Posted on 07/28/2008 12:01:54 PM PDT by BGHater
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.
What do these economic policies have to do with “neo-cons” or “neo-conservatism?”
Ron Paul drinking the left wing koolaid.
There is a lot of truth in what Paul writes...
I never hear him say anything about Liberals. It’s always “neo-cons.” Just whose side is this guy on?
As far as where the opposition to his ideas are coming from, even within GOP ranks, it is my belief that he is simply labeling that opposition as “neo-conservative” because of the pejorative value he believes it has. However, I don't believe that opposition - conservative, moderate or liberal - is derived from or a result of anyone, specifically, arguing from a “neo-conservative” position.
Kinda along the idea of keep your house in order before criticizing your neighbor.
Adopting Ron Paul's economic ideal - i.e. the complete absence of credit and credit financing - would destroy our modern economic system and plunge us back into the 10th century.
Ron Paul's view of credit finance is roughly the same as Mohammed's.
Not if you understand constitutional law, economics or geopolitics.
These economic policies are big government fiscally irresponsible socialism hiding under a “conservative” banner.
This is the Democrat's accusation that the Bush tax cuts are "only for the wealthy". It's been debunked countless times, but I guess the accusation still plays well with some audiences.
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to many of his views, but I appreciate hearing them, and I think his strict adherence to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is admirable. His reading of the constituion is, I think, much closer to the limited vision of the founders.
Ronnie dosn't care for Jews very much. This is his way of saying it.
Every Empire must find a way to destroy itself, and nearly every time it does this, it is through spending, increased money supplies, and reduction in the value of it's currency.
Let's see, USA policies the world Check.
USA prints money to bail out wall street, check.
Commodities prices continue to sky rocket, check.
Um, yeah, seems pretty on target to me.
All Paul is drinking is the fact that the neo-conservatives (those of the blue blood republicans that tend to act like the Rockefeller's) only hang their hats on reduced taxes instead of taxing and spending. Instead, the budget shortfalls are made up from borrowing from the likes of the ChiComms and the Japs. As long as they are generous enough to keep lending, then all is well. As long as the assets that back the loans are valuable, all is well. Once the leverage is over extended and the assets that back the capital are used 3 or 4 times (or in many current cases 15~30 times over), we can't sustain ourselves without printing the money to make up for the excess leverage, and thus weakening the value of our currency.
“The fiat monetary policy we now follow”
That policy, such as it is, long predates “neo-conservatism” or any prominent “neo-conservative” and found both favor and disfavor among many in politics from many different political persuasions since that monetary policy arose.
Labeling the defenders of that policy, and implying it comes from, “neo-conservatism” is both false and stupid. It neither enlightens anyone as to what might be bad about it nor does it direct anyone to whom they should ally to oppose it; other than to Mr. Paul himself and not to “neo-conservatives”.
Of course, we can all see that Mr. Paul is well aware that his supporters on the leftist fringe (hatred for anything in “big capitalism) will be very attracted to his attack on “neo-conservatives” (just think “Wolfowitz”).
Fixed it.
No, it is, by his own admission, closer to the view of the anti-Constitution anti-Federalists and the anarchist Lysander Spooner.
No one is a bigger hypocrite than Ron Paul when it comes to government intervention in the economy. His district receives tons of money in federal agricultural subsidies and benefits greatly from the federal money poured into the Port of Houston.
Let him add language to a realistic budget bill that targets these programs and remove all the pork from his district. He never will.
He's playing a very cynical game: writing bills he knows will never pass and voting against budgets that he knows will pass and will pour money into his district.
The problem isn’t credit, the problem is spending.
The more we spend, the more government needs. It can’t do with less, when the people can certainly do with less.
There is a reason that people, once upon a time, were forced to put down 20% or 40% of their homes first. There is a reason that China doesn’t allow for too much consumer credit (though, obviously, they have problems of their own that we can discuss).
The fact is, 20~40% down of a home encourages SAVINGS! Savings are used as the engine of the captilism economy, NOT ENDLESS CREDIT! It takes money to make money. However, that money needs something tangible in order for it to have any amount of real value (half the reason behind a gold standard, because it physically restricts the amount of money creation and keeps inflation in check).
If money is created without some sort of control, then at some point, the value of said money will be worthless. Bubbles happen, but if people had been forced to pay down what they could afford, the market would have self regulated it’s thresholds for what it deemed too “risky.”
“There is a lot of truth in what Paul writes...”
Trouble is that Joe Sixpack doesn’t understand ‘fiat’ money.
And for Joe Sixpack there are too many political labels. Liberals, progressives, conservatives, neoconservatives..plus democrats and republicans.
So intellectuals need to focus political discussion to regular people.
I’ll wager Paul’s supporters had above average IQs, so they may understand this stuff.
I too do not agree with all of Ron Paul's views, however his interpretation of the constitution is hell of a lot more accurate than 99% of all the politicians in congress that I can see.
So many just do this parrot ridicule of him without listening to what he is truly saying.
Same happened to Ross Perot. Seems to me, ol Ross was right on several accounts.
To change this awful political puppet show will take thinking out of the box. So far, I'm not seeing anyone offering any new or fresh solutions, just political BS that's been regurgitated year after year after year.
Funny, he sounds exactly like McLame did when Bush ramrodded his tax cuts through...
Well, we could frankly use some anti-federalist views these days. Paul opposes, at least in principle, the subsidies that benefit his own district. I don’t know whether he has ever tried to specifically eliminate those subsidies, but that doesn’t negate the truth of his assertions...Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase wasn’t exactly anti-federalist, yet he remains that philosophy’s greatest proponent. In any event, we’re a long way from anarchism for goodness sake.
“I never hear him say anything about Liberals. It’s always “neo-cons.” Just whose side is this guy on?”
Vicious and well paid junk yard dogs never attack their masters.
We are the targets of the lead junk yard dog and his wannabees, never the liberals.
"Neo-con" is just an empty pejorative. It has no meaning beyond the intention of conveying a meaningless, non-specific negative impression.
I understand and support much of that.
But why does he attribute these policies to “neo-cons?”
I agreed with almost everything he wrote.
I differ with him on tax his cuts to help the lower classes. Tax policy should not be arranged to benefit this group or that, but to raise revenue in a simple, effective, and constitutional way. If the income tax were constitutional (I believe it is not), only a flat tax on incomes would be acceptable.
Compassionate conservatism. Fabians disguised as conservatism.
Giant social spending and bailouts for failed financial institutions. Along with giant government planned, housing bills(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015.html) designed to create homeowners. When, it's not the job of the Gov’t to create ‘homeowners’.
Thats a Neocon? Because calling them ‘conservative’ destroys the meaning of conservatism.
L Ron Paul connections with supporters and groups which includes 9/11 an inside job, to Marxist Cindy Sheehan anti war crowd to Holocause deniers.
Ron Paul’s committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300.
Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution. Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones’ company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones’ Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600.
Jones has been pumping Paul’s campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months. Alex Jones got Paul’s first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign.
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3. In a lengthy October 5 interview — apparently Paul’s fourth with Jones — Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: “You and the others have always said run, run, run.”
Alex Jones’ websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.
No, we couldn't. What we could use is a more principled and thoroughgoing federalism of the kind advocated by Washington, Hamilton and Madison.
Paul opposes, at least in principle, the subsidies that benefit his own district. I don’t know whether he has ever tried to specifically eliminate those subsidies, but that doesn’t negate the truth of his assertions...
No, it negates the seriousness with which Ron Paul is supposedly to be taken.
Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase wasn’t exactly anti-federalist, yet he remains that philosophy’s greatest proponent.
Jefferson was not an anti-Federalist, but he was adopted by the Anti-Federalists as the best alternative to Hamilton's policies. When actually elected he governed as a pure Madisonian Federalist, much to the chagrin of his more radical supporters.
In any event, we’re a long way from anarchism for goodness sake.
Doesn't mean that Spoonerite anarchism is a great idea. Wanting to destroy the Constitution to make way for no government instead of more government has the same net effect of undermining the Constitution. Spooner was an intellectual bankrupt, beneath contempt.
Neoconservatives have never had an economic program of which I’m aware. And I are one!
I agree. I never get angry at what liberals do. They just can’t help it . It’s their nature, just like the frog (or turtle) and the scorpian (or spider). I get furious at Republicans, because they should know better.
Paul is on the side of true conservatives. If not for my support of the US military I would have supported Paul in the GOP primary. The difference between Paul and myself is that I will NEVER say or do anything against our military when we are at war.
I would rather have been energy independent from the get go and not be entangled in the middle east in any way. The Israel question is an entirely different matter that I won't get into here, but Ron Paul is right on the money in many ways. I think we could have done things differently and avoided the entire middle east quagmire. That said, we are there and we need to prevail. Ron Paul is a bright guy and I agree with many of his positions. He was hijacked by a bunch of spoiled college students but I think in the long run it will be a good thing. A lot of the lefty twenty-somethings I know are now far more fiscally conservative for having been a part of the Ron Paul movement. The joined up to protest the war but they ended up learning something about freedom.
My adult children's friends who supported Paul are of well above average intelligence, educated and would have been typical commie college kids had they not stumbled across Paul in their eager journey to the anti-war/hate Bush demonstrations.
Ron Paul ought to know.
Ron Paul is a neocon and an arse.
Ron Paul drinking the left wing koolaid.
When will this idiot go away?
He’s your typical stinking LIBERALtarian acting pious with no MORALS on the social front.
Ok, that was way over the top! U Fascist Neo-Con Pig!
Do yourself a favor & look up Fascism & Neo-Cons... & read the F'in Constitution! GOOD Men died protecting those "LIBERALtarian" Freedoms & will probably do so again!
This isn't a matter of taste. It's a matter of historical facts.
if Jefferson wasn't an anti-federalist no one was. Indeed, he opposed the Constitution's adoption
(1) Jefferson was anti-Administration, not anti-Federalist. The political party he formed in opposition to Washington and Hamilton's policies was formed in partnership with James Madison - one of the original Federalists.
After the Constitution was ratified, the Anti-Federalists effectively ceased to exist because they were completely defeated when the Constitution was ratified. The remnants of the Anti-Federalists backed Burr, whom Jefferson distrusted, but Jefferson needed their votes to defeat the Administration in the 1800 election - the Anti-Federalists tried to hijack the House vote to defeat jefferson and put Burr in. Once elected Jefferson had nothing to do with Vice President Burr and dropped him from the ticket in 1804 when it was clear that he no longer needed the old Anti-Federalists vote.
(2) Jefferson did not oppose the Constitution's adoption at all. That is a complete myth.
Neo-cons are hardly conservative.
Except the democrats want the tax cuts repealed while Paul wants them spread to all classes, i.e. tax cuts across the board IMO.
How are his views anti-Constitution?
Probably because neo-con is associated with Bush and his policies. He hasn’t exactly been in line with limited government. Just my opinion.
“No, it negates the seriousness with which Ron Paul is supposedly to be taken.”
That may be true, but it doesn’t negate the CONTENT of what he’s saying. If a murderer tells you murder is wrong, he’s right regardless of what he’s done.
Spin it however you want... Facts mean little to you if it gets in the way of a good Ron Paul bashing...
"I disapproved from the first moment... the want of a bill of rights [in the new Constitution] to guard liberty against the legislative as well as the executive branches of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440
"The general voice from north to south... calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:96
"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788. (*) FE 5:3
"I consider all the ill as established which may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." --Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:477
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it, I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for... an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325
Well... yeah... other than THOSE objections right?
I’m curious, do you think the federal government is too powerful and/or using powers it isn’t not Consitutionally granted? What is your brand of Constitutionalism seeing as your tagline says Constitutionalists (suggesting Paul-types I’m assuming) know the least about the Constitution?
Don’t take this as a challenge/insult/attack, I’d just like to know your views.
“L Ron Paul connections with supporters and groups which includes 9/11 an inside job, to Marxist Cindy Sheehan anti war crowd to Holocause deniers.”
(...)
None of this is remotely interesting anymore - haven’t you posted it in multiple threads? Nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand.
This is the Democrat’s accusation that the Bush tax cuts are “only for the wealthy”
No, it’s only part of his argument that neocons are neither fiscally conservative or for limited government.
Anyone who has spent any time reading the neocon’s flagship journal, The Weekly Standard, will get a taste of the neocon disinterest and/or antagonism towards American principles of Constitutional government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.