The question from the debates that kept getting hinted at, and finally was asked outright by a NH resident was that since the Republicans got so soundly defeated in the last set of elections, what would they do differently since what the party is doing is not working.
The response was generally to spend less, which is certainly part of the reason why they were voted out. But Ron Paul managed to tie spending into the real reason that they got voted out - our foreign policy. By pointing out that our foreign intervation is costing 1 TRILLION DOLLARS a year, he beautifully tied these two issues together in a nice succinct package.
I think this debate is going to be the beginning of the end for Neo-Conservatism in the Republican party. Neo-conservatives are essentially OK with entitlement spending (e.g. the medicare prescription program), and believe that we need to spread America's goodness through military action and nation building. This approach has been very unpopular with the American people, yet all the top-tier candidates follow this belief. Ron Paul has pointed this out, and represents a true Goldwater Republican. He has shed light on this takeover. The Republican party will either nominate him, or loose to the Democrats. Either way, neo-conservatism is dead. If the party wants to survive, they need to return to their Goldwater/Reagan roots.
The question is, will they do it this election cycle, the next one, or never? If they don't change their ways, what party will step in to to take its place?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 96
I think if he stays true to the course he's currently on and fights the tides ahead with the same determination he'll have a good chance of securing the nomination of the Republican Party....
To bad Ron Paul has no real Charisma like I do.
We need a real change which involves a new Party then maybe there will be a real change.
Nigel for President in 2008
" A Chicken in every Pot!".
comments indeed nailed it. The Republicans need to grasp this if they want to take the party back. The most enlightening comment of the debate. I did not know who he was until today. I am going to follow him. I hope he is there long enough to atleast cause some heart burns for the other candidates.
Ron Paul has certainly caught my political eye. He made a good showing last Friday night on Real Time with Bill Maher, and again, last night (Monday) on The Daily Show with John Stewart. He's the kind of candidate I'd like to see on the ticket, but somehow I don't see him as being able to get the national support necessary. Time will tell.
I would love to see the Goldwater or Rockefeller Republicans return to power. Amen on that.
In the book I am currently reading, there is a section where people are looking for places to set up shop in the green zone in Baghdad immediately after the first part of the war. They didn't want anything permanent because they didn't expect to be there for more than three months tops. At that point they expected to leave a few advisors and go home.
Mr. Bush and his neocon base never dreamed this war would sour and turn into the mess it is. They were told it would, but that report was rejected as "too negative." It was 100% right on for what actually happened.
Republicans have three opportunities to regain power. One is that the Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Given their current performance and past record, this is a distinct possibility.
The second is that they dump the neocons and go back to their core principles. This would work but the current crop of Republicans don't even know the meaning of the words smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and state's rights.
The third is what will probably happen. The natural political cycle will turn and they will come back as the Democrats fade out. It's happened several times before in my lifetime and it will probably happen again.
Personally I like the idea of a third party. These guys in there now are all crooked as William Jefferson and power mad. They've forgotten exactly who they work for.
This former Goldwater Republican is supporting another former Republican who is seeking the Democratic nomination President. I seem to recall reading that she too supported Goldwater; she even quoted Barry during the most recent Democratic debate.
Those of us who shared Barry's concepts of individual rights, and the freedom to dissent left the Republican Party because it abandoned those values when it was taken over by selfish ideologues who distorted the concepts of individual liberty and responsibility to exclude the rights of others and responsibility for the communities of which we are part.
I couldn't believe Hillary referenced Goldwater. She is so far away from Goldwater it is incredible. With quotes about taking away from people for the common good, and a belief that the "collective" is more important than the individual. She is out and out a Socialist, which would disgust Goldwater.
Ron Paul has the endorsement of Barry Goldwater's son. He's the Goldwater candidate for sure.
"The whole Neocon ideology seems like it comes from the dark underbelly of corporatism. "
Bingo - it's called the Military Industrial Complex.
I pretty much agree with everything else you've said.
I don't know if a powerful third party would be a good thing or not. A third party might dilute available power while also increasing derision, strife, polarization and conflict; which results in the skewing of our national offices by their temporary holders.
I think it is not acceptable to just shrug off Bush by saying "I'm Bush, only intelligent and committed to competence over loyalty in governance". That's not far enough. Bush has failed not just due to poor execution; poor assumptions have played a roll. Those assumptions need to go away, along with the poor execution.
That being said, there are a few things I "MIGHT have" done differently.
There is a lot of discussion these days by my fellow republicans and conservatives that the military people should be running the war, not beaurocrats in Washington. But wasn't Rumsfeld running things until late in 2006? If we're going to critize the other side we need to criticize ourselves as well.
Once Hussein was deposed, I think there were to paths from which to choose -- neither of which was chosen:
1. Continue the "shock and awe", killing many innocent people while exterminating the insurgents. This goes along with some of my prior postings about war being ugly and you're either in it to win or you get out.
2. Having deposed one evil regime, help establish the new regime. Help to re-build the infrastructure and train the new Iraqi military and police forces. If too much resistance is encountered then there is one more choice to make:
a. Get out and let the self-cleaning oven take care of itself or
b. Revert to the first choice.
The other thing that I would have done differently would have been to leave Medicare alone for the time being. As much as our health care system needs improvement, Medicare Part D costs way too much, provides way too little and is being managed worse than the Philadelphia Phillies.
The Republican party is no longer a "conservative" party in any meaningful sense of the word.
Nee-cons do not believe that less government is better. For a good history lesson on the neo-con movement, there is a great youtube video from Ron Paul on the house floor here.
- we believe ireducing spending along with reducing taxes -- not one or the other;
- although we may be religious, we recognize that the government is not in the religion business;
- we believe in change as a planned process -- not just for the sake of change;
I agree that there are very few true conservatives left. You can use the "N" word on us. (We all know that "neo-con" is supposed to be somehow insulting). While there are more conservative republicans than democrats, neither party is "all liberal" or "all conservative".
But there are many -- liberal and conservative; republican and democrat -- who feel it necessary to keep us fighting amongst ourselves. It distracts from the real issues, which many of our so-called leaders keep ignoring.
These terrorists will not leave you, whether you like it or not. Originally, I am from that part of the world so understand their psychology very well. These heartless terrorists will follow you to your home. Right now their focus is Iraq but if we pull out, you can count on more trouble for Americans around the world. For them, it is a big business. I repeat this that for them it is a BIG BUSINESS. You can't talk them out of their bread-n-butter and POWER. Trust me, there is only one language they understand. They never expected us to win in Afghanistan but when they lost, their identity was at stake. Now they have support of Iran & Syria.
Paul has to run as a Democrat to win this election. He seemed to be short-sighted on some fronts. I agree with him about high government spending on Iraq.
War definitely is mismanaged. Part of the problem is that we haven't been in a war in 40 years so it is inexperience on our part. Many of the generals have fought the war but mere as a soldier, you need high-ranking officers who have war experience at that level.
I don't mean to paint Conservatives with a broad brush, but I do believe that there have become two factions in the Republican party - Neo-cons, and original conservatives (sometimes called paleoconservatives). There have been many book written on this,, and you can clearly see the split with people like Paul and Tancredo vs. Bush/Cheney. The outing of Colin Powell was a battle between his conservative values, and Bush/Cheney's Neo-Con values. From your description you sound like a true conservative. I think the average Republican voter is not a neo-con, and this is a movement mainly at the top, since it's all really about gaining power.
"In this case Ron Paul wants to take mileage out of the people's resentment towards the WAR. " Not at all. It's why his message is resonating with people, but he has been preaching an anti-intervention message (the same as George Washington did) for all his career (since 1974). He realizes the kind of enemy we are fighting and voted to go after bin Laden - he just doesn't believe it is just to topple governments who have not attacked us.
"Part of the problem is that we haven't been in a war in 40 years so it is inexperience on our part." Huh? Have you studied history. I was in the military for the past 17 years, and not a year went by were we weren't engaged in Military action against someone (Iraq 1, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq 1). Now, none of these were declared wars, and neither is the Iraq War, but the military has plenty of experience. But the military are not policemen, and they are poorly suited to try to provide security for a foreign country.
We finished WW II faster than Iraq, because we were kicking foreign invaders out of another country - the local people wanted us to help them (France, Netherlands, etc). Whenever we go into a country and try to take over, we fail (Vietnam, Korea), because we are seen as foreign invaders, and nationalism takes over. We wind up in a guerrilla war.
Cap because we burn too much fossil carbon.
Anyhow, if you read enough books and enough newspapers from around the world, you have to come to the conclusion that American foreign policy is chronically stupid. We have backed the wrong "allies", opposed true national liberation movements, toppled governments, invaded sovereign nations, and built military bases in more than 170 countries, and have nothing to show for it but the disgust of the rest of the 193 countries. We have failed to discomfit our enemies and have failed to increase our allies. While they all still want our way of life, they want our soldiers the hell out of there. Since the enemy is not an army, but a loose confederation of gangs of fanatics, our military is helpless to defeat them. Out strategy is faulty, our tactics stink, and we spend a fortune on winning useless "victories" while losing the real conflict. Everything you hear from the White House is WRONG, most of what you hear from the Congress is WRONG, a lot of what the press assumes to be true is WRONG. You have to watch C-SPAN at 2:00 am to find anyone who even actually knows what they are talking about!
DO NOT BE FOOLED!
First of all THANK YOU for serving and protecting us. I mean it.
Let me start from your last paragraph. We did take similar action in Afghanistan where we did go into another country, kicked Taliban/Al-Queda outfits. Difference is that Pakistan which was their suppoter didn't support them and Iran hated them so they were isolated. In Iraq, situation is different. When we did preemptive war. Nobody thought that we will take control over Iraq so easily. It created panic among countries like N. Korea & Iran. Did you notice that they declared/announced their Nuke capabilities after we invaded Iraq. Because they were damn scared of our military and this administration. They wanted to scare us. Like Saddam Hussain, they will also not obey UN for inspection because then the whole world will come to know the truth that they actually do not have Nuke (which I hope).
Actual full-fledged war was the Vietnam war. It has been 40 years. Since you brought Somalia into picture, remember how our soldiers were killed. Iraq war 1 was just few days and then we didn't have to do much during post-war.
In Iraq, people have just realized their freedom so they do not know how to behave. They doubt everyone. Kurds have faced atrocities for a longtime and similarly shias. Churchill's grandson said in his book They are bombarded by Syria.
Did we make mistake in handling of Iraq war? Definitely because we planned it according to Iraq war 1 and Afghanistan. The political/diplomatic process has to be hastened so that countries like Iran & Syria do not have to live under fear.
Last but not the least, we have to be energy independent. Our dependence on the Arab world for the oil has made us compromise on many fronts. Just think about it, if we stop taking oil what will happen to these counties including Venezuela. We are the largest consumers of oil in the world.
Abortion should have conditions. If a woman elects to have one, she also gives up the right to have further children. How come the unborn becomes the victim of death because of rape? It's not right.
Stem Cell umbilical cord research should be researched.
Jermano on Budget & Economy
Strive for balanced budget. Dismantle the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. Build the United States Coast Guard. Banks required to give zero percent loans to bank members. All equity becomes property of all the member's. All members pay dues and said dues are paid toward interest on savings accounts. Corporations required to pay taxes. Stock Market becomes an asset equity market, where people buy ownership stocks, or sell them. Companies can not increase their stock shares to spread out or inflate their equities.
Jermano on Civil Rights
Black American Day will be recognized, and Native American Indian Day will be recognized.
Marriage should be for man and woman. Family contracts will be for same sex relationships.
Jermano on Corporations
Corporations will be required to pay taxes. Middle Class and below do not pay.
Jermano on Crime
Prison building will be stopped. Prisoners will be put to work building homes for the people.
Abolish the Death Penalty. It is illegal to kill prisoners no matter the crime. We do not use a negative response to get a positive one. It doesn't work. More sentences will be money fines, so people have to work to pay off their fines. If they break more laws, they get stiffer fines, until they join the prison crews working on construction. Prisoners who do not work will be put inside a room until they agree to work off their debts.
Jermano on Drugs
People who use drugs will face stiff fines, and required to undergo therapy, to get off the drugs.
People caught selling drugs will be sentenced to taking the drugs they sold. They will suffer extreme mental disorientation. When they come off the drug they will be rehabbed.
I do not support legalization of marijuana. Marijuana should be licensed, but not made for the general public. There are many good things about cannabis. I support the legal fines for selling and distributing cigarettes, a much more serious health concern.
Jermano on Education
Cutting the military will strengthen education.
I support home schooling, and Non-Accredited Schools.
I do not support Accredited Schools, who have proven to not be what they claim to be.
All kids should have a computer.
Class sizes will only be 10-12 students.
No Guns education will be taught
Classes on Jesus will be taught, along with moral issues as the basis to education.
More online classes will be available. Student's buildup online credentials and transcripts.
Jermano on Energy & Oil
Nuclear Energy will be saved for space exploration only.
Global Warming is a major problem, Setup the Global Warming Agency/GWA
Oil will be cut back to preserve for space exploration.
Alternative fuels will be used. My Company SugarCityCane will be developed to grow Ethanol on the Ocean for the worlds supply.
Sign the Kyoto protocol.
Create many green jobs for the people.
Jermano on Environment
Reduce CO2 emissions.
Stop Global Warming
Stop Dam building
Build more desalination plants in the USA , solar powered
Build more desalination plants around the world
Promote Alternative Energies to protect the Environment, Wind Power, and Solar.
Jermano on Families & Children
Families will have to pay Teacher taxes and are encouraged to home teach children. If they home parent teach they pay no Teacher taxes. Schools will ultimately become more like research centers, and sports activity centers. More jobs for home teachers will bring teachers to homes, instead of children to schools. All families do not have to pay property taxes.
Jermano on Foreign Policy
US will reduce military expenditures. The US will withdraw troops from Iraq , and Afghanistan .
Stop supporting Israel unless they work-out a real settlement with Palestine .
USA will leave S. Korea, on the condition that North Korea agrees to stop nuclear processing.
Encourage N. Korea to join the Worlds Space program, where nuclear testing can be done for space exploration. The goal is to build a nuclear plant on MARS.
USA will leave Japan after all these years. We will stop being occupiers.
The USA will help the people on the Kiribati Islands whom were the targets of our Nuclear testing during the Kennedy years. The USA dropped close to 40 test bombs, and we have done nothing for their cooperation. Japan who started the War in Asia was the target to two of our bombs in stopping WWII under the leadership of Harry Truman, and they have become the worlds 2nd largest economy. The Kiribati Republic is a remote and in dire poverty region. Global Warming threatens to swallow their homes by encroaching ocean water. Our goal is to support the Kiribati People with the help of Dr. Wolf Hilbertz Company BioRock Inc. They can build Islands in the Ocean.
Also SugarCityCane will be there to grow Ethanol on Aquatic Rafts. Kiribati Islands will be our base of operations, for restoring the Islands and bringing to life a lost people, whom we have driven to; since WWII. It is shameful we have done this.
http://www.sugarcitycane.com
Jermano on Free Trade
Nothing is really free. Depending on the issues, we work with all governments in the world to have equal trading. You do not get more of our markets unless we also share in yours. Our currency values need to be similar in order to have fair and equal trade. No currency adjustments, we can not trade. We will work on our end to try and make our currency lower to help you, but only when we feel it is right to do.
Jermano on Government Reform
Create National Health Care for all Americans. Then work with other governments in the world so they have health care too.
Federal money will be used to finance campaigns. Big Bank rolls will not be allowed to be used in Presidential decisions or campaigns.
People have the right to vote on laws. Congress will no longer have that sole right.
Repeal the Electoral College; enact federal term limits.
Allow citizens to make laws.
Jermano on Gun Control
Guns will be outlawed.
Guns do not stop crime, they create it.
Owning a gun will not prevent you from being killed or shot at.
Owning a gun can not always stop a villain.
Getting guns off the street makes it harder for people to get them.
Police should have guns
Hunters and Sportsman do not need guns.
Forest Rangers can use them to control animal over-populations, but that is rare in this day and age.
Jermano on Health Care
.
Doctors make a mistake they pay to fix it. No frivolous lawsuits.
Social Security can be used to help pay medical expenses at any age.
Outlaw the selling of junk food. Force Private Restaurants to sell healthy food.
All Employers will give enough money so people can buy their own Health Care Coverage.
Employers also known as the Corporation will get a tax deduction for that money provided
More take care of your own health care. Join Physical fitness clubs.
Medicare and Medicaid will become part of the new American Health Care Plan, which helps people overcome their problems. Encourage Canadian and overseas medication prescriptions.
Profits from SugarCityCane will be used to provide Health Care for Americans.
Jermano on Homeland Security
Dismantle nuclear weapons, and promote real security abroad.
Do a complete re-investigation to 911
Dismantle Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons.
Dismantle CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security
Strengthen the United States Coast Guard, and give more money to State and Local Police Districts.
States will have more police power and money to combat organized crime. The end to so called Federal Institutes such as the CIA and FBI, ATF, will commence.
It is up to States to provide their own needed security, not the Federal Governments role to dictate law enforcement. If States disagree with each other our courts will handle the dispute, until resolved.
Jermano on Immigration
People have a right to immigrate to America . Also Americans have a right to immigrate to their countries. Illegal immigrants will have to pay fines for illegal entry. They will not be deported, but pay fines. If they wish to remain they can apply for citizenship after they paid their fines. Fines will be 5 times the amount to the cost for legal entry. I would like to see Mexico become the 51st State of the United States .
Jermano on Jobs
All people have the right to have a job. Unemployment Insurance will be eliminated. The money paid will be used to create a job tax. If you lose your job, you can immediately have a new one. No more checks from Unemployment Insurance will be issued. This goes hand in hand with Welfare Reform. The Job tax will be provided to stimulate jobs throughout the country. It will be a State run organization in each state with each State having its own discretion to where the needed jobs will be established. This will expand the economy, knowing that our taxes create jobs for fellow Americans.
Jermano on Principles & Values
People have the right to submit laws and vote for laws.
Congressmen and lawyers help the people to submit for the law process.
Senators also do their job by telling the people what benefit the laws will have.
The President will not have the veto power to stop the passage of laws.
The President can submit laws the same as the people will have.
Congress can vote for laws, as long as the Public also is given the opportunity.
Congress must have at least 30 % of the public vote in order to pass a law.
People have the right to vote on the prices in the market place.
No longer will Corporations dictate the price and establish their phony market prices
People have the right to moral education, and the right to teach about Jesus in Schools
Media has to cover and provide coverage for laws being made by the people.
Media will no longer be in control of what is news, and not allowed to always support the present Presidents policies. There will be balance in News-reporting and broadcasting.
Jermano on Social Security
Social Security can not be used to pay America 's deficit.
Let beneficiaries leave surplus funds to heirs.
Social Security can be used to pay medical costs.
There will be the Children's Social Security Fund. Children will receive this by a portion of the Teachers Taxes their parents pay. The age is from 1- 18 years. This covers medical expenses, and issues in concern to children well being. Clothes, Food, Shelter. No child will be abandoned.
Taxes from the Rich will also be apportioned to this new Social Security Fund for Children.
Jermano on Tax Reform
Rich People will pay more taxes. Poor people will pay less.
Home Property taxes abolished.
No National Sales Tax.
Supports a States Sales Tax to replace IRS.
Repeal the income tax and close down the IRS.
American people not responsible for the debt created by the military, they are.
Jermano on Technology
Nuclear development on the planet MARS.
Technology will benefit the people's pocketbook, not the corporations.
Develop SugarCityCane for the production of Ethanol to Global Markets.
http://www.sugarcitycane.com
Jermano on War & Peace
Remove Troops from Iraq , and Kuwait .
Bush and Cheney indicted for War Crimes.
Remove troops from S. Korea, and Japan
No deployment of missile defense shield to other countries.
Reduction of many US military bases.
War will be outlawed and anyone who voted for the war should not be president.
Nuclear disarmament an essential strategy to acquire peace in the world.
Defense Contractors will be prohibited from selling weapons and technology to other countries.
People who leave the United States to build such facilities in other countries will be extradited.
America will take responsibility for its assault on the world.
Jermano on Welfare & Poverty
All people have the right to have jobs and education. We will use Unemployment taxes to create Jobs in America , and offer the same idea to developing countries. We will help people to have clean water, and available water. We will build more solar desalinization plants in America and in the world.
Those are the prime issues I would deal with defferently.
Of course you are right about the neocons, and their close association with the dark side of corporate power, and the Mil Ind complex. Among some, greed is a virtue, and the clever ones rise to great heights by accepting it's loose morality. Such folk now hold far too much power in our nation, and the world. It is a shame the Republican party, in particular, has adopted these anti-social "values". And yes, this disease is infiltrating the whole of our government in ever increasing degrees.
Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air, which the party would do well to inhale.
Someone mentioned that we needed experienced military people in Iraq. We had very experienced people there and they were all overruled by Bush and the Neo-Cons. This has been one bungled event after another. Look how long it took for Bush to get his war czar... nobody wanted the job because the smart ones knew that they were only going to be figureheads with no say.
When I watched that debate the other night I wondered if the "true" Republicans were buying all that BS? I'm not a Republican... but I don't think they're all what has run this country for the last 6 years. Ronald Reagan has to be rolling over in his grave if he was infact the Saint that most Republicans seem to think he was? I thought Reagan was a decent man with a good sense of hunor and could play the audience with the best of them... but he had his faults too like all humans,
Someone mentioned the religious aspect of the debate. In that we are a Constitutional country... not a Christian country. I'd have to agree with that if I agree with the constitution. These guys were all touting how "Christian" they are... nothing wrong with being a Christian or any other persuasion. Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?
Politicians leave a lot to be desired but they are what they are and this is the system we've got. A third party isn't going to do any good unless you want to take some votes away from the candidates in the opposing parties. Only trouble is their liable to take votes away from your candidate.
McCain... and all the others except Paul are still banging the drum for "winning" in Iraq. History will tell you that these guys have been at it for hundreds of years and no one has won yet? The big problem is who's who? Friend or foe? This is a war that we should never become involved in... it has been a loser since our troops won it when they took Baghdad. We should have then gone back to the mission and gotten Bin Laden... the real perpetrator of 9/11.
Thanks for all the great comments! Oh... I am a Democrat... but I have an open mind also!
It's not like we have another government which can over-rule this one. Throwing ones hands up in disgust is understandable, but this IS what we have to work with, and getting people to just generally give up on everybody serves no purpose whatsoever.
Turning all these people, with all their different motivations and degrees of genuineness, into a great big "they" is hardly wise, even if somewhat true. To believe "they" are all beyond redemption is unrealistic, and the very "broad brush" approach you take allows the worst to hide in a crowd they are surely glad to have us perceive.
This is a poor time to stop looking carefully at just who is doing what to either undermine or advance the "will of the people". In the end, "we" are the government, if we can figure out who is worthy to represent us. To say "Congress" voted to continue funding this fiasco, is to ignore the very complex reality, and tentative hold those who would wish to end this debacle have on public opinion. Punishing those who do take up this resistance to the neocon agenda, along with those who facilitate it, is playing into the hands of the most corrupt.
Government's have taken money away from people to serve the common good for thousands of years. It called taxes. Nobody likes paying them, but the more reasonable amongst us accept them as a necessity just like we accept having to pay for food, water and everything except the air we breathe and if you want clean air you have to pay for that too.
As for me have I have always preferred seeing taxes go to those causes that promote a peaceful and secure society by eliminating the poverty, and suffering that result in many of the poor and suffering resort to violence and crime to survive.
While rich criminals are proof that these are not the only causes for violence and crime, rich criminals are proof that many of the many of wealthy think they are entitled to bigger piece of the pie and that they should not have to share that pie with others.
As these are the only three president who contributed to the national debt
http://zfacts.com/p/480.html
Neomike...still standing and still fighting.
"How dare you call Hilary a socialist. I believe socialism is a good thing. Hilary Clinton is no where near socialist. Socialism is where the government has control of certain businesses."
OK, I'll concede that she is not 100% socialist. But she is pushing universal healthcare, universal preschool, raising taxes on the "rich", She has said that the unfettered free market has been a disaster. She talks about the lack of individuality, and the supremacy of the collective. It takes a village to raise a child (no, it takes a parent to raise a child).
"They make it so those businesses can not charge to much for certain items."
Price controls don't work. They reduce supply by meddling with supply and demand. Please read "Economics in One LEsson" by Hazlitt, or anything by Friedmann (Nobel prize winning economist), Hajek, or von Mises.
"This is good under a good government, "unlike ours". "
Are you really so naive to believe that there is such a thing as good government? Power corrupts, or power attracts the corrupted.
"We need to stop using words such as socialism and communism in the wrong sense."
We need to start understanding that the American system is currently a mix of socialism and fascism.
"You need to get a copy of communist manifesto to truly understand the orgin of these words."
Thanks for the attempted patronization. But I was a Soviet Studies major, and spent time in the Soviet Union. I have a copy of the communist manifesto on my shelf, and a bust of Lenin. I understand Communism quite well, and have experienced it first hand. It's why I believe so strongly in free markets. I've seen first hand what havoc and tragedy a Communist/Socialist system can wreak. In the U.S. we have enacted several of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto including a Central Bank (Federal Reserve), compulsory public education, a progressive income tax.
"Most of the candidates from the Democratic party want to hurt small business and we already know that the Republican except Paul are all about corporate greed. "
Yippee! We agree on something. Although I would argue the Democrats (the leading candidates, not Kucinich or Gravel) are also in the pockets of the big corporations.
If you haven't read "A Road to Serfdom" by Hajek, I would highly recommend it. It is dedicated to Socialist around the world. Honestly, it's an unbelievably fantastic book.
I agree that the Reagan, Bush, etc. have been some bad deficit spenders. Keep in mind though, that Congress sets the budget, although the President can veto. So blaming deficits on a President can be a bit tricky. Also, FDR is the person who began deficit spending (shows up on your plot as post WWII). But both parties have grown the size of government. Whether it's tax and spend, or borrow and spend, both parties spend, spend, spend. It's the spending that is the problem.
Cee - you talk about Conservative ruining the nation, then talk about Bush. I think you missed the point of this article - Bush is NOT A CONSERVATIVE! He is a neo-con. All these labels are confusing. What we need is someone who believes in liberty, and adherence to the Constitution.
Carol - my previous post on Hillary added some other material about Hillary. When she says she wants to take from people for the common good, that has to be added to other comments such as the supremacy of the collective, the evils of the free market, etc. But while we are on "taking from people for the common good" via taxes, you have to realize that though we've had taxes for thousands of years, those taxes are very rarely "for the common good". 1/3 of our income taxes currently goes to bankers for the interest on the national debt! About the same amount goes to support a overseas military in 130 countries that has little to do with defense of our country. And even entitlement programs have huge overhead. Of the money put towards welfare, the recipients only get 30%. Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty, and all these years later, we have just as much poverty. Free markets do far more to reduce poverty than government programs. You may find that hard to believe, but you should check out www.freetheworld.com and see the correlation between economic freedom and poverty levels.
"Free markets do far more to reduce poverty than government programs
Here it is you whom I think is getting terms confused. You are witnessing (and testifying to) some of what "free markets" can do, when you speak of neocons, and the Military Industrial Complex, and "Lobbyists" etc. It is gravely oversimplifying to speak of free markets as benign or beneficial. It is well overseen and regulated free markets that have such powers to help the whole of society. Truly "free" markets are far to conducive too corruption and the avarice of individuals and corporations to do anything but "enslave" people. They are a form of "Darwinian" style survival of the fittest, and lead to some mighty nasty creatures evolving.
"Here it is you whom I think is getting terms confused. You are witnessing (and testifying) to some of what "free markets" can do, when you speak of neocons, and the Military Industrial Complex, and "Lobbyists" etc."
No, I am not confused, you are. Neocons, MIC, Lobbyist - all these are antithetical to a free market. All these things are government colluding with business, which is not a free market at all. A free market would not have corporate subsidies. What you are talking about here is fascism or mercantilism, not a free market.
"It is well overseen and regulated free markets that have such powers to help the whole of society. "
Regulation of industries is the biggest con of them all. Anti-corporate people seem to love regulation. But businesses write the regulations, and it only helps keep out new, small businesses. Thus the very thing that is supposed to help prevent corporatism winds up preserving it. It's an unbelievable sham. The AMA is one of the worst of them all, and is largely responsible for the high cost of health care.
With kindest regards,
strbrite
I have no quibble with the basic gist of what you say in your comments, and certainly agree there are huge problems which it would be great to alert the general public to. But like so many things, how these matters are spoken of can be as much a part of the problems as the solutions.
In a similar way that I feel you could be contributing to the undermining of those that really try to do their jobs as Congresspeople, by lumping them in with the unscrupulous ones, your treatment of "Lobbyists" is also potentially flawed.
Lobbyists are simply the natural outgrowth of the "right to petition our government", and doing away with the practice entirely would be a huge mistake. We simply cannot expect Members of Congress to be expert enough on ALL aspects of our society to operate in a "vacuum" when seeking to draft meaningful legislation. It's impossible. They really NEED people who work in various fields, and actually deal in various businesses to come and present an "inside view" of many issues.
Do we need to "clean it up" ? Of course. But once again, lumping the good in with the bad is far more convenient than it may be helpful to society. I agree that the entire universe of lobbying ought to be carefully revamped, but it would be wrong to begin with the conclusion that lobbying per say, is the evil. No, it really is the evil, that is the evil.
Please define "free" as you use it here. It seems rather short sighted to deny that whether through the corruption of regulatory processes or the direct manipulation of supply and demand factors, it is the "businesses" themselves that are operating to benefit themselves. It is a "shell game" to claim that some nefarious "force" called regulation did the nasty deed. It was businessmen, with too much freedom to influence the market. Being free to influence legislation counts too you know.
As for the right to petition the government that you bring up with Ellen - yes, we have that right. But the government also must obey the Constitution, which in article 9 of the Bill of rights says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So most of the things that government grants to the lobbyist are completely unconstitutional since the powers they grant are not enumerated in the Constitution. If the Congress obeyed the 9th amendment, we would have no problem with lobbyists. I agree that lobbyists are not the problem. But I think that the Congress is, since they give in to unconstitutional demands in order to get re-elected and gain power.
If he was to attempt to present the issue in a "realistic" way, of course he would be called boring and long winded, and fail to make the basic point he wishes to make; There are some really screwy regulatory domains, which are basically scams by folks in government or business. These scams have been perpetuated to extraordinary degrees in some cases.
Try as you like, you can never escape the fact that it is businesses themselves that seek to pervert the regulatory, and other forms of, legislation to benefit themselves. There is no plausible way to limit Congresses ability to deal with the regulation of various aspects of society, and still perform their basic function. Which happens to be the drafting of legislation to regulate various aspects of how we interact.
The businessman did the nasty, honest. The concept of "free markets" is wholly inadequate in itself to describe the problems involved in trying to establish fair and order enhancing regulations. Of course, if businesspeople would simply stop doing anything crooked, we would need no regulations of business. They do the nasty.
The "topic" is not actually the same as the title of the article. The article itself is about relationships between and within political parties, and Mr. Paul's role in particular. I have no idea why such matters ought not be discussed in whatever detail evolves through reasonable discussion. In fact, I'm fairly certain that is what the author intended.
How about putting an end to the war? No, not the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. End the attack that's been put on our Constitution and the true citizens of America. When, oh when, are the aging hippies of this country going to get up on their feet and just say NO to the naked Emporer and his courts of jesters?
(Sorry, I got a little carried away. But, whew, I feel so much better now.)
You admit that corporations pervert the regulations to their benefit (which I completely agree with). Then you say we can't not regulate, and that we must regulate, because the corporations are abusive. This is a circular argument, and winds up with businesses in control of the regulatory environment (since they can afford to buy out the politicians).
There is a role for limited regulation. Anti-trust legislation is one area, since a true monopoly would be able to coerce people. But all our true monopolies are government monopolies, including the post office, school systems, Air Traffic Control, etc. And the medical industry has a lot of monopoly tendencies because the AMA is in bed with the government. Regulation of pollutants is also probably appropriate from a protection of rights standpoint (no one has the right to pollute the air you breath and cause you harm).
"You admit that corporations pervert the regulations to their benefit (which I completely agree with). Then you say we can't not regulate, and that we must regulate, because the corporations are abusive. This is a circular argument"
¿Circular argument? Not in the slightest. Those are real live facts. You are playing a shell game. This is not a "chicken or egg" situation. First, please acknowledge that the reason there are regulations is BECAUSE businesses have, and will undoubtedly continue, to do immoral things. Then we can talk.
Otherwise, it is you who is going in circles, because you are addressing regulations as if somehow optional. They are not, if you do not wish to have a society completely ruled by wealthy people.
It is the regulations themselves that have allowed society to become ruled by wealthy people. Regulations, in general, keep new businesses out. Just look at what happened to the airline industry once regulation was reduced. Look at long distance phone costs. Check out this article on the cost of regulation in the medical industry:
http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/06/07/video-joe-briggs-with-a-great-june-5th-interview-of-ron.aspx
Is there a need for some regulation? I already described some valid cases (to protect rights of others). But for the most part, regulation is far overdone, and benefits the big companies, not the consumers.
Read some books on economics by Hajek, vonMises, Friedman - then we can talk.
First clearly acknowledge that the reason there are regulations is because businesses do indeed commit immoral acts. This is not a case of there being any mystery as to "which came first . . . "
To not begin here, is to invite fantasy-land.
I think you and I have been around that track once before; about free markets and regulations. I DO see where your coming from, but I tend to agree with James here, that we need only regulations that prevent incursions onto the rights of individuals (such as an individuals right to not breath polluted air and to not have to drink toxic water). We actually haven't had a truly free-market economic system in the US since the start of the 20th Century. Regulations, price controls, tariifs, all these things serve to stifle the dynamics of a truly free market. Free markets -- particularly when combined with a sound monetary unit backed by actual commodity money such as gold or silver -- will REGULATE THEMSELVES. The natural forces of supply and demand -- unmolested by political manipulation -- in a free market would produce a dynamic competetiveness, where businesses would be forced to both pay their workers well AND provide a cost-effective product or service; or else go out of business. Of course, if we didn't have the Federal Reserve System there to constantly bail out banks and corporations at the expense of the taxpayer, Then again, if we didn't have the Fed, the government wouldn't have the mechanism with which to fund the Mil-Ind complex and all the pointless wars that come along with it, and the government also wouldn't be able to finance the trade deficit with fiat dollars, which is EXACTLY what has allowed the corporate elites to move nearly all of America's production/manufacturing jobs overseas.
It's really simple: Stop the political manipulation of the markets -- especially phony so-called "free trade agreements" like NAFTA and CAFTA (its really government-managed trade, not "free trade," and they erode our sovereignty to boot), abolish the Federal Reserve (and its thuggish, unconstitutional sibling, the IRS), return to a sound monetary unit backed by precious metals, and WHAM -- instant prosperity for an entire nation.
Theres only one man in our government right now who dares to stand up to the aristocratic establishment that controls our nation, and that's Ron Paul.
We fail to elect him, and we continue down the spiraling abyss that leads to loss of liberty, loss of sovereignty, and certain economic collapse by 2010.
Cheers,
I completely agree. Unfortunately, there are some wackos supporting Ron Paul - I hope they don't cause him problems. I think it's great that people as paranoid as them support him (so as mistrustful as they are, they trust him). That's the danger of candidates like Gravel and Paul - they are potentially looked at as kooks. But I certainly don't think they are - I think they are on the right track.
It's really too bad that all anyone has to do is half a day's honest research on the internet to find out that our government actually has been hijacked by a bunch of secretive, aristocratic elitist international bankers, and that every dollar American dollar in circulation was created to be loaned with the "interest" going to them, and the middle class being wiped out by the very system was created to "protect the public," a system which oh by the way is in DIRECT violation of the US Constitution, and yet no one in the media or the government seems to even want to talk about it. Perhaps, just maybe, the people who refuse to recognize these things despite the venerable mountain of information which proves them to be true, are the ones who are detached from reality, and deserve to be ridiculed. Perhaps.
Thanks so much for your response on regulation. You have saved me the time of responding to John, since you said exactly what I am thinking.
You have simply NOT responded to my point.
To assume that regulations are easily lumped together as "unnecessary" or superfluous, is sure easy to do. We can say "just keep the good ones", and we can call the "good ones" whatever we like, but the FACT remains;
Many many regulations were put in place BECAUSE people were doing things that were unfair or harmful, to individuals and/or a free and fair marketplace.
We cannot wave a magic wand that would somehow remove only the "bad" regulations. Each and every regulated aspect would have to be carefully examined and thought through, and new regulations established to prohibit the nasty practices which people have ALREADY demonstrated might be done. If not, sure as shootin, they will be done again, and we'll be right back screaming for some new regulations to curtail the shenanigans.
It is an illusion to think that regulations spring up because someone wants to stifle "free markets" as a general premises. That does not mean some haven't come into existence, or been distorted by subsequent regulations, for just that purpose; but it does mean that there is NO magical force that can simply pluck such things out of the vast array of regulations.
To say "deregulate" is just a slogan. What we might wish to do is re-examine many areas which are regulated, and institute fewer or simpler or clearer regulations. What would be utterly silly to do is start throwing out regulatory systems "whole hog", because we like some vague concept we call "free markets".
I know it is "deflating" to the wonderful sense of fixing things, to bring up such realities as I am. I realize you have justifiable arguments against many current regulatory schemes and practices. But fellas, corrupt people, and businesses really do exist. If left "unregulated" they will indeed do corrupt things.
I have outlined my position quite clearly, and Steve has added nicely to it. I have not advocated completely ditching regulation, and have outlined the valid uses of regulation. Your belief that most of these regulations were put into place to help people is naive, and out of touch with the reality of the matter. Study how FDR started regulatory boards - he had the businesses do it. So they did it in a manner that benefited themselves, at the expense of the consumer, and other people wishing to enter the market. It's regulation that lead to the Robber Barons, and the tremendous strength of corporations in the U.S. This is the last I'll chime in on this - neither of us will convince each other. I urge you to read some of the authors I have suggested to you. If you have any economist writings backing your viewpoint (other than Marx or Keynes, both of whom I have studied), then please let me know.
Well, I appreciate you "outlining the valid uses of regulation", and no doubt you are vastly better educated on these matters than I, but could you please explain just WHO will make the actual decisions about which regulations ought to be chucked, and which retained or enhanced to provide us with protection from unscrupulous actors.
I would suggest, just off the top of my head, that in order to prevent one segment or another of our society from performing this burdensome task to their own benefit, that we elect people in a democratic sort of way to represent us in this endeavor. I realize that creates various opportunities for some to use their position to work for their own enhancement, or fail to be diligent in examining the many factors involved, but still, I just can't think of anyway around that sort of thing.
I suppose we could all wish really hard for all bad things to simply disappear, or for some incorruptible, all knowing being, to somehow be empowered to fix all that is wrong with our government, but this just seems somehow overly "dreamy" to me.
It's a nasty catch-22. It should be elected officials that outline any regulation, not people from the businesses. But the expertise of the businesses is often needed to craft the legislation, and this is where the hanky-panky comes in. Especially when the businesses are making campaign contributions! There are actually private models that work nicely. For example, the Underwriters laboratory (UL) is a privately run certification program for electric components (check out any of your outlets in your home). Participation/Certification is voluntary, but companies do it, to give consumers confidence. And UL keeps high standards, otherwise they would loose credibility. Keep in mind that the consumers also play a large roll in self-regulating industries by not purchasing. Consumer Reports is private, and far more effective at rating products that anything in the government.
"It's a nasty catch-22. It should be elected officials that outline any regulation, not people from the businesses. But the expertise of the businesses is often needed to craft the legislation, and this is where the hanky-panky comes in."
THAT'S what I'm saying!!!
It's not "regulation" that is wrong, it's the "hanky panky".
So what I would suggest, is that folks stop speaking of "regulation" as if it were what is wrong, but rather, speak of the "hanky panky" as what is wrong.
Demonizing regulation itself is just asking for trouble. You will be drown out by simple statements about how regulation is needed, and the REAL problem, the hanky panky, will go on as always.
Right now, this very moment, we are on the verge of what could become a MAJOR financial calamity. And ya know what ? It was instigated by the "deregulation" of the home loan industry.
Oddly as it may sound to you, it was precisely that " the consumer [was] given an array of options", that created the trouble. You see, without proper regulation, unscroupulous players were free to market loans that they knew damn well were unlikely to work out in the long run, yet could provide really neat profits for themselves and related businesses. So they did.
There really and truly are people that will market harmful things if not subject to reasonable regulations. Honest to God they exist. And they will, without reasonable regulation, be free to present those harmful products in deceptive ways, so consumers will be tricked into buying them.
"Free markets" are only as healthy as the folks operating in the market place. Turns out, there are all sorts of sick people that need to be regulated. Yes, it's unfortunate, but it's still true.
Yes, I agree, the title is a provocative one, and also somewhat misleading. I'm afraid the way this joint is run encourages such things far too much, and can't blame the author for trying to compete with the flood of enticing titles constantly being generated to attract readers. The "original question" of the title would indeed be one that would provide much interesting commentary, I think.
I believe I did mention that -- in my humble little opinion -- regulations are good and very necessary WHEN they protect the rights of the individual.
Individuals certainly have the right not to eat poison spinach, or Taco Bell, or Broccoli. The FDA is certainly an agency that should be fully funded by [legitimate] tax dollars. The recent spate of food poisoning I happen to think was on account of George Bush deciding to allow some of his friends in the agriculture industry to self-regulate. I am aware that there are many areas of the marketplace that cannot and should not be counted on to self-regulate, even in a completely free-market economy. The food industry and pharmaceutical industry are definitely two of those.
I'm not too up to speed on whats going on in the S&L department, so I'm reserving comment for now. From what I understand, though, the federal government in neck-deep in the business.
My only point is that the VAST majority of federal-mandated regulations over the years have made things worse for everybody by driving up prices, chasing business over-seas, reducing over-all quality, and disrupting the potential benefits of a competitive marketplace.
But I DO recognize the need for legitimate regulations to protect the rights of individuals in many areas.
Would you advise even a single page of regulation in any arena, be simply torn out and tossed in the trash, without careful consideration of the entire domain it pertains to ?
No one has argued with your assertion that there is a lot of regulation, and that some is certainly born of corrupt bussinesspeople and/or government officials doing either incompitant or immoral things. But that simply doesn't leave us in a position to get all hasty about what we do next.
Each and every regulated area will have to be examined in a comprehensive and expert fashion, if we are to arrive at superior regulatory schemes. There is no easy way. Regardless of how angry we get, there is no easy (and sane) way.
Championing deregulation in general is campaign sloganeering, not the cure-all to the world's ills. All people are just people, and that isn't going to change soon. I seriously advise you to "target" your attacks on the important aspects of these matters which you fully comprehend. You are being "resisted" by folks that basically agree with you, because you don't seem to understand the danger of getting people"fired up" about something so complex as governmental regulation. I don't WANT a mob demanding the sort of asinine crap that mobs demand, about such a delicate aspect of our lives. I have seen mobs work their wisdom before.
Keep the hot dogs coming, but lay off on the mustard.
The careful consideration that should be taken when dealing with what regulations should stay or go is: Is there an imminent danger that the rights of individuals will be violated? (i.e., the right not to be consume poisons, toxins, carcinogens, etc., or the right not to take drugs that haven't been tested or are known to be harmful, etc.).
As for corrupt business practices that fleece unwitting consumers by fraud, there should be (if there aren't already) laws to punish those people. If there are already, then people need to pressure their representatives to have them enforced.
When did I champion deregulation? John brought it up. Then I dared to point out that most regulation actually helps big business at the expense of the consumers. Just go look at the medical industry. Both I and Steve pointed to the valid use of regulation, which is to prevent violation of rights to life, liberty and property. When in the above have I ever said to scrap it all?
In NH, it requires 1600 hours of training to be a licensed barber. Does that make any sense? Does it take that long to figure out how to cut hair safely (not well, but just safely)? All this does is drive prices way up since no one will bother to take that much training. Why can't a nurse prescribe cold medicine? Why does it take 10 years for the FDA to approve drugs for patients that are dying (every year the FDA kills thousands by delaying drugs that come out). Why do colleges have to ask the AMA permission to increase the # of doctors they produce, which drives up Doctors salaries. Read Milton Freidman and what he says about licensing before you start telling me to lay off the mustard.
You guys seem hell bent on putting words in my mouth about regulation.