You frequent an Austrian economics forum and are a self-proclaimed anarchist. There are a lot of things you know that most of the population doesn't.
I'd like to think so, but I am still very much a newb and have a lot more to read. That's why I appreciate this forum (and especially you) linking to useful articles and pieces of information.
Also, is the article correct in its facts/interpretation (that Paul doesn't add to the total, simply redistributes it and then votes against the total)?
Yeah, just like he says in the video...he puts in the requests, as a Congressional representative of his constituents, but also as an official who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution he votes against unconstitutional legislation...which is most legislation. That's why that host talked like he did. You can't attack Paul for being hypocritical or inconsistent, so they attack him by claiming Paul's voting against the bills doesn't mean anything because "he knows they will pass".
The truth is, so the hell what. What is he supposed to do? Not represent his district and put in the appropriations request? Give them no vote in how their money is spent? Again, the state of Texas is already having more money taken away in federal taxes than it is receiving back in federal aid. For one thing, Paul votes against the spending in the first place. So if more Congressmen did what he does, we'd have a smaller government, period. But even with these bills passing, Texas is still on net losing money thanks to the federal government. All Paul is doing is (a) trying to appropriate (i.e. designate a specific purpose for) as much federal revenue as possible, and (b) get as much of his constituent's money back as possible. The alternative is just letting the Executive branch (which essentially means one man) to determine how federal revenue is spent.
But of course, there isn't a lot of room for principled integrity in politics...so we need to find a way to marginalize this guy.
This goes to show just how insane the federal redistribution model really is. Shane offers a great example: The federal government taxes people, who live in states, and then hands that money right back to states who do all the local government work...except that by the time the money gets back to the states, a huge chunk of it is gone. And that's just on the total money itself. Again, if you look at it on a state by state level, many states actually receive more than they are taxed...especially when you look on an individual sector level. How is that possible if there is less total money to go around in the first place? It's possible because the redistribution deal is so good for some states that enough money is taken from other states not only to make up for the cost of the Washington bureaucracy, but to afford them more on top of that.
Ron Paul debate responses:
Charles sucks. How can you owe something to someone who does not exist and never has? Of course, the measures required for Charles' so-called long term planning would reduce almost everyone to poverty or death, meaning that so many of those to whom we supposedly owe so much at this moment would never be born, or would die before reaching adulthood. So much for that.
If Elizabeth lives as long as her mother did, we might not have to suffer another King Charles (a cursed name for the British throne). In my country the republicans are waiting in the wings to overthrow the monarchy if Charles becomes king - hence the monarchists' promotion of William instead and talk of direct succession from Elizabeth to William (extremely doubtful in reality).
hence the monarchists' promotion of William instead and talk of direct succession from Elizabeth to William
Ah, thanks for that explanation, this always struck me as some kind of disinfo... there's no way in hell the succession could pass to William if Charles is still alive.
After they tried and failed to overthrow Elizabeth in 1999 (failure despite massive support from the media, academics, and most politicians), the republicans realised that they had to wait until Charles came to the throne before they could end the monarchy once and for all. Their plans have already begun to wildly unravel due to the massive popularity of William and Kate, as well as a general backlash against politicians and social engineering. It looks like that within two years, the vast majority of the 'progressive' politicians will be wiped out and will need a decade to rebuild.
It's possible, however, that they will be victorious in the long term if they can institute their precious 'carbon tax' before this can happen. Such is Fabianism.
I am of course referring to events happening in Australia.
Some quotes about gold:
1. January 25, 2010: Look for gold to end up below $500 an ounce within two years. That's from Shawn Tully, senior editor at large of CNN Money
Four months to go.
2. February 4, 2010: So you'd do well to heed the warning of economist Nouriel Roubini, who was ahead of the pack in predicting the credit crisis. People who argue that there's economic justification for gold prices continuing their rise, he wrote recently, "are just talking nonsense."
Price of gold that day: $1,068.30 an ounce
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I think you'll like this one in a similar way (his response comment):
Speaking of Krugman, he now tells us 9/11 was hijacked by politicians. In what is surely coincidence, the three he mentions are Republicans].
Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.
"James Scott has written a detailed ethnography on the lives of the peoples of upland Southeast Asia who choose to escape oppressive government by living at the edge of their civilization. To the political economist the fascinating story told by Scott provides useful narratives in need of analytical exposition. There remains in this work a “plea for mechanism”; the mechanisms that enable social cooperation to emerge among individuals living outside the realm of state control. Social cooperation outside the formal rules of governance, nevertheless require “rules” of social intercourse, and techniques of “enforcement” to ensure the disciplining of opportunistic behavior. "
I guess it's worth mentioning that today is the 10-year anniversary of the government's most spectacular failure to protect the public to date. If this was supposed to be the beginning of some New World Order, they're failing spectacularly and that is good news. To hell with these sociopaths.
Were you the one who posted the 9/11 World Order thingies from previous decades?
No. The only one that seems truly coincidental to me is Bush I's creepy 1991 State of the Union speech.
9/11: Controlled Demolition Comparison
Extra, extra: Tax hikes to pay for tax cuts!
Let's tax charitable giving so that people give less to the poor so that we can use that money to give back to businesses so that they can now help out the middle class!
As the middle class decries its mediocre life of only 27 inch flat screen TVs and two cars, the poor continue to be ignored. And as the poor enjoy their dishwashers, multiple televisions, and cable TV, the real poor in the world in Africa and Asia actually starve.
Marijuana will still be legal in Amsterdam FOR NOW.
Ron Paul's answers in the Florida debate, especially interesting scenario beginning at 3:59
About the above, a gross twisting of headlines by the media:
They explain in the article that Ron Paul was not for letting the guy die, but the headline makes it seem as if Ron Paul is like "kill people!"
Wow, he pwn'd Wolf on the health-care question, made Wolf look like a total n00b. He got boo'd on the response to Santorum which is unfortunate - I think there may have been a way to respond to Santorum without soliciting the booing. Specifically, he should have pointed out the distinction between Americans and their government; Americans are not to blame for 9/11 but their government (in failing to secure the buildings from attack and from provoking the attacks through its imperialism and militarism) is. He made the distinction between al-Qaeda and Muslims which is good and the crowd are a bunch of xenophobic boobs for booing him on that.
+1, what Clayton said.
Why some supporters of Ron Paul may be idiots:
Don't be an idiot! (if you think that we should be voting)
41% of Reps and 36% of Indeps support a fundamental overhaul of SS. Is this the beginning of a change or do people simply do not understand the phrase "fundamental overhaul?" Does the phrase not really mean anything anyway? I am probably overreacting.
Oh, the fundamental overhaul is coming... they're going to "overhaul" our IRA's, our 401(k)s, our savings accounts, bonds, certificates of deposit, our stock accounts, they're going to overhaul the whole damn thing, wrap it up in one big ball of money and call it the "National Retirement Plan." It's the plan where they retire to their mansions on private preserves the size of the state of Delaware while we starve.
@ JJ: Oh God, that was scary at the end. I thought he was gonna explode through my screen.
Wheylous:@ JJ: Oh God, that was scary at the end. I thought he was gonna explode through my screen.
That's how he does every video. It's always about something that ticks him off. http://www.youtube.com/DrinkingWithBob
And yet again, Jon Stewart can be useful sometimes...
I love that guy's anger, it's very cathartic.
Ron Paul predicted terrorist attacks:
He spoke the truth back then and does so now. Why don't people listen to this man? (lookin' at you, Santorum)