Post Reply  Post Thread 

Ron Paul, statement on the Fiscal Cliff

Author Message
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #1
Ron Paul, statement on the Fiscal Cliff

We Are Already Over the Fiscal Cliff

2 January 2013

Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.

While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.

Yet even these minuscule cuts in the “projected rate of spending” were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute “deal” was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.

Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called “bipartisanship” in Washington.

While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.

While many on both sides express satisfaction that this deal only increases taxes on the “rich,” most Americans will see more of their paycheck going to Washington because of the deal. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 77 percent of Americans would see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut.

The arguments against the automatic “cuts” in military spending were particularly dishonest. Hawks on both sides warned of doom and gloom if, as the plan called for, the defense budget would have returned to 2007 levels of spending! Does anybody really believe that our defense spending was woefully inadequate just five years ago? And since 2007 we have been told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?

Ironically, some of the members who are most vocal against tax increases and in favor of cuts to domestic spending are the biggest opponents of cutting a penny from the Pentagon budget. Over and over we were told of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost should military spending be returned to 2007 levels. Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic “stimulus” created by militarism.

As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote recently, “It’s easy to focus exclusively on the companies and individuals hurt by the cuts and forget that the taxed wealth that funded them is being employed elsewhere.”

While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending. Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people. Of course, the Federal Reserve’s policies do impose an “inflation” tax on the American people; however, since this tax is hidden Congress does not fear the same public backlash it would experience if it directly raised income taxes.

I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people’s attitudes toward government. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.

https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/posts/1...3497061686


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
03.01.2013 00:15
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BaktoMakhno
Looter
*


Posts: 1,058
Words count: 245,068
Group: Basic
Joined: Mar2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 39
Experience: 496
Glory Points: 10
Medals: 1

Post: #2
RE: Ron Paul, statement on the Fiscal Cliff

The Cato Institute? Seriously Hels? First Commissar, not you too? I get that you like this guys foreign policy, but here he is showing his true colours. Romney/McCain/Bush were all more in touch with the realities of economics than mr Paul. If this guy was ever put in charge we would see an American and by extension European economic collapse to make 2008 look like a minor hiccup.

"fiscal cliff", "inflation tax", "spending addiction", "welfare-warfare state" - this stuff is worse than what Beste would come out with!


"The beauty of free trade is that 1 and 1 can be 3" - Titian

"There is no conversation more boring than one where Globaltom speaks" - Triniterias

This post was last modified: 04.01.2013 12:20 by BaktoMakhno.

04.01.2013 12:05
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #3
RE: Ron Paul, statement on the Fiscal Cliff

BaktoMakhno Wrote:
The Cato Institute? Seriously Hels? First Commissar, not you too? I get that you like this guys foreign policy, but here he is showing his true colours. Romney/McCain/Bush were all more in touch with the realities of economics than mr Paul. If this guy was ever put in charge we would see an American and by extension European economic collapse to make 2008 look like a minor hiccup.

"fiscal cliff", "inflation tax", "spending addiction", "welfare-warfare state" - this stuff is worse than what Beste would come out with!

LOL, I know what the Cato Institute is about. Years back, I've read a lot of stuff from LPAC against them and similar institutes and think tanks. It's a shame RP referred to them in his statement.
I even twitted this on 21 December to exiled.online.
@MarkAmesExiled Brzezinski, Huntington, Kissinger, the Smith Richardson Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute = fascism

Ron Paul may be an austrian, but he's an austrian I like. All the other ones I've seen, including the said "professor" who was active once on this forum, but bailed out, after failing to bash Ron Paul, was a good example - of hypocrite austrians wanting more military, more antifreedom legislation, more wars, but less government interference in the economy and no welfare. Ron Paul, at least, is different from the Republicans and the Democrats, and is not afraid to criticize his own party and his own government/country. Some people love Bertrand Russel, I am not one of those people. But I like Ron Paul because he's not a hypocrite. And believe you me, I hate austrian economics. But I'd choose pacifist/noninterventionist austrian economics to keynsian militarism economics, or austrian militarism economics. While I don't agree with a lot of Paul's stances regarding the anticonstitutionality of the welfare state, or the spending, or his gold standard approach, he would also do away with a lot of taxes, including the federal income tax. But Paul is not a day dreamer. He said it himself that he wouldn't be able to do all those things he said, because a lot of people will be opposed to that, but that he would take the more pragmatic measures, like getting the troops back, stop the warpropaganda machine, cut the influence of Wall-Street and the Military Industrial Complex on Washington, repeal the Patriot Act and the new prerogative of the president to kill whomever he wants, and audit the Fed.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 04.01.2013 15:39 by Helsworth.

04.01.2013 14:00
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BaktoMakhno
Looter
*


Posts: 1,058
Words count: 245,068
Group: Basic
Joined: Mar2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 39
Experience: 496
Glory Points: 10
Medals: 1

Post: #4
RE: Ron Paul, statement on the Fiscal Cliff

Sure, and Obama was going to immediately withdraw from Iraq, close Guantanamo, restore Habeus Corpus...

Austrians aren't the bad guys. They are idiots no-one cares about who serve a propaganda purpose. Go to an economics department at a respected university, the boardroom of a multinational corporation, a major investment Bank, the high end civil service of any developed country and talk about 'austrian economics'. Everyone will laugh and throw things. Nobody will take you seriously.

No-one with power (public or private), no one in finance or big business and no one in academia takes austrian economics seriously. The powerful, mainstream, extreme free-market right doesn't take it seriously. Trying to run an economy based on this antiscientific ideology would be like trying to build a bridge out of cheese. Austrians have never been in a position of power in the real world.

Everyone in the global Ruling Class (and I include the likes of Pinochet and Suharto here) knows that anything remotely approximating a pure 'free market' would be horrifically unstable and inefficient. Since the great depression everyone has agreed that massive state spending is necessary to stabilise the economy, counteract capitalism's contradictions and allow significant resources to be devoted to R&D.

Of course the Ruling Class wants to extract as much surplus value as possible from ordinary people, but it does see the benefit of a stable economy (if nothing else this is required to avoid revolution). In the US a sizeable chunk of 'military' spending is infact industrial R&D. So successful is rightist rhetoric that they need to hide industrial R&D under military spending to avoid accusations of Socialism.

I doubt Paul would implement most of his policies - and most of his supporters would be too stupid to notice that he didn't. Like Obamas anti-war rhetoric his foreign policy would be scrapped as soon as he got elected - likely nothing more would come of it than some cuts to foreign aid. He would then go about gleefully dismantling all the meagre checks and balances which protect american citizens from poverty. I doubt his party would let him dismantle enough spending to destabilise the economy, but certainly enough to drive the american people even deeper into poverty and desperation.


"The beauty of free trade is that 1 and 1 can be 3" - Titian

"There is no conversation more boring than one where Globaltom speaks" - Triniterias

This post was last modified: 04.01.2013 19:15 by BaktoMakhno.

04.01.2013 19:09
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #5
RE: Ron Paul, statement on the Fiscal Cliff

Well most of the supporters of Ron Paul with which I shared a couple of comments with. They all agreed that RP would be assassinated, if he truly pushed the most important things of his agenda.
I have said this numerous times, if I were an american citizen I would have voted with Ron Paul, not for Romney, not for Obama.
He's the only one who's rhetoric on foreign wars MAKES SENSE.
He uses the term "empire" when he's talking about the US. He's speaking against the wars and the war propaganda, against his own party as well as the democrats. He speaks against the Iran sanctions, against the Cuban sanctions. He attacked those liars with their "Iran threatens to wipe out Israel" bullshit. He talked about the US coup in Iran. He spoke the truth vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is a plutocracy. It's a corporate state. Fascism is when corporations become the state. I can't a priori think that Ron Paul won't try to do what he promises. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, because he's never had the oval office. And his stance on all the things, foreign and domestic, in my opinion, yield a net plus to him as a politician. The man's not a hypocrite.
I've experienced on mine own skin what austerity does. And all of you who live in some of the best countries in the world, USA, UK, Germany, don't know what austerity really is. You should come here and live for a month or two, to experience the economic and social realities of Romania. As an outsider, a nonUS citizen, I'd rather have peace and stability in foreign relations. I'd rather have a multipolar world in which countries have to cooperate, instead of following the hegemony of one superpower. Often times I wonder what the world would be like if every country had nuclear weapons. If everyone at the card table had more or less the winning hand... The world would have been composed of equals - more or less. Everyone would have to negotiate and negotiate. If not, if they care to impose their will by force, they'd commit nuclear armageddon, and afterwards a Fallout universe type of world would follow. Tongue
If he would have advisors like Yanis Varoufakis, I wouldn't really worry about his domestic policies. Keynsianism is fine, but in this corrupt international monetary system, wars, unfortunately, prove to be the best remedies to get out of recessions, or rather prolong them - since no real measures of sound regulations are implemented against the financialists who rule over us and our governments. And the way in which the establishments are "stabilizing" capitalism is pure THEFT. They're socializing the loses and privatizing the profits. Counter cyclical spending is bullshit. They think it's a matter of simple kinematics. Governments need to have a future plan for society. It needs to envision 50 to 100 years into the future, and kick start those projects. Allowing the market to do as it pleases while they have the financial fuel to do so, while encouraging them with free money without any sort of discrimination into what is worthwhile/productive and what is toxic/fraudulent, is delusional. Sadly, we live in a world where our overlords are willfully delusional, lazy, and murderous.
Here's something for a laugh ^^


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 05.01.2013 15:29 by Helsworth.

04.01.2013 19:46
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Paul Keating on Mabo, 1992 Helsworth 0 1,099 29.05.2016 13:58
Last Post: Helsworth
  Ancient ways for determining counter-cyclical fiscal policy Helsworth 0 1,163 21.05.2016 13:50
Last Post: Helsworth
  Peter Thiel (Bilderberg member) gave Ron Paul 2.5 million! Red Flag anyone? Helsworth 0 1,354 27.06.2015 16:51
Last Post: Helsworth
  Ron Paul vis-a-vis the Pro-War Propaganda and the american empire Helsworth 2 1,612 06.01.2013 21:30
Last Post: Helsworth
  This is the type of (progressive) laissez-faire I'd agree with_Ron Paul rules_ Helsworth 7 1,628 11.12.2012 13:49
Last Post: americccpan
  Why Ron Paul matters to outside viewers Helsworth 2 1,419 14.11.2012 12:10
Last Post: Helsworth
  U.S. troops support Presidential candidate Ron Paul Commissar 40 7,212 12.05.2012 08:21
Last Post: Commissar
  Ron Paul shuts down dumb FOX news blonde Helsworth 8 1,929 19.02.2012 23:45
Last Post: Rising Phoenix
  Ron Paul's stance on foreign affairs Helsworth 33 5,389 12.02.2012 07:33
Last Post: VincentNikolai

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: