We Must Spend - Ron Paul Supporters Have No Comprehension of Real Consequences

I agree that Ron Pauls policies would be bad for society as it is currently run. But it is an ideal on how society can be run in a future in which people are more self-responsible.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha


I have been saying this for a long time, I get tired of repeating it so I will just copy paste it so you can see it. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't remeber the post I originally said this in, but it is quoted by the op in this thread.

The U.S. .gov has no legitimate reason to tax its citizens, it prints money. This means that they can print as much as they need at any time to pay the bills.

They do not need to extract wealth from the populous, they only do so to cause economic hardships on the people.

I MEAN HONESTLY, DO YOU THINK THEY NEED TO TAKE YOUR MONEY WHEN THEY. ARE PRINTING MONEY EVERYDAY, FURTHER ERODING THE SCANT AMOUNT THAT THEY DON'T TAX THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POCKET?

You get a dollar of pay, they tax it before you get it( income tax) they tax it when you spend it ( sales tax) they tax the property you have already bought and payed sales tax on (porperty tax) and continue all the while to print more behind your back, that they don't even have to tell you about. Which amounts to an overall percentage based tax against our currency.

Yes it comes in the form of inflation, but it doesn't even matter as our currency is not based off of any actual value, it is based on faith. As long as Americans and everyone else thinks our money is worth X, it is worth X. Even if they only printed one million in notes, if the entire world decided it was worth nothing, it would be worth nothing.

So printing more does not matter actually, as it is not based off of America is worth X so every dollar is worth X in comparisson to the whole. There is no whole to base it on, our money is only worth what we decide it is, not what a a fraction of an imagined starting value is.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

In defense of those statements: It's not hard to imagine something similar happening - where the alternative to digging through garbage is to blow your head off in front of government buildings. I'd also argue you not be so naive.

Of course it's not hard to "imagine". It's not hard for me to imagine aliens landing no the front lawn of the white house. Doesn't make it likely.

Nor does it make it factual. What the OP describes doesn't happen in economics, so sorry for bursting the bubble.

Naive about what? I actually understand how economics work, a few people here don't, yet I'm the naive one for telling them that what they are expressing as opinion, is factually, nonsensical?

~Tenth

edit on 8/10/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

What you ask? The dead-giveaway was that first little paragraph you wrote.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha



Austerity occurs when Govt borrowing , spending above tax revenue is no longer possible as all credibility is lost.

Govt's don't do austerity through choice, and it's usually the last step before default and gibbet production going overdrive.

Only real growth can save the day .

Same old argument.

And the same old counter point - no one EVER got out of debt by increasing spending.

Those of you who still believe that Roosevelt's "New Deal" got USA out of the Great Depression are delusional - World War 2 got USA out of the Great Depression. Manufacturing massively geared up to support the British / French / Russian war effort against Nazi Germany, millions of troops were sent overseas in 1942 resulting in many vacant positions that needed to be filled with the unemployed. Billions of dollars were pumped into the economy by the Government under the guise of "war research" or "war development", and millions of jobs were created.

The "New Deal" cost billions, and staved off the depression long enough for World War 2 to start six years later. The USA only got out of the debt created by the New Deal by selling massive amounts of armaments.

Money was spent, but this was money spent where sales of the products created were guaranteed.

Sure, the "New Deal" was a great stop gap measure, but take WW2 out of the equation, and it would have been short lived.

After World War 2, USA had one of the highest Debt to GDP ratios in history (similar to after the Civil War) but was able to recoup this very easily, due to the fact that all of their major first world competitors (Germany, Japan, UK, China) were in complete shambles and unable to produce anything domestically until the early 1960's, so USA got a 20 year leg up on the competition. Sadly, it only took about 20 years after rebuilding for the competition to get back into the swing of things, it's not surprising that USA has had trouble since the 1980's.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SeekingAlpha

 

So what do you think this would do to the job market? Lay offs would drastically increase in both the private and public sectors. What you would see is another huge fiscal heart attack again, but this time worse than 2007.

Can you please provide a source that correlates government spending with job creation?


~Tenth

Come on. The number of corporations and those employed by said corporations that are directly dependent on government spending is astronomical. Maybe that's hyperbole, but you get the idea. Government spending, especially military spending is the backbone of many corporations, and millions of people's jobs are completely reliant on it.

Construction companies, subcontractors, the travel industry, auto manufacturers, manufacturing, design, the list is endless. Further, with the Buy American Act, these goods and services are being provided by Americans working for American businesses. One step further, small businesses with government contracts many times rely on government spending to stay in business.

A massive cut in spending at this point would be completely devastating.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Americanist

 

I see, you have no interest in actually discussing the topic, just to fling ad-hominems

Again, if you don't understand economics, then it's hard to grasp that what the OP is saying just doesn't make any sense.

You have the right to your own opinions, not your own facts.

~Tenth

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

And you must have co-wrote (with Glenn Beck) the playbook on Grand Naivety. Becky boy cites aliens from time to time too. C'mon... At least admit you're drinking buddies!

Austerity and spending cuts within an already depressed society generate like outcomes. You can debate back and forth, but the fact remains... Once the extremes are met someone's going to come out swinging.

Or worse.

reply to post by Americanist

Austerity and spending cuts within an already depressed society generate like outcomes. You can debate back and forth, but the fact remains... Once the extremes are met someone's going to come out swinging.

I won't discuss your personal attack, because it's irrelevant to the conversation.

As for this, please show me where this has happened?

Please show me where a society, who was over it's head in debt, cut the spending and re-arranged the budget to profiting programs and debt reduction, ended up in the crapper?

You're gonna have a hard time, cause it's not been done before. I don't understand why people think that sound economic policy is somehow going to put America even deeper in the hole. When in reality, it's the only thing that can bring it back.

~Tenth

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SeekingAlpha

 

I have been saying this for a long time, I get tired of repeating it so I will just copy paste it so you can see it. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't remeber the post I originally said this in, but it is quoted by the op in this thread.

The U.S. .gov has no legitimate reason to tax its citizens, it prints money. This means that they can print as much as they need at any time to pay the bills.

They do not need to extract wealth from the populous, they only do so to cause economic hardships on the people.

I MEAN HONESTLY, DO YOU THINK THEY NEED TO TAKE YOUR MONEY WHEN THEY. ARE PRINTING MONEY EVERYDAY, FURTHER ERODING THE SCANT AMOUNT THAT THEY DON'T TAX THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POCKET?

You get a dollar of pay, they tax it before you get it( income tax) they tax it when you spend it ( sales tax) they tax the property you have already bought and payed sales tax on (porperty tax) and continue all the while to print more behind your back, that they don't even have to tell you about. Which amounts to an overall percentage based tax against our currency.

Yes it comes in the form of inflation, but it doesn't even matter as our currency is not based off of any actual value, it is based on faith. As long as Americans and everyone else thinks our money is worth X, it is worth X. Even if they only printed one million in notes, if the entire world decided it was worth nothing, it would be worth nothing.

So printing more does not matter actually, as it is not based off of America is worth X so every dollar is worth X in comparisson to the whole. There is no whole to base it on, our money is only worth what we decide it is, not what a a fraction of an imagined starting value is.

It's confidence in the currency , but continuous 'money printing' will damage confidence and ultimately lead to hyperinflation.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy

Come on. The number of corporations and those employed by said corporations that are directly dependent on government spending is astronomical. Maybe that's hyperbole, but you get the idea. Government spending, especially military spending is the backbone of many corporations, and millions of people's jobs are completely reliant on it.

That military spending coud EASILY be converted into a civil infrastructure programs, which would not cost any jobs...it would create more.

One of the big problems is that so many industries are reliant on government spending. This should not be the case and it's easily fixed by cutting that spending where it's innefective and putting it into programs that are, such as infrastructure.

Construction companies, subcontractors, the travel industry, auto manufacturers, manufacturing, design, the list is endless. Further, with the Buy American Act, these goods and services are being provided by Americans working for American businesses. One step further, small businesses with government contracts many times rely on government spending to stay in business.

The Buy American Act is an isolationist policy and in the long run will only serve to start trade wars amongs other nations and the US. Although I see it's short term benefits. It still won't help the manufacturing industry though, since the tax rates are far too high for corporations. When they can get 15-20 percent in other nations, what do you expect?

I'm not saying you cut their contracts when it comes to those businesses, but there is waste spending that goes on, and a ton of it and it could be re-worked so that things were more even.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Americanist

 

Austerity and spending cuts within an already depressed society generate like outcomes. You can debate back and forth, but the fact remains... Once the extremes are met someone's going to come out swinging.

I won't discuss your personal attack, because it's irrelevant to the conversation.

As for this, please show me where this has happened?

Please show me where a society, who was over it's head in debt, cut the spending and re-arranged the budget to profiting programs and debt reduction, ended up in the crapper?

You're gonna have a hard time, cause it's not been done before. I don't understand why people think that sound economic policy is somehow going to put America even deeper in the hole. When in reality, it's the only thing that can bring it back.

~Tenth

Learn from history... Wars.

reply to post by Americanist
"Wars" is the answer to this question?:

Please show me where a society, who was over it's head in debt, cut the spending and re-arranged the budget to profiting programs and debt reduction, ended up in the crapper?

Could you clarify that answer for us, by chance? Maybe it's just the lack of sleep, but I'm having a hard time piecing that together...

All I hear from the OP is BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT.

Who doesn't have comprehension of the REAL consequences?

You really don't understand the massive bubble we're dealing with, do you?


Ben Bernanke make a convincing case for you? You think we need another round of quantitative easing because you don't want life to get tough? Waiting for hyper-inflation to catch up to you and your loved ones?


The people who REFUSE to deal with reality are the ones who want to keep all of this going. This economy is a sham, it is driven by debt and you're neck-deep in that debt. But you don't care, SPEND SPEND SPEND. BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT.


You think you're on the winning side of this debate? Not even Paul Krugman believes in the crap that he spews.

Austrian economist Robert Murphy challenged Krugman to a economic debate with $60,000 in donation pledges to charities if he accepts and he has been dodging and ducking since day one.

krugmandebate.com...

Welcome to KrugmanDebate.com, your headquarters for the Murphy-Krugman Debate! Robert Murphy has a PhD in economics from New York University. He is a firm believer in the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which blames the boom-bust cycle on the Federal Reserve, not the free market. In contrast, Paul Krugman--Nobel laureate in economics, and writer for the New York Times—is a Keynesian economist who thinks the Fed and the government can jumpstart the economy out of recession by printing more money and increasing the deficit.

Murphy has challenged Krugman to a public debate on Austrian vs. Keynesian business cycle theory. He has set up a campaign, which currently has raised $60,000 in pledges. If Krugman actually debates Murphy, then the money goes to a food bank in New York City. If Krugman never debates, no one's credit card is ever charged; people are only going to be charged for their pledge, when Krugman actually debates.

So keep that mentality that we can actually spend our way out of debt, that growing government and breaking records in spending is actually good for anybody. Spend spend spend..yea...right...

reply to post by eLPresidente
I take it you already saw this article, then?

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Oh boy.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I agree that Ron Pauls policies would be bad for society as it is currently run. But it is an ideal on how society can be run in a future in which people are more self-responsible.

^^^^

That makes no sense. You're making the argument that Ron Paul's ideas only work in a world where people are self-reliant and accountable for their actions. You also make the argument that TODAY'S society cannot sustain his ideals because people are too reliant on information being fed to them and the nanny state taking care of them.

We went from a more self-reliant society to a welfare society in less than 100 years, why can't we go back?

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I take it you already saw this article, then?

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Oh boy.

GM failing, volt failing, Obama had to campaign to boost Chevy Volt sales.

How ironic that the OP's signature says this:

Real Politics is about Power and Money but it is sold to the masses as fear and vanity.

And the very fears he has is the government and keyensian pseudo-financial experts threatening to taking away his inflated way of life.

reply to post by eLPresidente

GM failing, volt failing, Obama had to campaign to boost Chevy Volt sales SUCCESS!!

Fixed that typo for you.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha


You are, of course, absolutely correct. Government spends in the private sector directly and sends money back to the states through programs. When that money gets to the state, the state uses it to do business with private sector companies to accomplish program objectives. If that money suddenly disappears all sorts of businesses that depend on government expenditures for all or part of their revenues will suddenly find themselves in financial difficulties. When businesses find themselves in such difficulties one of the first things they do is throw employees overboard. The employee who gets tossed over the side in this economy is just plain screwed and so in the long run are businesses who depend upon his/her custom.

Moreover, government jobs or government funded private sector jobs tend to be exactly the sort we'd want to keep; professional positions in the social & natural sciences, law, medicine, accountancy, positions in the skilled trades and engineering and a plethora of other occupations. These are jobs that provide a middle class lifestyle that in turn supports much of the rest of the economy. Think of all those cheering JPL employees at Curiosity's landing; GONE.

Most of the members here think there is and should be a strict separation between the government and private industry. For followers of Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises' Austrian Economics it is an article of "religious" faith. But such a faith is ahistorical. American economics in operation has always been about a mixed economy where government takes on huge risks and projects that help business and business in turn contracts with the government to provide goods and services consumed by the government or the people.

People here who demand proof that a 20% or higher federal spending cut would be disastrous can check out the current list of federal business opportunities here that will simply be suspended or disappear. Or you can work with the federal state and local payroll data here to calculate the effect of taking an axe to the spending on employment. When you actually start taking a look at who does business with the government you will begin to realize that almost every company and nonprofit has either a direct or indirect link to federal state and municipal spending. However, I suspect that most of those who place their faith in the simplistic nostrums of Dr Ron Paul and his Paulistas wont risk exposure to that much complexity.

I want a simple world as do we all; so long as that world is complex enough to satisfy our not so simple 21st century needs and lifestyles. Despite bravado and protestations to the contrary, few if any of us are equipped to walk out of civilization and into the raw state of nature. Buy all of that Alex Jones advertised survivalist crap you can; you will get to the end of it and then what? We really cannot have it both ways though we pretend to.

The Federal Government got big because our country got big. It got complex because our country got complex. When complex things are allowed to fail they do so complexly reaching out to every quarter of the nation and the economy. No one is left unscathed. Libertarians and Paulistas tend to think simplistically that if they have a little gold, some guns & ammo, freeze dried food and a rustic setting they are good. They delude themselves.