In his farewell address to Congress yesterday, Ron Paul blasted the dangers of what he called 'Economic Ignorance'. He's dead right. Around the world, economic ignorance abounds. And perhaps nowhere is this more obvious today than in the senseless prattling over the US 'Fiscal Cliff'. US government spending falls into three categories: Discretionary, Mandatory, and Interest on Debt. The only thing Congress has a say over is Discretionary Spending. But here's the problem - the US fiscal situation is so untenable that the government fails to collect enough tax revenue to cover mandatory spending and debt interest alone. This means that they could cut the ENTIRE discretionary budget and still be in the hole by $251 billion. This is why the Fiscal Cliff is irrelevant. Increasing taxes won't increase their total tax revenue. Politicians have tried this for decades. It doesn't work. Bottom line-- the Fiscal Cliff doesn't matter. The US passed the point of no return a long time ago.
Presented with little comment since whatever we say would likely be superfluous to this all-encompassing speech. The full Ron Paul 'Farewell to Congress' speech and transcript.
...To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is 'envy' which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is 'intolerance' which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY...
If nothing else, read the five greatest dangers that the American people face today that impede the goal of a free society.
10 Questions ...
I often wonder who is worse: George W. Bush — the man who turned a projected trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history, who bailed out the profligate Wall Street algos and arbitrageurs, who proceeded with two needless, pointless and absurdly costly military occupations (even though he had initially campaigned on the promise of a humble foreign policy), who ignored Michael Scheuer’s warnings about al-Qaeda previous to 9/11, who signed the Constitution-trashing PATRIOT Act (etc etc ad infinitum) or his successor Barack Obama. The answer, by the way, is Richard Nixon. Nixonianism has been the corporate aristocracy’s crowning achievement. And to some extent, this period of free lunch economics was a banquet, even for middle class Americans. The masses were kept fat and happy. But now the game is up — like Nixon’s Presidency — its days are numbered.
Paging Paul Krugman ... Paging Professor Krugman to the White Courtesy Telephone ...
No, Mr. Krugman ... war is NOT good for the economy!
Former Goldman Sachs Analyst Charles Nenner Joins Marc Faber and Gerald Celente in Predicting Major WarSubmitted by George Washington on 03/10/2011 18:06 -0400
Great idea ... Not!
Anyone advocating for war to help our economy is mistaken.
The war hawks claim that getting us into some more wars will pull us out of the economic crisis.
But several studies show that more jobs would be created by other types of spending.
"Military Keynesianism" - the idea that war is the best economic stimulus - is false.