Ron Paul’s phony populism

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
Clam down dude, He got a lot of support in the audience for that. Some dude from the audience shouted it before him even.
How bizarre..
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Clam down dude, He got a lot of support in the audience for that. Some dude from the audience shouted it before him even.
How bizarre..
NO FUCK THAT THIS IS MY THREAD NOW! AGHHHHHH!!!





My bad bro. It's just weird to me that people (me too), sometimes (ALOT) always frame everything as if government is the answer. When you really look at the efficacy of government programs...it's just a total fallacy.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
I don't care so much for the politics, I just think its bizarre that people get refused medical attention in these times because they "choose" not to have health care.
While it is possible also that they dont have healthcare because they cannot afford it.
And to my understanding doctors have sworn that they will never refuse to give medical attention when needed.
And now people die because of this.

Dus dat..

I just think its bizarre that people expect that they don't need to to anything and some other people will simply provide them with medical care, retirement savings, job training, education, etc, etc, etc whenever they want it.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
RON PAUL CAMPAIGN CONDEMNS ALASKA GOP ILLEGAL EXCLUSION OF ALL NON-ROMNEY DELEGATES TO STATE CONVENTION

“SAYING ‘YOUR MONEY’S NO GOOD HERE’ IS AN AFFRONT TO THE MANY RON PAUL AND OTHER PROLIFE SUPPORTERS WHO LABOR TO SUPPORT THE CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE AND BUILD THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.” – JOHN TATE

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign condemned today the efforts of the Alaska Republican Party and its chairman Randy Reudrich to disenfranchise Paul and other non-Romney delegates to the party’s upcoming state convention. In doing so, the Paul campaign also announced that it will utilize all legal tools at its disposal to prevent or reverse the state party’s illegal efforts to omit non-Romney delegates to the convention.

The state party-initiated conflict in this regard is especially worrisome and politically sensitive as the Paul campaign believes it won a significant portion of delegates at the Alaska State House district conventions already held. The Paul camp anticipates that its delegate tally at the upcoming state convention will increase as supporters of former candidate Rick Santorum – including fellow prolife supporters – defect to the Paul camp or become non-Romney delegates to the Republican National Convention to be held late August in Tampa, Florida. In light of this, the issue has national party and political implications because it affects the conversation that will occur in Tampa over whether constitutionally-limited government and an authentic commitment to the sanctity of life will prevail over the status quo.

The Alaska Republican Party state convention is set to be held from April 26th-28th, and all previous communications to would-be delegates have stated that a delegate fee of $250 would be accepted up until the convention registration deadline, which is 2:00 p.m. Alaska Time on April 26th. However, on Monday the 16thstate party chairman Randy Reudrich called a state committee meeting at which he stated that delegate fees would be accepted no later than 48 hours from the time of the meeting, which would be Wednesday, April 18th. However, on Tuesday the state party said that delegate fees had to be paid by 6:00 p.m that evening. As individual delegates and campaigns scrambled to pay delegate fees, the state party erected bizarre and allegedly extra-legal obstacles in front of Paul, prolife, and other non-Romney delegates, and communications between self-identifying non-Romney delegates and state party personnel degraded.

One example of the state party trying to frustrate Paul delegates was in exactly when and how delegates could remit their $250 fee. Acceptable methods of payment ranged from online credit card payment on the state party website – although the link to such had been inexplicably removed – to personal checks that were later said to be unacceptable, to money orders that in at least one case were termed unacceptable and returned. The state party, the Ron Paul campaign argues, capriciously moved its payment deadline and modified its acceptable ways of paying the $250 delegate fee expressly to frustrate Paul delegates and in general any delegates outside the tight circle of party-sanctioned non-Romney delegates.

The Alaska GOP also wrongly stated that individual Paul, prolife, or non-Romney supporters were prohibited from sponsoring the $250 delegate fees for surrogate delegates, disbursements used to cover airfare, accommodations, and the like in as large a state as Alaska. In the example, the party told a grassroots Ron Paul supporter that he could not sponsor four surrogate delegates for an amount totaling $1,000 without a waiver yet the party subsequently refused to make the waiver form available for examination or use ostensibly to burn the clock.

The Ron Paul campaign, in its letter, informed the state party organization and its chair that prohibiting sponsorship of delegates has no legal or factual basis.

“Saying ‘Your money’s no good here’ is an affront to the many Ron Paul and other prolife supporters who labor to support the candidate of their choice and build the Republican Party,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Manager John Tate.

“Moving the goal post, setting up hoops for delegates to jump through, establishing arbitrary deadlines, and sending conflicting messages to frustrate Paul supporters is wrong and will fail. Instead, Ron Paul supporters and other prolife supporters will be further energized, and this invented conflict will have the added benefit of shaming the Alaska Republican Party establishment, which obviously is in the tank for Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney,” added Mr. Tate.

To read the Paul campaign letter to Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Reudrich outlining the campaign’s legal stance on the matter, please click here.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/...all-non-romney-delegates-to-state-convention/
Now I know why they say he's un-electable. They aren't going to allow it...
 
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
I just think its bizarre that people expect that they don't need to to anything and some other people will simply provide them with medical care, retirement savings, job training, education, etc, etc, etc whenever they want it.
Calm down dude, I talked about the healthcare only, and only in that particular situation.
First I think it is bizarre to refuse medical attention to someone in need, while doctors are sworn to help anyone in need.
Regardless having insurance or not.

There is no need to drag in retirement, job training etc in this example.

But what if a person goes out alone. Forgets or for some reason does not carry ID and the healthcare insurance card.
This person gets a stroke or a heart attack.
This person does have healthcare. But there is no way to find this out or to ID this person.
What if someone based on this information refuses to give medical treatment because they assume this person does not have healthcare, and the person dies..?
What is this person is your mom? Would you still feel the same way?
 

Mike Manson

Still Livin'
Apr 16, 2005
9,015
19,439
113
44
To me it's a human right to have health insurance. If you are broke and living in the streets, you should still get the same medical attention as a billionaire!
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Krugman’s Amazement


Professor Paul Krugman, speaking on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” makes his case for risking inflation to defeat 9% unemployment. “You should be willing,” he said, “to take some risks. Compare. You know, people talk, what if we had 4% inflation? We had 4% inflation during Reagan’s second term. I don’t remember that as a time of great dislocation. It was actually a time when a lot of people were feeling good about the economic progress. It’s an amazing thing.”

An amazing thing indeed. Suddenly Professor Krugman has fetched up singing the praises of President Reagan. Only three years ago he was writing that “Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains” and that the 40th president “broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.” Now he’s describing the Gipper’s second term as “actually a time when a lot of people were feeling good about the economic progress.”

We chalk Mr. Krugman’s disorientation up to the hallucinogenic effects of fiat money.
One has to remember that when Professor Krugman makes his pitch for the balm of inflation, one isn’t clear what he’s talking about — and neither is he. Is he talking about the consumer price index? Or, if gasoline and food prices are soaring, the index from which food and gasoline prices have been stripped? Or is he talking about a more classical — constitutional — measure of the value of the dollar? Like, say, gold?

Professor Krugman might remember the Reagan years as a time of inflation. But there are those of us who remember it as a time when the value of the dollar moved smartly in the right direction. No doubt there were some ups and downs during the period. But the Reagan years were a period when the value of the dollar soared, from a 562nd of an ounce of gold on the day Reagan acceded to the presidency in January 1981 to a 405th of an ounce of gold on the day in 1989 when he famously flew into the sunset.

What a contrast to the years of President Obama. On the day he took the constitutional oath, the dollar had a value of an 853rd of an ounce of gold. Today one would be lucky to get half that much specie for a dollar, the value of which is now less than a 1,662nd of an ounce of gold. Professor Krugman may be happy enough to see 4% inflation. But what is the world going to think of a dollar that resumes its free fall? What is going to be the meaning of this for an America that has been borrowing money across the globe? And what is this going to mean for American workers, home-makers, and savers? Talk about reckless.

The thing that Reagan and Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve chairman in power during his era, understood is the interlocking nature of things. Mr. Volcker could conquer inflation and engineer a restoration of value to the dollar because he was working in tandem with a President who was setting the stage for economic growth through cuts in the marginal tax rate and through deregulation. Neither Reagan nor Mr. Volcker could have done it without the other.

If Mr. Krugman finds this amazing, he is not alone. The era of fiat money — monetary affairs conducted without reference to specie, managed with no proper legal definition of a dollar whatsoever — has left not only our Nobel laureates in economics disoriented. It has left our television panelists, our congressional committee chairmen, many of our Federal Reserve governors, completely at sea. What’s amazing is the failure of so many of our greatest minds to get the crisis of the dollar in focus and their default in leaving the task of reform to the next administration.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/krugmans-amazement/87806/
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
Uh, do you so lack the ability to not think in black and white that you can't see how the two statements are not at all contradictory??

And, BTW, I didn't post that video because I'm a fan of Krugman or anything - he is only slightly less deluded that Ron Paul; I posted it it was very revealing to see Ron Paul go one-on-one with someone from a different intellectual league.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Uh, do you so lack the ability to not think in black and white that you can't see how the two statements are not at all contradictory??

And, BTW, I didn't post that video because I'm a fan of Krugman or anything - he is only slightly less deluded that Ron Paul; I posted it it was very revealing to see Ron Paul go one-on-one with someone from a different intellectual league.
Being wrong never sounded so good. :eek:
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
A few days ago, Bloomberg held the debate many readers have been wanting for a long time: Paul Krugman vs. Ron Paul. To be fair, Ron Paul didn't have a slam-dunk debate moment – but neither did Krugman. Still, the fact that a medical doctor from Texas armed with a little Austrian economics and a lot of common sense can stand up to a Nobel-Prize-winning economist is impressive. If the roles were reversed and the conversation was on medicine, Krugman would have likely sounded like a village idiot in the discussion. In case you haven't already seen it, click on the frame below for the video.

What was more amazing than Ron Paul's performance was the number of times Paul Krugman shot himself in the foot. Honestly, Ron Paul didn't need to say much; Krugman's own logic make him look bad enough. Let's look at some of his blunders play-by-play style:

Early on in the debate, Krugman says, "You know you can't leave the government out of monetary policy .... The central bank is always going to be in the business of managing monetary policy. If you think that you can avoid that, you're living in some – you're living in the world as it was 150 years ago."

No matter the topic of the argument, a typical defense is to accuse your opponent of being stuck in past. However, in this case, it doesn't make sense. Consider the timing of the last two biggest US recessions: the Great Depression over 80 years ago and the current recession still in the works. Since the enlightened economic policies over the past century have performed so poorly, is it so bad to look upon other time periods favorably?

Krugman goes on: "And look, history tells us that in fact a completely unmanaged economy is subject to extreme volatility – subject to extreme downturns. I know that there's legends that people, probably like you Congressman, have, that the Great Depression was somehow caused by the government – caused by the Federal Reserve – but it's not true. The reality is that was a market economy run amok. Which happens. It happened repeatedly over the past couple of centuries."

Exactly which periods of "extreme volatility and downturns" are Krugman referring to? Two come to my mind – again, the Great Depression and the current crisis. However, neither is consistent with Krugman's statement. The Federal Reserve was around for both recessions; it's been in business since 1913. Furthermore, researchers including Dr. Christina Romer (the former head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors) have debunked much of Krugman's volatility assertions. For an excellent comparison of the economy's performance before and after the creation of the Federal Reserve, see A Century of Failure by Dr. George Selgin of the University of Georgia.

Krugman's statements get even bolder: "Depressions are a bad thing for capitalism, and it is the role of government to make sure that they don't happen, or if they do happen, that they don't last too long." Sounds good, right? There's just one problem. The Federal Reserve failed to prevent the Great Depression, and it failed to avoid the current crisis as well. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve seems powerless to shorten the duration of the current recession. If the government's role is to prevent recessions, it has a horrible track record. Krugman is apparently lost in some strange hallucinogenic trip where the government prevented the crisis, and we swiftly arose from a brief recession.

Ron Paul goes at Krugman with a good comeback for the "150 years" statement by pointing out that the history of inflationary policies extends thousands of years, back to the Romans. Krugman responds that this isn't his policy stance. Well, how is it different? The Federal Reserve may use fancy phrases such as "quantitative easing," but it really comes down to same policy of debasing a currency. The techniques and methods may have changed, but the general idea has not.

Rather than explain his comment on the Roman debasement of the currency, Krugman clarifies his position by praising the monetary policies of the 1950s post-WW II period. Yes, that was a great period of growth; but a single decade of success is hardly long enough to be considered support. Monetary policy shouldn't be judged by the performance of one decade, but rather by a century-long track record. Everyone loves policies when they work; it's the policy failures which are the problem. And it's certainly the case that the US federal government has been wholly unable to stay with any one monetary policy for a full century.

Ron Paul's retort mentions the spending cuts after WW II. To dodge Paul's good response, Krugman changes topics to an unconnected point about Milton Friedman. Then Ron Paul answers Krugman with his own unconnected point about competing currencies, to which Krugman mumbles, "I have no idea what that's about."

Next, the conversation switches to the national debt level. The host points out that the national debt as a percentage of GDP has reached near 100% and asks how much further the debt level can be extended. Krugman admits, "I don't have a fixed number," but he suggests that the debt level should be raised an additional 30 points to 130% of GDP, if that could get us out of the recession. In my opinion, this comment is the bazooka shot into Krugman's own foot. Earlier in the debate, Ron Paul criticized the arbitrariness of the Federal Reserve's interest-rate policies. He mocks the Fed by saying, "The interest rate should be one percent instead of three percent because we are so smart."

And here, Krugman completely verifies the validity of Paul's criticism. It's impossible for central planners to figure out the perfect interest rate. Similarly, Krugman doesn't know what the limit to the debt should be. And I don't blame him for having a tough time – who does know the solution to these problems? Maybe our national debt as a percentage of GDP can reach 200%, 150%, or maybe it's approaching Armageddon at 130%. It's impossible to say for sure. In the same way, it's impossible for the Federal Reserve to set an appropriate interest rate. Is zero too low for inflation? Is raising it to 4% too high? What are the consequences to finding some middle ground?

These are truly unanswerable questions. Without the Fed, the market would find the interest rate itself. You can fill a whole room with Nobel-Prize-winning economists, and they still won't be able to figure out what the market would do with interest rates. If they knew, most would be millionaires and running their own hedge funds – not employees of quasi-governmental agencies and universities.

Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge doesn't stop economists from making policy decisions much like what Krugman advocates. He admits to not knowing the limit to our national debt, but at the same time advocates pushing the debt to 130%. What if that's too high and the result is the start of a final death spiral for the US economy? "Whoops; sorry America."

This is the general problem with the Fed and all central planners. They try to guide the economy, but more often than not, they create the very recessions that the system is supposed to prevent. The Federal Reserve either leaves rates too low for too long, or it raises them so high as to create an economic slowdown of its own. The Federal Reserve isn't the wonderful safety net economic idealists imagine. Instead, it's much closer to driving a car while blindfolded. Unfortunately, people like Krugman are more than willing to take the keys knowing full well the dangers of driving blindfolded. And when these Fed economists inevitably crash into a brick wall, it is the passenger – the American worker – who gets creamed.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34533.html
 
Aug 11, 2002
571
0
0
40
To be fair, Ron Paul didn't have a slam-dunk debate moment – but neither did Krugman. Still, the fact that a medical doctor from Texas armed with a little Austrian economics and a lot of common sense can stand up to a Nobel-Prize-winning economist is impressive. If the roles were reversed and the conversation was on medicine, Krugman would have likely sounded like a village idiot in the discussion.
That's just fuckin funny LOL