Has Ron Paul Quit?

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."

Real summary.

[Romancer]

FTA:

"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron"

Almost as bad as concentrating on just Florida.

[BeeBeard]

It's hard to believe that Ron Paul's chief political strategy was apparently to hope for deadlock between the front runners so that he could attempt to sway people to his side at a hypothetical brokered convention. And this, while encouraging his own rabid supporters to spend their own money out of pocket to try to create a grassroots following. Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?

Re:

[Kjella]

At this stage, was there any other strategy left? This is the "I've tried until every last glimmer of hope was vanquished" speech, basicly you need to tell people that you didn't quit because you're a quitter. At aby rate, even when you don't end up in the majority it's usually a good idea in a democracy to make your opinions public and let those in government and others know that there's a minority which would like a different policy. It would hardly be the first time that more popular candidates picked up

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?

Have you seen the film "Chronicles of Riddick?" The answer is: yes. At least Ron Paul was entertaining.

Re:Real summary.

[log0n]

We still have Obama. Party doesn't really matter anymore.. the country is getting further and further fargone and needs real leadership. McCain (war hero or not - honestly, it's noble but doesn't impress me) and Clinton both represent entrenched politics and more of the same old. Sounds funny, if I can't have Ron Paul, I want Obama.

NOT the same old entrenched politics

[KingSkippus]

No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.

My personal preference, in order of who I think would be best for the country, is Obama, Clinton, and McCain to win. Now, having said that, I have to admit, I don't see McCain winning as all that bad.

Yes, he will continue the war in Iraq. But you know what? Unlike George Bush, I think he has the competence to continue it in a manner in which we don't alienate the entire world and look like idiots to those who want us all dead. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against our troops fighting the war. In fact, I have an immense respect that I could never convey adequately. But when I think of how Bush has misused them... Well, being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."

You know what I think is most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies, and he's cleaning the clocks of people who do. If he can successfully show Republicans with brains (yes, contrary to popular belief, there are some) that you can be a conservative without being a sycophant to the religious nuts out there, that would represent anything BUT entrenched politics.

So yeah, I hope Obama wins. And barring that, I hope Clinton wins. But if neither of them do, unlike I've ever felt about George Bush, if John McCain wins, he'll have my support as President and Commander-in-Chief. Unlike the last two elections, I don't see this country as being a miserable failure at everything in the next four years no matter who wins.

Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics

[schon]

being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."

Why not? He's done exactly that to get where he is now.

At one time, he vehemently opposed the US's torture of prisoners abroad. Then he had a meeting with Bush, and suddenly he's got no problem with it.

Either someone has something on him, or he sold his convictions for power. In any case, he's lost my respect.

Re:

[arth1]

So what if he was a prisoner of war?
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 t

Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics

[KingSkippus]

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.

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:NOT the same old entrenched politics

[the_raptor]

Or he actually realised that the world isn't black and white, despite what most liberals seem to think. There are times when things like waterboarding (which is NOT TORTURE, you can spin it however you want but it's not) are necessary. It's amazing how many 'smart' people are really so stupid.

So would you voluntarily undergo water torture to prove this point? Would you be happy with other countries using it against your spies and soldiers?

I don't see how something that tricks a persons brain into thinking they are drowning could not be called torture. Torture is not equal to causing physical damage.

Re:

[pete-classic]

No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.

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:Real summary.

[edwardpickman]

Stick Ron Paul's brain inside Obama's head and you'd have a super candidate. It's not insulting Obama's intelligence the man is extremely intelligent but I'm not hearing a lot of reform ideas come from him. They blew off Ron Paul as the funny old guy but if you had Obama saying the same things he'd be the young guy with new fresh ideas. Hillary is a left wing Bush with a brain and McCain wants to win Nam. We need fresh blood but we also need fresh ideas about how to fix this mess.

Already Been Tried

[internic]

Stick Ron Paul's brain inside Obama's head and you'd have a super candidate. It's not insulting Obama's intelligence the man is extremely intelligent but I'm not hearing a lot of reform ideas come from him. They blew off Ron Paul as the funny old guy but if you had Obama saying the same things he'd be the young guy with new fresh ideas.

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).

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

I don't like his ideas because I know what states' rights actually entail. I know that without the Federal Government the Arkansas police would have shot down the Little Rock Nine.

Lincoln had a mixed-party cabinet

[Dorceon]

but it's not the same thing. Okay, how about Obama/Nader '08? Before you judge, say it out loud.

Re:Real summary.

[Zak3056]

We still have Obama. Party doesn't really matter anymore.

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.

[rewinn]

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.

[Zak3056]

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.

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:

[The One and Only]

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.

Time to be pedantic: in 2000, the Republicans held the House, Bush was elected President, and the Senate was split 50-50. The Democrats had control with Gore casting the tie-breaking vote until Bush and Cheney were sworn in, at which point Cheney held the tie-breaking vote. However, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and coalitioned with the Democrats, giving the Democrats 51-49 control of the Senate until the 2002 elections. The period of total Republican control lasted from January 20

Re:Real summary.

[rolfwind]

WTF?

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:

[Bartab]

Because nobody can object to Obama without being racist, or Hillary without being sexist!

Re:

[Wonko the Sane]

Care to define "seriously large" Wonko?

About 40% of the people I work with. I know, small sample size, etc, but still it's 2008, not 1850. These people need to get a life.

Re:Real summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to the real South where you can't avoid blacks, and while there is certainly some racism remaining, there's a lot less of it and what's left is less vehement. The more you interact with another race, the less you are capable of claiming they are fundamentally different and less than you.

I'm ashamed to say so, but for me it's absolutely the opposite. I grew up in an all-white town and did not have a hint, not a hint of racism when I left for college. Then I got here, where there're tons of black people, and ever since --- but really only in the last year or two --- I've slowly gained racist tendencies and thoughts.

I don't believe I'm prejudiced against black people; I believe I evaluate each person on his own merits. But I'm an extreme victim of confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]; it really seems to me like a higher percentage of the black people I come into contact with on a daily basis are thugs, idiots, and/or jerks than the people of every other race.

Maybe it's just a culture thing; I'm not as accustomed to black culture's annoyances as I am to white culture's annoyances. Whatever it is, it scares me a little that I feel like I'm getting more racist with experience instead of less.

I'm highly ashamed to admit this, but I felt like a counterexample should speak up.

Re:Real summary.

[MillionthMonkey]

I would love to see what happens with slave Reparations if he wins.

If there's one thing that's been keeping me up at night for the past eight years, it's slave reparations.

Re:Real summary.

[linzeal]

Yes, libertarianism for how to use a military and conduct some foreign policy and the domestic policy ala new deal. If we had taken the nearly 1 trillion dollars we have currently spent on the war and invested in this country's infrastructure we would not be in so many shit holes at once.

Re:Real summary.

[smittyoneeach]

I submit that the fundamental problem with the United States is excessively concentrated power.
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?

Re:Real summary.

[iamacat]

The problem is that Republican candidates advocate a limited government, but only when it comes to wealth redistribution. They are perfectly happy to expand domestic surveillance programs, pass laws imposing their moral standards on everyone else (why should marriage definition be a federal issue?), subsiding big corporations of lobbyist buddies and so on. Basically, they want a government good for old, rich white men. I would vote for any Democratic, Republican or independent candidate who would vow to de-escalate federal power in an issue-neutral manner. For starters, apply the famed "strict constructionist" viewpoint to the rule that the feds will only be responsible for foreign policy, enforcement of constitutional rights of citizens and regulating interstate commerce in the most literal and narrow interpretation of settling trade disputes. Let the states define their own criminal codes and extradition agreements and prosecute crimes in jurisdiction(s) where they have occurred. Let some states decline to criminalize prostitution, internet gambling or smoking pot and learn from their own experience if they are willing to live with the consequences. Let liberal-leaning locales create their own universal health care and living wage programs as long as the residents are willing to pay the taxes. Let South Dakota outlaw abortion and teach biology from the Bible and deal with the consequences of most young women and college graduates leaving the state for California.

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.

Re:Real summary.

[LilGuy]

I agree whole heartedly. I would also like to point out a major issue being that this is probably the first time people have directly picked a candidate to run for president with no corporate backing, as far as I'm aware. A very large problem with politics in this country is that you cannot make demands upon the person who is elected to office, regardless of whether you voted for them or not. Sure you can demand their impeachment if they do things you disagree with, and we all know how well that goes over, but you really can't make any demands on what they MUST do in order to continue to represent you. I thought that was the purpose of government first and foremost, but I was sadly mistaken.

Re:Real summary.

[alan_dershowitz]

The Republican party is large and diverse, and not all Republicans are for small government. This includes the current President. Having come of political age in the early 1990's, most of the Republicans I know are for small government and are very much against domestic surveillance and entanglement in foreign wars. I am a young guy, but I have watched for years and years as pro-business lackeys have been propped up into power in the party while the small-government pro-freedom Republicans have been railroaded out the back door. The unfortunate truth is that a great deal of the pro-freedom, small-government crowd ARE a little wacky (see: reinstitute the gold standard, abolish central bank, sorry if I'm offending anyone but those are crazy) and many I have met (I doubt most though) are at least latently racist. I have been a sorry witness to racist asides and outbursts from some of these people that have made me question my party affiliation. This is makes them unpalatable to many in the party, who believe it or not are not racist and do not hate blacks and Jews and are embarrassed by the association with some of these people. Then there are the evangelicals in the Republican party, who often ally with the pro-business crowd and have gelled where pro-business party members use the evangelicals for vote consolidation and many evangelicals have been brainwashed into believing pro-business politics even where it hurts people.

Re:Real summary.

[Dahamma]

Your problem is that you are somehow tied to the ideal of a "party" (which is of course the norm in US politics) when the reality is that the current major issues are for the most part not relevant to traditional Democratic/Republican party lines (or where they are, things are becoming so blurred it doesn't matter).

Vote with your head, not with your dogma.

Re:

[alan_dershowitz]

I agree 100%, but like in China, if you want to get political traction you need to be a Party member. We just have two parties instead of one.

Expel the Racist from the Party then

[Hugo estrada]

The problem with the Republican Party and racism is that Republican strategists decided to campaign towards racists back when Nixon ran for president. This may sound terrible to say, but the electoral victories of the last 30 years may not have happened without candidates pandering to racism. Unfortunately this decision made 30 years ago is destroying the party. Every decent Republican leaves the party because they can't stand the bigotry. And every time a decent Republican leaves, it makes the bigoted fac

Re:

[Zeinfeld]

The Republican party is large and diverse, and not all Republicans are for small government. This includes the current President. Having come of political age in the early 1990's, most of the Republicans I know are for small government and are very much against domestic surveillance and entanglement in foreign wars.

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

Re:Real summary.

[timster]

NO! We have a decent economy and a great nation because we don't subscribe to any one idiot's "master plan"! We absolutely need a society where everyone has a say. The Soviet Union, communist China, Nazi Germany -- pure systems, all which were doomed to failure from the start. Communism, in particular, cannot work and never will, no matter how nice and wholesome people are, because it's a horribly broken system that throws away all the important resource-allocation information. America's strength has always been that we are suspicious of anyone who thinks they have all the answers.

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.

[Kalriath]

This isn't insightful in the slightest. It's just another rich get richer, poor get poorer argument. Without those "social programs", poor people have exactly zero chance of ever getting back on their feet, and rich people get more money. And education? Well, we can see how affordable that is when left to the private sector. No, leaving everything to the private sector is a very bad idea.

Re:Real summary.

[grahamd0]

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.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

It's not entitlements that's killing us, it's INCOMPETENCE. When you're not doing billions in hand outs to your buddies and giving high offices to political hacks, things actually get done.

It's not enough that you cut taxes, it's that you cut spending as well. The opposite is true too. I don't mind being taxed if my ride to work is smoother and traffic is better managed.

Re:Real summary.

[HangingChad]

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?

Re:Real summary.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

yeah but when was the last time you saw a president asking for discretionary funds of 200 billion or 300 billion for the poor every six months or so?

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Real summary.

[Mr. Slippery]

I submit that the fundamental problem with the United States is excessively concentrated power.

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.

If there are indeed infrastructure problems within a state, why is the state impotent incapable of fixing them, instead relying on federal handouts?

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.

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.

The big problem with entitlements is medical care. What drives the rising costs? The for-profit medical "care" model.

Like an Ostrich with its head in the Sand

[Ex-MislTech]

Well in the current United States, largely apathy is king.

Ppl want to be entertained, bread and circuses and all, much like ...Rome...

So when ppl mention that the Federal Reserve really isn't federal, they
think your a nut job by default and don't bother to even read about it.

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/federal-reserve/ [libertydollar.org]

It is all verifiable.

It is all true.

But they dismiss it with a wave, so they can get back to the Computer, TV,
and watch their sports, boink their significant other, or read a book
about some made up shit that does not even exist.

In the meantime, the Fed loans the government its own money at 'interest'.

It is boring though, doesn't really entertain ppl, so it doesn't get much brain time.

My grandfather when I was a small child decades ago warned us about how bad
this would get, and I didn't really understand him then.

After many years, and a fair bit of reading and discussing with very intelligent
ppl in and out of the united states, I now see the shell game for what it is.

Some of the ppl that backed Ron Paul felt much like those ppl in V for vendetta
and are sick of blood sucking bastards that are ruining our country, and
charging us interest to do it to boot !

When the collapsing dollar dies, and the Amero is brought in to replace it,
the NAU is formed, the RealID and DNA database, and it suddenly dawns on you
that all of this was mentioned, you were warned and it was all in writing
by government officials in plain sight.

Lou dobbs covered the NAU forming, and the fact that there was no vote.

The Trans Texas Corridor was to be paid for by US tax dollars, but sold
to a Spanish billionaire who would run it as a for profit toll road
that we paid to build.

Fortunately the good ppl of Texas caught this and killed it, but it will
be back, and Rick Perry governor of Texas is in on it with them.

If you get a chance watch 911 press for truth to get a good Idea just how
bad things are getting, for the non religious folks also watch Zeitgeist the movie.

Also money as debt is a good primer for the Federal Reserve banking system.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 [google.com]

Most ppl will ignore this and plod on, just another brick in the wall.

Ex-MislTech

Re:

[Original Replica]

If we had taken the nearly 1 trillion dollars we have currently spent on the war and invested in this country's infrastructure we would not be in so many shit holes at once.

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

Re:Real summary.

[uhlume]

You do realize that Paul (like most big-L Libertarians, though perhaps even more extremely than most) is firmly and explicitly opposed [ronpaul2008.com] to any such "New Deal" domestic policy, right? (We are, after all, talking about a man who would seek to completely eliminate the Department of Education [ronpaul2008.com] and defund education spending at a federal level.)

If an end to expensive and counter-productive military adventurism [barackobama.com] and a re-commitment to New Deal-style [barackobama.com] domestic programs is something you feel strongly about, you might find yourself better served by a candidate like Barack Obama [barackobama.com].

Re:Real summary.

[uhlume]

It appears you're a little confused [wikipedia.org]. (In fact, according to Wikipedia, "in Roosevelt's twelve years in office the economy had an 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP, the highest growth rate in the history of any industrial country...")

Re:Real summary.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's a bit easier when you're starting from massive unemployment and still have the infrastucture mostly intact - employ half the unemployed and you get 12% growth from that (probably spread over 2 years). Try that trick in today's economy, where we don't have a massive hole to dig out of and it's harder. I'm sure the growth in postwar japan and germany was pretty decent, and they got bombed to hell.

Re:Real summary.

[uhlume]

I'm sure it is: in fact, the Wikipedia article's cited source for that claim of record growth notes (presumably post-war) Japan as a close second. The point of that quote is not that we'd likely see the same growth by instituting the same policies in today's economy; simply that the GP's claim that the New Deal created or extended the Great Depression is seriously at odds with historical fact.

Re:Real summary.

[cetialphav]

The Department of Education uses 2% of the federal budget. Their total budget is less than $60 billion dollars. Most of the money goes right back to the taxpayers in the form of Pell Grants ($13 billion) and various grants to the states ($24 billion). Those things do not sound like useless waste to me. Since this money goes into helping people go to college and improving schools in less affluent areas, I feel this is a good investment. A more educated workforce is great for the economy, and therefore good for me. Dollar for dollar, I think we get a better return on Pell Grants than we do on a new aircraft carrier ($13 billion).

Now, I think the debating the merits of Federalism vs state control and the proper role of the federal government of in education is a worthwhile debate. I enjoy hearing different ideas on the best way to fund and run the education system. But I can never take seriously any politician who just says that we should close down the Department of Education. That just ignores the important role that it plays today.

Re:Real summary.

[CAIMLAS]

You're mistaken: Pell Grants and grants to states for the purpose of education are, by and large, unproductive, wasteful government initiatives. They only "make sense" if you approach the matter from an emotional vantage.

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.

Re:Real summary.

[schnikies79]

If we hadn't spent that 1 trillion dollars on anything, we wouldn't be in debt as badly as we are.

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.

Not true at all.

[everphilski]

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.

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:

[Bluesman]

The mortgage analogy would be a good one, if the government operated in a remotely sane manner. The situation we're in now is more like this:

---
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 di

What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[Random Q. Hacker]

I cannot believe no one has mentioned the contributions yet! Is Ron Paul going to keep the tens of millions in contributions that he barely spent? Is this going to disillusion a whole generation of politically active geeks?

Ron Paul should donate a large portion of that money to the EFF, ACLU, and anyone else staying in the fight for our civil liberties! We did not contribute for his reelection to congress!

Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[witherstaff]

Presidential contributions are separate from his congressional run. It's the law.

As to why this thread says 'quit' when it sounds more like scaling back for fiscal conservation is beyond me.

Re:

[fastest fascist]

Yes, because obviously what matters to you must be what matters to the next geek. It's a great big geek monoculture, although some nutjobs seem to rail against it. Something needs to be done about those types, maybe that "dissolutioning" you speak of would be a good start. Sounds final enough at any rate.

Re:

[ronadams]

Sorry, forgot there were only 2 valid points of view in American politics: Republicrat and Democan. God forbid someone should seek to bring a little change into the system.

Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[Maxo-Texas]

Your post just shows how well the propoganda swinging this country into a corporate fascism dominated by what is essentially nobility while the rest of us are forced to work as wages slaves.

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.

Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[Shining Celebi]

Your post just shows how well the propoganda swinging this country into a corporate fascism dominated by what is essentially nobility while the rest of us are forced to work as wages slaves.

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:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I've personally heard nothing but hype about Ron Paul and I still think he's a wackjob. You may call it propaganda if you wish, ut I'm fairly sure that, in the long run, his principles applied as he wants them to be, would make the economy more fragile, and would lower quality of life. The US government is a little too pro-business for some people's liking, but (you have to hand it to them) it has produced the world's wealthiest nation, the biggest superpower, and a stable economy. Ron Paul, despite his nob

Re:

[profplump]

He sponsored bills to remove *federal* regulation of corporations. If only there were some form of government that could respond to the needs of workers on a regional basis. That would be really cool, because it would let us set regional minimum wages that actually reflected the cost of living in that region, or quickly respond to safety threats posed by a new form of manufacturing even if those threats only affected a small group of people in a single part of the nation.

Re:Real summary.

[fyngyrz]

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.

Let's face it, it's done

[daddyrief]

I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and voted for him in the primaries. That said, reality cannot be ignored or distorted, McCain will be the nominee. Focus should now be reshifted to helping Dr. Paul keep his seat in the House.

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...

Re:Let's face it, it's done

[alan_dershowitz]

I will tell you why I gave Ron Paul some financial support. I don't agree with all his politics, but I am a conservative who is against torture, is against the police state, is against the surveillance state and is against this war. I supported Ron Paul because every debate he shows up at he fucks up the unstated agreement among ALL other Republican candidates to not talk about any of that shit. He disrupts their big snow-job on the American public about the sins of the Republican party for the last eight years, and I love every minute of it.

Misleading title and summary

[The One and Only]

Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:

But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

He didn't quit! Can't you people read?

[Scrameustache]

With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.

What part of "fight on in every primary and caucus remaining and at the convention" did you people parse as "I quit"?

The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?

Finally

[sqrt(2)]

Maybe the astroturfing and spam can finally end now. Ron Paul definitely gets the award for most annoying campaign ever. I've never received spam in my inbox from any of the other candidates. And if I have to ignore one more invitation to a Ron Paul supporters group on facebook I'll scream.

One question though: what happens to all the money he raised? I'm sure he hasn't burned through all of it, and he raised a lot from what I've read. Now that he's running a "leaner" campaign he will be using it even slower.

Last consolation prize possible

[michaelmalak]

I've donated $600, knowing that Ron Paul would not win due to electronic voting and biased media, for two reasons: for Ron Paul to spread the message of freedom and to build the freedom movement for next time. Compared to the paltry showings of the Constitution Party that I've been supporting since 2000, compared to my own past efforts at underreported.com, and even compared to Ron Paul's own 1988 presidential run, it was money well spent. The message has spread further than anyone dreamed of even a year ago.

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.

did you ever stop to consider...

[YesIAmAScript]

Maybe other people didn't want to vote for Ron Paul.

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.

Where are all the Pauls?

[opencity]

Ron Paul's campaign is a symptom of the same foolishness that was Nader 2000, the idea that politics isn't local, that all you need is a trendy / genius / misguided / radical / (insert opinion) platform or platforms and one candidate can run for the highest office in the land and Change Everything. Ron Paul doesn't have a party. As far as I can tell he's not a Republican (I mean that as a compliment and I did RTFA), says he isn't a Libertarian (and exactly how many Libertarian state governors are there? Just curious). He's running for the Republican party he wants not the Republican party which exists which is like being a Muslim feminist [rawa.org]. Or, for that matter, many of the Ron Paul internetters who seem to be supporting the Ron Paul they want, not the Ron Paul they have.

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.

I find it offensive.

[gebbeth]

I have watched on Slashdot as people posted stories of Ron Paul breaking Internet fundraising records of most funds in a single day (twice!) and stories of how he has never voted to regulate the Internet etc. that were never accepted as stories (surely the previous two examples are of interest to geeks) and then this letter comes out which says he is going to fight all the way until the end and Slashdot quickly has it up on the front page with the interpretation that Ron Paul has called it quits. Furthermore one of the tags was "thankgod". I mean how insulting. Regardless of what ones opinion of a candidate is, shouldn't he/she still be treated with respect and courtesy?

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.

Ron didn't quit, America did

[BobMcD]

The plain fact is, people want to vote for a 'winner' and allow the MSM to dictate who that should be. Ron Paul was excluded from debates when Guilanni was not because he was deemed 'not viable'. Turns out, they had that backwards. I have NEVER felt more jaded towards politics as I do right now. Observe:

1) For a candidate to win, MSM support is required

2) MSM is in favor, some directly and others indirectly, of 'news worthy' wars and other events

3) The best interests of the average American ARE NOT in line with the best interests of the average MSM corporation

Therefore: Allowing the media to select our election candidate is nothing short of complete insanity. Anyone that didn't vote for Paul ought to be committed, as they cannot form simple value judgments without the support of the idiot-box.

And, by the way, if we ever want this to REALLY change, we're going to have to bring the word 'revolution' back to an earlier meaning. Those powerful people are entrenched, folks, and it's all YOUR fault.

Re:Thank goodness

[Icarus1919]

That's good. Now, if only we can get Reaganomics recognized as the science that it is.

Re:Thank goodness

[fyngyrz]

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:Thank goodness

[KDR_11k]

Backed by something? Other currencies aren't backed by anything tangible either. That's not the reason the US dollar is crapping out.

Re:Thank goodness

[Kelbear]

Gold is tangible, gold is scarce, but valuable? The high value of gold is built on intangible desires just like the value of paper and ink that we place on money. It's metal. I don't have gold, I don't have any use for it, and I don't want the metal. I want the cash value of gold though.

A gold standard is just changing one object for another as a unit of exchange. You can use deer skins, rocks with holes in them, it's still money. If you want serious value behind the unit of exchange, exchange a valuable unit like a car or piece of machinery. Except those don't fit so well into a pocket. So you exchange cash. But cash makes your pocket fat, so we carry credit cards.

The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.

Ron Paul has some good ideas I'd support, but the gold standard isn't one of them.

Re:

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem with gold or similar physical standard is that the amount of gold available is not tied to the size of the economy; the amount available grows much more slowly. If you have an expanding economy as is the case in most of the world you want the amount of money to expand with the size of the economy to prevent deflation (i.e. decreasing real prices) which is just as bad if not worse than inflation.

Re:

[bagsc]

No economist would mistake stocks for wealth. Stocks and bonds and real estate and currencies and derivatives are tiny compared to the biggest type of wealth of the world: human capital.

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

Re:

[Compholio]

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.

Funny, we over here in Europe have the same information, the same empirical data available and are applying the same scientific principles, and it seems to work for us...

That's only because you actually apply logic and reasoning to your decision making and aren't stupid enough to waste all your money on a third high-def TV and two wars o

Re:

[Scrameustache]

it seems to work for us... [Europe]

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

Oh noes! Their traditions are different! THE HORROR!

, the far too narrow streets,

Oh noes! Their streets were made long ago in no-car times with very limited land area for the population! THE HORROR!

the high price of food and fuel and rent

Oh noes! They don't have an empire keeping the price of fuel (and therefore food) artificially low! And they have a higher population density! THE HORROR!

I remember being shown a tiny little stove that one young couple in London used as their entire heating system. Their kid was buried in a ball of flannel every hour of the day. It was bloody *cold* in that flat.

They have poor people? There's none in the USA! THE HORROR!

I starkly remember being driven to nausea over the smell of the water in the canals in Venice and in the alleyways of London.

Never been to New York, huh?

When Europe's standard of living catches up to ours, then you can talk to me about how your economic policies are all that.

Done [dailymail.co.uk].

Man, I can't believe you threw in the toilet style in your complaints.

Re:

[BeanThere]

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 us

Re:Minimum wage?

[fyngyrz]

What has minimum wage got to do with anything?

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.

What if there wasn't one

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.

You're going to have to come up with some numbers involving actual wages paid to compare to your numbers on inflation.

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:Minimum wage?

[alexgieg]

. . . 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.

Of course you can. You can be paid $0. What minimum wage causes in fact is this: someone who would be able to earn $x, "x" being less than "minimum", is prohibited from doing so. So, he switches into earning what he's allowed: $0. Or, to be more realistic, into earning $x anyway, only illegally.

Re:Minimum wage?

[BeanThere]

You are really missing his point entirely. Stop, stop, stop. Let me try give you a concrete example: I do similar work to my dad. At my age my dad was able to support a family of several kids and buy a reasonable sized house. I live on my own and can only afford a much smaller place.

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:Thank goodness

[Uart]

Lew Rockwell is not the founder of the Austrian School. He is the founder of a think-tank that advocates that particular school of thought.

The Austrian School was founded by Ludwig von Mises and (Nobel Prize Winner) F.A. Hayek, among others.

Re:

[alexgieg]

The Austrian School was founded by Ludwig von Mises and (Nobel Prize Winner) F.A. Hayek, among others.

No, no. They're important in that they brought it to USA, but it's much older. The Austrian School was founded in the 1870's by Carl Menger [wikipedia.org]. Mises and Hayek are respectively the 3rd and 4th generation of Austrian economists. Hayek studied under Mises, who studied under Böhm-Bawerk [wikipedia.org], who studied Menger (not under him though; by reading his works).

Re:Thank goodness

[techno-vampire]

I've always thought the Soviet Union failed because it expected human nature to change. While it was saying, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need," the people were saying, "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." Guess which slogan had more power.

Re:Thank goodness

[gambolt]

It failed because they overspent on their imperialist boondoggle in Afghanistan, just like we're doing in Iraq.

Re:

[The One and Only]

There's a qualitative dimension to physics as well.

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...

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:

[alexgieg]

This is a very poor understanding of the Austrian method. What it actually does is to provide some very broad concepts which constitute what me might call a "metatheoretic framework". This framework, called "praxeology", is in turn used to develop theories about specific economic phenomena. And these theories can be falsified.

So, for example, using this Austrian methodology, the leading theorist of the school, Ludwig von Mises (who in fact gave the thing its name, "praxeology"), made an extensive list of ve

Re:Big deal

[ushering05401]

I am not in the cult, but I am very happy Ron Paul is running.

I saw my father change his political affiliation for the first time since he originally registered at the age of eighteen because of Ron Paul's message. That in itself is worth a lot.

I wouldn't necessarily have voted Paul, but I am glad my dad found a message to break through his increasingly jaded and hopeless view of American politicians.

Re:Big deal

[Scrameustache]

his race was over before it started. He never stood a chance. No number of fanboys will ever change that.

So, what you're saying, is that democracy is dead.

Re:

[mangu]

It's not like the US went to war when the Soviet Union invaded Poland, Finland, and most of Eastern Europe in the 1920s

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 countr [wikipedia.org]

Re:why?

[Master of Transhuman]

The reason is that tech people and libertarians tend to overlap as demographics. There are more of the former than the latter, but if you know what a Venn diagram is, you won't have problems understanding that.

For the record, Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN with some libertarian ideas - NOT a "libertarian", even though he ran once or twice on the Libertarian Party ticket. He's more of what they call a "paleoconservative" than a "libertarian". There is a wide variety of "libertarians", both left and right. The ones that end up in the Libertarian Party tend to be, as Bob Black once said, "Republicans who smoke dope."

And his support didn't come from "white supremacists" - that was bullshit media spin based on a couple donations.

I'm an anarchist myself, so I couldn't care less, but it was fun to see him skewer the other Republican candidates with their militarism and economic stupidity.

If McCain becomes President, we'll be at war with Iran AND Pakistan within six months - and the US economy will completely collapse as China dumps the dollar because they were cut off from Iranian oil and gas. Electing that senile old fool is a vote for the destruction of the United States.

Unfortunately, electing either Obama or Clinton will end up in the same place - it will just take a little longer as they screw around with "diplomacy" before starting their wars. Neither of them, let alone McCain, have any clue about US foreign policy.

Re:why?

[espergreen]

While I am sure you are right, if "empathy" in politics lead to censorship, war, torture, and injustice -- I think I will stick to Dr. Paul's libertarianism.

Re:why?

[Mspangler]

One small adjustment...

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.

Re:

[XnavxeMiyyep]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 [politicalcompass.org] actually lists all three of the as conservative.

Re:

[Surt]

The political compass quiz is always formulated to try to drive your answers towards whatever group is putting it up (I see this most frequently with libertarians trying to convince people to join their party). This one seemed worse than most in terms of stating fairly extreme positions in order to force a strongly agree/disagree answer.

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 (

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

It might sound harsh but going down might just be what America needs right now. Then come out of it wiser and perhaps a little stronger.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

Was Ron Paul honest when he wrote the racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy nut newsletters without putting their "actual" authors(assuming it isn't actually Ron Paul writing them, although Ron Paul certainly wanted Ron Paul's name in big letters at the top, and nobody else's name to be tracked as the author--probably because Ron Paul wanted support from the militias AKA his constituencies) or was he honest when he denied them.

As for Kucinich, he said that if he doesn't appear on the ballot you should vote for

Re:

[Shados]

Libertarianism gives more power to people. To quote, as silly as the most common source may sound in this contest: "With great power, comes great responsability". The LAST thing humans one, but their nature, is responsability. So they push the power to others.

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.