Has Ron Paul Quit? 878
Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
And the last flicker of hope for the current election goes out. Poof.
Let's face it, it's done (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's learn from our lessons this time around. (Money bombs -can- work, Internet support doesn't necessarily translate to high election numbers, the power of the MSM to shape opinion, etc..) Next time around, if we have another candidate who supports liberty, with a voting record to back it up, we can try again. I may be an old man by then...
Big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost as bad as concentrating on just Florida. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, you are an idiot if you think that any one school of economics can be right or wrong in an entirely objective scientific way. Because, on paper, the USSR should've been an economic dynamo, the problem of course was that people didn't act in the way their number's predicted...
He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost as bad as concentrating on just Florida. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the economic wreckage that "science and empiricism" have delivered to the door, I wouldn't be too proud of traditional economic schools of thought right now. Measuring economic progress by the state of the stock market is a complete bust. The middle class and below are in pretty severe trouble right now. and have been for some time. A doctor's visit that cost $5 when I was a kid (the 60's) is now $90 (18x); fuel is up from 30 cents to three bucks (10x), cars from a few thousand to tens of thousands (10x to 20x and more), houses... houses are insane. In the face of all of this, minimum wage has risen from $1.25 in 1965 to $5.85, an increase of 4.7x altogether.
Maybe it is time for money to be backed by something tangible and valuable, instead of the federal nothing-in-reserve notes we have now, backed only by the printing of nothing-in-reserve notes on the one hand, and the incineration of nothing-in-reserve notes on the other. Maybe it is time for infinitely corrosive tax schemes like the income tax to go away. Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the world's police presence, and shut down all those foreign bases. Maybe it is time for us to stop borrowing money, pay back our debts, and begin to spend only those monies that we can afford to spend.
Not that anything like this will happen. The US is going to find out what continuing these policies far past where they even appear to be doing any good takes us, because very few people are willing to disturb the status quo.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is played out in both domestic and foreign arenas.
If there are indeed infrastructure problems within a state, why is the state impotent incapable of fixing them, instead relying on federal handouts?
Federal handouts put more layers in between the taxpayer and the civil servants managing the projects.
Thus, the real place to begin the reform is to avoid giving the nearly 1 trillion dollars to the Fed.
This simple logic can then be applied to the vampiric parade of entitlements currently sucking your wallet, and your future, dry.
Or is pointing out the elephant in the room unforgivably unfashionable in these United States?
Ron Paul & Lyndon LaRouche (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps now Ron will join with LaRouche as a running mate. If not Lyndon himself, then an non-felon appointee.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a qualitative dimension to physics as well.
I think that's some strong empirical (i.e. scientific) evidence against Marxism, eh? Plus, as an economic theory, Marxism is non-empirical, like Austrianism. Qualititative/quantitative isn't the issue here, it's empiricism/rationalism. And even a social science is better served by empiricism.
Re:Real summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
If Greenspan had actually regulated the banking industry we wouldn't be having the current subprime mess. Most of those people wouldn't have been allowed to get their loans until they had the income to support the payments and the banks would have been required to require ID and income verification before accepting the loans.
None of this should have been surprising, you offer to loan people money without necessarily knowing who they are and how much they make, on a building that you know perfectly well isn't worth that much, does it really take a PhD in economics to recognize what comes next?
The answer to this is a combination of social and educational reforms to make American workers more competitive combined with a fiscally conservative government that cuts the DoD and other out of control government programs down to something that we can afford. Paying off the public debt.
Bailing out the people that make dumb decisions at the cost of hurting those that behaved more appropriately isn't a sound plan for future prosperity. In the long run the protectionist policies which protect wall street at the expense of responsible Americans is just bad policy. The only thing which needs protecting in this country is job losses to anti-competitive nations like China and Japan. As well as the onslaught of cheep money from ignorant Japanese bankers.
Re:Real summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to assume you mean our energy infrastructure. Our raw materials and manufacturing capacity loss is more about pay scale than infrastructure. I think improving our energy infrastructure would be great, but it wouldn't have much immediate quality of life improvements for most civilian Americans. A different handful of people would be getting rich right now, but that's about it. One of the longer term dangers to our economy is the loss of the dollar as the international currency. [spiegel.de] That loss is largely caused by our ballooning deficit. A "New Deal" spending spree at home wouldn't help any more than the current military spending spree. Currently the national debt is about $30k per citizen, [brillig.com] so assume you had a $30k lower quality of life and that is what we are likely to balance out at when China stops funding our spending habits.
Re:The end of America (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Until that happens, I would rather have some of the federal budget used on social programs and education than to have all of it be channeled into corporate welfare, unnecessary wars and enforcing personal viewpoints of the politicians.
Last consolation prize possible (Score:5, Insightful)
I was elected to be a delegate on Feb. 5 for my precinct in Colorado, and I plan to go through with representing Ron Paul to the county level March 2 (and then possibly also to the state level on May 31) so that he does not lose any of the projected 42 delegates nationwide he is counting on.
There is one last additional hope to further spread the message this cycle, and that is if Ron Paul can get first place in four states (he has no first place finishes so far, at least according to official tallies), then he will be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention. And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms [slashdot.org] can be reinserted. Not that a Republican president elected in 2008 would honor that, but it would ensure that in the 2012 debates that a small-government candidate can score points by quoting the platform and criticizing the neocons.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2, Insightful)
Suburban houses today are bigger, better built, and on larger plots than they were in the sixties, once again, they cost mor because they are worth more.
Your examples demonstrate why we use a consumer price index instead of anecdotal evidence to measure inflation. Things can only be compared with perfectly equivalent products under similar demand.
It's important to note that increasing the money supply is necessary to prevent deflation being caused by the continuing improvements in manufacturing; if a modern car is worth twice as much as an old one, but you only have as much money as you had in olden times, the car will cost twice as much, leaving you with left to buy every thing else (which had also increased in value).
This is one of the strength's of fiat money, the money supply can scale with increasing standards of living and the increasing value of all goods and services.
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your moniker, "Leftist Troll", is well taken. Your analysis is not.
Slashdotters are predominantly male. Men are genetically predisposed to treat most interpersonal relationships on rational grounds, interacting for the purpose of mutual self-interest. Libertarianism fits this view better than it fits the female instinct to inject compassion and caretaking (i.e. mothering) into all interpersonal relationships, no matter how inappropriate it may be in that context.
Slashdotters are also interested in computers or technology, which from the gate level up operate based upon strict logic. Slashdotters are therefore more prone to understand and properly apply logic. Most "mainstream" political views are inherently inconsistent and self-contradictory to an obvious and irritating degree. Libertarianism follows simply from one or two moral axioms revolving around nonaggression, which better appeals to those who understand logical systems.
Slashdotters also predominantly come from childhoods where they were physically bullied, further impressing upon them the moral justice of nonaggression and the moral injustice of aggression. These principles are central to libertarianism--except, unlike pacificism, libertarianism allows for self-defense.
Now, my generalizations are probably as insulting as yours, but unlike yours, my generalizations actually show a decent understanding of what libertarianism really is, rather than what some leftist troll wants to portray it as.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't spend money we don't have. Not for infrastructure, not for social programs, not for anything. Any money left over by a budget surplus should go directly to paying down the national debt.
The value of the dollar is almost directly related to the amount of debt we have, so the priority should be lowering said debt, not spending more.
Re:Question from an outsider (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sufficient time spent studying causes them to realize the world is not such a scary place after all, and that they are capable of running their own lives without incessant nannying from the State, making an ideology like Libertarianism very appealing.
There, much better.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, unless Hillary Clinton wins. The only way she could be more of a good-old-boy is if, you know, she had the boy parts.
-Peter
Re:Now there are 3 Liberals to decide between.. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I managed a score of:
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90
I took a different version last year and wound up around +7 authoritarian (none of my views have changed, just the selection of questions).
So take the compass quiz with a seriously large grain of salt.
Where are all the Pauls? (Score:3, Insightful)
So all you Ron Paul-ites / Naderites / Greens / whatevers. Get some mayors elected first, some governors, take over a few states. (and yes the Greens do have some elected officials). Making bold/bizarre speeches about the gold standard or keeping government out of environmental regulation (what? we settle it with guns?) is very entertaining, but it doesn't get the trash picked up, the schools financed, the roads fixed.
That said, he was/is far and away the most intelligent of the Republicans and in a better world not wanting to slaughter Muslims wouldn't be a deal breaker and the Republican party would actually be the party of small government. A Paul VS Obama debate on social welfare would be very interesting.
Instead we get Hillary 'corporate welfare' Clinton VS John 'kill kill kill' McCain. Or maybe Obama decides to play the substance card.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you about party not mattering, but in what universe is Barak Obama a viable alternative to Ron Paul? Politically, they're pretty much polar opposites. You can talk about "leadership" all you want, but I'm not particularly willing to be led by someone who is going in the opposite direction of where I think we should be. "Different" does not always mean "better."
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
Something like "what's ours is ours, what's yours is ours". Like in the good old days.
Btw, parent noted lack of regulation for banking sector for mortgage mess, but I think it's the same old accounting voodoo that brought us the Enron saga. When mortgage defaults started to ramp up, lenders/investors were concerned but expected their higher-grade tranches will ride it out, but the ratings were bogus and failed to take into account layers of convoluted pooling and packaging, and the cleanup became difficult because of bogus accounting mechanisms (so-called Structured Investment Vehicles) to hide loss making items. One quarter bank a said minimal exposure while bank b report 10B loss. It turns out the next quarter bank a reports 10B loss, but bank b says it's past that. Next quarter bank b reports another 10B loss. Nobody knew who had racked up how much loss hidden where. All the banks got super tight with their money. Viola - credit crunch.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's face it, it's done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Minimum wage? (Score:5, Insightful)
That you even ask the question is surprising to me. Minimum wage sets the floor at which jobs create an earner's ability to interact with the economy. Minimum wage also sets the base cost of anything that requires workers to create, be it product or service. From there, costs and wages go up as skills become scarcer. So minimum wage is a critical issue for both earners and job providers. Furthermore, minimum wage, by setting the earning level for the very lowest earning class of people who actually work within the system, places a hard line that cannot be crossed with regard to what such a worker can obtain within the system. You can't get below it, because you can't be paid less. An hour of labor gets you a minimum of $5.85, period. No less. About ten hours of work gets you one very short, very cursory doctor's appointment. An hour of work gets you about two gallons of gas. And so on. Earlier, you would have gotten more product or service, for less work on your part. This is a direct and concrete measure of economic conditions for the lowest class of earner, which is what I was talking about above.
This is irrelevant; there *is* one and there has been for some time, so we can use it to measure available standards of living at the lowest participating tier at any point during the period which it has been enforced. You want to argue economic issues based on a situation that does not exist. I am simply pointing out the situation that actually *does* exist. My observation is that given the demonstrated effect on earning and buying power that our current economic system has had at the base level, we are going backwards. What one would hope for is that purchasing power would increase, not decrease. It has, however, decreased in real terms, and because of that, I think change is called for.
Minimum wage *is* the actual wage paid for the lowest levels of people participating in the system. It has been since the 1930's or thereabouts. This gives you a direct lever, at the bottom, to relate an hour's work to the purchase of various goods and services. That's what I'm telling you: At the lowest economic level, it took less work to see the doctor in 1965 than it does today. That's going backwards. It took less work in 1965 to buy a house. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work in 1965 to buy a car. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work to buy a gallon of fuel. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work to put your kid through college or trade school. That's going backwards. It took less hours of work to buy heat for your home. That's going backwards. Life is getting more difficult for these people, not less difficult. That's going backwards. It is as plain as the nose on your face if you'll just stop and think about it for a minute.
There are areas in the economy where people get more for their hour of work (electronics is one such instance) but in general, and especially for the basic requirements of day to day life, the ratio of hours worked to products and services obtainable are all going the wrong way.
Proceeding in a course of action(s) that continues to make life more difficult for the lowest levels will eventually result in a situation where life within the systems is perceived as too difficult and people will turn to alternative means of making money; this is where black markets, under-the-counter wages, illegal products and services all gain a foothold in the economy. When working within the system fails to provide people with a tolerable lifestyle, they will look outside the system for relief. And furthermore, they will inevitably find such relief in a society that encourages out of bounds earnings mechanisms with laws that insist upon characterizing all manner of consensual acts as crimes.
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama and Paul are both serious scholars of our Constitution. Paul was largely self-taught, whereas Obama was actually a professor (adjunct IIRC) teaching Constitutional law.
While on many policy issues they probably come out differently, on basic Constitutional issues they would seem both to look to the Constitution, which would be an improvement over our current situation in which the President is basically Caesar and Congress' job is to fund the President's projects. A return to a Constitutional approach would return policy issues, such as war/peace or capitalism/socialism, to Congress where it belongs.
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Minimum wage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to remind you, the Soviet Union did NOT invade Poland, Finland, and most of Eastern Europe in the 1920s. On the contrary, those regions had been part of the Russian Empire until World War I, and became independent in 1917~18.
In 1939, as a result of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union split Eastern Europe among themselves, and Finland was the only country they couldn't "persuade" to agree to that partition [wikipedia.org].
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, like Ron Paul, was a moral coward, unable to assume his responsabilities before the world.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Insightful)
It's clear you don't understand how economic "truth" is decided: by very careful analysis of lots and lots of data, and using statistical evidence to reject hypotheses. We know, for example, that commodity backed currency does not control inflation in a good way. As any good student of economics, certainly you recall the events of the first "Great Depression" from 1873 to 1896, caused by going from fiat money to the gold standard. Deflation is the real evil, not inflation. Certainly you understand deflation causes your debts to increase, crippling borrowing and risk taking and entrepreneurship. When the common man wants to buy land to farm or a house to live in, he must take on a mortgage for decades. Certainly, you recall the words of the man who nearly became President: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!"
Wars, tax policy, and whether to pass debt on to the next generation are good issues for parties and politicians to philosophize about. Whether a philosophical statement is "true" or not can be decided from election to election. The facts about how economics works cannot be changed by lengthy polemics.
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Lyndon LaRouche (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Kucinich, he said that if he doesn't appear on the ballot you should vote for Obama.
did you ever stop to consider... (Score:4, Insightful)
Presupposing that the reason he didn't win is to flatly state that if everyone were informed and voted their hearts, Ron Paul would have won.
Did you ever just stop to think that maybe a majority of people don't agree with you? That if the world was well informed, they wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you?
Only an egotist would put forth their choice of candidate as the only valid one.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. But that concentration isn't just the federal government; it's the control of the majority of the nation's wealth into the hands of a few.
This concentration isn't something that just happens, it occurs because of government action and policy - it's governments that issue corporate charters, land deeds, and the like.
States vary enormously in their wealth. New Jersey's median household income is $64,169; Mississippi's is $35,261. [census.gov] If all states are part of one nation, if companies in New Jersey want to ship their goods to Mississippi, it's not unreasonable to share that wealth around so that everybody has decent infrastructure.
The big problem with entitlements is medical care. What drives the rising costs? The for-profit medical "care" model.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is not change. He's heavily for the welfare state, won't cut spending, has said he could support Real ID but only voted against it because the states lacked federal funding to implement it, voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and continues to fund the war.
He is not a Ron Paul replacement by any measure. He's even #8 on this list:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007 [judicialwatch.org]
For what that is worth. I'm sorry, but he sounds a lot like Clinton '92. Vague on specifics, big on "Hope" and "Change" and some call him a "Washington Outsider" (just like the last two president when entering).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8 [youtube.com]
Re:A deeper question (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans are simply, as a general rule, not smart enough to be given power. Thats also why a republic works better than a democracy. Because down to our DNAs, we're little more than a bunch of monkeys who know how to light up a fire.
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:3, Insightful)
1: Being a prisoner of war doesn't imply having been tortured.
2: If he was tortured, that doesn't imply he'll be less likely to torture others. Studies show that those with a history of being exposed to violence are more likely to condone violence against others. Most domestic abusers were beaten as a child, quite a large percentage of rapists were themselves sexually abused, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if victims of war crimes also are more likely to commit them. In none of these cases does the past excuse the present, although it can help explain it.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not entitlements that's killing us
Sure they are. Only the entitlements are going to Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, AT$T, CACI and other companies cooperating in the looting of our treasury and trashing our liberty. The new entitlements are for agencies like DHS that consume more and more resources, inconvenience millions of innocent people, yet don't make us any safer. Conservatives supposedly supported Bush because he believed in small government, but he created a massive and invasive new federal bureaucracy on the fringe of functionality.
We've replaced welfare for the poor with welfare for rich and powerful. We owe those companies billions, we waste billions more on a false sense of security. Where did you think the money was going to come from? You want unlimited government spending but no new taxes. How's that working so far?
Not true at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with a limited amount of debt. I will leave the Slashdot "philosopher-kings" to sort that one out.
Consider the following example, which basically is my world right now: You owe about $150,000 in a 30-year mortgage at a rate between 6%. Do you pay off the mortgage, or do you invest the money?
If you said pay off the mortgage, you fail.
If you can find an investment that pays more than 6% on average (nothing is guaranteed) you put your extra dollars above and beyond the mortgage payments into that investment. Why?
1) liquidity. Investments are liquid, easy to cash out on a moments' notice the value of your house is not (the sale price and sale time of your house is tied to the market). Plus if you sell your house, you have to spend some of that money for future housing. In the same way, there are certain things the government can spend money on that have a higher return-on-investment than paying off debt.
2) time value of money. If you sock away even a little bit of money each month, over 30 years you have a whole lot of money. If you pay down your house in 15 years and then spend the next 15 years saving, you would have to invest a lot more of you own money to match what you could have had, if you were just investing a little bit since day 1 and paying the default amount on your loan. In the same way, the government setting up infrastructure now is often cheaper and more cost-effective in the long run than waiting to pay off debt.
3) the value of debt. Some loans are cheaper than others. In your mortgage's case, you can use it as a tax writeoff, which effectively lowers the interest rate an additional few percent. There are similar 'features' to the national debt. The value of the dollar is almost directly related to the amount of debt we have
The dollar has only started to drop in very recent history, and we have held a high amount of debt for a long time. It has much more international implications than just the national debt.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Weaker than... what? Vulnerable to... what? Do you think for even one second that if we take our bases out of Germany, Russia will attack us? If we take our bases out of Saudi, you think Iran will build a fleet of transports and invade? If we take our bases out of South Korea, you think North Korea will nuke us? What are you smoking?
Personally, I don't think you know what "weak" and "vulnerable" even mean. Weak means our currency is no longer a world benchmark, vulnerable means we have to borrow to keep our economy from tanking on a regular basis. We are not the world's mommy, and we should stop pretending we are. We can't afford it, and they sure as heck aren't paying us enough to perform the service. You want to keep a forward base in another country? Fine. We can do that. Let me know when they're ready to foot the bill, plus set-up costs up front, and take-down costs in escrow.
In the meantime, we need to be working on achieving a balance of self-reliance and equitable trade.
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
I want an increase of spending to be followed by an increase in taxes to whoever's going to benefit from the increased spending. Like I said, I don't mind being taxed if the road's going to get fixed or some other problem's going to be solved by it.
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote with your head, not with your dogma.
Re:America != The World (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it? The last time I went to Europe (and mind you, I was traveling through fairly prosperous countries — England, France, Germany, Italy), I was appalled at the public squat toilets
Man, I can't believe you threw in the toilet style in your complaints.
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Understanding constitutional law does not mean that you have any respect for the constitution or that you intend to "support, protect, and defend," same. One of Ron Paul's key points is that lots of what the government is doing (and largely has been doing since the 1930s) is unconstitutional and needs to be changed, whereas Obama is in favor of expanding social programs, gun control, etc. This is not just a question of "policy issues."
There's also the problem that if Obama is elected, and the congress stays democrat controlled (which seems likely) you will have the exact same formula that you had in 2000--and look how well that turned out. Recall that in the 1990s, Congress was anything but a rubber stamp.
Honestly, I can't imagine that turning into anything other than a redux of the 1930s, with Obama playing the role of FDR.
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:2, Insightful)
While this statement is true in and of itself, it's absolutely nonsensical in this thread. McCain was tortured - there isn't any doubt (barring wacko conspiracy types). He can no longer raise his arm above his head as a result.
Sigh ... didn't you just accuse the parent of making unwarranted assumptions? Here you go doing it yourself.
All of the other situations you gave describe how children are affected by their experiences. It's a very different thing when you talk about adults.
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Why, exactly?
There must be some prisoner surveys or similar which show the effects of violence on adults. I'm inclined to believe that violence breeds violent behavior, in adults as well as children. And that having gone through a type of hardship makes one more accepting of others going through it, not less.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it'll dissolution a whole generation of "libertarian geeks", but that's O.K. by me. Geeks suffer as a whole when we spend all our energy arguing about a fringe political philosophy like libertarianism instead of focusing on issues that actually matter to us.
Re:Minimum wage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look around in the real world - this is a common pattern for just about EVERYONE. THINGS ARE GETTING HARDER. I can see this with my very own eyes, or are you trying to convince me that somehow I indeed have it 'better' than my folks? You have to work much harder/longer to be able to afford the same amount of 'stuff'. Also in the older days usually only the male worked, now it takes two working professionals as a couple to be able to get a similar amount of household wealth. We get less "wealth" for the same amount of work, when intuitively it should be the opposite due to leaps in technology.
3rd world countries are complete irrelevant to this, unless you're suggesting that somehow that is where my wealth is going now.
Re:America != The World (Score:3, Insightful)
the far too narrow streets
This isn't a symptom of squalor or poverty in Europe, it's mainly a result of history; most cities are very old, and particularly in the city centers the streets were laid out long before cars existed. And space was very limited not just because of higher population density / less land, but because for much of Europe's history, cities had to have big walls around them because of frequest ongoing conflicts/attacks, making everyone pile up into smaller spaces. And because things used to be built with really solid, heavy stone, there's no sense tearing down many of those structures, many of those buildings just stand for centuries. Also, Europeans grow up like that, so they're used to it. I imagine when the US has over 1000 years of history behind it, some parts may start looking a bit like that too, as space becomes ever more limited.
Europe does have high taxes and 'too much socialism' especially from a US perspective, but on the other hand, the European culture / work ethic is more "well-suited" to that. I think that's changing though with the younger generations, who seem to be lazier and more demanding, so Europe may have to become a bit more "right".
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's popular to go on about how America is going down the tubes, but there just isn't much truth to it. So we're having a recession? Big deal. No economist seriously believes that it's possible to have an economy that doesn't go through recessions. I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong -- we need a proper national dialogue among people with different views, and the problems we face today will all be solved in their own different ways (some with government programs, some with the free market, some with a hybrid of the two).
Since this is Slashdot, it's time for a systems design analogy: it's a huge mistake to believe that a system should be completely centralized on one giant mainframe, just as much as it's a mistake to think that it should be completely distributed to individual PCs. Both systems seem to have a kind of elegant beauty, and both systems are completely unworkable.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that all corporations are equal. They may all be equally greedy. They may all be equally unethical. However, the GP is talking about channeling money to corporations that educate people as opposed to channeling money to corporations that kill people. Do you truly believe that both are equally offensive?
I agree that the government *should* have as little money as possible, but I'd be much more comfortable living in a country that pissed away my money inefficiently trying to help people rather than pissing my money away efficiently killing people and reducing my civil liberties.
Re:Real summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government itself (it's somewhere on the whitehouse.gov site, I believe - I can't find it at this point) has a study on the effectiveness of various programs. Even using their "60% rating is adequate" appraisal, the DoE - particularly, Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, and various state-level funding - have failed to prove any effectiveness.
I have personally seen millions of 'education funding' dollars misappropriated to both primary and secondary education institutions. The government gives them money, and, not knowing what to do with it, they create a new computer lab. The lab ends up not getting used, whether it's due to lack of interest (they've got computers in their dorms), unavailability (it's only open for certain hours which makes its use difficult), or simple inaccessibility (it's hidden on the campus, or they've locked the computers down so much to make them useless). That is a travesty in and of itself, but it's existentially wrong when you consider that the money came from federal taxes.
We are currently in a situation in this country where the vast majority of people attend college for at least a year. Many of them drop out after the first year - either due to not seeing a point to it, or simply due to a lack of motivation, or some other reason. Pretty much anyone, at any income bracket with almost any high school GPA/test score combination, is able to do this, largely, due to the similar price structure of federal grants and the per-semester cost at state universities. The increased number of 'mediocre' students at the state schools leads to a lower quality of education - the processors are pressured into passing mostly everyone; this is a situation where nobody is actually benefiting.
Meanwhile, the tax payers lose even when many of those people still graduate (due to the decreased standards). The smart people don't have to try to excel, so they largely don't, and there ends up being little distinction between the GPAs of people with mediocre skill and intelligence, and those who are truly capable. Add to the fact that the intelligent, able poeple never really had to apply themselves to succeed, and they end up getting out of school expecting the sky.
There are so many people graduating from colleges that there is a glut of young, recent graduates in many technical disciplines (ie, it's difficult for a recent graduate to find an entry level job, even with several years of experience) - enough to put starting wages below the cost of living, and certainly below what a person could've worked up to had they been working full-time the whole time in a discipline like, say, automotive mechanics. A mediocre mechanic can easily increase his income above the pace of inflation every year; a mediocre IT person is likely unemployed half the time, and doesn't end up making much at all, instead switching over to a job like a mechanic and starting over. From what I hear, the situation is much the same in other science-oriented fields like engineering: there are simply too many qualified (on paper) people out there. And there are definately too many people out there with what many on here would consider "useless" degrees - interior decorating, political affairs, English, etc.
This is all, largely, at the fault of federal grant and loan programs and the federal primary education institutions pushing very hard to get every kid they can into college. It's not doing the country any good (the best years of many of these people are being wasted doing something they weren't meant to do and partying instead of being productive society members), and it's obviously not doing the students any good in the long run, either.
This all serves to dilute the value of a college diploma significantly, and it pushes "the age of responsibility" even higher.
Already Been Tried (Score:4, Insightful)
They already have that: It's called Alan Keyes, and he really hasn't been all that successful.
As much as Paul supporters would like to believe otherwise, Paul hasn't been successful largely because not that many people like his ideas. I'm not saying that he hasn't been somewhat marginalized (as is any candidate who is not seen as a leading candidate), but many people also just don't happen to share his views. It's just that those who do share them are very vocal and energized. My own opinion is that Paul represents a form of Republicanism that has been all but killed by neoconservatives (really beginning with Reagan).
Expel the Racist from the Party then (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it offensive. (Score:4, Insightful)
His decision seems fairly logical to me when the main goal of an on the ground campaign is to get out the vote and most of the elections are over (there are still some late caucuses left though) that he should lean up his machine (less votes to get out).
Bah, people say that the media was totally fair with Dr. Paul. These people weren't paying attention. When the media did cover him, they only questions they asked him were whether or not he planned to run as a third party candidate or to paint him as a racist. Of course when the chairman of the NAACP refuted the claim that Dr. Paul was a racist, you didn't see that on the news.
I am just disgusted with this whole political process. You have both parties that are leading us down the path of a corporatist/fascist police state and the one man who calls a duck a duck is the crazy whacko. The one candidate who won't take corporate donations and he is called nuts and un-viable. Guess who are the ones calling him not-viable...the ones he won't take donations from...but whatever.
Re:Not true at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
---
Sam has a mortgage that he pays a large interest on, such that the principle amount owed never goes down. He borrows money from a loan shark to buy a Cadillac, and loses two thirds of it on the way to the car dealer, and ends up with a used Ford Focus. On the way home, he stops by the bank to get a second mortgage on his house, in order to pay for his retarded diabetic daughter's medical expenses for the next year. He plans to do this every year, assuming the bank will keep letting him mortgage his house. So far, this has worked, because the value of his house has increased rapidly recently. However, the real-estate market is turning downward...
---
What does this have to do with the national debt? Well, absolutely nothing, because on the scale that the Federal government operates, there is no magic investment fund that the government puts its "extra" money into, and there cannot be. There are three things that a government can do with money: print more, remove some from circulation, and redistribute it. The first two directly affect the value of the individual dollar, so there is never any net gain or loss associated with manipulating a currency. (Hint - currency trading is a zero sum game, even when governments do it)
Redistribution of money through taxation and subsequent spending provides no net gain to the economy, unless you believe that the method of collection (taxation) and spending (Congress and Executive branch) are more efficient than the free market. (That may be true in some cases.)
So is there anything wrong with our massive national debt? Well, let's think about what incentives it creates. Inflation is a major boon to anyone in a massive amount of debt, as devaluing the dollar will reduce the actual debt owed by the same percentage. So now that the U.S. owes a massive amount of money to foreign investors, you'll see a ridiculous inflationary monetary policy as the U.S. tries desperately not to default on those loans.
What this means is that for responsible citizens of the U.S. who would like to save money and become financially solvent, it's now an uphill battle, and the government is going to be working against them by devaluing every dollar they save.
And there's MORE good news. We'll also be taking money from people who make good decisions in order to bail out every jackass who doesn't read the terms of his ARM loan when buying the McMansion he can't hope to afford, and every real-estate agent and mortgage broker who take advantage of this jackass. This will stave off a small recession for a few years, until the next crisis arises, rinse, repeat, and the situation continues to snowball.
This ignores the coming crisis in the next twenty years when the baby boomers are of age to get all those nice social security and medicare benefits, when there is NO money for it.
The transfer of wealth from responsible people to wasteful spenders will continue in the form of inflation and vote-buying, and it will cripple the U.S. economy.
Re:Real summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd like to know on what basis you say that, too.
I mean, if you're the victim of fraud, does that make you more inclined to commit fraud on others, or more willing to fight against it? If you are the victim of rape, does that make you more inclined to rape others, or to stand up against rape? I can't speak for everyone, and I know there are odd exceptions, but I would think that most adults are like me, that when someone commits some horrible wrong against them, it pisses them off and makes them want to fight against that wrong, not commit that wrong upon others. The fact that John McCain is a Vietnam prisoner of war is relevant because he has FIRSTHAND knowledge of what it's like and why we can't go down that road. Also, as pointed out, he WAS tortured extensively during his captivity.
John McCain is on the record about how he feels about torture. In fact, it's one of the reasons that, even though I don't like Republicans in general, I do respect him. When all other Republicans literally were saying that torture is okay—when even the Vice President was saying that a "dunk in the water," as he euphemistically referred to it, was a no-brainer—John McCain went against the grain of his own party at a time when there was a significant political risk for doing so to do the right thing and speak out against it. It's an issue that I'm convinced he is passionate about, and if he's elected, I trust him to do the right thing about it.
And by the way, I'm also convinced that John McCain's vocal opposition to torture is the only reason why the U.S. government hasn't gone further than it has. Did we torture prisoners? Yes. But once this was discovered, John McCain did a great job working to stop it [cnn.com], and had he not, I believe the situation would be much, much worse. Was it a 100% win? Probably not, since Bush & Co. have demonstrated a blatant disregard, even contempt, for any limits on their power. But it was a hell of a try, it DID make a difference, and if he's elected, he won't have to deal with an egomaniac who thinks these practices are perfectly okay.
And again, this isn't a wholehearted endorsement of John McCain. I plan on voting for Obama or Clinton when the time comes. I'm merely pointing out that unlike Bush, McCain is a moderate, and an honorable one at that. No matter what happens this November (barring a fluke upset by Huckabee), we as a country will be much better off than we are today.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't usually troll (Score:1, Insightful)
He's talking about a class of people, the working poor (those who live off of the minimum wage), not specific people. There are few people outside of the clinically retarded that never get a raise, so of course people who were making the minimum in 19-tickity-two are making more than the minimum now. That's not what the GP was talking about, idiot.
PS: Your "all immigrants are poor and ignorant" bit makes you look racist and ignorant. Also, read up on your statistics, buddy. There used to be social mobility, it was part of the American Dream. Now, only about 10% of the population climb the social ladder to a higher position. We are turning into a static society.
Re:Minimum wage? (Score:1, Insightful)
Cars, now... well, they have some fancy doo-dads and bells and wistles, but they're basically made out of cheap plastic. Back in the 60's, your car was a tank that could survive a head on collision. Pop in an air bag system to an one of them, and I bet they're be twice as safe as your modern car. Real metal just costs too much to build them like they did in the good days.
Sure they have some great add ons to your house or car, but try comparing the bare minimum packages with out the bells-and-whistles and you'll see the old easily beat the new. You can't compare old and new, when there isn't an old version!
Buying power better NOW then in 1965, NOT worse. (Score:2, Insightful)
In 1960 a low end car the Chevy Malibu was $2156 It got about 15 MPG (Average car in 65 achieved a little less) A low end Kia can be purchased for 13K in 2007 (Average mileage now is 25MPG). (6 fold increase)
Gas then 30 cents a gallon. Gas now $3.00 a gallon. (10 fold increase)
Now lets look at the real cost
Cost to drive 75 miles in 1965 = 1.50 cost to drive in 2007 = 9.00 Only a 6 fold increase not 10 fold as it first looks. Additionally cars back then used large quantities of Lead, Sulfur, etc which was put into the environment. Gasoline is far cleaner, one of the reasons it costs more.
The money you paid for cars back then got you a car with no pollution controls, no airbag, no safety speed tests, Im not even sure if seat belts were mandatory? You were lucky if you had an AM/FM radio (No CD, MP3 or tape). AC was definitely extra, seat comfort on many was atrocious.
Sure Wages have gone up 4.7 fold while the gas to drive somewhere has gone up 6 fold and a car has gone up 6 fold, yet the quality and comfort of that drive as well as safety has sky rocketed. If we said to car manufacturers, No regulations, make a car of the quality and standards of the 60s Im sure we would have them for less $9000, the cost of inflation vs minimum wage.
Other comparisons.
Milk 99 cents a gallon in 1965 Milk $3.00 a gallon now (3 fold increase)
Eggs 60 cents a dozen in 1965 vs 1.50 a dozen now (2.5 fold increase)
Computer in 1965 LOL 1975 ($1000) Now $300 A DECREASE of 3.3 fold (Quality. Dont make me laugh)
Color TV 23 inch Manual channel changer 1965 ($160), Now 24 inch with stereo, remote, timer, etc $199 (1.3 increase)
9 cubic foot fridge $200, Now 20 cubic foot fridge $500 with auto defrost far better energy efficiency (2.5 fold increase)
Before you compare minimum wage 1965 to 2007 also compare how good the products are in safety, features, energy efficacy, convenience, etc. All thing that ADD to the price.
If you want to live with 1965 technology I bet we can do most of it for only 2-3 times the price we paid then, meaning our dollars go twice as far.
Random Unicorn
Re:Real summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly enough the ne-cons who have hijacked the party turn out to be 'ex'-trotskyites. Irving Kristol, Poheretz and co, the founders of the neo-con club were all Trotskyites back in the day. Kristol once published a rag called 'millitant'.
Understanding that one simple fact explains so much of the past seven years. People change their abstract political goals but only rarely their political outlook. Left wing utopians with grandiose ideas become right wing utopians with grandiose ideas. Like the Trotskyites the neo-cons are long on rhetoric and rather short on practical understanding of the world. The world bores them, it fails to fit into their ideological confections.
The McCarthy years were good ones for former Trotskyites, they might have abandonded their leader after he died from ear-ache but they could still enjoy the shaudenfreude of watching their former Stalinist rivals being persecuted by McCarthy and Hoover.
The modern Republican party is a coalition of a kleptocratic tendency, a religious tendency and the neo-imperialist militant tendency. The kleptocratic tendency of Tom Delay, Abramoff, Ney, Lewis, Steven &ct. &ct. hates John McKeating Five as a hypocrite who climbed out of his own cess pool The neo-imperialist militant tendency is focused on starting a war with Iran. And the religious tendency has finaly realised that Lucy is always going to pull the ball away at the last minute.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real summary. (Score:1, Insightful)
The real problem with the United states is excessively concentrated wealth by a gobal elite, a privately managed and centrally planned economy (central banks, federal reserve, etc) for the elite few with the government beholden to private interests of the top %1 of the population. The country makers and country breakers of the financial/industrial elite. I certainly don't believe that Mexican immigration wasn't a planned by business interests seeking to drive down american standards of living. Too many people in of the American population are the stupidest and most apathetic people on the planet. The fact that their politico's must put on the veneer of christianity in office and play act their roles, just tells you of the atrocious level of gullibiity of the people that live there.
The goal of the US is in documents like PNAC is world domination and the spread of US style 'capitalism' (which shouldn't even be called that, since it's miles away from from the original intentions of adam smith) everywhere.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron Paul is not a wackjob- he is a man of principles- some of which would be very good for the long term health of our country.
We are currently riding down to national collapse and at this point, everyone has given up trying to save the country and is just looting it as best as they can for their personal benefit.
Patriots Nation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute, you're worried about corporate fascism and wage slaves, but you're supporting the guy who has sponsored bills to remove all regulation from corporations? Everything from the minimum wage to worker safety laws to anti-trust law? Explain to me how that makes sense. I don't get it.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already Been Tried (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is this. Ron Paul would simplify and reduce federal regulations and laws that benefit corporations now (corporate welfare, holding wars as ways of feeding corporations money, having healthcare as ways of feeding healthcare companies money). So he would shrink the amount of federal dollars bloating up some of these corporations.
However, I really do not think the states have the power to deal with large corporations (some of which may be larger than some states).
But then, you consider that Obama, McCain, and Clinton are all basically bought and OWNED out right by the corporations (as well as 60-70% of our congress) and he looks like a much better option.
Let's say he cuts off the federal flow of money to corporations and the reduced federal regulations turns out to be a horrible idea. Well then in four years, a STRONG - ANTI CORPORATE election would take place. We would be tossed into a frying pan instead of slowly dying in hotter and hotter water and the rest of the country might see how dangerous the corporations have become to the american way of life.