This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul's Statement On The Budget Control Act And On "Super Congress"
Not one but two letters today (link to prior here) from a very digusted Ron Paul, in which he once again dissects the complete farce that is the "spending" cut bill (if by spending one means slightly lowering the angle of attack on future government expenditures well over and above the revenue slope) and also adds his thoughts on the farce that is the "Super Congress."
Statement On The Budget Control Act
Rather than raising the debt limit, Congress should recognize the federal government has reached debt saturation and therefore stop incurring new debt! Federal revenues for 2012 likely will amount to about $2.2 trillion, an amount roughly equal to the 2004 federal budget. To balance the 2012 budget, Congress simply needs to adopt 2004 spending levels. Was the federal government really too small just 8 years ago?
But Washington has a serious spending addiction-- and in spite of all the talk about spending cuts, there are none contained in today’s legislation. According to the non-partisan CATO Institute, this bill merely commits Congress to spending less than it otherwise would. Even if this Congress could bind a future congress, I doubt many Americans would define a cut as spending less on unconstitutional programs than Congress originally planned to spend. The bill also assumes large tax increases in its revenue projections, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012 calculated into the “baseline” numbers. This assumption will make it very difficult politically for Republicans to extend current tax rates beyond 2012.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this deal is the “Super Congress” provision. This is nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership. The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments. Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission-- even if it includes tax increases. This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership's agenda.
»
- 26855 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You seem to be the new government shill. Welcome, we shall spit you out soon enough.
You may disagree with him but LasVegasDave is no government shill.
Super Congress.... The best bought and paid for folk in the nation.
Be a super job, financially!
All we need is just one more fix..just one more fix, ok?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXciBKcfQ8
the "super congress" shall be immune to "craptonite"
Do they get to wear capes made from silk and crowns of gold?
Barney Frank will, if you throw in tights.
nice. a gay joke.
he has a special place in hell, but it's not because he sucks a mean dick.
instead it's because his sell-out banker friendly policies ruined us all. but let's just focus on his Queeny-hood... and fall into the fragmentation that the elite want.
"you gave away TRILLIONS to the banking industry"
"Look! a gay person! maybe he'll marry a goat!"
I'm guessing you got fired from the sperm bank for drinking on the job. Right, mr. I'm very judgemental because I've been here since June?
wow.
good comeback. it really addresses my irritation.
I'm "judgemental" because I choose to focus on the issue
the ISSUE is that our government is controlled by a small number of individuals due to campaign finance issues. The ISSUE is that our government spends like a drunken sailor in order to support the financial oligarchy. The ISSUE is not about whether or not Barney Frank is "the gay"
so when I point out THE ISSUE, I'm judgemental.
Yes, my join date has a lot to do with my "judgement". it really negates my arguments, doesn't it.
I'm a troll because I don't respect fag jokes thrown around willy-nilly... one of the many reasons why ZHers are not taken fully seriously.
because my idea would be SO MUCH more worthwile if I was arround as long as you Cheesy.
For years I chose not to sign up and discuss with some of you. I finally signed up based on a SUPER DUMB article I saw here back in June. but it took 3 weeks to activate.
And so rarely, I will post. And I won't be cowed or bullied into giving a different view. So sorry.
Barney Franks homosexuality has NOTHING to do with our current predicament. If only he he restricted his activities to sucking dick and having sex with lots of butts... that doesn't bother me one bit.
But his legislative and economic ideals... THAT affects me.
wow. good comeback. it really addresses my irritation.
Thanks. I get my best comebacks on your mom's chin.
And I won't be cowed or bullied into giving a different view. So sorry.
Neither will I.
Just a Cheezy way of saying welcome to Fight Club Mr. Hmmmm (as in hummer?)
If it's your first time here, you have to fight.
Feelings not hurt I hope? ;~P
he was asking for it.
I'm sensing some strong sexual tension between those two...
Lighten up, Francis.
I understand our future hangs in the balance, that's not news to anyone who reads this site regularly. But, you still have to live your life every day, and try to find some laughter where you can. Cheesy made a pretty damn funny joke, cracked me up. I'm not a homophobe, and I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), and I know a collapse is coming. But when someone can make a funny joke about a corrupt, sleazy, piece of shit politician like Barney Frank, I'm going to laugh. If you're offended, you're way too uptight. Get over yourself.
Damn funny, Cheesy.
:)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm er hummer er you gotta admit well maybe not ...............
He's got a good point Cheesy-B.
For some reason some of the ZH elite equate length of membership with quality of contributions.
What if LLoyd became a ZH member tomorrow. Would you discard his posts until he was a 6 month member? Doubt it. I predict you would be one of the immediate suckups.
Your worst days are never so bad that you are beyond the reach of God's grace.
And your best days are never so good that you are beyond the need of God's grace.
http://lds.org
Fail. That is like someone who buys a house near a 100 year old airport, then tries to get zoning to shut the airport down because of the noise. I have no problem with newbies, including your one week self, but don't come here bitching and whining about how business gets done. This is fight club. You folks are free to put your dress back on and return to MSNBC.
By the way, I suck up to no one, not even a fine ballhandler like yourself. Who the hell is LLoyd?
Not a Mormon, but totally agree with the grace of God stuff.
I dub thee TSA Gunslinger.
I stand corrected. You contributed something. I'd still punch you in your gangrenous pie hole while you were wearing your Kevlar spanx in gubbermint blue just to get on MSNBS.
You god fags really choke me up with your sanctimonious bullshit.
go fry your eggs in the scanners you fukin thug,
grace out!
...
'super' congress = better?
All you need to know about Ron Paul is that the main stream media decided FOR YOU that he is an extremist and a kook fringe candidate who has no chance to win.
WAKE UP AMERIKA, the real extremists are those debt addicts who sell you to the tbtfb.
Your kids future just went further behind them. Heck, our own futures just went further behind us. Get out of debt--this may buy a year at most two before the problem comes back to address us - since we will not address it.
Very formulaic: if there is a problem Congress is unable or unwilling deal with, they create a "blue ribbon" panel to make recommendations. Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is right. This "super congress" (super con-job?) disenfranchises our elected representatives, replacing their authority with that of an anointed few. WTF happened to the America I came to love?
HOW is this even Constitutional? More proof that there is NO difference between and R and a D. They ALL pray to the pigmen.
Homey @ 20:15
More proof that there is NO difference between and R and a D and a tea party. They ALL pray to the pigmen.
Fixed it for you.
Don't forget about the 10 Governor panel that Obama created by Executive Order too.
And Ron Paul is just positioning himself for the Presidency. Let him rant. At some point it will get to "I told you so."
And Ron Paul is just positioning himself for the Presidency.
Lets hope he gets much further along with that.
You have either not read any of Dr. Paul nor listened to him at length over the last decades. It can easily be stated that Paul is not "positioning himself", but continuing to offer his honest views and opinions.
Why you are ranting against him is the question.
You have either not read any of Dr. Paul nor listened to him at length over the last decades. It can easily be stated that Paul is not "positioning himself", but continuing to offer his honest views and opinions.
Why you are ranting against him is the question.
From 2008 until this year, the debt crisis was just a game of kick the can...just a joke and a stall.
That all changed as the world economic order is going up in smoke during this long, hot summer. The Fed's tactics didn't work. The US economy is near contraction despite the trillions. And the middle class and small biz are in the grip of biflation, getting pummeled like never before. Biflation has metastasized and is now affecting every corner of the globe. The risks going forward are substantial. It's not a fool's game anymore. The long, hot summer ain't over
Welcome to Gulag Amerika. I am old enough to remember when the US was a free country and the land of opportunity but the memory is fading fast. Every day we are becoming more like Stalinist Russia, run by a bunch of self-serving, bought-and-paid-for kleptocrats. There is no longer a Fourth Estate, the media has become a self-serving, bought-and-paid-for organ of the ruling elite. The only thing we are missing is a Lavrentiy Beria but the search continues...
you were around in 1912?
Ah Comrade Beria..one of my favorite apparatchicks of the Soviet era. Stalin described him to Roosevelt at the Yalta conference as "Our Himmler" . Little bit of dictator dark humor, you know
In that case, I want my vodka, dammit!
On October 16th, 2004, President Bush signs into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, this Act establishes a special department within the United States State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism, which is to report annually to Congress. This Act defines a person as being anti-Semitic if they purport any of the following beliefs:
So, in other words, almost every one of you ZH fuckers is a criminal under federal law. And, there are a few tools getting well paid to sit at State and run this special office. I bet they even have photos of themselves with Hillary (you paid for those too). The shit is getting so deep, it really is Pythonesque.
As another poster said here a few months ago. The problem is with Lucifer (Illuminati), not Yahweh (Jewish).
Agreed with your point re: Yaweh.
This is going to come off as trolling but I swear it's not...far be it for me to tell you what to believe...but if you look at the world through the Illuminati/Lucifer lens, it's going to be tough sledding for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnedARQGOPM
The Problem Is... You never know when you're walking on thin ice. Comrade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
Husk-Erzulie
On October 16th, 2004, President Bush signs into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was going to cite you for pure synthesis (fabrication and a fraud upon us all), but, as it turns out, you are correct.
Whether whatever you penned after the first sentence is true, know that the first sentence at least is:
PUBLIC LAW 108–332—OCT. 16, 2004
GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM REVIEW ACT OF 2004
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ332/pdf/PLAW-108publ332.pdf
.
He made the rest up
I have to provisionally take back the definitions. Although they are repeated across the network, I cannot find them in any official .gov publication. I didn't make them up... but I can't trace their source either. The act and the office are for real though.
Maybe Super Congress will appoint Super President and we can do away with bothersome voting process.
I don't think other congress people are stupid. I think the real issue is that only Ron Paul tells the truth, others try to spin pretty much on everything. Obama is the master spinner.
Comet Elenin; bring it on!
Are we becoming the EU?
Super Congress - what is that other than a body that is able to dictate policy with little or not oversight under the fascade of expediting the process.
Restore the Constitution and Reclaim the Republic.
Here's Mirhaydari from MSN Money Central on the subject:
Debt deal won't fix the economyNow we must once again pay the price for lawmakers' failings.
http://money.msn.com/stock-broker-guided/article.aspx?post=40e29189-a961...
Australian Treasurer "Wayne Swan" (thats not slang for a gay sexual act , its his name) says there should be no rejoicing at the Debt ceiling being lifted as there is an element in the GOP that are AGAINST 21st Century economics.
He would say that though , the Aussy economy is in a juicey bubble thanks to China with real estate prices several standard deviations away from simply expensive. That is one economy ripe to crash and burn.
Chirp chirp go the global keynesian fucktards. Isnt it nice that every major CB and Govn treasurey sec is onboard with the ponzi. I can smell the fear.
Oz is going to be an interesting case study, tying equally into the collapsing ponzi of the USA, China, Japan and UK.
I like you magpie... Squaky little bitch you are... It seems there is some rhyme to reason in your ( Purple) Tail feathers..
Call me DEATH VALLEY...
Ron Paul conveniently ignores that Bush's budgets did not include war spending, along with many other things.
Saying that it's going back to 2004 budget levels is a ridiculous falsehood. It's more like mid-90s spending levels.
He needs to use actual expenditures, not a fucking budget.
True and excellent point > but details can come later, the overall slant of the logic is unmistakable. He will need lots of help people!
The ridiculous falsehood is pretending that 2004 and 2012 are equivalent like the event midway between never happened, but you can do that when you have zero actual power and the privilege of doing little but naysaying and raising money to run but never win.
I may even vote for him, if only so he can implement his Austrian silliness then go down in flames leaving nothing but a footnote in history.
Barack Obama Constitution quote IN CONTEXT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI&feature=related
This is a group is desperately spinning unlawful acts to press new change. Joe Biden acted as an enabler today.
In Ron Paul we trust!
How did that audit work out?
I never heard the results...
According to an e-mail I received from Tim Shoemaker of Campaign for Liberty the other day about the limited audit:
"We have now learned that the Federal Reserve lent $16 trillion to both domestic and overseas financial institutions during the height of the financial crisis!
Let me rephrase that while the number sinks in - $16,000,000,000,000.
In less than three years.
From Dec. 1, 2007 - July 21, 2010, the Federal Reserve "created reserves in the banking system" (Bernanke slang for printing money) that exceeded not only the entire U.S. GDP for a year, but also the entire U.S. national debt that's accumulated over the past 224 years!
More than $3 trillion dollars were lent to overseas financial institutions in numerous countries, including in the U.K., Germany, and France.
In addition, we learned just how much the big banks who contributed heavily to the crisis were rewarded - including nearly $8 trillion to banks like Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merill Lynch, and Bank of America."
No prosecutions? Sorry... I should know by now...
I'm going to get a T-shirt that says 'Its all perfectly legal'
Huh
Junked for asking about a Fed audit, and junked for asking for someone to be held accountable for printing 16T...
So you didn't want a Fed audit and your OK with the 16T.
Its all perfectly legal.
That was from a "limited audit". I wonder what we will find if we do a full audit.
How can an entity as powerful as the FED runs free on its own without a proper oversight?
This is why people say that the most powerful man in the world is nobody else but Bernanke. He prints trillions like you pee in the restroom.
although Ron Paul has his plusses, including his consistency of thought, those of us of the socially-liberal-fiscally conservative mindset will have a difficult time voting for him. (he hides some of his conservatism through the lense of "libertarianism" when in fact it is conservative ideology. this is not bad... it is just who Mr. Paul is... I respect that although I disagree strongly with it).
Thus; for those of you who are a little more socially liberal, may I recommend Bernie Sanders and/or Dennis Kucinich...
I'd love to see a battle for Prez between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as example. Even better, I'd love to see a ticket of Dennis Kucinich with Ron Paul as vice prez... altough I'd also vote for Ron Paul with D. Kucinich as vice prez as well.
on a side note: Rand Paul is only minimally like his father. it remains to be seen if he can be "trusted" or not.
all IMO. junk away.
for god's sake people:
if you junk, at least have the temerity to write a response as to WHY.
what: you junk me because Ron Paul isn't a conservative? His views on gay rights aren't conservative? His thoughts on allowing businesses to exclude blacks is not conservative?
So a black gay lesbian should vote for him?
healthy debate only happens with... uh... communication bitchez.
sorry to rain on your parade... but Ron Paul is a conservative. There is nothing wrong with that... in fact I donated to his 2008 campaign even though I voted for Dennis Kucinich. But that doesn't change the fact that HE IS A CONSERVATIVE.
so SOCIALLY liberal, FISCALLY conservative people like me have a hard time voting for him. (for instance, I'm not white... and I'm sorry if I won't vote for a person who believes Segregation is ok so long as it's what "the market" believes)
Dennis Kucinich, Bitchez. :)
Ron Paul is SOCIALLY libertarian and FISCALLY libertarian.
Any quesations? And I junked you for not knowing the diiference, but spouting off about it, anyway.
you, sir, are a dumb ass.
I know perfectly well what a Libertarian is.
In MY OPINION, a Libertarian would be for Gay Marriage. what on Earth does the govt have to do with marriage between 2 dudes or 2 women? nothing. But Ron Paul couches the argument as a "states rights" issue.
Ok...
But he also has espoused the idea that it is just fine for Businesses to segregate their customers racially. I've read his old newsletters... have you?
you know... the ones where he compares 14 yo African American males to adult white males and discusses how fleet of foot they are as they run from cops.
Yeah... that's a LIBERTARIAN idea.
Later of course he distanced himself about the quotes about black people... but what would YOU say if Hilary Clinton had a similar post about black people in HER newsletter...
yeah... I thought so.
nobody is perfect. as a bi-racial person I have a difficult time voting for someone who does not believe in the Civil Rights Act, and maintains the FANTASY that segregation would have just gone away magically by market forces.
sorry if I don't vote to put someone in office who MIGHT make it so that I can't drink from the same water fountain as you.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992.
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992
indeed... LIBERTARIAN principles.
?maybe according to YOU.
Now you have to bring up the newsletter issue, because you lost all of your arguments.
He did NOT write that.
Nonetheless, the media will make this newsletter a major campaign issue next year. Gotta make him look unelectable, and if he wins the primary (Satan forbid!) then the puppetmasters will need to guarantee a huge black turnout for Uncle Tom.
It is all about personal freedom / choice.
I may choose not to segregate my shop while you may choose to segregate yours. You may not choose to force me to segregate my shop and visa versa.
While I may think homosexuality is unnatural and a bad influence for developing minds looking for guidance - hence I should be able to choose to exclude them from business etc... You may believe the opposite and have every right to welcome them.
The entire problem with both socially liberal and socially conservative is BOTH sides want to force everyone else to conform to their ideals ... through the application of 'LAW' which is nothing but majority violence against the minority - (the anti-thesis to human rights ideology)
If you and everyone else from both sides voted for a 'Ron Paul' EVERYBODY gets what they want. You do it your way and I do it my way so long as neither of us infringes on the other.
The man is a living legend - regardless of your political persuasion (and as you have acknowledged) he has no peer in politics around the world as a transparent and consistent representative of the people who elect him.
exactly right!
And when all the gay, black, jewish, asian, pink, purple, blue, yellow, orange and green people decide to shop at a place that sells to ALL people vs a shop that does NOT sell to them, then the market decides who gets to survive and who won't.
People carry on about the landmark Civil Rights Act and lambast Rand Paul's take on it. But his position is consistent.
No one ever asks WHO enforced the Jim Crow racist laws. It was the government. No entrepreneur could open a 'blacks only bus' and transport 'blacks only'. He would have been denied a license to operate by the government.
The question is why do we insist on giving the government the power to dictate what we choose to do and with whom we choose to transact with.
That includes marriage, business and life.
As to the discussion about abortion and a woman's 'right' to her womb, is the one one example where the two fundamental rules of libertarianism conflict. That of 'no violence' vs the woman's 'private property' (her body).
However we always err on the side of life. Ron Paul's views on abortion I will agree are clouded, given his experience with abortion early in his medical career as an OBGYN.
The question then boils down to whether the fetus is a life or not. The red herring discussion about it feeling 'pain' is nonsensical. A paraplegic doesn't feel pain, but if I kill him I am committing murder.
The other discussion about when life begins is more along the lines of where the abortion debate should go. The question is how do you draw a hard line in a sand and say at 20 weeks the fetus is a life but 19 weeks 6 days 23 hours and 59 minutes it is not.
Again, coming back to the principle of no violence, it is only justifiable in self defense (not self-offense as the USA practices). So the question if a woman is raped again follows the same path. Violence was committed against her. The destruction of the fetus in that instance would follow the logic of violence for self-defense.
However, I'm sure if you asked Jaycee Dugard if you gave her a gun and said we won't prosecute you, you are free to kill your two children, she would not kill her children.
ahhhaaah.. that shit has been discredited so many times.. unreal. You've been had, you douche nozzle..
black teens are more fleet footed than white teens and those who have been raised on the streets should be treated as adults.
is there a problem, here?
No, I don't think you do know what a libertarian is, nor do you understand that RP did not write or endorse those statements in the newsletters. If you think RP is a racist, you really are stupid.
If you want to argue that RP is not a "perfect" libertarian for his Constitutional stance on states rights issues, I would be happy to debate that. I might even agree with you with regards to abortion and gay marriage. The hardcore libertarian position on gay marriage is hat the government should have no say in any marriage, gay or straight. Marriage is a private, mutual, voluntary contract and the state should imply or impose any provisions of that contract except in cases of dispute or non-compliance. I'm pretty sure I've heard him say, on more than one occasion, that government should get out of the marriage business.
I'm surprised that you didn't bring up the fact that RP endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008, who was the Constitution Party candidate. That would be the proper response for one of those left leaning Big L libertarians who are trying to take over the LP.
I didn´t junk you.
But watch Kucinich talking about Ron Paul. He is endorsing him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18
They are very good friends.
Marriage: Ron Paul thinks it´s a state issue and government should stay out of it completely. This means he is NOT against gay marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
as I said...
I voted for Dennis Kucinich
I contributed lots of money to Ron Paul.
I am not anti-Ron Paul
I am anti-"Ron Paul is the Best thing for All People and he is really really great even if you are Socially Liberal"
thus: I put it out there for the 1 or 2 other people on ZH who aren't raving conservatives.
again: nothing wrong with raving conservatives, as long as they are consistent and not hypocritical. go for it.
But for those of us who aren't raving conservatives, I would argue that Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are two to look at.
Did you watch the videos?
>> But for those of us who aren't raving conservatives, I would argue that Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are two to look at.
Thankks for taking the time. Although I appreciate Paul, but have to admit I"ve been uncomfortable with his social views. This kind of brings it into focus.
"Gays" don't have rights. That is collectivism. Only individuals have rights. Those rights are not affected by a person's sexual orientation. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. Social contracts between two consenting adults should be honored, i.e. domestic partnership with all benefits of married couple. And... why is it any of the federal government's business in the first place what kind of consensual contracts you enter into anyway? What gives gov the ability to control marriage through license? Why do you need permission to tell someone you want to spend the rest of your life with them?
I think that kind of sums up Ron Paul's position on the issue of being gay. Or to put it more succinctly... He doesn't give a shit what you do in your own bedroom.
He does not believe segregation is market driven. He did not believe in the portions of the civil right's bill that violate personal property rights. If the fed.gov can violate your property rights and tell you who may or may not come onto your property then you have in effect lost the right to private property. Where does that end? Your house? Your body? You can't force someone not to be a racist through a law.
Dear Hmmm - read Abiotic Oil's post above and learn something.
Perfectly put. Well done.
So Ron Paul supports some states telling certain individuals that they don't have the right to make social contracts?
Are his opinions on private property rights consistent with his views on what a woman can or can't do with her womb?
Consensual contracts entered into by individuals in no way should come under federal jurisdiction. The Constitution limits the state's ability to control this as well. This is why prostitution should be legal. If both participants are adults and consensual then WTF? Prohibition of anything does nothing more than create a black market.
"Women's rights" would be another group, collectivism.
Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.
Ron Paul does not believe the federal government has the right to control abortion.
It is constitutionally an issue left to the states. Under Constitutional law, if you don't like your state's decision then move.
no problem with what you say long as no tax benefit at the fed level , either for marriage or children are allowed.
If you have taxes and you want to marry and/or have children that is your choice , I will not pay for it via taxes at gunpoint.
Ron Paul: libertarian, until he isn't:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/ron-paul-texas-federal-spending-...\
Ron Paul is not the leader WE are looking for.
Earmarks ensure that the taxpayer money returns to where it came from.
That is his fucking job: represent his district.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY
That's exactly right. But all the Paul Tards (respectfully I assure you) want him to NOT do his fucking job this way.
How much more love do you think he'd get if he REFUSED to bring home the pork (disaster relief et. al.) among his supporters?
Well the idealists would love him for that.
The average voter in his district? I don´t know. But some obviously reach out to him asking for earmarks, he talks about it in the video i posted...
I never turn away when he speaks, I'll watch the vid.
And you link Mother Jones? What a prick.
i saw him on a local news program one time in i think 2008, and the female news person asked him about the pork barrel projects in his own district and how there were always so many of them. i thought i had seen some fast moving texas two step in my life but he took the cake that day. man that old man did the stutter and the texas two step in answering that question, so fast, he would have made bill clinton proud............ha ha ha ha
I junked your ass:
1. You self selected. I didn't even have to do it. You junked yourself because you feel guilty. See 2.
2. You're an advocate for someone having more rights than someone else. Fuck you.
3. You state Ron Paul's position like you know what it is. Fuck off.
Just donated to his campaign. See you in the banana republic you and yours created from a once sound nation, now straight lies, deceit and thieving.
how can you possibly say Ron Paul is NOT socially liberal?
Cite some examples. The only one that he has a hardline on is abortion.
Everything else, like gay rights, gay marriage, drug prohibition etc. he pretty much says the government should stay out of.
Not sure how that is not 'socially liberal'.
Also not sure how you say he is 'hiding' his conservatism through 'libertarianism'.
He repeats the same libertarian ideology in all his speeches, and all his positions.
1. no violence
2. private property rights
everything discussed in government so far can be boild down to those 2 principles.
At first when I heard of 'libertarianism' and these 2 principles I thought it was a crock of shit. The world is complex and you cannot reduce it to anything simple.
Then I realised, over time, as you 'reductio ad absurdem' any train of thought, and put it through the lens of those 2 principles, you find it is the most equitable.
Kucinich sold out progressives. He is a weasel. I still wonder what he got for his sellout. Any guesses?
bullets bounce of things / Blythe?/ Enlighten me, Carbon luminite style....
Thanks for setting the record straight.
The most important thing to watch is how they will choose the super congress and by whom.
I am trying hard to resist becoming a nihilist, but I don't think any of this matters. Stalin said "It is not who votes that counts but who counts the votes." The spinmeisters will make "Alice in Wonderland" seem like a documentary.
duh.
it will be by campaign contributions... what else?
besides, you Tea Partiers have nothing to fear. It willl be PACKED with anti-government, anti-spending, pro-war, pro-big business ideologues.
just like Obama's catfood commission was.
the end game = massive cuts to social security and Medicare... almost no tax increases. Obama has been DILIGENT about this for months.
only fools see him as a liberal. Only bigger fools see him as a Socialist.
He is the biggest Trojan Horse President of all time. Fully able to deliver a corporatist agenda to the elites as he completely neutered the Left.
worst president ever. Rejoice, for cuts are coming in all things except our interminable wars overseas, our torture campaigns, and big subsidies to Big Ag and Big Oil and Big Corp... the parties that own the Rs and Ds.
Only if the Greeks had put a large sign on the side of the horse which read: "Warning: Greeks Inside". He was very clearly a corporatist and centrist through the entire campaign...perhaps it was difficult to hear over the shrill shouting about him being Muslim, born elsewhere, a Marxist, etc ad nauseam, but it was plainly obvious to anyone who took the time to look.
Super congress will be chosen by obnoxious, pompous, stupid assholes. You can bet on it.
let's get this fucking party started!!!
http://www.ronpaulsignbomb.com/
Where does the money go when he doesn't win?
Super Congress is any oxymoron.
A Super Congress?
So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.
" According to the non-partisan CATO Institute, "
Koch funded and edited.
RP's solution of 2004 redux is absurd, as always.
I junked you.
oldmanagain is a union cocksucker
That means he is entitled to a 15 minute break between cocks, and time and a half after 8?
Is there any good scholarly work regards a viable plan of FED held UST write-downs?
Does rating agency Best Practice have any matrix for this?
I think that the Super-duper CONgress is a curve they slipped in. The oligarchy probably felt fear from what has come to light recently. From the Tea Party ideas (not candidates), to free discussion of what the bounds of government should be. This idea is perfect for them. They can keep better track of a dozen or so critters instead of all of them. It takes alot of energy to bribe that many cockroaches.
The cockroaches like it because it gives them some cover when it comes to voting.
pods
Well, you have to say this for the current Congress. They are seeking a new low and considering their predecessors - that's saying something.
The "Super Congress" is the supreme act of moral cowardice. IMO they are abnegating themselves but they are making sure that they will be accountable for nothing.
"Lawmakers" - it is to laugh.
"Strict Constitutionalists" - funnier yet.
But only in a sad way...
Yesterday I heard Rand Paul explain that federal agencies generally draw up next year budgets at 7% higher amounts, which are usually approved by congress; the fact that both political parties and the media have managed to suppress what may be a 14.5% increase in agency spending over the next 2 years, before budget cuts are applied, is atrocious, and the possibility that such net spending increases can continue indefinitely is ludicrous.
Having today increased the debt ceiling 2.8 T on 14.3 T is an increase of 19.6% over 18 to 24 months, which leads to perhaps another 20% increase in the 2013 debt ceiling from 17.1 T to 20.5 T. a near-term disaster in the making.
The good news? Gold has been tracking the debt-ceiling very nicely for 15 years, and today's 20% debt-ceiling increase suggests an AU price of $1942 in 18 months, and perhaps a price of $2331 in 4 years:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gold-rise-143-trillion-us-debt-limit-increase-–-bloomberg-chart-day
Keep up the good high-finance work you congressional a**holes, and keep those selfless 'compromises' coming.
The good news? Gold has been tracking the debt-ceiling very nicely for 15 years...
That's gold's purpose. It has been, is and will continue to be the standard by which any and all other forms of trading materials, including timmy's paper, are constantly and consistently calibrated to.
Just remember, just because Mr. Bernanke knows this and watches the ratio to frns too, it still doesn't make it "money".
Thus saith the fed.
Wow Ron Paul is right.
For the wrong reasons sometimes, as this is one of them.
But he has a legitimate shot to spout bankster austrian dogma and have the same voice as everyone else. It is disenfranchisement. There are 12 congressmen now as overlords of everything that has or will be passed. Dictating what needs to be cut, or what needs to be taxed, etc.
He is right it shifts the debate again. From what congress wants, to what the gang of 12, brought to you by Goldman Sachs, will set the debate as. AND REMEMBER, THE FRAUDULENT DEBT ISN'T QUESTIONED....IT IS THE REASON THE COMMISSION TO EXIST...CUTS WILL BE MADE....TO ENSURE THE PAYMENTS TO THE BANKSTERS.
If you thought the bullshit dichotomy was useless before, just wait until after this farce of a commission, on behalf of banksters, and banksters supporters starts up.
Yep, Ron Paul has a reason to be pissed.
As do the rest of us.
But Ron Paul doesn't have the answer. Because he isn't advocating the answer. He's off in his own economic play land, the other side of banksterism.
It's ok Ron, I know you think shit is fucked up. i'll give you that. I know you want to fix it.
So insist on Glass-Steagall
That is the fix. Not you using your power to cut to pay off fraud. Not the super congress cutting to pay off fraud. By cancelling the fraud.
At least you want to cancel the original bailout, even if that is just a small portion of it.
That's a few percentage points of what Glass-Steagall will null and void. But it's a start.
As always, Ron Paul, sort of gets it. But as they say, in the land of blindsville the one eyed man is king. But it still is no substitute for two eyes.
Glass-Steagall? You're not too bright, are you?
He's been hammering that one key on the piano for over a year. I've tried to explain what Glass-Steagall was about, what it would help, what it wouldn't...all to no avail. Just think of it as a particularly focused form of Tourette's, cluck your tongue in sympathy, and move on. Trust me.
Ron Paul voted against the GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT that changed Glass-Steagall:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/23595.html
Do some research before bashing him...
So did Barbara Boxer and Rusty Feingold.
Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act part of that whole package?
Glass Steagall was only necessary in a fractional reserve banking system.
If you had 100% reserves it wouldn't matter. Since no investment bank would be able to put depositor funds at risk anyway, since they would be 100% reserved. They could risk their own shareholders' capital through prop trades, and that is the way it should be.
Instead the Supreme Court stated that once you deposit your money in a bank, it is the BANK's. and you just get a 'claim' to those funds. You are NOT placing your funds there for safekeeping. (http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Law/Sec-130-General-Depo...) or google 'conveyance').
The libertarian view on fractional reserve banking? It is fraud, plain and simple. The banks are issuing 'receipts' for deposits they do not have, effectively counterfeiting their own issuances.
In days gone by, it would have been gold receipts being issued. A bank issuing multiple receipts for the same physical gold (much like Comex does now). As long as only 1/10th of people ever claim their gold (the balance transferring the receipt) the illusion continues. Once the illusion (trust) is broken, a bank run occurs. as long as this occurs often and on a small scale, its allowing the market to keep the fraud low, whereas leveraging and merging the TBTF banks results in failure never occurring and the fraud exponentially increasing.
It's funny how people innately understand the concept of store receipts and coatcheck tags, but don't understand fractional reserve banking.
In a 100% backed reserve function, no bank runs would occur (except if the bank had to physically move gold from one location to another).
How would banks make money then? Either through risking their own capital or through fee for service, or managing assets (e.g. mutual fund deposits are NOT similarly conveyances, you are asking the fund manager to put your capital at risk).
So sorry, I completely disagree with you. Glass Steagall only helps maintain the illusion that is fractional reserve banking. Who gives a fuck about it. Do away with Glass Steagall, and bring back full reserve banking.
Of course Gramm-Leach-Bliley created a huge conflict of interest, but it did not cause the financial meltdown as some would like us to believe.
I would not support 100% reserves, or a gold standard. Competing bank notes in a free banking regime, as defined by Vera C Smith, is the only free and fair system.
The supercongress = A committee of 12 representatives, 6 Democrats and Republicans.
* " SuperCongress" decides additional 1.5 trillion dollar cuts, must resolved by mid Novermber. This cuts will be presented to congress to vote.
* Congress will NOT be allowed to filibuster or to amend these cuts! Can only vote "Yay" or "Nay".
* If congress votes "Nay" THESE CUTS WILL GO THROUGH ANYWAY!!!, 1.5 trillion cuts to be divided in entitlements and military spending (sugar coating im sure, Military will never be cut! They just want to deceive any dupes left in congress)
This has to be defeated! This "debt ceiling" fiasco is deception, it was never about the "Debt", it was the cover up for the implementation of an Oligarchy!!
Call your representative, and demand them to put light on this constitutional crisis! You must do this! you can not sit around anymore! This treason can not be allowed to occur!
Thanks Ron Paul, for putting light on this crisis, even though i dont agree with your economic policies i still think you're a great patriot.
Oh yeah, I wonder what the donations will be to this now super secret club within a club will be.
Glass-Steagall
What are the odds that once appointed to the super congress, you will never lose another election? I guess it's only fair since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, we now have Congressmen appointed for life. Now, if we can only have a super crisis to give us President for life. All set. Radical transformation of our nation complete.
What are the odds that once appointed to the super congress, you will never lose another election?...
Precislely my thought. After all those gerimandering exercises were getting so tiresome.
What's next? The Groovy Congress? Uber Congress? Totally Rad Congress? Funky Fresh Congress? New and Improved Congress?
An oligarchy within an oligarchy. Dictatorships where power is concentrated in one person is a lot easier to bring down than an oligarchy. This is the scariest news I have heard in a long time.
Circle within a circle. if it's good enough for the Masons and the Mormons it's good enough for Congress.
Double post.
Fuck the Super Congress.
Seems to sum up my thoughts on the matter.
As Ronald Reagan said, "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty."
+`~ Yen..
You make sense... Watch your (DXY)
Once I had a railroad, made it sparkle and shine, once I had a railroad, now it's gone, big brother can you spare a dime...
(sung to the tune of, you guessed it, brother can you spare a dime...)
Sorry I posted twice by accident. I'm new here, and, well, just trying too hard to make an impression, I guess. Plus I don't know how to delete a post yet.
But I do follow grammar and hygene rules.
Super Congress, eh? You guys smell that? Smells like fear to me.
You guys hear that? sounds like 80 million guns racking...
The sheeple deserve to be exploited as debt slaves. I am starting to be on the side of the bankers. Milk these disgusting animals. They beg to be enslaved, beg to have their children enslaved for a moment of percieved security. Remember: It is nobody's fault but the sheep. They put these people there, and let them stay there. I am going to donate to Barack Obama and every debt loving social engineer congressman, every military industrial complex dick sucker, just so they can tighten the chains on these animals and their offspring, just before I take what's left of my loot and get the hell out of here. I hope they sterilize them all with some planned parenthood, Nancy Pelosi sponsored DARPA project. The sheeple don't desire to be free, and don't deserve it. Just tired of it ...
A lot of me agrees with this, but in defense of the sheep, many of them have been in the Matrix for too long to possibly know any better.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
[Neo's eyes suddenly wander towards a woman in a red dress]
Morpheus: Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?
Neo: I was...
Morpheus: [gestures with one hand] Look again.
[the woman in the red dress is now Agent Smith, pointing a gun at Neo's head; Neo ducks]
Morpheus: Freeze it.
[Everybody and everything besides Neo and Morpheus freezes in time]
Neo: This... this isn't the Matrix?
Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us, you are one of them.
Anyone following Asia? RBA ? eur/aud Gartman on the 3rd try?
The super congress is treason and it's time for a military court martial. NOW!
SUPER CONGRESS UBER ALLES!
Ermächtigungsgesetz (enabling act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 ), bitchez!
Are they intentionally goading us? All of us who believe in Liberty? They are creating the very thing they should be fearing, an even more radical, explosive electorate.
How is a 'super Congress' remotely Constitutional?