Nice catch. Thanks, symple.
Printable View
Nice catch. Thanks, symple.
The fact that so many people believed Obama was different will never cease to amaze me.
Like I said in another thread, there's only one way to diminish the influence of rent-seekers (and Wall Street is only a small part of it): diminish the amount of power the government has. The best way to start that, I'm convinced, is to elect representatives fiercely opposed to the appropriation process (earmarks), no matter their party affiliation. But if you're hoping that a person will change the situation within the current frame of a hyper-sized, interventionist, government, you'll be disappointed all the time.
Term limits at every level of elected government. As long as the "public service" gravy train (and the perks that one enjoys while on board) runs for eternity the passengers will do everything in their power to make sure they don't get booted off.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
I voted for RP last year, so that should give you some idea where my sympathies lay. I was an Obama skeptic. My experience so far tends to confirm my nagging suspicion that Obama is establishmentarian to the bone and is leading us in the direction of social democracy. But instead of making health care free, like Europe, the price is being raised for almost everyone. Great.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Why would such a person ever run for office?Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
For that matter, why do you think the people keep electing rent-seekers?
Maybe the people prefer ambitious rent-seekers -- the Obamas and Sarah Palins of the world, if you like - to your sort of candidate, mogrovejo.
A lot of people did. They will again.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
You better hope that people keep hoping for the sake of your precious Ms. Palin, mogrovejo.
I almost feel sorry for you guys. Geez, an Ivy league lawyer that was backed by every global monomoply and uberrich billionaire on the planet turns out to be owned. What were the fucking odds of that? Shit, let's give the government the pharmacy and medical industry too, because they clearly deserve that trust.
Wake me up when you figure out that money's not coming back into this country....and that housing bailout was bailing out the chinse making a bad inevestment in our housing industry. Must be nice to have the tax payers save you from a shitty investment...where do I sign up?
At least Obama's foreign policy has made sense. Although the root of that is likely financial too.
I guess this means ya'll will all be voting for Sarah Palin in 2012(who at least right now has no money behind her) instead of helping the monopolies do her political career in?
She's the one that took it to the oil companies without lube.
I'm not saying it's going to stay that way, but it is that way for right now.
And if makes you guys feel any better, I doubt McCain would have been much different than Obama on this. Vietnam wasn't the only time he was broken.
Health care isn't free in Europe. Don't fall for that kind of scam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
RP is a hypocrite and of the worst kind. Along with pompous speeches about closing the Fed (that he knows that has no chance to happen), he is okay with using federal money to subsidize the shrimp industry or local theatres. American conservatism has to get rid of corrupt, pork-addicts, career politicians like Ron Paul.
Rent-seekers don't get elected - at most they help politicians to get elected.Quote:
Why would such a person ever run for office?
For that matter, why do you think the people keep electing rent-seekers?
There are some people in that type that ran and hold political office: Jeff Flake, Tom Coburn, John Thune.
Sarah Palin has a great record in terms of fighting rent-seeking - and she gets it. There's a reason why she's so popular among those in the field of public choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
What, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Says mogrovejo.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
This post is just a preemptive reminder.
Quote:
Maybe if Wino quotes mogro, mogro won't be tempted to quote himself again.
I'm on the fence about this. My suspicion is that term limits create a situation in which a politician feels he has to grant all the favors he can regardless of their utility to the electorate so he can make the greatest profit for himself in his allotted time. On the other hand, the advantage of long-term senators/reps is that their constituents have time to learn whether or not they're pieces of shit, and if they turn out to be such, can still be voted out. 9 times out of 10, a public servant is a crook, but when you do find a good one, the last thing you want to do is kick his ass to the curb, y'know? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theoryQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
RP seems to have more common sense than almost anyone else in Washington. I disagree with much he says (mostly on FP), but on monetary policy he's worthy of support.
So, just because it's near impossible to close the fed, he should just give up?
I admire someone who will continue the noble fight against what is possibly the most entrenched, corrupt agency associated with the government.
Audit the Fed!
Not even the Department of Silly Walks will be extinguished, let alone the Fed, as long as the Party of Appropriators and the Cult of Earmarks, from which Ron Paul is a proud member, rule in Washington. He's perfectly aware of that, his supporters not so much.
Some of his ideas are good, his ideology is, to use Kirk's words, an inverted religion.
Those are some superb links, Winehouse. Should be mandatory reading for every senator.:toast
To me, it's an easy decision as to whether or not that collateral damage is acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
Would be great if Ron Paul could get past the primaries....
Can you say why, CG?Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
EDIT:
Sorry, that was a poorly worded question. I should have asked why you think term limits would protect us from the collateral damage in a way a lack of them do not.
Thanks, for the link, Sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
You missed another jocular aside. Is your lack of a sense of humor showing again? :hatQuote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Maybe I was lacking the funny.
Admittedly, humor is hard to translate between cultures. The cultures themselves don't really translate too well, to start with.
FWIW, I agree with Ron Paul about 50%.
For Wino, that is a historically high ratio.
That maybe partakes of hyperbole. It is true that RP banked hard in the current cycle, and brought home some serious bacon.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
There's a reason the man from Surfside, Tx, keeps representing Victoria and Brazoria counties. There is also a reason IMO, that his internet furore contributed heavily to his campaign ...about this time two years ago, wasn't it? RP lapped other candidates in one month tallies. RP was selling something different.
Ron Paul will be 77 years old in 2012.
I think RP has already hinted he won't run again.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
Hopefully he has a protege who will carry on some of his worthier issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I only agreed with RP about halfway. I don't know what I'd think about a protege'.Quote:
Originally Posted by symple19