Paul: Pay off the country's mortgage

The Gazette ^ | April 11. 2007 | Dick Hogan

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Your attitude is the reason the conservative movement is in such a desperate situation. You’re quick to name call and push people to the other side. You push enough people to the other side, then you may have a “pure” movement, but few supporters. If you tell enough people they belong on the other side enough times, they will eventually start to believe it.

But... Oberon didn't call you any names -- or attack you personally in any way.

At worst, he insulted Ezra Pound (if you can call intellectual criticism an "insult")... who's been dead for almost 25 years, unless I'm mistaken. Perhaps you might think it unkind of him to speak ill of the dead, but he certainly wasn't speaking ill of you, personally, in any way.

Speaking only from my own understanding, I thought that his basic observation was a philosophical one, not related to your own Person at all -- he's arguing that Political Philosophies, whether "Liberal" or "Conservative" in name, have always had a foundation of sand in Principle and a habit of appealing to "pragmatism" in Practice to justify every new political excess or philosophical mutation.

I think that his philosophical criticism is very accurate -- witness the linguistic and philosophical evolution of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" over the last 100 years alone! Given what "Liberal" used to mean, and what "Conservative" used to mean, can you have any certainty that those calling themselves "Conservatives" (and ever appealing to "pragmatism") in 100 years will hold any of the principles you personally hold dear?

That's a philosophical observation about the nature of subjectively-defined "conservatism" -- not, IMHO, any kind of "name-calling" or Personal Attack against you.

What do you think?

Best, OP

[AmericaUnited]

You went on and on and on and on, responding to something I didn't post. How embarrassing is that?

I ONLY mentioned what would happen if we attempted to pay down all of the outstanding debt. YOU added the part about ALSO cutting the budget and generating additional revenue. A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

Have you ever taken the Series 7 General Securities Exam? I scored a 96. My former Human Resources director told me it was the highest score she'd ever seen.

What was your "reading comprehension" score?

[Oberon]

Speaking only from my own understanding, I thought that his basic observation was a philosophical one, not related to your own Person at all -- he's arguing that Political Philosophies, whether "Liberal" or "Conservative" in name, have always had a foundation of sand in Principle and a habit of appealing to "pragmatism" in Practice to justify every new political excess or philosophical mutation.

That's precisely it. Thank you, OP, for saying it better than I would have.

Each proponent of every odd and ill-founded political perspective appeals to pragmatism, and that term has been used to defend awful excesses. Being one whose conservatism is not a philosophy unto itself but rather an outgrowth of my fundamental understanding of the role of Man within God's creation, I believe we have a better banner to rally under than that of pragmatism.

[The_Eaglet]

Cutting the budget is a necessary and appropriate meants to facilitate reduction of the debt (or cutting some items to make room for more debt retirement).

You went on and on and on and on, responding to something I didn't post. How embarrassing is that?

It is not as embarrassing as a complaint about an extended response that addressed the topic and appropriately discussed related issues.

[kabar]

Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket. It is miniscule—far less than one half of one percent of the federal budget.

[AmericaUnited]

It is not as embarrassing as a complaint about an extended response that addressed the topic and appropriately discussed related issues.

They were responding DIRECTLY to what they IMAGINED I posted. My complaint is 100% valid. What's not to understand about that?

[isthisnickcool]

The federal debt cannot be compared to consumer debt or even the debt of a business. Consumers and businesses almost always borrow money based on their credit worthiness. Lenders look at your credit score or the businesses D&B, etc.

These kind of methods are not used when it comes to the federal government. One might argue that if such methods were used that the federal government would not be able to borrow a dime. But alas, unlike you and I the feds can not only manufacture money they can manufacture debt and increase their receivables (taxes/fees) whenever they want without a care of what the market bears. That's a scary combination.

Stopping foreign aid would reduce cash outlays, cash outlays which we stupidly fund with borrowed money. Along with stopping foreign aid, since the federal government owns about a 1/3 of all land in the US (50% of California for example) it would be a great idea to sell some of the land and assets the feds own. Selling federal land assets would bring in a lot of money and also more income for the states since federal land is not taxed.

If along with this we impemented the Fair Tax plan we would have a booming economy. "Booming" would not even describe it.

But none of these kinds of things will be done because people in control in Washington don't want to lose the power they have to jack with the rest of us.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You went on and on and on and on, responding to something I didn't post. How embarrassing is that? I ONLY mentioned what would happen if we attempted to pay down all of the outstanding debt. YOU added the part about ALSO cutting the budget and generating additional revenue. A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

There's NO DIFFERENCE at all, you sophomoric dilettante. Cutting the Federal Budget below the level of Federal Receipts is HOW the Federal Government "Pays Down Debt". Do you mean to tell me I posted a detailed discussion of the actual FINANCIAL MECHANICS of "Paying Down Federal Debt", and you didn't even know that was what I was talking about??

Good grief. How embarassing for you.

Have you ever taken the Series 7 General Securities Exam? I scored a 96. My former Human Resources director told me it was the highest score she'd ever seen. ~~ What was your "reading comprehension" score?

There isn't a "reading comprehension" score on the Series 7; it's not administered to third-graders, you twit.

In order to be able to take the Series 7, you MUST be able to grasp some basic financial concepts (like the fact that "Paying down Federal Debt" ENTAILS "cutting the budget [definitely] and generating additional revenue [perhaps]"). Are you so blindingly-stupid OBTUSE that you can't even RECOGNIZE that fact?

You know what's becoming clear to me? What's clear is that you were trying to over-awe "cva66snipe" with your supposed "understanding" of "how federal debt comes into existence", and how "Paying down Federal Debt" is somehow bad (of all the ridiculous Keynesian insanities); and now you're getting your uneducated butt burned by someone who actually understands the Capital Markets and who can really call you on your Stupidity.

There are no Net Benefits to Government Debt. NONE. You wanna Debate me on that? Let's go, kemosabe... apparently, between Federal Outlays and Receipts, you don't even understand how Federal Debt gets Paid Off! GOOD GRIEF!!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Along with stopping foreign aid, since the federal government owns about a 1/3 of all land in the US (50% of California for example) it would be a great idea to sell some of the land and assets the feds own. Selling federal land assets would bring in a lot of money and also more income for the states since federal land is not taxed.

A fine idea.

If along with this we impemented the Fair Tax plan we would have a booming economy.

The FairTax -- already publicly endorsed by Ron Paul.

It's not his main issue (he wants to keep the focus on Cutting Federal Spending), but he has already publicly declared on National TV that, as President, he would "absolutely" sign the FairTax into Law because he has always promised his constituents he "would do anything, anything, in order to eliminate the Income Tax".

Moving on that public endorsement of the FairTax, I went ahead and set up a conversation between Penny Langford (Ron Paul's Political Director) and David Polyansky (Chief Operating Officer of Americans for Fair Taxation, FairTax.Org). I haven't yet talked to Penny to find out the outcome of those conversations, but it is my hope that some good Press Releases may come out generating good publicity for both Ron Paul and the FairTax!

I'll let you know as soon as I hear anything. (I'm not a "big political insider" or anything, just a private citizen with a few good contacts).

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket. It is miniscule—far less than one half of one percent of the federal budget.

Well, "direct" foreign aid is probably the smallest of Globalist-Interventionist budgetary expenditures (and even that is actually more than 0.6% of the Federal Budget -- not "far less than one half of one percent"); but even so -- Half a percent here, half a percent there... $10 Billion here, $10 Billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

If you have become accustomed to being a Slave to the Government, then yeah, sure, I suppose -- what does another 0.6% matter? But if you think like a Free Man -- if you really consider how much 0.6% a year really is, what good and positive and wise and BIBLICAL things a Private Owner can do with 0.6% a year: investing in his IRA, or some extra Term Life Insurance protection for his family, maybe a dollar-a-day discount Health Policy, or perhaps taking his Wife out for a genuine Crawfish Boil dinner every couple of months (ALL of which are good possibilities; to each his own).... when you think about THAT, the notion of Government taking even an additional 0.6% just to subsidize foreign dictators, theocrats, and communists will rightfully make you furious.

There are som many GOOD things a Private Owner can do with his own Godly-earned Money, the Notion of Government Taking it for the wasteful boondoggle of Foreign Aid is nauseating

And that's merely a "Pragmatic" Argument. As "Lurker" might perhaps say -- "Can you name for me the Article and Section of the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to give US taxpayer money to other countries? Thanks in advance."

"Pragmatic" arguments about Federal Foreign Aid are ultimately an exercise in mental auto-eroticism.... because The Whole Thing Is Wrong. It ain't even Constitutional in the first place.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Excellent. This is one of many of reasons that I am not among the Wolfowitz apologists here. Despite years of failure, he actually wants to pour even more money down the foreign aid rat-hole.

[kabar]

As a percentage of gross national income foreign assistance is at .22 percent. It is miniscule.

Since 1949, the US assistance to Israel has been almost $100 billion. Do you consider that to be "good and positive and wise and BIBLICAL"?

[KoRn]

ping

This may be a dupe. My pings have been many the last few days.

[statered]

What about the Louisiana purchase? Seems right there that the founders gave foreigners some money.

[traviskicks]

``The way to neutralize this is to send money to nobody,'' Paul said.





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Lurker]

What about the Louisiana purchase?

They were selling, we were buying.

"Aid" ain't "buying".

L

[Austin Willard Wright]

There are very pragmatic reasons for aid beyond “charity.” That’s something a lot of folks don’t recognize.

Please help explain the nuances of this "pragmatic" project of our far seeing rulers because it doesn't make any sesne to either myself or other benighted Paulities.

We give aid to North Korea, then we cut it off, then we provide it again. We give Israel tons of foreign aid but then to "balance" this, we also give tons of aid to Egypt. Meanwhile, the Middle Eastern mess remains unsolved after six decades.

In Afghanistan, we aided Jihadists to fight the Ruskies. They win and now we are aiding their opponents. In Iraq, we helped Saddam to fight Iran but then.....well you know what happened.

We aid Tajikistan, which is run by a mass murderer, for strategic reasons while, at the same time, we give aid in a mis-fired project to turn a medieval hell-hole like Iraq into a "democracy." Need I go on?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket. It is miniscule—far less than one half of one percent of the federal budget.

The same could be said for AFDC and public housing. They were both parts of the budget in overall terms but they did incredible harm in destroying initiative, free markets, families, and self-help. This has certainly been the case with foreign aid, especially in the third world.

[AmericaUnited]

There's NO DIFFERENCE at all, you sophomoric dilettante.

There are many ways to pay down the debt. 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.

P.S. There is lots of legitimate debate over the effect on the dollar, if all of the federal debt went 'poof'. People MUCH SMARTER than you (those who scored 97 and above) debate many sides of the issue.

[Eagle Eye]

Ron Paul is jeered by Freepers who don’t truly support the Constitition themselves but they will support ‘electable’ candidates who won’t support the Constitution either.