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...
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.