Ron Paul: The Dangers of Neo-Conservative Economic Policies

Below is one of Ron Paul’s Texas straight talks. In this text he compares the economics polices of the liberals, far left, with the neo-cons, far right, and expresses their similarities. In polarized politics leaning too far in one direction will inevitably inverse the effect as if playing an old-school space shooter, horizontally scrolling, video game.  I’m not a Republican and I’m not a Democrat, I’m Independent, because our two party system is the cancer of our democracy. Vote Nader and Ron Paul is also awesome.

As a side note, on Ron Paul’s website there are more great texts like this one along with corresponding videos. I recommend that everyone go and read what he has to say and watch his speeches. I only wish that all of our politicians took their jobs as seriously as Paul, then we wouldn’t have to blog so much.

NOTE: This text below is taken off of Ron Paul’s website and is written by Ron Paul. This is not my text. I only wish to share it.
– Johnofsilence

The dangers inherent in the foreign policy advocated by the neo-conservatives are well known. While many Americans have become increasingly aware of those dangers, far less attention has been focused on the dangers of neo-conservative economic policies. This issue is of critical importance right now, because many are mistakenly pointing their fingers at the free market as the culprit behind our current economic plight.

There are only a few in elected office who have any real loyalty to free markets and limited government. The agenda of neo-conservatives in the economy calls for a very active central government. Indeed, while there are some neo-conservatives who continue to use the rhetoric of limited government, and who oppose increases in the federal income tax as a way to maintain the political benefits that apply to those who talk about free markets, it is now the neo-conservatives who promote fiat monetary policies even more than those on the liberal left.

While I have been a strong proponent of cutting taxes on all Americans, and therefore supported the tax reductions offered by President Bush, the neo-cons argue that tax rate reduction alone is the key to “getting the government out of the way” of economic growth. Moreover, they invariably argue for tax reductions targeted toward the wealthy, and toward multinational corporations.

Over the years, I have offered several tax plans designed to assist hard working middle-class Americans to pay for their needs, whether these needs be health-care related, educational or to pay the costs of fuel. A few years back when I introduced one such bill, a prominent Republican approached me on the House Floor and asked, half in anger and half in amazement “why did you do that?” Shortly after that, the committee chairman at the time, also a Republican, sent out a release strongly attacking my tax cut bill.

So, while the liberal economic agenda includes more taxes and spending, the neo-con economic program simply looks to target some tax cuts to preferred groups, but ignore the economic big picture. The neo-con economic agenda is to “borrow and spend” and it is that agenda, even more than the tax and spend ways of many liberals, that has cast us in economic peril at this time.

Simply, on spending, the neo-cons and the liberals share views, just as they share similar views on foreign policy. While each side tries to claim the mantle of change, reality is that more of the same is not change.

The fiat monetary policy we now follow is the most significant factor contributing to our economic peril, and it is central to the neo-con agenda. As we hear new calls to empower the Federal Reserve Board, we should be aware that underlying all neo-conservative policies is the idea of monetary inflation. Inflation is the technique used to pay for the regulatory-state and the costs of policing the world.

Posted by Ron Paul (07-28-2008, 01:08 PM) filed under Monetary Policy

Addressing two major problems when electing the Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader

Addressing two major problems when electing the Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader.

First, Nader will need major media attention to reach a large enough audience to even possibly become electable and second, the problem that occurs when the electability of the more likely candidate is reduced by the independent vote thus causing the less favorable candidate to win. (In this case I assume the scenario would be the democrat losing votes to the independent causing the republican to win.)

There is a trick to getting Nader access to a major audience. He would need to do one of two things, either get authorization from the private company that controls the debates which happens to be owned by the democrat and republican parties or he can appeal to another corporation to sponsor a debate, one that can offer an audience that can’t be turned down, as to insure the acceptance of the major parties. Nader has accomplished the latter, he has managed to convince Google to fight the aforementioned corporation for its monopoly over the debates. Now Google has agreed to hold an open debate live on YouTube that will allow multiple parties to participate, as long as the party has at least 10% in the national poll.  (Which is 5% less than what the Dem & Rep owned debates accept, even thought getting it doesn’t necessary insure acceptance) Nader, by the way, has around 6%. That being said, I do believe that there is a big problem with Nader not having enough media coverage, you can see him expressing it when he says buzz-word-phrases that attract media attention but he’s been able to sway Google to help him with this obstacle.

Concerning the second probelm, a two party system which forces us into voting for a party in fear that the other party would be elected is in itself problematic to the concept of democracy. (Which we hold to be conducted by a series of free elections) Furthermore, in denying the possibility of a third party we are condemning ourselves to the polarizing and monopolizing effects of a two party system. I think that in exposing this flaw common sense logic tells us that a two party system is counter intuitive to a democracy.

Ralph Nader, Independent Presidential Candidate, interviewed on C-SPAN, July 4 2008: PART 1/4

This is in response to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE06O7lZuPo
Ralph Nader Interview by CSPAN

I recommend everyone to listen to what Ralph Nader has to say. His plans are more effective and progressive than any other candidate. When you look at the options available for such problems as the war in Iraq, Health Care, and the Israel/Palestine conflict, Ralph Nader has superior ideas. His plans begin with subjecting the corporations to the rule of law, demanding that they raise their standards, and removing their constitutional personhood, thus returning the power back to the American people.

On the war in Iraq, do you think that Iraq would be able to use its authority and establish an economy that could support its people if it didn’t have access to the oil in their country? Why are we occupying a territory and forcing its people to give us access to their natural resources? We should take the resources away from these corporations (Exxon, Shell, etc. Who by law have no allegiance to our country our any country) and place them back in the hands of the Iraqi people. Why do you think that there is so much violence in Iraq and furthermore why do you think Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grows stronger with each new day, simply because we are stealing from these people. Watch this video and hear what Nader has to say about Iraq; he can have us out in 6 months.

On health care, why are we not arguing for a single payer system? Why after all these years are we now pushing for a universal health care system? We are starting to move to a universal health care system because the corporations are finding it more expensive to manufacture their products here in the US than in other countries due to the high price of health care. So now we have the possibility of getting health care because the corporations see it profitable to do so. So here we are arguing over a broken health care system that is built to make money and not to help the people and the idea of a single payer system is completely off the table. Listen to Nader, he is calling for a single payer system and he has a plan to pay for it.

Concerning the energy crisis and the high price of oil, which we would normally see these as two problems, the ladder can be seen as a solution to the former. The rest of the western world is using this time, where oil is the highest price it has ever been, to invest the surplus of money that is accruing into new energies. Why are we not doing that? As Nader says, we’d have a lot of solar energy if Exxon owned the sun. When you compare the governments of other western countries to our own, we find that they have more social intervention into the market. When you look at the housing crisis and the bailing out of these big corporations (i.e. Fannie Mac and so on) you see that we are naturally moving to a more socialized state, like Germany’s government for instance.

Barack Obama has, like most politicians, told us one thing and did another. Just look at the FISA bill. As a democratic candidate, Obama is the best choice and when you compare him to the republican candidate, McCain, he would definitely make the better president. But why should we settle for the best of the worst? Why should we settle for another corporate candidate, especially when we don’t have to. Let’s get organized. Let’s elect someone for real change, who is not apart of this two party system that has been destroying our democracy.

http://www.votenader.org

read more | digg story

The Caucus: Obama’s Mideast Itinerary

The decision to allow Israel and Palestine to determine the status of Jerusalem is the only stance that America should hold. I support Obama in his opinion and should the media use the buzz word, flip-flop, to express Obama sudden acquiring of lucidity, then so be it. I say he’s only guilty of being a populist, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. The important part is what he will do in the end and it appears as if this passive plan of action, in light of new information, will hold; and in contrast, the earlier statement made at the AIPAC convention was merely political lip-service.

read more | digg story

1984 Knocking On Your Door – FISA – Telecom Immunity Bill

2008 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader on The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a.k.a. the Telecom Immunity Bill.

read more | digg story

In regard to The New Yorker’s cover image of the Obamas

27 minutes ago The impact that this image will have depends solely on our reaction to it. We must not let the media use this image to instill a negative reaction toward Obama’s campaign and instead, we must show how this image portrays the ridiculous depiction that the news media has created of both Michelle and Barack Obama.

We must express our frustration with the absurdity created by the cable news media’s coverage of the Obamas. The criticizing of Obama’s name, his use of a flag pin, and the “dapping” between him and his wife are responsible for this mockery. We must express our appreciation for the lucidity that this image represents in how the cable news media is out of focus and only creates its content for the sole purpose of causing unnecessary and crude conflict; as if they honestly believed that the resulting dialectic would derive any truth.