This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bank of America's Dead Drop To Rick Perry: "We Will Help You Out"
Should we be surprised, frightened, disgusted or simply say "we knew it", that in the informal mixer just after Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry spoke at a Politics and Eggs breakfast in Bedford, New Hampshire, an unknown gentlemen approaches a casual Perry like an Ian Flemming character, and proceeds to dead drop the following: "Bank of America... We will help you out"... and silently moves on. At least we know now who is funding what, and whose interests potential future president Perry will be paid to defend.
Fast forward to precisely 40 minutes into the blow clip (full event can be found here).
And for those who believe the man is a plant, we believe it is James Mahoney, Director of Public Policy for BoA. You can see a photo of him here. He's on the board of directors for the New England Council, the sponsors of yesterday's Politics and Eggs breakfast.
Naturally, we would be delighted for Bank of America to refute this assumption.
»
- 90219 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Word!
Thanks for that in depth analysis. I'm glad to see that those who support banker bailouts and endless wars are willing to debate on the facts and the facts alone.
Dream on!
Dude looks like a lady (That would be you, little Missy).
You are the pansy who refuses to take a bet on your own candidate.
Pansy.
while I find this whole exchange somewhat hilarious, YOU DUDE win the prize - you're insulting someone by calling them female?
what age are you???
lmao.
Yeah, take that non-MENSA members!
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline after Paul loses the GOP primary. After all, the choice is yours.
The reason why Ron Paul is so appealing to many is BEACUSE he's not part of the GOP establishment. You are fucking clueless.
Which is exactly why he will not receive the establishment's (aka GOP) nomination.
Since when does the best candidate get the nod? What are you guys smoking, I want some.
Paul has won the straw poll for three years running! What are you smoking?
If Ron Paul is an electable non-establishment candidate, WHY does he run as a Republican rather than as a Libertarian?
It is so funny to see the Ron Paul disciples lash out at Rick Perry. The reason for this is because they KNOW that Ron Paul now has no chance.
Adieu, troglodyte!
P.S. You are fucking clueless.
He actually explains that for himself but you are too lazy and stupid to do any research for yourself and your ignorance suits you.
"too lazy and stupid to do any research for yourself and your ignorance suits you"
I am neither lazy or stupid or ignorant. Paul first served in Congress in 1976 as a Republican. He ran for President as a Libertarian in 1987. He had no chance at the GOP nomination then... much like today.
Ron Paul seeks the nomination of the GOP. He is not going to get it. Meanwhile, go fuck yourself.
Have a nice day.
I see why you're angry. Having to post duplicate posts and spam the board and you've only accomplished hurting Perry on a thread that may be widely read by independents that see the link. Your superiors are not going to be happy.
I am not angry. I am having a good time swatting flies. Highly amusing.
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline after Paul loses the GOP primary. After all, the choice is yours.
The GOP establishment that also includes the current president.
Maybe, but that campaign he has going to find out who Perry had sex with might be interesting...or not.
The sooner the (inevitable) collapse comes the better. Really. Ron Paul, re-incarnated Reagan with super powers....we're too far gone already to turn things around at this point in any meaningful, systemic way. We need a cleaner slate first.
OBAMA in 2012
all I can say is "MASSIVE WRITE IN CAMPAIGN FOR RON PAUL".
Ah, the old, "he's got no chance of winning so I won't vote for him" argument.
Let me ask you a question: If I gave you a choice between having a sack of warm dogshit, and a million dollars, but you only had 1% chance of getting the million dollars if you selected it, and a 99% chance of getting the sack of warm dogshit if you selected it... why on earth would you select the sack of warm dogshit?
Same logic applies to political choices.
Except that they're all sacks of warm dogshit ... it's a pre-requisite to get the nomination. (I hope you weren't thinking that your vote will be counted?! ... there will be more votes counted for Obama and Perry from dead people than there will be live votes counted for RP).
In any event, the election will be cancelled in September 2012 due to a declared State of Emergency (lotsa dangerous, gun-toting, gold-buying, pro-constitution trrrrrrsts hiding in their homes, dontcha know!) ... so look forward to many more Obama golfing clips being shown in the Camp FEMA communal TV room. ;)
You can always write in a vote for the candidate of your choice. Frankly, a vote for Bugs Bunny would be more effective than a vote for Perry or Obama (if that's the "choice" I'm given).
Yes, and usually are choices are limited to two sacks of warm dogshit.
Why is it so difficult to understand that you do NOT have to select between the choices you are given, if you think they both suck?
Write in a vote for someone else, or don't vote at all.
While true, the other 99.9% of voters will mindlessly pull the lever for whatever pre-selected, pre-screened, pre-vetted, and pre-digested two party canidate put in front of them. Same as it ever was. Ask Ross Perot, or Barry Goldwater.
I don't vote when I think both candidates suck. Next election I will write in my vote for Ron Paul if he is not on the ballot.
"Ah, the old, "he's got no chance of winning so I won't vote for him" argument."
It is better known as backing a winning horse. Ron Paul will be long gone by the time the GOP nomination is secured. I just hope the Ron Paul acolytes have the good sense to put aside their differences and vote for the GOP nominee over Obama. I guarantee you that Ron Paul, as a Republican, would never urge his followers to support the Democrat Party nominee.
You either have a reading comprehension problem, or your brain cannot process logical thinking.
Or both, or neither. Could be that trolls deliberately are keeping the issue on the establishment talking point: Ron Paul is crazy/unelectable.
But the larger point is that this thread which is supposedly about Perry is now all about Ron Paul. That's because Ron Paul is far more interesting than Rick Perry.
+1776
Too true!
Oh yeah? Well, MENSA has endorsed Perry so there. And we took a measurement and we are all more well endowed than Paul supporters. So there! Hahaha!
Take the Mensa exam and get back to me with the results, simpleton.
Okay, now you're just being silly.
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline after Paul loses the GOP primary. After all, the choice is yours.
Chino?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chino_XL
This completely moronic reasoning encapsulates pretty well why we're in the shit we're in.
John Law's feeble mind shows clearly hot the two-party system of divide and conquer works.
Keep cheering because you were able to pick your ruler peasant.
ronin12,
You are feel to support Ron Paul during the GOP primary season (before he withdraws). Then, you are most likely going to be faced with a decision of Obama vs. Perry in the general election. Unless you are 100% delusional, I think you comprehend the liklihood of that scenario. At that point, I hope you have the good sense to vote for Perry. It matters.
Ron Paul did not withdraw in 2008 and this time around he has far more support. There will be no withdrawal. Just one more mistake floating around in your crystal ball.
So your entire argmument is, "I want to back a winning horse." Is that because everybody else is doing it? If everybody else was jumping off a cliff....would you follow?
I really need say no more.
Feel free to support Ron Paul in the GOP primary. When he loses, I hope you will have the good sense to support Rick Perry instead of Obama in the general election. It matters. If you think it doesn't matter, you are free to not vote. You are also free to immolate yourself in gasoline.
"I really need say no more."
Please follow you own advice and say no more.
Rick can't win, you Perrytard. He's an unelectable kook.
Kook? A Ron Paul supporter is calling Rick Perry a kook? That, sir, is high comedy.
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline after Paul loses the GOP primary. After all, the choice is yours.
Yeah, there's nothing kooky about you.
Fuck you, Perry, MENSA and the GOP, who cares who wins its going to shit whoever wins.
Awesome analogy!
This was meant for the sack of shit analogy.
"I would vote for Rick Perry over Obama."
I'm no longer going to vote for the lesser of two corrupt thieves. I will not validate any of them with my vote and if the rest of the US is too stupid to do the same, tough. Screw 'em all. They deserve what they've gotten thus far and what they'll continue to get if they continue to vote for the bought and paid for pols from either of the two major parties.
I can't believe ZeroHedge readers are seriously engaged in a turd sandwich/giant douche debate... surely they are just trolls, right?
"Ron Paul is a man of integrity, but I believe he has no realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination."
And the fall of America is encapsulated in 20 words.
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline. After all, the choice is yours.
Voting is for the sheep.
All the action is in the caucus. A precinct caucus is so easy to take over, the sheep never show up. An organized group can walk into a pricinct caucus and capture a majority of the delegate spots with nothing more than a mailing list.
Ron Paul's mailing lists never stopped. The meet-ups are still communicative and active. Ron's people took a lot of pricinct spots last cycle. They get to walk in as PART of the establishment. Perry still has to develop some sort of grassroots support and organization. I'm not saying he won't be able to do so, but he is alread behind where it counts. At the local level.
So I will choose option 4 which your talking points did not include, I will be winning precinct, county, state, and national delegates for Ron Paul.
You can now prattle on with your ineffective talking points you know nothing.
You're reasoning is hilarious, and typical--voting for the guy you expect, rather than the guy you want.
Back the guy who "fits the part" (that is, the one who is most identifiably similar to those who came before him), even while the world his predecessors built is crashing down around your ears in real-time...
For what it's worth, I totally endorse this voting strategy! In fact, my strategy is just this, turned up to 11, taken to its logical conclusion--vote for the guy who might do the most damage. Thanks for the assist, brah
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline. After all, the choice is yours.
It's doubtful that there would be any discussion at all about the Fed, by Perry or any other candidate, if not for Ron Paul. Perry is chasing Paul's thunder. Another wolf in sheep's clothing?
Garbage from the left and garbage from the right is still garbage.
+100
Garbage stinks whether you set it on the left side of the house, or the right side of the house.
Are we forgetting the forced HPV vaccine he rammed through the Texas legislature? His buddies at Merck sure liked that. Too bad the people refused to go along...oh, yeah, and his $ 1/2 Million fine he paid for illegal campaign contributions....
Say no more...
Say, where is Kenny (Lewis) boy?
I don't think they will still be around in Nov. 12'. If it was JPM or GS, I'd be buying more ammo.
Just because it wasn't captured on video doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I'm by no means a fan of Perry, but the timing of this seems a little convenient...
exactly .... come on Tyler, are you that politically naive .... don't fall for the typical political set-ups (no one like this comes up while 'public' & cameras are around .... in this YouTube/smartphone with cameras/audio era) ......BofA? they are too stupid (buying Countrywide and then publicly running away when it was too late) ........however, am sure Goldman is ponderiong how to approach Perry ..... l
........reminds me of The Producers, when Zero says something to the effect, "Let me ice this deal" and then proceeds to try and bribe the NYT theatre critic during the opening of Springtime for Hitler...
is that legal?
to say that?
You see, he was not directing his words toward Rick Perry. He was talking to that unicorn in the middle of the room not seen in the camera frame, so it's 100% leagal.
He forgot to say..."assuming we're still solvent."
Like this would happen in public.
Or maybe: "Dude, pick up your weed later?"
Or: "Your wife was awesome last night, best I ever had!"
We are kidding with this causal connection are we not?
"Like this would happen in public."
Really.
Can I say: "Another Ron Paul plant"?
Sure you can, doesn't make it correct but you can certainly say it.
This happens in public all the time.
File this in the catergory of - under the heading of:
"Setups too good to be true"
Look for previously undisclosed material from this encounter to appear on one of the Alex Jones conspiracy-based websites like infowars.com or prisonplanet.com filmed from a 2nd and 3rd camera ...
Agree 100%
It should be easy enough to figure out. The person who said those words does exist. He lives somewhere. LIkely has a name, a job, a background. Who is going to find out? (touches finger to nose) NOT IT!
Yes, after years of taking money and favors under the table, and screwing the people of Texas with things like the standard of living lowering North American Union highway (Trans Texas Corridor), going to Biliderberg meetings, forcing the possibly infertilty causing Guardacil on little girls, and most recently doing his best to stop a law that would have turned off the radiation dosing machines at the airport (although he pretended to support it only when he knew it wouldn't pass),
Gov Perry now has decided to become a man of the people and work for the good of everyone. Then this "evil" setup happened to make this good man look bad. You're right I could never believe Gov Perry would do anything for a corporation like that against the interest of the people. I mean did you see the way he told that bank guy "The heck with you, I work for the people."
I don't think I like the guy, but this is a fair point.
"Deep throat my weiner later."
Funny if the guy works for Sarah Palin or something.
a woman suspecting another woman of hanky panks...what is the world coming to. Linda Lovelace's memory still alive, but now she would be soooo banal.
In fact, Sarah Palin looks better every day as she seems to keep her mouth shut. No corn dogs, no weiners, no 'drill baby drill'...At this rate...its not Bofa who will sollicit her its a big hitter with the world's biggest market cap. That wil be a home run out of ball park!
Sun Tzu would say it makes all the sense in the world..
How would have he responded to your examples? How did he respond in the clip?
throw up
Unbelieveably crude. Is this how business is done? I thought these guys were smooth. If that isn't a wake up call about how corruption is openly accepted around Washington, nothing is.
Yeah, what happened to the ole "fat Envelope-wrapped in newspaper across the diner table" routine?
Dollar devaluation, the envelope is too big to pass.
Remember, Boehner was once seen handing out tobacco-company cheques on the floor of the House - one for you, and one for you - though apparently he got a lot more subtle after that operation attracted media attention. Without any inside knowledge, I'd guess that DC backscratching is extremely subtle and hidden at some times, and surprisingly blatant at others. If the BAC guy is genuine, I think the most likely interpretation is that BAC is scrambling to buy some Rick Perry insurance, and so is desperately trying to get his attention.
60 Minutes forgot to mention that incident with Boehner in their fluff piece on him. It was repulsive the way they made him out to be a patriotic for the people from humble beginnings hero.
It does smell like desperation. It is so blatant, done directly under a boom mike, it is likely Bank of America making sure Perry doesn't hang them out to dry when they need a bailout.
There's probably no need to even try to hide it anymore. Really, how long have you (not) been "represented" in Washington? How often do you hear about rampant corruption, lobbyists, revolving doors, backroom deals, financial shenanigans, etc, yet nothing improves?
Dirty tricks? Use an actor and the C-SPAN camera to generate a damning YouTube clip? I just mention the possibility. It would be interesting if someone could identify the elbow-squeezer.
I agree -- this looks like a setup...
if true, why didn't Perry turn around with an outraged "WHAT THE FUCK? How DARE you impugn my good name VILE OLIGARCH!!!"
btw...I know most people can't "see" character (or it's LACK) in their fellow man but COME ON...it's Rick Perry fer crissakes!
The guy barely catches Perry's attention while he's busy working a crowded room, blasts off the damning sentence, and then leaves without waiting for a proper reply from Perry. With that technique he could probably have said something much crazier than "Bank of America ... we will help you out" and Perry still wouldn't have fully taken it in by the time the guy disappeared.
I'm not suggesting that Rick Perry is America's finest leader. The issue isn't Perry character, it's whether this particular incident was a trick. (And I'm not even saying that I'm certain it was a trick.)
You mean Obama isnt going to get re-elected???
Hahahaha... Sorry.. I couldn't keep a straight face .
A Billion will buy a hell of a lot of votes.
Well - that would make great material for a Ron Paul campaign ad.
Or a black eye, if it's discovered to be a Ron Paul supporter who was trying to create a moment. Of course that "Ron Paul supporter" could actually be a friend of the banking oligarchy. So many possilble layers. The target could actually be Ron Paul... time will tell. I suspect there will be a "bottom to this".
Best description of Perry:
George W. Bush without all the intellectual encumbrances...
A better description of Perry:
Al Gore without all the belly...
Keep in mind that Perry has already been tied in with taking money from Merck for forcing Texan girls to get Gardisil vaccines.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=192539
not only that Enron gave him money to have one of their own appointed energy commissioner in TX long time ago. He stated back the, "just a coincidence."
W wasn't dumb, he was just dyslexic. People do not seem to understand the difference. W has a photographic memory, and was very quick witted. He also understands politics. Perry seems stupid to me, I think W would mince him up good. Gore is a blabbering idiot. Is he still going on about global warming/cooling-climate change? Even after it has been dismissed by CERN and NASA?
Perry is a plant to get voters away from Ron Paul and nothing else. If he wins, the gloabalists will be happy, but at this point they want anyone winning except Ron. And it is not about the Fed. It appears they will throw the Fed to the wolves. It is about the wars. They want the wars to continue. It is about the oil. They need the oil.
I agree with basically everything you say, except Gore and GW... Gore may be wooden, but he is no dummy. His AGW claims were at the time, a tad hyperbolic and his call on ethanol was wrong. He made a real easy target for the deniers...
Pick up a copy of "Assault on Reason" and get back to me. I don't see Bush ever writing anything like that. (I am currently unaware of any evidence that this book was ghosted, correct me if you like)
I fear that the "Hope and Change" of Ron Paul will be filed alongside the O version in the dustbin of history. Whatever he wants, he will still have to get it through a completely dysfunctional congress and senate..
As Commander-in-Chief Ron Paul can begin ordering hundreds of thousand of US troops home on day one. That alone will save trillions of dollars.
Yes, that would be good first step....
Now explain to me the concept of the petrodollar, i.e. the defacto backing of the US dollar by oil. While you are at it, please reconcile the observation that the 8100 putative tonnes of gold in Ft. Knox would purchase 1 year of US oil imports...
The longest journey begins with a single step. I mean, we can say that all the problems of the world are unsolvable so we should just all drop dead or we can man up and get on with it.
Now that is a cop out.... and a pretty flagrant evasion of some very simple questions I asked you...
There is also a saying about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face...
I apologize if my failure to jump through your hoops upset you. Really I do.
You and I have sparred a bit here....
Your postings are long hat and short cattle, if you catch my drift. I suggest that you accept a demotion to the minor leagues and practice your skills at marketwatch or Yahoo..
Well, since you're the boss, I guess I'll just have to do what you say. Oh, woe is me...
As an FYI, Perry has been elected as Governor of Texas in three (3) different elections (2002, 2006 and 2010). Prior to that, he was elected as Lieutenant Governor in one (1) election (1998). Prior to that, he was elected to the position of Agriculture Commissioner in two (2) different elections (1990 and 1994). Prior to that, Rick Perry was elected to the State Legislature in three (3) different elections (1984, 1986 and 1988). In fact, The Dallas Morning News named Perry one of the ten most effective members of the legislature.
Rick Perry has been elected to a statewide office in Texas in NINE (9) different elections. I would say the people of Texas have clearly and repeatedly spoken re. his qualifications at each level.
And Perry still can't win against Ron Paul in a poll of Texas voters. That shows you just how strong the Paul candidacy really is.
1. Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
2. Feel free to vote (or not vote) in the general election after Perry is nominated.
3. Feel free to immolate yourself in gasoline after Paul loses the GOP primary. After all, the choice is yours.
Perry can't win.
"the defacto backing of the US dollar by oil."
That's only because we have the biggest guns parked in the middle of that shit hole. How long do you think that is sustainable when we can't even pass a budget, and the rest of the world is moving away from that petro dollar?
That sums up my point....
The dollar is backed by oil, that relationship is maintained by the military. Ergo, the US dollar does not collapse until the US military is unable to enforce that relationship. The last institution to erode in Rome was the army, same case here.
Ron Paul would be bringing the military home intact. Either the dollar becomes backed by gold or it collapses completely and is replaced by a gold backed currency. This would delay the fall, wouldn't it?
If the dollar becomes backed by gold, then the dollars demanded by our oil exporting friends will in effect be gold. The gold that we would have at our disposal is 1 year of imports.... This is a recipe for a complete economic collapse.
No, if that is done, gold will be closer to fairly priced in which case your gold value calculation is totally wrong. Add up the gold held in the US and we'd have a pretty good position to allow us a transition away from reliance on Middle East natural resources.
I don't think you have thought this through. There exist relationships between the value of gold and the value of other commodities. (Note I did not say price). Ultimately, in some theoretical limit, that value is a function of the energy needed to produce said commodity. For example, if mining an oz of gold requires the input of 60 gallons of diesel, you can be damn sure that relationship will be manifested in whatever the price oil is in a gold basis.
Any form of revalation of gold will also be reflected in a revaluation of all commodities. Now, I do not imply that this will be on a one-to-one ratio, some may perform relatively poorly.
Do not be misled that going to a gold standard will suddenly release a flood of capital that can cure our ills. Do you think that reducing US oil use by 60% in 2 years will result in anything but a shitshow? The only people that will have unfettered access to fuel will be the farmers (just imagine the black market that would ensue) You are aware that ~20% of fuel use is related to agriculture and the distribution of food?
So the only way for America to survive is to go bankrupt occupying oil rich countries, huh? That's freakin' brilliant.
Where did I state that? What I stated is the problem. You are free to propose solutions.
From a historical perspective, the chance to change things was in the period 1976-84. We blew it.
Oh I see what your saying. I say might as well try and I think the best shot is Ron Paul.
Paul wants to end the Empire and you have opposed that based on the possible loss of support for the petrodollar. What other conclusion should I draw? Other than "We blew it" do you have any reasonable solutions to the need to end the Empire before it ends us?
See my post below (15:29)
Fine, End the Empire, but explain to the American people that the "American Dream" that has been sold to them is over. You got another dream to sell them?
RP strikes me a fairly honest character as far as politicians go. Is he really honest enough to do this? The last guy who even hinted at the demise of the American Dream was run out of Washington PDQ. Do you know who?
For the record: Of the Republicans vying for the nomination, RP is head and shoulders above the rest. Just my 2cts....
Freedom and liberty is worth a lot more than iPads and other crap.
But flak, that is the whole point! The US military is one of the columns that the Fed rests on. Bring the troops home and the tyranny of the Fed is destroyed as its main tool the dollar is rejected by the world. Don't you want that to happen?
Follow the oil....
What I want is a graceful as possible unwind of the unsustainable trajectory we are on. I am very open to the actual details but the impact of a dollar collapse of the type you call for is not desirable in any situation. I am not blinded by ideology in this regard.
How do you unwind from this gracefully? If there is no graceful way, where do you want Rome to have its legions? We still haven't had our Julius Ceasar moment. The best thing is to bring the troops home before we do. If not, all hopes of a peaceful political solution are thrown out the window.
Well, we are finally getting somewhere. This is an excellent expression of the conundrum.
There are no easy ways out. There must be paradigm shifts that will not resonate with the masses. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am rational enough to know what it is misguided optimism. If history is any guide what emerges in the aftermath is typically not desirable.
I don't have much time as I have been posting far too much today already so I am not willing to go into a defense of my views on this topic at present. Many readers here have not reached the conclusion that you stated so well, and reaching that conclusion is the foundation of any rational discussion.
"Whatever he wants, he will still have to get it through a completely dysfunctional congress and senate.."
That's the myth. The Congress is not at all dysfunctional as far as its true owners are concerned. They always get what they pay for. It's only dysfunctional as far as the best interests of the United States as a whole are concerned.
Ok, I stand corrected.
I assumed that given my record of comments and stances here that my comments are viewed from the perspective of the best interests of the average US citizen.. mea culpa
"I fear that the "Hope and Change" of Ron Paul will be filed alongside the O version in the dustbin of history."
Don't even compare RP to that fuckwad obama. Not even the same camp. Jackoff!
You clearly have such an ideological prejudice that you are incapable of comprehending what I actually said.
Now, if you could politely go elsewhere and quietly fist yourself, the rest of us can return to a reasonably serious discussion.
LOL, oh come on! Like you can blame him for his reaction.
Gore may not be a dummy but his followers sure are. His call on ethanol was not wrong. He recently admitted that he knew at the time it was bullshit but he pushed it because he wanted the farm vote. He lost the election and America is saddled with a multi billion dollar boondoggle. O well you win some, you lose some.
The point is he will do and say anything to advance his own interests and to hell with the public, to hell with everybody as long as he gets his.
Is not what you are describing the core Ethos of the Randians? If so, should he not be admired?
Do you have proof that Ron Paul is a Randian? It doesn't really look like he's living the hedonist lifestyle.
What does Ron Paul have to do with it? Compare the alledged actions of Gore and those of Galt.... Looking out for number 1....
I thought you were implying that the Ron Paul supporters were Randians. Some are but I don't think Ron Paul is. If he is, well, game over man.
No, it isn't. Rand did not approve of those who used their political and corporate power to redistribute wealth from those who produce it to those who do not. That was the entire point of Atlas Shrugged. Have you ever actually read Ayn Rand?
Ok...lets start here
Who actually produces wealth? What wealth has been created in this country in the past 40 years?
Go outside and walk around. You'll see people doing work. They do that work so that they can have money to make ends meet. The products they create, the increase in productivity created by their services and their savings are the wealth that is being created each and everyday.
Then the government takes half of every dollar earned and the wealth goes from the hand of the person who earned it to the hands of those who did not earn it. Ayn Rand speaks out eloquently about such injustices.
Work does not necessarily equal wealth. Just look at the government.
Loose monetary policy has led to malinvestment which means that much of what has been produced in the past decade has been squandered. But work performed in the free market is more likely to create wealth because misallocation of capital and labor are headed off by a more realistic interpretation of supply and demand.
There was nothing produced in the past decade, it was all smoke and mirrors...
Allocation of capital and labour has followed the "free market" to a tee. Your free market says to make money, ship it offshore...
First off, lets lay off the hyperbole... The gubbmint does not take 50% of the peoples hard earned money.
Here is the latest data from the IRS, see table at bottom (the link is not the IRS but I couldn't find the proper table there)
http://joeduck.com/2011/06/10/tax-burden-by-income-level-and-shut-up-or-cut/
Add in 7% or so as a typical sales tax and you still get mid twenties. As for RE taxes, take that up with your local county....This is hardly oppressive....
Now could you exactly describe who the people are that stealing that hard earned wealth? Please frame it in the context of the Federal budget outlays...
You write as if the US still makes things, sorry manufacturing is dead. We are a service economy.
Savings? This country does not save enough
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/02/chart-of-the-day-u-s-savings-rate-over-last-60-years.html
Notice where the inflection point is? Well get back to that later.
Do you understand the difference between taxation of productive and unproductive activities? Is there a difference between someone making $1,000,000 from land rents (lets say the land was inherited) and someone who makes $1,000,000 who has a business that employs people making or servicing widgets. Is this income equally productive? Should it be taxed at the same rate?
Now, as part of the Reagan revolution, the admittedly fucked up and opaque way the tax code separated these type of income was shredded... You can see what happened after...
Uhh... somethings up, I have to go.
To be continued....
As for Gore's followers, take any large enough group of people and 30% are dummies. This argument is applicaple and valid for any politician.
@Flakmeister:
"deniers"
You mean "blasphemers." fixed it for ya. ;)
Which Bush, the black one or the white one?
+1 Nice
I like Ron Paul. But if Black Bush were to run, I would definitely have to consider him.
M - A - R -S
MARS BITCHES!!