role over and support a standard Republican in 2012. If they do, they will be considered a failure in my mind. I see a real chance for a third party and I want to influence these people toward my direction. You should not write these people off either. Why don’t you talk with these people for yourself and see what they are like, not what the media says about them. It is very rare in politics that a true grassroots movement emerges that is energized and willing to do the hard work to influence the debate and win elections. You know, the first modern Tea Party was a money bomb in 2007 for Ron Paul. If there is a Tea Party that I support and adhere to, it is that one. Anyone who covered the 2008 elections knows about the diversity of the crowds that he attracted. That is what I want to revive. Listen to this: > [@](#): > > Presidential candidate Ron Paul drawing diverse crowds > > The size of the crowd wasn’t remarkable, especially in terms of a presidential campaign. > What struck the candidate, though, as he faced the 300 or so people packed into a small New Hampshire restaurant last month, was the diversity of the crowd. > > “Young and old, hippie types and business types, Republicans and Democrats and independents, anarchists, people who hate the IRS and the Federal Reserve,” said Ron Paul, a Green Tree native, Dormont High School alumnus and Republican congressman from Texas’ Gulf coast. > > “Here I am, defending medical marijuana, and I’ve never even seen anyone smoke marijuana.” > > Paul’s candidacy is as unlikely as the coalition it attracts. Just about everyone can find something to agree with in his platform, but few agree with it all. > [@](#): > > If Ron Paul’s supporters got together for a family portrait, it would be one of those pictures in which no one seems to resemble anyone else. > “You have old-school Republicans, the conservatives who backed Barry Goldwater (in 1964). You have the anti-war crowd who are principled non-interventionists,” said Jim Forsythe, a former Air Force major who’s organized meet-and-greet sessions in New Hampshire for the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate. > > You also have businessmen tired of government regulation, college students who like his views on holistic medicine and middle-aged folks who don’t see Social Security helping them in a few years. There are people who supported Democrat Howard Dean four years ago and others who backed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan in the 1990s. > > What brings them together is a common belief that government is too big, obtrusive and unresponsive. > > “It’s a desire to get government out of my life. That’s it,” said Rick Grote, a pharmacist in Hampton, Iowa. So, don’t tell me the message of freedom, limited government, a non interventionist foreign policy and libertarianism only appeals to white, middle aged racists. It has been demonstrated that it attracts an incredibly diverse crowd, when led by Ron Paul. Since then, the movement has been hijacked and the narrative has been twisted. I am trying to take it back. The Ron Paul campaign, which I was a part of, showed me that this message can attract the most diverse crowds of any political message. This has been proven. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/237 "2010-08-21T04:06:50Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > …Get this in your head GOVERNMENT IS NOT SOCIETY!.. Sure it is, if you’re doing it right. Democracy, government of by and for the people. Society comprised entirely of people. Hence, in a fully realized democracy, the society and the government are precisely the same. And don’t shout when you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/238 "2010-08-21T04:09:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Irrespective of politics, it is really cool how jrodefeld is working through the thread and responding to everyone. Thanks. Its quite a bit of work considering how quickly people post replies in this forum. > [@](#): > > Three pages, and the only comeback you have is to play the race card? 😃 Yeah, pretty weak response from someone who calls himself “The Facts” ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/239 "2010-08-21T04:13:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@xtisme](#): > > > > 😛 I’m sorry, but you weren’t serious, were you? Liberals want good government, while conservatives want a bad one. Really? > > > > -XT > > Does “Heck of a job, Brownie” ring a bell? Hiring people for the Justice Department from Liberty University? Staffing Baghdad based on loyalty to the Republican party and views on abortion? > > If they don’t actually want bad government, they sure govern as if they do. If you want to starve the beast, you try not to let the beast work effectively. Why are you bringing this partisan bullshit in here? I am not a Republican. I am talking about ideology. I am trying to bring up important issues about the debt, the monetary system and protection of civil liberties and you want to engage in partisan bickering. The truth is both parties have given us bad government. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/240 "2010-08-21T04:15:52Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Because people should pay what they owe. And everyone owes society in general; even the existence of money itself depends on the larger society. And because such an individualist position is logically inconsistent; if he shouldn’t pay because he doesn’t owe other people any consideration, then those same other people don’t owe him any consideration and might as well take whatever they please from him. Of course, such “rugged individualists”\* hypocritically only want such a lack of concern for others to be respected when it’s how they treat others; not when it comes to how other people treat them in return. > > > > - Quotes, because in reality they are neither rugged nor individualists, just parasites who want the government to protect them from their victims even while they refuse to pay for it > > Pay what they owe? Get this in your head GOVERNMENT IS NOT SOCIETY! It is not all of society, but it is a central part of society. As well as the representative of the collective will and desires of society; it isn’t some external enemy like you want to claim; it is us. And without it, you have none of that wealth you want to pretend you created all on your own. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > People should be free to keep their money and give to those who need it on their own. Or associate with like minded people and form charitable groups to really help society. Giving my money to government, having parasitic bureaucrats take some off the top and MAYBE some of it getting to people who need it is outrageous. > > Americans are and should be very generous. People should volunteer and help the poor. They can do it far better than the government can. No, they aren’t, they won’t and they can’t. We have millennia of history demonstrating this. Government intervened because the private sector wasn’t doing the job. It never has, and there’s no reason to think it’ll suddenly start now. Nor are Americans anywhere near as generous as you are trying to claim; we are actually quite low on the generosity scale. We give a lot in absolute dollars because we are wealthy; but compared to how many assets we have we are less charitable than most other industrialize nations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=13)