 |
 |
 |
 |
Some Ron Paul supporters should man up and stop whining
- 09/30/11 03:43 PM ET
I love you guys, but some of you have to stop acting like 8-year-old crybabies every time someone criticizes Ron Paul.
The fact is that Ron Paul supports a very extreme version of laissez-faire economics that is God's gift to big banks. The issue is not whether Ron supported the bailout; he did not. The issue is that his approach is what let the banks get away with murder, which caused the bailout in the first place, and after the bailout he continues these same extreme laissez-faire policies that tolerate rip-offs like the new Bank of America fee.
I have criticized Geithner and others during the Clinton years and then during the Obama years for not being tough enough on the banks.
I criticized everyone in Congress, in both parties, for the way the bailout was done and the way they let the banks get away with murder, largely because they took a ton of dough from the banks.
In my column “Hemingway at war” Thursday I criticized Obama for telling blacks to stop complaining and stop grumbling and stop crying. Obama should have directed those comments to CEOs and bankers who hoard cash while they enjoy great wealth, not to blacks or anyone else seeking jobs.
But Ron Paul takes certain stands based on a very extreme view of laissez-faire economics and purist libertarian economics. This is a gift to the banks, which continue abuses today. Ron Paul's views would allow the banks to get away with anything.
Those of you who support him should man up, stop whining, stop acting like crybabies.
Ron Paul doesn't act this way. He doesn't whine or complain. He gives a hard punch, he takes a hard punch, all with good humor in the give-and-take of the battle of ideas. That's why I like him and respect him.
To take a page from Ron's playbook: You need to take responsibility if you support Ron Paul. If you want to defend his extreme view of libertarian laissez-faire, let’s boogie. Let’s debate. But don't pretend these views don't exist, and don't get upset when I call Ron out on them, the same way Barack Obama and the White House get upset when I and others call them out at times.
Politics is not a cult of personality, not for Ron, not for Barack, and darn well not for me.
So give me your arguments, but cut out the crybaby whining
The fact is that Ron Paul supports a very extreme version of laissez-faire economics that is God's gift to big banks. The issue is not whether Ron supported the bailout; he did not. The issue is that his approach is what let the banks get away with murder, which caused the bailout in the first place, and after the bailout he continues these same extreme laissez-faire policies that tolerate rip-offs like the new Bank of America fee.
I have criticized Geithner and others during the Clinton years and then during the Obama years for not being tough enough on the banks.
I criticized everyone in Congress, in both parties, for the way the bailout was done and the way they let the banks get away with murder, largely because they took a ton of dough from the banks.
In my column “Hemingway at war” Thursday I criticized Obama for telling blacks to stop complaining and stop grumbling and stop crying. Obama should have directed those comments to CEOs and bankers who hoard cash while they enjoy great wealth, not to blacks or anyone else seeking jobs.
But Ron Paul takes certain stands based on a very extreme view of laissez-faire economics and purist libertarian economics. This is a gift to the banks, which continue abuses today. Ron Paul's views would allow the banks to get away with anything.
Those of you who support him should man up, stop whining, stop acting like crybabies.
Ron Paul doesn't act this way. He doesn't whine or complain. He gives a hard punch, he takes a hard punch, all with good humor in the give-and-take of the battle of ideas. That's why I like him and respect him.
To take a page from Ron's playbook: You need to take responsibility if you support Ron Paul. If you want to defend his extreme view of libertarian laissez-faire, let’s boogie. Let’s debate. But don't pretend these views don't exist, and don't get upset when I call Ron out on them, the same way Barack Obama and the White House get upset when I and others call them out at times.
Politics is not a cult of personality, not for Ron, not for Barack, and darn well not for me.
So give me your arguments, but cut out the crybaby whining
He writes, "Those of you who support him should man up, stop whining, stop acting like crybabies."
ReplyDeleteOkay, I can do that. I agree with his main point. Financial markets are not self-regulating -- not when the CEO of Lehman can walk away with $500 million in his pockets while his bank becomes insolvent. Same story for Goldman Sachs, Merrill-Lynch, AIG, and all the rest of the corrupt Wall Street bankers who got rich as they wrecked the global economy with their mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and all their other opaque tools of the shadow banking industry.
Now, how about giving Ron Paul some credit as the only Republican candidate on the stage who is willing to throw the spotlight on the Federal Reserve and expose their role in helping create this mess and make it even worse after the fact? How about a few plaudits for his critique of "quantitative easing" that the FED has done to devalue the dollar and give trillions of dollars to the Wall Street banks at nearly zero interest rate, which they use to buy T-bills -- guaranteed easy profit for the banks and more debt for the Treasury. Why is Ron the only candidate complaining about that?
Why is he the only one campaigning for years to audit the Federal Reserve? I saw yesterday that Mitt Romney has so far received $2.3 million in campaign contributions from Wall Street and had lunch with the CEO of J.P. Morgan. That might have something to do with it.
--David
David, I can count on you to give a good critique of any article, thanks!
ReplyDeleteI do agree that we need to pay attention to the abuses of Wall Street. I hate it when companies go out of business and the CEO gets millions to walk out the door. That is ridiculous. However, it happens everywhere, down to local government. It was recently reported here in Detroit that a "public servant" left county administration to go to a new job at Detroit Metro Airport as airport manager. She was given a $200,000 "severance package" however, her job was not terminated nor was she forced to resign rather she was promoted to the new position! After the story became public, she returned the money, however, the question that bothers me, why was she given the package in the first place?
I agree that the Fed should be audited. Anytime an organization is not audited, problems will always arise. It is important to shine the light of truth on the Fed.
As far as campaigns, I think that all campaigns should be taxpayer financed. I have written about this in the past here on the blog and with every relevation about financing these campaigns, I am more convinced that I am right.
Hey Tom, here is a little search result I did to see how the Occupy Wall Street movement is getting covered by one of the most popular conservative websites….
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/cse?cx=013850339485084395743%3Aernse1bcnr0&ie=UTF-8&q=Occupy+Wall+Street&sa=Search&siteurl=www.redstate.com%2Fpaulkib%2F2011%2F10%2F01%2Fbizarre-mind-control-techniques-at-wall-st-protests%2F
Don't these people understand that if you defend the Wall Street bankers and attack the protesters as "socialists" (or whatever), you are just playing into the hands of Wall Street? Very few people seem to understand that the Wall Street banks control both political parties with their lobbyists and campaign contributions. That is part of what this protest is about. Vote Ron Paul.
I can't post anything on the Redstate website because they banned me for life. I had the temerity to suggest that Reagan and Bush were not true fiscal conservatives, considering that Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it. They don't appreciate such comments over there -- "group think" prevails.
--David
Well David, we are not going to ban you here! I do agree that money is the milk of politics and that is why I suggest that we remove it and yes, have the government give out money for campaigns. It would limit the length and expense of the campaigns, allow moderately successful people to become part of the system and limit the dollars that any candidate could spend.
ReplyDeleteThe people in this anti-Wall Street "Occupy Wallstreet" is part of a movement around the country. Most of the participants do not know why they are there other than a nebulous anti capitalism movement. They are now trying to decide should they knit their own sleeping bags or buy them! They want the bags to be given to them as well as food, water, etc. This is not what America is all about.
Now this does not relieve Wall Street from responsibility from the fallout from the mortgage fiasco. Neither should it relieve the legislators who proposed and voted for the legislation, the regulators who insisted it be followed, the banks who capitulated to the regulators, the rating agencies who stamped AAA on it, the companies who bought it, and the insurance companies who insured it. We should be going through a thorough investigation and letting the chips fall where they might up to and including jail time and the closing of certain businesses. However, it will not happen as all of the above participants have friends in Congress who will prevent any real investigations.
For that reason and for the perpetual need to get reelected, we will not see any real fiscal changes which will result in our becoming a very immense Greece. Only then when China tells us what we MUST do, will things change. This will include things up to and including the suspension of elections and the Constitution.
You wrote, "Now this does not relieve Wall Street from responsibility from the fallout from the mortgage fiasco. Neither should it relieve the legislators who proposed and voted for the legislation, the regulators who insisted it be followed, the banks who capitulated to the regulators…"
ReplyDeleteIt was the other way around, Tom. The SEC sat back and let them do as they pleased. Even when solid evidence was hand-delivered to the SEC, they did nothing to stop Bernie Madoff.
Alan Greenspan could have done a lot more also, but he was a true believer is "self-regulating markets."
And at the heart of it all were the derivatives which became totally deregulated under Clinton (Commodity and Futures Trading Act). Even today, the CFTC is crippled by Wall Street lobbyists.
Like that article here about Ron Paul says, it is time for all extreme laissez-faire, Ayn Rand types to "man up" and stop being "crybabies." I did it, but it seems you haven't.
Believe me, you can cut the federal government to nearly nothing, and so long as the Wall Street banks have their way, they will continue to run their scams and "bubbles" while all the politicians they OWN will continue to pretend that the problem lies somewhere else.
The Germans stepped in and put an end to the financial "weapons of mass destruction" (as Warren Buffet call them)….
http://tarpley.net/2010/05/19/germany-bans-naked-cds/
This will not happen in the U.S. unless we get public financing of elections and term limits on Congress. Of course, that will never happen, either. Our political system has been hi-jacked by the corporate aristocracy -- aided by the Supreme Court (Citizens United). Mitt Romney will be the next president, and, like Clinton, Bush, and Obama, he is owned lock, stock, and barrel by Wall Street. If people understood this, they would vote for Ron Paul.
--David
David, you and I agree on some of what you say, but...Madoff was not involved with mortgages at all.The SEC did sit on its duff and those administrators there, should be called to account for their inaction.
ReplyDeleteWe will never be able to eliminate bubbles, Ponzi schemes, or influence peddling regardless of the amount of supervision or regulation. The market equals money and money drives greed and greed is a basic human avarice so until we can stamp out human nature, greed and all its components will be here with us.
As I have written before I want public financing of elections and term limits. Public financing of elections or limiting the money spent to persons or corporations in the district or state would go a long way to fixing our elections. Why should I, a Michigan resident, be able to contribute money to someone running in Louisiana. He/she will not be my senator or representative, why should I be able to contribute to their campaign.