Michael Lind: Why do the Republicans nominate blue bloods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

I agree totally that due process has been almost destroyed in the last two administrations, and our nation is all the poorer for it. My issues with Paul have to do with his extreme (imo) positions on wanting to get rid of so many cabinet level departments because he believes that the Constitution means

---

They are extreme, but so was the growth of the theraputic-adminstrative state in the post WWII period. Maybe it's time to prune the tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

not only smaller government than what we have, but virtually no government at all. For example, Perry wants to get rid of three departments...Paul wants to get rid of 5 of them.

---

There's no way he could do it if he was in a position to. They might let him close one. RP would have to compromise, like any president, and he'd have a handful with this particular bunch in the House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Paul wants to seriously get rid of the Fed. I believe that the Fed has become overly politicized in the last few decades, but getting rid of it all together would be akin to Jackson getting rid of the the National Bank.

The solution to the Fed being politicized is to change the Fed, not destroy it.

---

I find this line persuasive, but I am also unsure that monetary smoothing is conducive to stability in the long run. Just look where we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

They are extreme, but so was the growth of the theraputic-adminstrative state in the post WWII period. Maybe it's time to prune the tree.

There's no way he could do it if he was in a position to. They might let him close one. RP would have to compromise, like any president, and he'd have a handful with this particular bunch in the House.
I find this line persuasive, but I am also unsure that monetary smoothing is conducive to stability in the long run. Just look where we are now.

---

Pruning...yes. Destruction...no.

The non-political role of the Fed HAS been corroded, but the answer is not abolishing the Fed.

I don't think so either, but the Fed is problematic. In recent decades it has been too accommodating to power, as you just noted.

and now that outright oligarchy has broken out, I'm not sure how you get the genie back in the bottle.

"too accommodating to power"

The Fed has two primary objectives: control inflation, keep unemployment low.

But as we saw, the Fed's primary goal to enrich/protect the financial sector, people from which man the Fed. (eg, Goldman's Blankfein was at the critical meeting about the TARP pkg, the only non Fed/non-Treasury person there, while exGoldman Paulsen was continually phoning Blankfein throughout Sep-Dec 08)

The oligarchy/plutocracy hasn't only recently "broken out". The VRWC has been achieving its strategies of financial/corporate deregulation, war on employees, union busting, cutting taxes on wealthy/UCA while raising taxes on the 99%, for the past 30+ years.

2008 was an inflection point. it's more upfront now than it was. it's now assumed the government backstops the major players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

and now that outright oligarchy has broken out, I'm not sure how you get the genie back in the bottle.

---

Nor am I.

And I agree totally with the oligarchy characterization. It is actually a bit frightening, because I am unconvinced that many people recognize it or care about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

^^^When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation. The economy suffered, but the result was a stronger economy.

When GHW Bush was president, the fed again tightened money, and the economy again suffered. MANY people blamed the Feds actions for his loss to Clinton (particularly and significantly, Bush Jr.).

Subsequent to that, the Fed has been reluctant to ever 'take the long view' monetarily, thus pouring money into the economy in order to ease recessionary times (remember after 9/11 when we went into a recession and the Fed kept piling on money until we got out of it?). It is as though they don't ever want to be accused of hurting any given presidency, so they just keep the money rolling.

That needs to change (or the Fed guys need to grow a pair), but Paul considers the Fed unconstitutional. I think that position is clearly impractical in this day and age.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation."

Inflation and the corresponding anti-inflationary Volcker high interest rates didn't really become pre-occupying until the Iranian oil-shock of 1979 was fully felt in late 1980 thru 1983.

---

LOL...

You guys are talking about the double digit inflation which was to blame for the national debt increasing so much under Reagan for. It wasn't because of what the carter administration allowed, the double digit inflation and interest rates.

Do you realize that?

"carter administration allowed"

The Iranian oil shock 79-84 was world-wide, not just USA.

It was Reagan's team that negotiated the retention of the hostages until after Carter was out in return for USA not retaliating for that act of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"carter administration allowed"

The Iranian oil shock 79-84 was world-wide, not just USA.

It was Reagan's team that negotiated the retention of the hostages until after Carter was out in return for USA not retaliating for that act of war.

---

LOL...

You kidding?

I knew one of the guys waiting on an airplane to go rescue them. A mission Carter never let get off the ground after the teams were in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

You kidding?

I knew one of the guys waiting on an airplane to go rescue them. A mission Carter never let get off the ground after the teams were in place.

---

Well, he's lucky he didn't die like the ones who did go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Well, he's lucky he didn't die like the ones who did go.

---

Well, if the mission wasn't called off after a few helicopters that failed, he might be dead. Hard to say. It wasn't called off because we couldn't do it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, if the mission wasn't called off after a few helicopters that failed, he might be dead. Hard to say. It wasn't called off because we couldn't do it though.

---

Was it the rocket plane scheme? Sounds like Wile E. Coyote came up with that one.

Boutons...

Reagan gave them an ultimatum, that he would take action against them once he took office. That's why they were released the day he took office. He scared them.

Besides. The Algiers Accord was just signed the day before the release. Hard to make the claim you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Boutons...

Reagan gave them an ultimatum, that he would take action against them once he took office. That's why they were released the day he took office. He scared them.

Besides. The Algiers Accord was just signed the day before the release. Hard to make the claim you did.

---

Do you have a link to that ultimatum?

Robert Scheer has plenty of circumstantial evidence that Repugs had secret talks with Iranians (like Repug/Nixon has secret talks with VN in 1968) to retain the hostages until after the election.

I'm sure Scheer and similar have more evidence than WC does that extreme leftist St Ronnie threatened the Iranains. St Ronnie was more for bullying Granada, Panama, and other similar world powers than he was for retaliating against Iran and slaughterers of US Marines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Do you have a link to that ultimatum?

---

The internet wasn't around then. I was. It was all over the news back then. I don't know if a link exists over that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The internet wasn't around then. I was. It was all over the news back then. I don't know if a link exists over that.

---

I watched the news back then.

Don't remember it at all.

Seriously, the timing of the release indicates that the Iranians simply didn't want to give Carter the satisfaction of receiving the hostages on his watch after his support of the Shah.

It's not like Iran had to deal with anything else like, say, a full scale war or something to that effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Seriously, the timing of the release indicates that the Iranians simply didn't want to give Carter the satisfaction of receiving the hostages on his watch after his support of the Shah.

It's not like Iran had to deal with anything else like, say, a full scale war or something to that effect.

---

I found a newspaper clip where Reagan was being advised to give them an ultimatum. I recall him saying he would once he took office, but haven't found that yet. Here is the newpaper clip I found:

The Milwaukee Sentinel - Jan 10, 1981

Meanwhile, I found this of interest:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I found a newspaper clip where Reagan was being advised to give them an ultimatum. I recall him saying he would once he took office, but haven't found that yet. Here is the newpaper clip I found:

The Milwaukee Sentinel - Jan 10, 1981

---

Wow, a small business adviser in Sparks making page 4 of the Milwaukee paper. That's a stretch even for you.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, I found this of interest:

---

Extremely interesting, given Reagan's accommodation and appeasement regarding Iran.

Srsly, I can just make out the word "Acme" on the side.

http://europe-virtual.com/img/29/29e...dent_crash.jpg

lol Credible Sport