The People Are Catching On That The Government Is Bankrupt

Ron Paul was interviewed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning. The Congressman believes that Obamacare will benefit Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections only because many voters have already forgotten how bad Republicans were when they were in power. The next generation of independent-minded individuals realize that both parties are basically the same and that the ideas of liberty need to influence the people and the two parties from the ground up.

Show: Morning Joe
Channel: MSNBC
Date: 03/26/2010


Joe Scarborough: Let’s bring in Ron Paul right now. I don’t think that matters a whole heck of a lot right now. Obviously, the 2012 election is far off. But Ron Paul, how will this healthcare debate shape the election that’s coming up in November in 2010?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it certainly will. I think a lot is yet to happen, because more people are going to understand this bill and how bad it really is. I think 2010 seems to be such a long way off. I think, you know, a lot more can happen. But I definitely think it is going to make a difference. I think it is going to help the Republicans and they’re going to come close to taking over the House.

But, to me, the whole thing is a huge mess. You know, they had this big excitement over 20 words. Well, it was good that they’re trying to follow the rules, but coming from my viewpoint where I can’t even find out where there is authority in the Constitution for running medical care. And 2,000 pages? I think they’re all wrong. And now we’re going to worry about 20 words? Well, I guess its good they’re worried about 20 words, but I’d like to have them worried about the 2,000 pages.

Joe Scarborough: Well, let’s talk about both of the parties, because when I go out and talk, it’s not just people concerned about the Democratic Party. They’ll say, “Yes, were concerned about how the Democratic Party is expanding the government’s footprint in our life when it comes to healthcare. But you Republicans”, they will say to me, “passed a Medicare drug benefit plan that had a cost of 7 trillion dollars”. If you look out there right now, Ron, it doesn’t look like Americans have a real good choice if they’re small government conservatives. They’re getting it from both parties, they’re getting it from Bush, now they’re getting it from Obama.

Ron Paul: And thank goodness the people are waking up. You know, the people can have an influence when they finally wake up; and they are on this issue. And you make the very important point, because when the Republicans were in charge they were were doing the same thing; running up deficits, expanding the role of government, and expanding the Department of Education and the whole mess. So the people are catching on. But the reason they’re catching on is because they’re realizing our government and our country is bankrupt. And nobody believes that they can give 30 million new people medical care and not charge them and lower the deficit. I mean, it is astounding that they do this with a straight face. And everything is just so much partisan bickering. And like you point out, they’re saying the same thing, but it’s partisanship; it’s who gets to favor their friends the most, who’s going to run it and who gets the power.

Joe Scarborough: And that’s what’s so fascinating to me: the harsh partisanship in Washington DC. When you look at the arc of the federal government over the past decade, there is just not a lot – and this drives partisans on both sides crazy when I say it, but when it comes to the size of government, there is just not a real difference between Republicans and Democrats – how Republicans acted over 8 years when they we’re in power, and how Democrats are acting now. They’re both spending money we don’t have. Pat Buchanan, do you have a question for Ron Paul?

Pat Buchanan: Sure. But you’re right, Joe, George W. Bush was a Great Society Republican. But let me ask Ron this: “Repeal and Reform” sounds like a good message to run on, and I think it’s got real credibility with the American people. There are some aspects to that bill they may like, others they may detest. But as a practical matter, the president’s got a veto pen, you’d have to have 2/3rds of both houses to override his veto. As a practical matter you can’t repeal and reform, can you?

Ron Paul: No, not under these circumstances. Maybe someday when the country goes bankrupt and we rebuild the whole society, we’re going to have to reform. But right now there is no chance of this happening. I would like to preserve and save something. You know, in this whole medical debate, they talked about the public option for a long time. I wondered why they never said, “Why can’t we preserve a private option?” To me, one of the worst things they’ve done with this bill is take away a private choice. They undermine the health savings accounts, giving a person to opt out. But they don’t want you to opt out. Matter of fact, this time they’re forcing everybody to go in and buy government mandated insurance. So they’re moving in the wrong direction. At least in education, as bad as it is, with public education and what they’ve done to it, you know, you can opt out. You could teach your kids at home and you could still go to private school. But now, in medicine, you can’t opt out. And that is why the medical care quality is going to deteriorate, and why the cost is going to escalate and eventually everybody is going to be a lot more unhappy.

Joe Scarborough: Pat Buchanan, I want to go to your point, though, about repealing this bill, or portions of it, if Republicans take control of the House of Representatives. The one thing that we knew in 1994 when we got elected is, even if the liberal Republicans in the Senate didn’t go along with this, even if Bill Clinton didn’t go along with this, you look at the Constitution and the House of Representatives has the checkbook. Nothing gets paid for unless the House of Representatives says it gets paid for. So you have a lot of programs that could be defunded by a conservative House in 2011 and 2012. Nothing passes, nothing gets done unless the House says it does. And that seems to me, Ron Paul, like an opportunity. If you ask me, “Do you want Republicans to take over the House or the Senate?” I’d’ say let them take over the House, because you can’t spend a dime unless the House says, “You can spend a dime”.

Ron Paul: That’s the way it’s supposed to be. But that’s not the way it happens. The Congress, for decades now, has given up their prerogatives to the executive branch. We’ve had Republicans who loved a strong executive. Still today the executive can go to war without a declaration, the Federal Reserve can spend $2 trillion without appropriation. The other day what did Obama do? When the Congress couldn’t do something, they’d welcomed, “Oh, write an executive order, it’s the force of law”. So the executive branch writes laws constantly, the judicial system writes laws constantly. You’re absolutely right about what the House should do. But we have strayed so far form that responsibility. The House be able to control the whole process through the purse. But they give up on it too easily. And it is astounding to me that the Congress has giving up so much of their authority and responsibilities.

Joe Scarborough: Let me ask you this, Ron, in 2006 and 2008 there were a lot of small government conservatives that helped Ronald Reagan get elected in 1980, that helped people like me get elected in 1994, that said, “Why do I want to make phone calls for the Republicans? Why do I want to knock on doors for the Republicans, because if they win, they’re not going to be conservative. Can you tell small government conservatives today in 2010 that if Republicans take control of the House next year, that they have learnt their lessons? That they’ll be any different than they were the last 8 years they controlled the House? Will it be different this time?

Ron Paul: Oh, I don’t think so, unless you get a new crop up here; you have to have different people up here. And I think the frustration that you’re expressing is the fact that the two parties are very similar, and therefore there aren’t any choices. We don’t really have a democratic process here, because if you try to do it as a third party, all the rules are biased against you. You can’t get on ballots, you can’t get in debates, you’re dismissed by the media. So we do have one party and all they fight over is power and influence. They do not fight over philosophy. So if you want that, if you want to see a change, the Republicans have to change their image. Right now they’ve gained a whole lot, not because people are convinced of the Republicans, but they are convinced that the Democrats are so bad and they actually are now worse than what they remember the Republicans to be. So we have a long way to go to straighten this mess out.

Joe Scarborough: Pat Buchanan?

Pat Buchanan: A quick question, Ron. Look, the Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney agree 100% the bill shouldn’t have passed on healthcare. On foreign policy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are on opposite sides completely. And each has your point of view can prevail in the Republican Party on foreign policy, or is that hopeless?

Ron Paul: No, it’s not hopeless. We’re making progress and this is where I’m excited. Not on the House floor yet. But the people’s minds are being changed. Tomorrow night I’ll be at Boise State University in Idaho, and believe me, we’ll have a large crowd and they are going to endorse the views of non-intervention, coming to our senses, we’re bankrupt, and we can’t police the world. We’re broke here in this country. Why are we spending a trillion dollars a year managing an empire that is unmanageable and only gets us into trouble? That attitude is changing. The next generation will know we have to change that policy.

Mika Brzezinski: Yeah. That’s actually Congressman Ron Paul echoing what you said at your speech at CATO last week.

Joe Scarborough: Well, there are a lot of people. And Ron Paul’s exactly right; there are a lot of people that are saying we’re bankrupt and what are we doing trying to rebuild countries a decade after we went into Afghanistan, and how much longer are we going to be there. We have got to narrow our focus, we have got to show restraint at home, we have got to show restraint abroad. And the party that does that, Ron, I think is going to start winning elections.

Mika Brzezinski: Yeah.

Ron Paul: Yep, that’s it, and we need the influence of these independent-minded people, but unfortunately they don’t have another party, so they’ll have to influence both parties.

Mika Brzezinski: He says we need a new crop. Ron Paul, thank you very much.

Joe Scarborough: Thanks, Ron.

Ron Paul: Thank you, good to be with you.

  • Dfens

    Remember when the “free traders” used to tell us how we would only be outsourcing the low paying, low skilled jobs to places like China and India? That was a lie! There’s much more money to be saved by outsourcing the highly skilled, high paying jobs and to a large extent those have gone first. Software engineering was probably the most widely outsourced job early on.

    Companies have been offshoring manufacturing for decades. Today, however, corporations are sending engineering work abroad as well, by outsourcing work to offshore vendors or assigning it to overseas divisions.

    If this is a seismic change in the engineering profession, so far mechanical engineers have only felt the initial tremors. The trend is most pronounced in information technology, computing, and consumer electronics, where U.S., European, and Japanese firms have hired hundreds of thousands of programmers and engineers in China, India, and other developing nations. Computer and cellphone manufacturers increasingly outsource product design and engineering to original design manufacturers in China and Taiwan.

    Many IT organizations not only outsource projects overseas, but rely on a small army of contract workers from overseas (on H1-B visas) to staff U.S. offices. Some companies require domestic IT employees to train their replacements (who will return overseas with their jobs) in order to retain severance benefits. A recent survey of 10,000 workers by the Stern and Wharton business schools found 8 percent of IT workers fired or involuntarily transferred due to offshoring.

    Similar practices are not as common in mechanical engineering. Yet the trends are moving in the same direction. Companies like Caterpillar, Daimler, General Electric, General Motors, Honeywell, Siemens, Matsushita Electric, and IBM have all built massive engineering facilities offshore. Many companies also outsource engineering to offshore vendors.

    Manufacturing profits helped build Shanghai’s skyline. Studies show companies that offshore manufacturing tend to offshore engineering too.

    Corporations justify offshoring easily. They need local engineers to enter developing markets. They claim they cannot find enough skilled engineers at home. They want to speed up product introductions. They believe offshoring cuts costs.

    There are other reasons too, some rarely enunciated. Many CEOs of public companies feel pressure from Wall Street analysts to show cost-cutting offshoring strategies. China demands technology transfer in exchange for access to its markets. Engineering must follow manufacturing abroad to achieve real efficiencies. Managers can hire four or five engineers overseas for the cost of one at home. – Mechanical Engineering

    I hope those Communist Chinese engineers will help you out when you need weapons of war. Maybe they will turn all their research and development skills onto the problem of keeping America safe when you need tanks and aircraft to keep the foreign invaders off our shores. I guess Ron Paul’s “free trade” is how we say thanks to those engineers and scientists that won the Cold War for the US. Yeah, thanks one hell of a lot. Welcome to Ron Paul’s Amerika.

    • longshotlouie

      I understand that you are mad at yourself for falling for all of that so-called Free Trade bullshit, but self-loathing and blame deflection won’t change your future for the better.

      You fell for it, not Ron.
      He warned you, you ignored him.

  • Jim Farmer

    Ride on Ron. The country is bankrupt. The two political parties are basically the same. To heck with empire.

  • Dfens

    What is really bankrupt is Ron Paul’s “free trade” policies that leave people like this with no home and no recourse against foreign suppliers of goods that poison Americans. Why does Ron Paul love the Communist Chinese and hate his fellow Americans?

    “Get these people out of this environment,” he said. “You’re making these people sicker and sicker and sicker. You will have long-term effects.”

    In Cape Coral, Fla., Joyce Dowdy, 71, and her husband Sonny, 63, plan to move out of their $150,000, 1,600-square-foot home while it is gutted to get rid of tainted Chinese drywall.

    Joyce Dowdy said she suffers from nose bleeds and her husband has a persistent cough. They blame the drywall.

    “We can’t live like this anymore,” Joyce Dowdy.

    They’re borrowing money to do the gutting, which means that instead of a mortgage-free retirement they will be paying monthly bills cover the costs of repair.

    “It’s costing us as much as we paid for the house,” Joyce Dowdy said. “But we can’t just walk away … Our house is worth nothing at the moment.” – AP

    Welcome to Ron Paul’s America, Sonny and Joyce Dowdy!

    • Fred the Protectionist

      Anything for profit.

      Definitely regressive.

    • longshotlouie

      A pair of statist turds fall for that free trade bullshit, and when it backfires on them they are looking for someone to blame. You would think that they would point at the ones that actually voted for it.

      I guess that would be too logical.

      • Fred the Protectionist

        Are you accusing the founding fathers, the Constitution, and every Republican up till the 1920’s as statist? Why do you hate America?

        • longshotlouie

          Focus, Brainard
          The subject was Paul and FTA’s

          Focus again,
          Paul does not vote for these FTA’s

          Still focused? Since you are pointing a finger at someone that you know is not guilty of your accusation, we can only be left with one conclusion.

          AT EASE, relax your br……….. nub

          • Fred the Protectionist

            See that’s what you don’t understand Ron Paul is worse then the FTA’s. Ron Paul is worse then NAFTA.

            At least the FTA’s attempt to open up foreign markets via treaty (while lowering our Tariffs). You Ronulan nutters would lower US Tariffs to zero while daring foreign countries to completely close off to America exports, basically removing the ability to retaliate. That would mean American would export ZERO and import EVERYTHING, meaning no American would have a job and we’d all die of starvation.

            Every founding father believed in Tariffs and Retaliation, Ron Paul and his Austrian Economic fools are retards.

          • longshotlouie

            Sorry, Fled
            But your brand of government manipulated trade is not superior to any other brand of government manipulated trade. They both end in lost jobs and industries.

            Your thinking has destroyed the economy and you simply want to do the same thing in a different way.

    • Dfens

      A huge reduction in tariffs on goods from around the world has done so much to help this country already. I can’t wait for Ron Paul’s unilateral elimination of all tariffs. Won’t this country be wonderful then? We will be able to buy all kinds of cheap TVs, if we’re among the lucky few who have a job. Of course, the federal government will be hiring, so Ronny and Randy will be safe. That’s what’s really important.

      David Neff, 42, of Bradenton, Fla., lost his job as a computer network administrator in 2008. Since then, he has applied for countless jobs in his field, with no success. He got licensed to sell commercial real estate last summer but has not had much luck. He is considering opening a business focusing on renewable energy, or perhaps going to school.

      In the meantime, he has maxed out his credit cards and seen his home fall into foreclosure. He said he is dreading the day when he and his two children will be forced to vacate.

      “I’m still putting resources out there, but I’m not hopeful,” Neff said. “It’s like throwing spaghetti at the wall.”

      With the exception of health care, even the experts can’t tell what jobs and skill sets will be in demand and which won’t.

      “It’s not clear to me who ends up on the short end of the stick in occupations that are no longer prevalent,” said Christopher Woock, a researcher and labor economist at the Conference Board. “That’s the hard part, figuring out where those new opportunities are going to be.” – Washington Post

      Then there’s always health care, which despite many tries, no one has really figured out how to outsource that. Even there, Ronny and Randy, though firmly against “illegal immigration”, are for unlimited legal immigration. After all, Americans are the enemy. We can never put enough Americans out of work. If not with unlimited “free trade” then with unlimited immigration, because Ronny and Randy hate the middle class most of all.


      • longshotlouie

        When will you tell us why taxation is such a great thing?

      • Dfens

        I believe in the United States of America and support the Constitution upon which it was founded:

        The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States – US Constitution

        I support tariffs (duties) because they allow people who love to buy products from the Communist Chinese the freedom to buy those products and yet allow people who love the US and the jobs the purchase of American products support are given the opportunity to buy those products duty free. The founding fathers and I have that in common.

        • longshotlouie

          Taxing trade is taxing us. You will have changed nothing. You would tax us right out of jobs and industry.

          I ask again, How many more things do you want government to do for you?
          They run your healthcare, your education, your retirement ……
          Maybe they should buy you a car, a house, guarantee you employment, and ………..

          Wake Up

      • Fred the Protectionist

        I bet the cheap foreign labor lovers are hard working on a plan to export the health care industry.

    • Alex W.

      Let the buyer beware. While I sympathize with the elderly couple, it would have been wise for them to ask where the materials for the house were purchased. A $150,000 purchase should lead to 150,000 questions. The buyers have all of the power, as they can decide whether or not they wish to hand over cash for a product. Since earning money is basically the primary motivation for anybody running a business, a company that sees a drop in housing sales due to the use of foreign products would be forced to purchase domestic products, lest they go out of business.

  • Bob D


    Its even worse than that! Americans look at voting in the elections like betting on a horse. Congratulations if you pick the winner. I’m proud I voted for 3rd parties rather than Bush or Obama. But most are not. The votes would not be wasted if we had a parlimentary system. Look at the clout the minority War and Religious parties have in Israel. And, my gosh, Iraq for that matter!!!!!!! A mutiple party system means when they get through bickering they have to get along or there is no government.

  • Check out the song “Lucky Ones” by The Bayonne Bleeders on YouTube. It starts with a Dr. Ron Paul soundbyte on inflation. Great lyrics…….”and who will bear the standard when we’re (the middle class) gone? You and I will always be the lucky ones, ’cause you and I appreciate the setting sun, and if the darkness that we fear should ever come, just hold on tight our thread will never come undone.” – the Lucky Ones by The Bayonne Bleeders

    • Ryan

      Good song. Thanks for sharing.

  • Censored

    This is how they win the “free trade” debate on Ron Paul’s website, with censorship. Don’t discuss his policies, just accept them. Typical Libertarian approach. They’re all about freedom of speech as long as it’s their own speech, their own ideas, their own voice. The same freedoms do not apply to anyone else, because they don’t have “the way”. Stand for America or die alone.

    • admin

      All comments that contain abusive words and personal insults are held for moderation. To guarantee instant approval, stick to the argument and do not engage in personal attacks or insults. Thanks. (Your post was reviewed and approved earlier today.)

      • Dfens

        Yeah, clearly what I’ve written could not possibly compete with the high brow discourse from the Ron Paul faithful.

        April 6, 2010 at 11:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

        I think we got it, D.
        You’re a puss that needs mommy gov to make sure that you have a safety net under your pansy ass every moment of every day. Pure and simple, you represent the feminization of the American male. Scared of competition and living in complete fear of the world around you.

        Then you use the moniker of ‘Dfens’ like you are about defending something. You are about defending your own puny pink nuts. You should probably consider a career as an unemployed artist in Europe. You can find that coddling that you believe that you deserve.

        Your leftist ranting is really getting old, and boring. You should take it some place where someone might give a fuzzy rat’s ass what you think.

        Later, squirrel
        and take your bufu buddy Fred with you.

    • Dfens

      Yeah, and apparently the juxtaposition of an article like this and an applicable Ron Paul statement will get you censored here too. The rules continue to “evolve”:

      The Beijing News said that the rescue command centre confirmed a water leak had been reported three hours before the flood, but that no action was taken.

      China Daily said managers in charge of construction, who had ignored the warnings, had gone missing.

      Some of the 108 survivors who escaped or were rescued on Sunday have given graphic accounts of their ordeal. Fan Leisheng told state broadcaster CCTV: “It looked like a tidal wave and I was so scared. I immediately ran away and looked back to see some others hanging behind. I shouted at them to get out. It was unbelievable because I got out from 1,000 metres underground.”

      The trapped workers are thought to be in nine sections of the [coal] mine, which covers about 70 square miles.

      China has slashed deaths in mines from a peak of 6,995 in 2002 to 2,631 last year, primarily through a drive to close small private pits, often run illegally. But Sunday’s flooding is one of several major disasters at state-run sites recently. – Guardian

      Here’s the America that Ron Paul wants:

      [L]et us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so. – Texas Straight Talk by Ron Paul

      Anyone here feel “hurt” by safety regulations lately? Well here’s the deal, due to the “free trade” advocated by Ron Paul and his Libertarian buddies, you too can work in conditions like those of a citizen of Communist Red China. After all, we need a level playing field, right?

      So I wonder how long it will take before this one is censored? The last one didn’t make it the night. Libertarians are all about “freedom” right? Their own.

      • longshotlouie

        At least now we know what you want for Christmas,

        more government and your own site.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          I’m sure OSHA and the EPA could be streamlined to the point where their budgets could be drastically cut. But the Libertarian/neocon/anarchist radicals talk as if they’d want to abolish OSHA and the EPA.

          The answer is not with the radicals who take rigid stances, and neither is the answer moderation or compromise, the answer is what is right and proper and moral.

          • longshotlouie

            I understand your need for the federal nanny state. I was once a child.
            When did you come to believe that your state representatives were unable to govern?

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Free-Trade/Open-Borders empowers the “federal nanny state” by making people poorer then turning to government for help. You did it to yourselves.

          • longshotlouie

            Still trying to deflect the blame for the failure of your command and control economy?

          • Fred the Protectionist

            You also empower the Unions. I see the Unions are making a big comeback ever since your Free Trade began in the 1990’s, and they’re going international too.

            Unions were fading away, but no, you had to push people into poverty with your open-borders/free-trade.

          • longshotlouie

            But I thought you lefties liked unions?

            Maybe you could make a list of your likes and dislikes for us.
            But wait, that would make the contradictions more obvious.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Your open-border/free-trade Libertarianism has brought back the Unions, you did this to yourselves.

      • Dfens

        A lesser believer would not be so quick to take the blood of 4,300 people on his hands. Congratulations to Ron Paul for having such a devout following.

        • longshotlouie

          Hopefully you will carry that burden gracefully.

          • Dfens

            Is that what passes for a cute comment here, Louie? This happened today. 153 people are missing and most of those are very likely dead. I would not think you’d find that amusing. I don’t.

            “My husband is dead. I don’t need them to tell me that,” Xiao Shihong told China Daily, a state-owned newspaper.

          • longshotlouie

            Let me state this again for you.
            I hope that you will be able to bear the burden gracefully.

            Do you really believe that I was being cute?
            Own your mistakes, son.

        • Ryan

          The disaster in China is not laughable. But your interpretation of Ron Paul’s opinion on regulating industries is laughable.

          • Dfens

            It is sad you don’t understand the difference between an “interpretation” and a quote. What I did was quote your dear leader, Ryan. A simple cut and paste. Not that difficult.

      • Ryan

        Duh! What I question is how you interpret his quote.
        And clearly you interpret it wrong.
        The only difference between Dr. Paul’s plan versus what we have now is really about whether Government should do the regulating or whether it should be privatized regulation using insurance companies (with the appropriate motivation) doing the regulating.
        Doctor Paul doesn’t want us eating rotten food, or dying in coal mines pointlessly, which is what you INCORRECTLY imply.
        It’s a matter of efficiency. Everything Government touches costs billions more than it should, and ultimately fails to accomplish the task it’s intended to accomplish; in this case Safety Standards. Furthermore, it puts all the power of control in the hands of government, which is a very bad idea. With the changing of every administration we end up facing all new policies on safety standards which stymies productivity.

        • Dfens

          You just don’t get it, do you, Ryan? I didn’t “interpret” anything for you. I quoted your dear leader and I quoted a newspaper article. I left it to you to think for yourself, to draw your own conclusions about how well your dear leader’s ideals work in the real world. You can think for yourself, can’t you, Ryan?

          Why don’t you tell me how well that worked? You might illuminate me on how wonderful the US will be when our businesses get to trade “freely” with China under a Ron Paul regime too.

          • Ryan

            It’s you that doesn’t get it.
            You did misinterpret Ron Paul’s plan. It’s plain to see.

            And when Ron Paul wins in 2012 we will see the proof that a free market runs much better than a government run cluster of mass confusion.

          • Dfens

            If it is so, “plain to see” then it should be easy enough for you to quote back to me where I “misinterpreted” your dear leaders plan, yet you can’t even do that.

          • Ryan

            You said, “you too can work in conditions like those of a citizen of Communist Red China.”

            … Clue: Would never happen under Ron Paul’s plan.
            Quite the contrary, we’d be able to cost effectively do more in way of safety if it were privatized.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            “Would never happen under Ron Paul’s”

            Yes it would. Free Trade is a merging of 2 economies into one, so what happens in China would happen in the US, and considering China has 4 times the population they’d effect our economy far more then we’d effect theirs.

            That’s why the oh so wisdom’atic Founding Fathers mandated a true free trade zone between the states, plus a Tariff.

            Seems quite contradictory doesn’t it: mandated Free Trade between the 50 states then give the feds the big bad Tariff. Why in the hell would they do it? I bet you don’t know, I bet you have no clue, I bet you think you are better and smarter then the Founding Fathers.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          “Paul doesn’t want us eating rotten food, or dying in coal mines pointlessly”

          Yes, he wants Americans eating rotten food and dying in coal mines so the rich can get richer, there is a ‘point’ to Libertarian madness:

          Money. moneymoneymoney $$$$$$

          • Dfens

            Yes, their secret to fighting the multi-national corporations is to give them everything they ever wanted. Yeah, that’ll teach them!

            Clearly China has different values from those we in the US have. In the article I quoted in my post that was deleted China was putting on trial the person who organized the parents of some of the 300,000 children who had been sickened or had died due to the melanine tainted milk scandal in that country. In this country a person who stood up against corporations who poisoned our children would be a hero, but there they will likely sentence this person to a labor camp where he will be forced to make cheap TVs for unemployed Americans to watch.

            They can live their lives in whatever manner they think is appropriate, but thankfully our founding fathers gave us the tariff as a means of protecting our freedom to chose how we will live our lives instead of having that decided for us by the Communist Chinese.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Yup the Tariff is a wonderful tool, in the right hands (which rules out Libertarians/Neocons/Democrats as being the right hands).

            No major or minor party represents the majority of Americans. The closest is the Constitution Party but their religiousity (even if I agree with it) seems to irk a majority of Americans.

        • Forest

          “Everything Government touches costs billions more than it should, and ultimately fails to accomplish the task it’s intended to accomplish”

          Clearly “EVERYTHING GOVERNMENT TOUCHES” fails. Nice, simplistic generalization. I am sure Ronbots totally agree – I mean noone is disagreeing, right? (Waiting for TinyShortLouie’s one-liner now…)

          So if EVERYTHING the government touches, fails (again these are your words and not mine), this means you are saying:

          Manifest Destiny = Failure
          Civil Rights = Failure
          Manhattan Project = Failure
          Suffrage = Failure
          Louisiana Purchase = Failure
          WWII = Failure

          OH MY GOD, if everything (EVERYTHING EVER mind you) the government touches, fails… Didn’t our Founding Fathers screw up by even establishing one in the first place? Or they set up the framework for the biggest, colossal failure in the history of the world!!!!

          Constitution = Failure

          Not sure where your loathing of the United States ends, but looks like it started somewhere back in the 1550’s.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            “Constitution = Failure”

            No, the Constitution is just a framework, and a damn good one, it’s the people who are a failure not the Constitution.

          • longshotlouie

            Government did none of these things.
            They simply hopped on board.

            Manifest Destiny?
            You really are a joke.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Are you suggesting we give everything west of the Mississippi to France and Spain?


          • longshotlouie

            Just suggesting that you hook up with reality sometime soon.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Why do you hate America? That’s not right.


  • Joseph Concordia

    Ron Paul’s bookEnd The Fed” makes excellent reading, but unfortunately presents a host of fallacies. While I do not disparage his philosophy on money I do feel his statements approach the issues totally from one point of view and do not take into account realities of the world in these times. There are a number of his statements that I could address, but I want to just deal with one here. On page 190 he says; “markets are self regulating”. It is given in the context that prices are set by markets, where the “market” is the consuming public. This is not an original thought by him, nor something new. It is a concept expressed by many including business owners, economists, scholarly and knowledgeable people. But, is it true in real world buying and selling of consumer goods and services? Ron Paul’s fallacy is in making (and believing) such a wide sweeping statement. The reality of the world is that there is not one “market” to be “regulated”, in this case meaning to be stabilized at an equilibrium price. Some markets may find their equilibrium themselves, but many (and I would say most) do not work that way.

    Most proponents of that philosophy have their roots in the theories expressed by Adam Smith and summarized in a quaint expression “the invisible hand”. The theory has been proven wrong and the error of it has been the reason why so much intervention in markets has evolved over the years. Markets left to themselves disproportionately distribute wealth to an “owner” demographic and worker classes are left to survive on a wage determined by those owners.

    Prices are set by the managers (who may also be owners) of businesses, not the buyers of the products of those businesses. In most businesses, the managers set the quantity of supply and a price that will serve a market suitable to provide the amount of profit they want to achieve from the business venture. This model is universal in large corporations and generally the case in small businesses as well. They set the price by restricting the supply. The most glaring example of this is the price of oil. The oil producing countries (not just OPEC, but also Canada and the Texas oil industries) only place enough oil on the market to keep the price up to the level that gives them the profit they want. This situation exists in many consumer goods and services. Automobile assembly lines are stopped when production levels would overstock the market and require lower prices to reduce their inventory carrying costs. New innovative products like the IPod are introduced to the market in limited quantities so that a high price can be demanded for them. It is widely believed that the number of doctors entering the profession each year is restricted by the AMA in collusion with medical schools to keep the fee schedules for their services at the extraordinary levels charged. I could cite many other examples.

    Scarcity establishes prices, and scarcity is a condition controlled by the owners of productive facilities. Owners work in their own self interest. It is not an altruistic enterprise. “The business of business is business”, i.e. to make money, and preferably to make the most possible amount of money.

    Perhaps in agricultural products consumers exert a strong influence on price. The retail price of bananas is an example. Right now it seems like 69 cents a pound is the price at every store in our neighborhood and probably the maximum they can get. But even in that industry, supply is controlled to maintain price. Think about the farmers who plow under their potato fields to limit the supply, or dairy farmers that dumped milk on the ground for the same reason.

    The reason that there has been intervention and contrived systems by governments is that governments, even if not perfect, represent the population as a whole. The owners of industry only represent themselves. Governments serve a purpose, and it is not just to run the police and fire stations.

    • Libertarian777

      well reasoned argument Joseph, and there are a couple things, that, prima facie, seem to be valid points.

      However, there are a number of points that you too are missing.
      One argument you seem to ignore against the federal reserve is the point of ‘price controls’. Whenever a government has mandated a set price point, one of two things happen. If its too high, no one buys it and a black market gets established, if its too low shortages occur. Free market competition pricing balances these out. If you truly believe the Federal Reserve is omnipresent and all-knowing, and consequently those 12 board members can set interest rates, then why is it that they a. could not foresee the mortgage crises (Ben Bernake categorically stated that subprime was ‘contained’), b. could not forsee the beginning of the recession in Dec 2007 (they took over a year to ‘declare’ it a recession), c. if they are ‘independent’, why do they purchase US treasuries? Them purchasing treasuries is directly funding FISCAL policy, which they are NOT suppose to be responsible for.

      One thing Ron Paul misses in his book is the conflicting mandate of the Fed. Low inflation and low unemployment. The two are almost mutually exclusive, since high unemployment results in ‘higher’ inflation (not 100% correlated but they are correlated).

      To me it sounds like the basis of your argument is, for example, wall street, where one could argue that it is the ultimate form of free market economics, and because of the financial crises and the exhorbitant pay packages CEOs get, that is ‘proof’ of the fallacy of free markets.

      However, such arguments belie the fact that government is intimately involved in wall street. The federal reserve sets price controls via the fed funds rate as well as purchasing asset backed securities. Government mandated companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue loans that they, in a free market, would not normally have issued, or would have issued at higher interest rates (to compensate for the risk). Those are two large factors that helped get the credit binge going post 2003 recession.

      On the counter side however, the Glass-Steagall Act WAS a piece of government regulation that was necessary to in some ways, limit the possible systemic risk that occurred. Again however, as Ron Paul states, FDIC insurance on customer deposits results in moral hazard (no one cares what bank they put their money in, since up to $100k is FDIC insured). The banks can go and do as they please with the depositor’s funds, since it is federally backed.

      I agree that wall street is a prime example of the rich getting richer, and while the legal regulatory framework for instance, allows each shareholder to vote for the board of directors, and now, even on compensation for companies, most shareholders hold the shares via a mutual fund, and often do not vote via proxy, nor do they have an understanding of what or who they’re voting for.

      Banking should and has been a boring profession in years gone by (get deposits, lend out after doing credit risk analysis), but the advent of quants, computing and derivatives it became an ‘exciting’ place to take additional risk. There’s nothing wrong with that, but those risks should be taken with funds from investors who choose to take such risk (e.g. venture funds) and not with public-backed funds (FDIC insured deposits).

      • Forest


        “Banking should and has been a boring profession in years gone by”

        Really? What type of revisionist history is this? What kind of a little rabbit hole do you live in? Some historians at Harvard would beg to differ with your completely baseless reality:

        This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises

        “We also confirm that crises frequently emanate from the financial centers with transmission through interest rate shocks and commodity price collapses. Thus, the recent US sub-prime financial crisis is hardly unique.”

    • Libertarian777

      oh, two things I forgot to respond on Joseph.

      OPEC is a cartel. Cartels create monopoly pricing. However it requires all members to abide by the rules.

      Venezuela, Libya and a couple other countries violate their output quotas. This actually reduces pricing of oil. This effect hasn’t been as pronounced as it could have been since the largest producer, Saudi Arabia does abide by their quota.

      As far as agriculture goes, none of that is free market. The government provides subsidies for various interest groups. This is exactly why corn is the most grown crop, and is used in everything (corn syrup not cane sugar). In the ominvores dilemma Michael Pollack explores this further.

      An example of government interference with agriculture are the subsidies they provide result in oversupply of corn production. This results in low prices for corn, which requires farmers to produce even more just to break even.
      The net result is corn is used for everything, including feeding bovines, which as ruminents, are meant to eat grass (ok technially corn is a grass, but you know what i mean).

      • Fred the Protectionist

        See, Free Traders are OPEC apologists, and they have no problem with monopolies.

        • Libertarian777

          your comment made no sense.

          I’m not ‘for’ OPEC. I’m saying, free market economics prevents OPEC from being too powerful.

          The incentive to cheat on their output quotas is what keeps oil prices in check.

          OPEC is, via the cartel, trying to effect price controls (through supply control). However they know that if they set the price too low, it reduces the profits they make. If they set the price too high, they risk killing the demand side (by reducing growth and hence future demand).

          Fortunately they don’t try to do actual price controls, but do it indirectly via supply control (which they have less control over).

          Not really sure why you think I’m FOR OPEC or any cartel. I’m saying even WITH a cartel, the free market keeps it in check.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            “free market economics prevents OPEC from being too powerful.”

            The opposite is true. You types empower OPEC.

            You types also oppose anti-trust laws, you empower monopolies.

            Libertarians love monopolies, Libertarians love OPEC.

          • Libertarian777

            Fred, nothing in your accusation is further from the truth. I am not against anti-trust laws. I’m saying we need to remove anti-trust law exemptions from health insurance companies.

            However, this is the last time I’ll respond to you. You can’t make a reasoned rational argument or point to flaws in my writings as a mature adult, instead you return to juvenile attacks. I’m always open to debate, discussion and reasoned arguments against my position. However you refuse to do that and always denigrate any post into
            “you liberatarian types”
            “you hate america”
            “you blah blah blah”

            Grow up.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Whooooops, I assumed you were against anti-trust laws since most Libertarians are. But you’re still an OPEC apologist….like most Libertarians are.

          • Forest

            “I’m saying even WITH a cartel, the free market keeps it in check.”

            Wow. You really are smoking what Ron Paul gave you – Free Markets succeed even when… They aren’t ‘free’ and instead they are manipulated by a cartel? Jeezus man.

            I don’t get it, Paulbots look for conspiracies in EVERYTHING to assert that markets are not ‘Free’ (Illuminati/Fed/NWO/Masons/etc…), and then when slapped upside the head with one of the world’s most obvious examples of price manipulation the response is ‘OPEC doesn’t control the price, free markets are so awesome they actually overcome the actions of a cartel’.

            Be careful, one day that hypocrisy just might be blinding.

    • gander

      “”the invisible hand”. The theory has been proven wrong”

      show me the peer reviewed study that proved it wrong. when you try to formulate a response to this i suppose marx will come up, but i should remind you that he proved nothing. i suppose you will attempt to invoke the recent crisis but the economy is so heavily regulated that it can not fall in the category of a free market, home to the invisible hand.

      rather, we long ago traded the smith’s invisible hand for the visible hand of government. a poor substitute

      i found your arguments stale and long winded

      • Fred the Protectionist

        You know how many “peer reviewed” studies done in the 1980’s-1990’s which said it should be +10 degrees across the globe by now in 2010?

        You know how many “peer reviewed” studies done in 1992 which said 2010 would be an economic paradise because of NAFTA?

        “Peer Review” is socialized science. Real science is a 1-person profession, you don’t need a community. If you’re right you’re right; if you’re wrong your wrong; you don’t need a community to approve or disapprove of facts, all you need to be is right.

        Real science is a dictatorship, tyrannical, not a Democracy.

        I thought Libertarians were all individualistic and stuff, but in the end your all just a bunch of tools.

    • longshotlouie

      The self-regulating market was proven wrong? In which world?
      You’re selling opinion as fact. Opinion of those that have blown it, big time.
      It is amusing to watch the apologists of the status quo wave their flag over the ruins of their own making.

      So customers have nothing to do with pricing?
      Is tunnel vision painful?

      The Glass-Steagull Act was a trojan horse. Check out the problems discovered in the compliance software.

      Nice writing that might get by as an MSM post won’t wash here, Mr. Concordia.

  • Ross

    The present economic situation can be turned around within a few yrs if the right decisions are made now.Bailing out the bubble economy at the expense of real productivity can only end in misery.

    Presently we have a bunch of introverted,impotent selfish few who run the West, with absolutely no vision of what we can achieve in terms of new energy sources and environmental improvements.They are a clique of pessimistic non -achieving control freaks, who think theirs is the only way.

    Some of them see the only way is a massive cull of the human pop but they want to be the elite,the annointed chosen people who will be destined to survive. They have distain for the very system which gives them sustainence and believe that the creation of fiat currency actually adds to productivity.Being totally delusional makes them incapable of rational thought.It revolves around their ego, hence we are all living on the edge of economic armageddon.

    Many of our pollies and elites think that the world is on the brink of an irreversible climate catastrophe and want to be on the life raft of the bubble economy which produces nothing.This narrow vision will be a self fulfilling prophesy if their ideas are to prevail.

    The great US civilisation was not built upon introverted cowards that had no sense of community or moral fibre. A great many ordinary people stepped up to the plate and did what was necessary. The looming new dark age can be replaced by a renaissance of ideas and technology that can surpass our greatest expectations. The choice is ours.

    They lack courage, insight and faith in their fellow man.The world can be a much better place when true freedom is allowed to express itself via our creativity.We can solve all manner of problems

  • Dfens

    Ron Paul is right for once. Our country is bankrupt. The only thing he doesn’t tell you is that it is bankrupt because of the “free trade” policies of [people] like him. He […] has sold our his country claiming it’s what our founding fathers would want. He’s [wrong] as usual.

    Now we will examine my favorite Founder. Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, points out that one of the most important reasons for protecting home industries is independency. Like President Adams, President Jefferson understood that being independent of other nations was essential to our continued success. For example, as discussed before, how could we defend ourselves against a nation that supplies us with our military equipment? How can we enforce fair trade with a nation that owns most of our national debt? How can we be independent of a nation that feeds and clothes us? Do we give up our independence and sovereignty for cheap goods, as the “free traders” would argue?

    Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so: “The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture, which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves, without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency.”

    Trading should be used to supply goods and services that we can’t make ourselves; it shouldn’t be used to increase the multi-national corporation’s profits for the sake of cheapness (comparative advantage). If a nation can produce a product or servitude they should produce it, even if it costs a little more. With this principle, Thomas Jefferson is in full agreement: “My own idea is that we should encourage home manufactures to the extent of our own consumption of everything of which we raise the raw materials.” – Free Trade, Protectionism, and the Founding Fathers

    • Fred the Protectionist

      A Jefferson-off! 🙂

      C’mon lets bring in dem Jefferson quotes.

    • gander

      jefferson made these comments in reference to the manufacture of goods that were of strategic value. like gunpowder. and any free trader would agree that certain industries like defense and agriculture should be protected because a war would limit its import. that being said, you guys get all confused and try to include socks and underwear into the category of strategic goods.

      “secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency”

      this refers to the lack of gunpowder, cannons, and other equipment that the american lacked during the revolution.

      Stop taking jefferson out of context.

      • Fred the Protectionist

        “You mock my God of quotations?! I shall smite thou with more quotations!”

        Gander, your suppose to use a Jefferson quotation as a comeback, not make stuff up. C’mon lets keep the Jefferson-off going, penalty to Gander.

  • kilo

    Ron is so right on point! We have no choice, no democratic process. There is movement of people in this country that see the red team and the blue team as one team whose objective is only to gain more power and influence. I seem to remember when Ron was running for president and his public support was growing he was not invited to one of the televised debates. I think they are afraid of him because he speaks the truth about politics and the real workings of the government. I will vote for Ron Paul in the next presidential election even if he descides not to run for the office. I know some people will say to me that I “wasted” my vote if he does not win. That is the mentality that the powerful people on the red/blue team want all of us to believe. This “old crop” of politicians needs to be mowed down and replaced with a “new crop” just like Ron said.

  • Fred the Protectionist

    The only industry which should be exported is Hollywood. They produce nothing but crap.

    Farscape (Australian) rocks. Best damn TV show ever. Better then Star Wars. Better then Star Trek.

    “I am Rorf”




    • Libertarian777

      India makes more movies than the US. Something on the order of 800 a year.

      Not to mention they tend to be like 3 hours each! I had the misfortune of joining some friends to go watch one once… it turned into a 3.5 hr ordeal.

      • Fred the Protectionist

        I never said India.

        • Libertarian777

          you said Hollywood should be exported.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            India is a lousy competitor.

            A) They don’t speak the same language.

            B) Their movies suck.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Shaun of the Dead (British) was really good. 🙂

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Who’s the poopyhead that thumbs down Shaun of the Dead?

          • Dfens

            Ok, Sean of the Dead was reasonably funny, but because it was British there were way too few guns involved. The American way of dealing with zombies is much more sophisticated and nuanced than hitting them in the head with a cricket bat. I mean, let’s face it, when it comes to the ultimate tool in zombie destruction there is no substitute for the 12 gauge pump action shotgun. Sure, a 3 shot burst into the head of a zombie from an assault rifle is always a welcome sight, but nothing is truely as satisfying as effect of 00 buckshot from a 12 gauge. The Brits just don’t get that.

            Check this out from last week’s episode of Supernatual. Warning to all Ron Paul zombies, you will find this video offensive. Remember, though, the thing that separates you from these zombies is that you can still choose to think for yourselves. Please do so, the fate of our country hangs in the balance.

  • Tyler

    Your choices for healthcare currently are, use your work sponsored health care, find a private insurer for yourself, or chose not to participate at all.

    Under the new bill you will lose option #3 of not participating at all. Say you wanted to open a business or go back to school for a couple years and in order to do that you need forgo health insurance of any kind to lower your personal expenses. Well, that option will be off the table under Obamacare.

    Except for the Amish, they’re exempt from being forced to buy insurance.

    • Lindsey

      I’m becoming Amish!!!!!!!!!

  • john hlavacek

    On Morning Joe this morning you mentioned that we have lost our freedom to choose in the Obamacare Bill. You contrasted our freedom to choose private, public or home schooling against the new health care bill. You stated that we have no health care choices with the new bill. How will our choices be different than before the bill? I work for a small private co. that offers health insurance.