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.
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.
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.