James F.'s Comments

Did you see the Republican debates? by *Carol ~Bronx Southern Belle D.

Oct 9, 2007 | rating: 9.5 | comments: 26

James F. Oct 10, 2007, 4:24pm EDT

He's not a dark horse anymore. He raised more money than McCain, his polling numbers are on the rise, and he had over 2000 people attend his rally in Michigan - a record crowd. He's got serious momentum going, and the strongest grassroots support. His web page is getting more hits now than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. It will be a while before the media admits it, but he has entered the top tier. He's the only candidate who understands what is ailing our economy (monetary policy), our foreign policy (needs to be changed to a non-interventionist policy), and the Constitution (Romney showed that when he said he'd talk to his lawyers before Congress before he bombs Iran)

What are the Romney's worth? by *Carol ~Bronx Southern Belle D.

Aug 19, 2007 | rating: 9.5 | comments: 18

James F. Aug 20, 2007, 4:09pm EDT

Ron Paul's only worth a measly 3M. For someone that is 72, that's not too outrageously rich. And he turned down his congressional pension. He is one of the few reps that voluntarily left Congress to go back and be a citizen. He's a man of the people. Whenever I have seen him out in NH, I have noticed he never leaves the event until he has had a chance to shake every supporters hand. He was up until 1am after the NH debates shaking hands and talking to people.

Harry Potter and Ron Paul by James F.

Jul 26, 2007 | rating: 10 | comments: 4

James F. Jul 30, 2007, 3:20pm EDT

Unashamedly so. :) Also a big Harry Potter Fan!

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 22, 2007, 7:51am EDT

Jbones,
I'm certainly not a supporter of Bush. I supported the platform he ran on - a humble foreign policy, and lowering spending. He's doing exactly the opposite, and I feel betrayed. As for impeachment, don't forget that he has also gotten rid of the writ of Habeus Corpus. The reason he is not getting impeached, though, is that Congress voted to give him the authority in all this (Patriot act, Iraq war resolution, Military commissions act), and is equally to blame. They deserve a lot of blame as well.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 15, 2007, 11:13am EDT

A great article relating to this topic. This article is not only about what you would do differently than Bush, but what Bush has done to break the Republican party apart by straying from it's small government beliefs.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 13, 2007, 10:41pm EDT

Jeremy,

Good comments on the desire to legislate. I think that we definitely try to over-legislate. I read that if you wanted to read all the laws in a state, it would take you 100 years. Meanwhile the Constitution can be read in an afternoon.

With regulation, the funny thing is, that corporate law is set up to really protect the businesses from the responsibility of doing harm. So a business can kill someone, and not be held criminally responsible. Then they come in with regulation on the other side. It's a very strange system. I'm all for protecting consumers, but holding businesses harmless when they do harm, then passing regulation that just restricts competition is backwards from what should be happening.

"I think it would be a relatively high priority to simplify our legal code, especially taxes and regulation. But I agree completely with John that it should be the decision of experts (in both law and in the field being examined) who carefully review as much history and science and data as possible."

I agree. It would have to be Congress, as described in the Constitution (the commerce clause). There are arguments over whether or not it is even unconstitutional to begin with (without passing an amendment). But the Executive branch certainly has no authority to regulate (despite the fact that it does so all the time). The president would have authority to disband regulatory agencies under the executive branch (FDA, for example).

Is the 1600 hour training typical? Well, probably not typical. But I think most regulation helps to protect entrenched businesses rather than actually helping the consumer. In any case, it doesn't hurt the businesses since they pass the cost of the regulations onto the consumer. Can any of it be proven? There are lots of studies on regulation from think tanks such as Cato, one of which (on medicine) I have pointed to earlier. Some of the other reading I pointed out also discusses regulation. I wouldn't say the "vast majority" of regulation is misguided and overdone, but I would guess that it is a majority.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 12, 2007, 7:39pm EDT

"Championing deregulation in general is campaign sloganeering, not the cure-all to the world's ills."

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.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 12, 2007, 9:17am EDT

The name of the article is based on the line of questioning that CNN took - asking the Candidates essentially to criticize Bush. Tancredo made some scathing criticisms, and Ron Paul made some huge criticisms of our foreign policy, and spending policy. This shows the big rift in the Republican party, and highlights why Bush is so unpopular. Now it's a matter of whether the party will reform itself or die.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 11, 2007, 10:55pm EDT

John,
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.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 11, 2007, 10:21pm EDT

John,
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.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 11, 2007, 9:35am EDT

Steve,
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.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 10, 2007, 11:46pm EDT

Rebecca,
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.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 6:29pm EDT

John,

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.

Getting neo-conned by the candidates by Ross T.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 10 | comments: 5

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 12:34pm EDT

There's no way a pro-war candidate can win NH.

Holy Christ, Did Paul Just Drop the "Empire" Bomb? by Chris Caesar

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 10 | comments: 6

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 12:22pm EDT

The reference to Empire is because we have military bases in 130 countries. We spend almost $1 Trillion per year on our overseas military. We police the world, nation build, etc. I resigned from the military because I was fed up with this, since I had joined to defend my country, not intervene overseas.

Biggest Surprise of the Night: GOP Candidates Thank Audience-Members for Their Military Service by Chris Caesar

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 10 | comments: 3

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 12:18pm EDT

William - great one!!

Homogeneity....the new Diversity. by Rebecca L.

Jun 7, 2007 | rating: 9.1 | comments: 38

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 11:54am EDT

Rebecca,
Another great article! I think what you are seeing is that the "left"/"right" and "liberal"/"conservative" split is really a false one. Political beliefs can't be put on this false, 2-dimensional spectrum. Check out the world's smallest political quiz. It breaks down political beliefs into how people value freedom (social and economic). My guess is that you are attracted to candidates (as am I) who consistently believe in freedom.

People in each party seem to have areas where they believe in freedom, but so few of them are consistent believers in freedom. And most are corrupt, and in the pocket of special interests. I judge candidates on this scale, regardless of party affiliation. For example, I'd vote for Richardson or Gravel before I would vote for the "top 3" Republicans (but would love for Ron Paul to get the nomination).

Until we wake up and look past party affiliation and start to value freedom, the left/right paradigm will be used against us to further chip away at our freedoms.

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 10:06am EDT

Yes, some of this discussion is a bit off topic. The main thrust of the article is not just what people would do different than Bush, but how the Republican party has become split between neo-cons and paleo-conservatives. And what will be the future of the party? Will the neo-cons succeed in keeping power, or will they get tossed out? Will the Republican party survive? Will they offer up someone who is actually electable this round (i.e. someone anti-war like Ron Paul).

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 10:03am EDT

John,

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).

What Would You Differently Than Bush? by James F.

Jun 5, 2007 | rating: 8.6 | comments: 96

James F. Jun 8, 2007, 2:05am EDT

Free is the absence of coercion or force. We haven't had truly free markets since the mid 1800s. Yes, businesses operate to benefit themselves. But without the collusion of government, they can't force anyone to buy from them (except in the rare cases of monopolies, which is prevented by anti-trust legislation, and that is a long story). "Being free to influence legislation counts" - absolutely not. This is not a free market - this is business colluding with government, aka mercantilism. It's what we have now. We have a strange mix of free markets, and mercantilism/fascism. Some businesses such as computers are pretty free, and we have low prices and great performance because of that. Other's such as medicine have heavy government interference (the AMA decides the # of doctors we have each year, for example).

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.