Posted on 04/16/2007 1:32:37 AM PDT by cva66snipe
More taxes won't resolve the financial woes, but stopping foreign aid would help, he said.
``The way to neutralize this is to send money to nobody,'' Paul said. Most American foreign aid never gets to the poor people it's intended to help, Paul charged.
(Excerpt) Read more at gazetteonline.com ...
Thanks for making the points I no longer can.
Quite true! We agree! This statement that "loyalties shift" is not an even an attempt to illustrate any "realpolitik" advantage of the long American record of foreign aid. In fact, it would be more likely to persuade an objective observer that foreign aid is a failure in purely pragmatic terms.
I believe in realpolitik too. That's why I'm against foreing aid because it doesn't work, help the recipients, and produces blowback. Do you have an actual "realpolitik" evidence that the record of American foreign aid has been of net benefit?
What about the rebuilding of Iraq? We used the Marshall Plan years ago. Was that wrong-headed? And if so, WHY?
I've never considered any of the savants at the Mises Institute any sorts of "Economic Idiots". If you're intent on putting Words in my mouth, shall I return the favor? On second thought, I can't do that -- I'm a Christian, and it is UnBiblical for me to Bear False Witness. I can't help it if you're a hell-bound Christ-Rejector who willingly Bears False Witness; I suppose that's your own business.
At any rate, let's attend to your quoted Rothbard article:
It is clear from the Rothbard article that he is talking about the economic dislocations which would be suffered by paying off the Entire National Debt IN ONE YEAR.
OKAY, GRANTED!! Paying off the Entire National Debt IN ONE YEAR would indeed impose EXTREME immediate Burdens upon the Taxpayers (although some hard-bitten Moralists might argue that it would be more Honorable for Americans today to suffer through a couple years of bread and water, sackcloth and ashes, than to pass on these Debts to our Children and Grandchildren)... however, that is NOT what Ron Paul is Proposing!
AT WORST Ron Paul is proposing that(at least for his first year in office) we merely reduce Government Spending to the highest Level of the Largest BILL CLINTON Budget -- which would produce Spending Reductions sufficient to Pay Off the entire National Debt in about 15 or 20 years!!
But in the last 7 years, the philosophy of "Conservatism" has been so utterly betrayed by the ruling Bush Family "Big Government Conservatives" that y'all now think it is somehow Madness even to Cut Government back to its Biggest Budget during the CLINTON Years!!
And here's one discussing how federal debt actually comes into existance, (much deeper discusssion than your childish understanding) -
Um... Okay. Did you not notice that everything in White and Garrison's discussion agrees with my posted Arguments?
Can you not even SEE that?
What's your "reading comprehension" score? When White and Garrison observe that "The Landsburg Feinstone critique is misplaced" in regard to Governmental cross-lending, I can understand exactly what they're saying... and it leads right back to Debt-Free Austrian Economics. Can YOU explain to ME why this is the case?
No, you can't. You're arguing an idiotic economic position (that Government Debt is somehow "good"), and you're not even perfectly versed in your own Marxist-Keynesian argumentation in order to make your case.
In other words, you're not even a perfect idiot.
Thus, they are not really "working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America".
Doug Wilson, is that you?!? =]
I'm a non-denominational evangelical who endorses the Westminster Confession, a confirmed subscriber to Reform Theology, and an ardent admirer of John Knox. Scot-flavored Presbyterianism would suit me well and I may seek out such a church when I next relocate; however, I will not shift churches where I am. The people in my current church are in a sense family, and I would not part from them.
Oh my dear Saint Peter hanging on an upside-down cross.
I am apparently making my way across the Valley of the Shadow of the Stupid.
No, there are NOT "many ways to pay down the debt". There are precisely TWO ways to pay down the Debt (and if you knew ANYTHING about Macro-Economic Public Finance, you would know that):
Cutting spending, raising revenue via higher taxes, raising revenue via greater economic activity, or any combination of the three. You assumed ONE scenario. I didn't mention a scenario. What's that saying about when you assume it makes an ass of of you? IT DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON HOW IT'S DONE, despite what some schmuck who thinks he's a know-it-all because he once scored 96 on a test.
Nah. from a Bond Market perspective, it's all really ONE scenario: "Full-faith Redemption via accrual of Fiscal Surpluses" (you probably don't even realize that, but that's hardly surprising).
I just assumed the least economically-damaging methodology of getting there, because I (mistakenly) assumed at first that you might be able to follow along with my argumentation.
Sadly, I was wrong.
In this case, it's not about "some schmuck who thinks he's a know-it-all because he once scored 96 on a test". It's about whether or not you're even a smart enough Schmuck to QUALIFY for the Test.
And buddy, based on our conversations -- speaking as someone who used to PREP my company's trainees for the Options portion of the Series 7 GSE -- I'd bet Cash-Money before God and Man that you've never even passed a single Accredited-College freshman Economics course with even a "B" grade or better.
Because you don't know crap... and you're not even as Wise as "cva66snipe", who at least knows that "Ya can't Spend more than ya Get".
Please re-read my #77, if you're not too Proud. Maybe you'll learn something.
OP
I am an unrepentant ZIONIST from the earliest days of Free Republic.
You're just a Newbie who believes in Cursing Israel with Foreign Aid Communism.
I spit upon your hatred of Israel, Newbie.
Would you please enlighten us then. Try. Is it anything close to the Mandrake Mechanism described in The Creature From Jekyl Island by Griffin?
My view, right or wrong, is that when metals were demonetized, debt was then monetized. And early issues of debt served as a foundation for later issues, and debt has been rolled over so many times that it just keeps growing. The worry is that the process cannot continue indefinitely and there is a point the intrest owed on the debt exceeds the economy's ability to pay and it can all collapse. When it collapses, we'd have the choice of returning to a precious metals based currency, or restarting the debt based system all over again. Again, right or wrong.
Comments? Thanks. Not meant to be flame bait.
For several reasons. We can not afford it. Our military is in great need of a stand down from deployments and serious rebuilding. As for other reasons? There are many. One is the cultural difference between Japan and Germany. In Iraq you have factions {tribes} where their hate goes back several thousand years. They are not going to stop fighting each other except to fight another nation which right now is us. I say leave them be and let tham go at each other as the have through the ages. We can not make them stop hating each other. They are and have been largely in a ongoing civil or tribal war ever since.
OK more reasons. We began rebuilding Iraq while we still have an enemy fighting us. Unfortunately when we deliver the new and improved Iraq the Radical Clerics will install yet another puppet dictator like Saddam. IF Iraq wants it's freedom it like our own must be earned. It must be wanted more than life itself.
The Marshall Plan by in large worked because the people were a nation not nations within nations as Iraq is. The leadership was there to say stop fighting and by in large it did. Germany and Japan were not a culture of strapping back packs on to kids and sending them into crowds.
Another reason and it is Biblical. Iraq has been and always will be an enemy of Israel and an agent that wishes to bring her demise. Again that is long established history. We as a nation can not if we expect to prosper support the enemies of GOD's chosen nation.
Hah! No. No, indeed.
I'm just a Orthodox Presbyterian Layman (and not even a great OPC-er at that, presently; I attend my wife's Evangelical Covenant [i.e., Scandinavian-Lutheran] church for the sake of family peace, while still attempting to win her over to Presbyterianism).
It's nice to meet yet another Calvinist supporting Ron Paul, though. There seems to be a lot of us.
Full-faith Redemption via accrual of Fiscal Surpluses
Wrong! I'm going to make this as simple as possible so even either self-aggrandizing, blotivating, puffed up idiot, or a 5 year old, can understand it.
The government could choose to cut spending by 10%, use those funds to retire the equivalent dollar amount in debt, and there would have been no accrual whatsoever of fiscal surplus, and the debt would have been paid down.
No, that's incorrect.
If the Government devoted 10% of the Budget to "Pay Down Debt", but continued running an overall 10% Operating Deficit and did not run a Surplus, there would be no NET Pay Down. The Government would just be issuing New Bonds to Pay off Old Bonds.
Let me make this "simple enough for a five year old to understand" -- you cannot PAY DOWN Debt unless you either run a Fiscal Surplus or else hyper-inflationary Monetize the Debt. Devoting 10% of the Budget to "Paying Debt" while Running a 10% Operating Deficit has no Net Effect at all -- you're just refinancing the Debt every year, which is what the Government is doing now (plus adding to it).
You MUST Run a Fiscal Surplus to acheive any Full-Faith Net Pay-Down of Debt. It's Math. Sheesh, it's first-grade arithmetic.
Fine every employer for each illegal alien on the payroll. It’s a form of foreign aid, as well. And fines are the only way to discourage employers from looking the other way and using situational ethics to excuse their behavior.
Then there are Christian admirers of Calvin's writings who appreciate his articulation of the Gospel but see no need to identify themselves as Calvinists, who find Ron Paul's candidacy commendable.
Then there are Constitution Party members, Libertarian Party members, and independents making plans to vote for Republican Ron Paul.
Containment policy of the cold war included foreign aid.
He's "WICKED SMOT"!
If the republicans nominate another establishment Open-borders CFR candidate they will lose ALOT of the votes that G.W. got from conservatives like me.
For political opportunists and inside-the-beltway lifers, it's easy to pledge allegiance to a party.
For Americans like Paul Constitutionalists in principle, it's not so easy. There ain't a dimes bit of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats anymore. We have to focus on ISSUES and Constitutional principles...that's what Ron Paul is all about. You should be THRILLED to be able to vote for a candidate who's not a whore for his party.
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.