That’s easy - all those libertarians and many conservatives you mention didn’t protest under Bush. Or Clinton either, for that matter. Or anyone. So even if they were unhappy about those other guys, there is obviously and provably something different about this one, that inspires them to take to the streets.
Oh gee, what could it be.
To go along with Honesty’s query, why is the FR ‘inherently immoral’? What does ‘immoral’ even mean in this context, and why is morality an issue in any case? How has it enriched bankers and destroyed the value of our money? What do you base this assertion on? And, as with Honesty’s question, what do you propose to replace it?
-XT
Well, I do live in California. The point is there is the true grassroots, and the Republican financed and subverted Tea Party. There are a lot of people who don’t fit in to your stereotypes who are angry and protesting. The true grassroots liberty movement started as a support for Ron Paul in 2007. Virtually all political commentators at the time remarked on the diversity of the crowds he attracted. That has changed somewhat.
You don’t have to believe me. You had a very limited exposure to certain groups of people. My experience has been different.
Many people DID care about the deficits under Republicans. See, the problem is you cannot deal with the criticisms. Its like attacking the messenger, instead of dealing with the message. We need to cut spending and balance the budget or we will face a calamity that will be worse than anything we have seen in our history. Yeah, some people are hypocritical when it comes to being consistent on issues of debt and big government. I wasn’t hypocritical, neither was anyone I know. You need to deal with the facts rather than criticizing those who are delivering the facts.
I agree with the OP, Obama is doing a very nice job and we are lucky to have him at the helm during these difficult times.
Not if you want to make sense of the OP.
I was about to post “I bet DT didn’t know he had such a fan” on the other thread, but it got closed on me.
As for the OP, if I might quote Willy the Shake, “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Not much wit in the OP.
I agree with you. The question is, how to do it? In my (somewhat uninformed opinion), I would:
–Pull the military out Iraq and Afghanistan
–Reduce the defense budget
–Reform Social Security
–Reform Healthcare (yeah…again. :sigh: )
–Raise taxes
Those all sound like fairly progressive things to do, eh?
This is far from convincing. Where do I begin? Just once, I’d like to see someone talk about the aggregate inflation affecting the dollar, over nearly a century, AND acknowledge that every other national currency in the developed world also underwent similar if not worse inflation. Around the time when FDR devalued the dollar to 1/35 of an ounce of gold, the UK devalued sterling by nearly half. Traditionally, a pound had been worth about $5, but now it was only worth about $2.75. This wasn’t just an American thing.
And overall from 1914 on we have not been sliding into poverty, but wages and salaries have more than kept pace with inflation. Of course I don’t mean during recessions and depressions, like right now, but over the long term it’s true. What, do you think a hot dog vendor in 1920 got $8 an hour, or $64 a day? Of course not, because that would have been equivalent to three ounces of gold and worth a fortune. Nobody made $64 a day, in those times, except for CEO fat cats and others who for some reason could command such a salary, like celebrity actors and entertainers.
Oh, you’ve been “laughing” at Ron Paul, have you? What did you find so hilarious? His consistency? His respect for the Constitution? His opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? His defense of Civil Liberties?
What is Ron Paul so wrong about?
As to the format, I’ve addressed this already. The purpose was more to get some things off my chest rather than strictly adhere to the format of a formal debate.
Let me ask you this. Hypothetically, if we experience hyperinflation and our currency is destroyed, will you repent and admit that perhaps Ron Paul was right?
You really don’t know anything about libertarians and especially Austrian economists if you think that. Greenspan was most responsible for the creation of this crisis. That is why I want to get rid of the Federal Reserve system so Fed chairmen, in a secretive manner, can’t destroy the economy.
Watch this video of Ron Paul questioning Alan Greenspan in 2000:
If we don’t, will you admit that perhaps Ron Paul (and you) were wrong?
Repent? :dubious:
There is a difference between a political position and a religion. Sometimes.
The problem I have with everyone who defends the good intentions of the Tea Party protestors is where were they from 2000 to 2008? Why weren’t they marching when George Bush set record deficits, vastly expanded government powers, and started (and bungled) two wars? None of that set them off but within a couple of weeks of Barack Obama taking the oath of office they were marching in the streets.
No, you are not an Obama loyalist. But you are a liberal. The point was that in the past you characterize libertarians as inhumane, not caring about the poor, etc. You believe that the thought of ending Social Security and Medicare is unthinkable and cruel. Also, I’m sure you believe in some form of “Big” government, meaning high spending and lots of regulations on the market. You have no trust in Free Markets.
If, however, you don’t like FDR and Lyndon Johnson, then I completely mis characterized you and I apologize. The point was the fraudulent banking system and public debt is far more damaging to the poor and middle class that any supposed benefits we get back from government. That is my assertion and I took great care to lay out how the poor would be far better off in a libertarian society without no public debt and a small government and no central bank.
You can respond to those specific points at your leisure.
I know what cite means. What is that poster referring to? That is my point. If he said, you claim this, can you offer a cite or supporting evidence to support that specific claim, I would know what the hell he is talking about.
Well, I DID want to lecture, but not to libertarians. The tone is directed towards only a small segment of posters here who I feel have no understanding of economics and US history. Defenders of Obama, Keynesians, Progressives, etc. Those who believe the lie that the government is going to be able to take care of us and the welfare state is viable and we need massive government regulation of every aspect of the economy, etc.
I understand why some may be put off by the tone. I meant no offense.
I mean this in the most constructive way possible if you really want to provoke honest discussion don’t be condescending and talk about how you are educating folks and how your intelligance is superior. Mmmm-kay?
Dude, seriously? This video is from the big Tea Party Tax Day protest in Atlanta, where over half of the population is black (57% or so in the city). I did see one black guy looking at all the crazy white people, and there are probably a few black journalists that I didn’t see, as we have a ton of them, but black protesters are harder to find than Waldo in this. If you saw 15% in California, this video should look like an NAACP convention. It doesn’t.
No, I don’t think that many Tea Partiers understand the distinction between Austrian and Keynesian economics. But some do. I think we should elevate the smartest minds to be the face of the opposition, not routinely promoting the most uneducated, bigoted people of any group. The media will only focus on the racists or the backwards militia member in an effort to discredit the whole group. Then you all think you know who these people are.
As for Austrian Economics, it was pushed to the side through an unprecedented propaganda campaign and a Federal Reserve which bought out the economics profession. Government wants to expand its power. It is not favorable to a philosophy which restricts its power.
The resurgence is happening because it correctly predicted the crisis and it is easily understood by the common person. It advocates a reduction in spending and a correction of the markets. Keynesian economics advocates government stimulus and increased deficits, which will only make the problem worse. When you have a thirteen trillion dollar deficit, massive government spending makes no sense.
Austrian economics offers a compelling alternative that people can understand. Plus, since Keynesian economics has been in vogue for decades, Austrian theories can hardly be blamed for our current problems.
I’m curious how you think this is not the case.
As with the fed, the question becomes “what would you replace it with”? Suppose for a moment that Ron Paul is elected Emperor and with a wave of his hand dismisses Social Security and Medicare. People relying on a check? Poof: no check. People heading to the hospital? Poof: no hospital. Okay, that’s done. Now, what does he do with these people instead?
If the answer is “The free market will provide”, then the reaction of people not in your religion is “Like hell it will”. People who have at least a high-school level of understanding about the free market know full well that it is perfectly happy to cut the lower end of the population loose with nothing. The market is amoral and the market is merciless - especially to those people who have fallen on hard times, much less those who are perpetually on hard times.
So. Let us reiterate: “The free market will provide” is exactly synonymous with “let them starve and die in their ovn filth while I sit in my ivory tower and laugh at their fate.” I think a relatively strong case can be made that this qualifies as “unthinkable and cruel”.
If you do not propose “The free market will provide” as your answer to the disbanding of Social Security and Medicare, what do you intend to put in their place instead?
So you intended to direct your posts to liberals, yet you post this:
Trying to show that Democrats have huge debts. But the chart is not honest. It is more show the results of a presidency than damning one yet to begin. It actually shows that after a Republican presidency, the debt increases dramatically compared to a liberal president.
Your scare tactics would have been less effective had you been more honest and said:
"After the following presidents, the debt was:
Nixon ~ +200%
Reagan ~ +340%
Clinton ~ +42%
Bush ~ +100%
Obama started with $10 trillion. If he keeps it under 20 trillion by the time he leaves, he’s automatically better than any recent Republican president at managing the economy and the national debt