rand paul on rachel maddow

[cfdavid]

---

Members do not see this ad.

People have the right to be racists if they want. I agree with this. But the minute someone's racist views infringe on an individuals civil rights, then I take issue with this. This is what the the Civil Rights Act is about and what Paul is talking about.

I dont consider myself a liberal. And the funny thing is I love Ron Paul's foreign policies...I'm assuming Rand Paul believes in the same.

I'd hope that most people today wouldn't want to go back to before 1964. But, the guy made one philosophical stance regarding the Constitutionality of one "clause" in the Civil Rights Act, and he's being hung out to dry.

What I find telling is the extent to which the establishment is going after him, as if there aren't other topics to chat about. To me, this speaks to how many in the "establishment" find guys like that a threat. So, they hang on to what essentially amounts to underhanded baiting in order to burn him. Then, when they do, they don't let it go.

People should revisit the interview which I posted at the top. Be honest about the situation.

Also, what the hell is being a "racist" anyway?? Seriously, not to break topic here, but I seriously doubt that ANYONE has the ability to NOT SEE someone's race. That's like being able to ignore a dude who wore a pink (or choose your color) shirt every single day. That is, how many of us are NOT "racially aware" to one extent or another. It's human nature to "cluster" in such ways, IMO.

Now, I'm not at all advocating different treatment based on race, which has been a serious problem in the past (and is a serious problem today, both in the US and world). Also, whites certainly do not have a monopoly on racism (in the classic form) as some would suggest. But I digress.

cf

 

[Narcotized]

1- You make it sound as though if someone disagrees with you they must "think wasteful government spending is good." Obviously that's not true.

2- In so doing you seem to be equating this message with the tea party people. But this is only one piece of their "platform,"

OK, I guess the Tea Party can mean whatever it wants to whoever is talking about it, but the origin "Tea Party" comes from the Boston Tea Party. The basis of the foundation revolves around huge taxes and wasteful big government and nothing else, ie The Boston Tea Party.

I don't see how the conclusion can be made that people concerned with an out of control government debt are therefore racist. This has absolutely nothing to do with disagreeing with me. I already said let's disagree and talk about it, but the discussion ends when you tell me Tea Partiers (people concerned with out of control government spending and taxes that can never cover it) are a bunch of racists.

 

[W222]

I cannot believe that everyone here agrees/backs Dr Rand. Yes, he said that he 'abhors racism' multiple times. But he did not say that he abhors racism of others. He is actually OK with that. Also, he said that the civil rights act over shot the powers of the federal government. So basically he is OK with a restaurant owner choosing not to serve someone based on their race, gender, or religion. This is not a philosophical arguement. In certain situations the federal government needs to step in or else we would have still been living in the days of segregated schools.

He completely reinforces the image that the tea-baggers are a bunch of racists.

I could not agree with this more! This man, who frankly is perhaps the most educated ***** I have ever seen in public, says that he allows racism to exist in society and that he feels little should be done about it. Frankly, if you are the owner of a business in the public sphere, a business that is allowed to trade services based on government backed money and that is protected by tax payer funds/services (ie. police,fire,ect.) then you should not be allowed to discriminate and the government has every right to enforce the CRA. I would like to hear Mr. Paul's argument against this theory, I am sure it would provide plenty of fodder.

As for his recent statement against Obama and holding BP accountable, this just further exposes his insanity.

 

[Salt Creep]

Oh yeah, I also believe that if your going to live in this country you should probably learn the language too. I dont know but I'm just saying...

You mean "you're".

"Your" is possessive. "You're" is a contraction.

I'm weary of the posts to individuals on this thread, but if you're going to call somebody out on language, be careful with your own.

I agree that people should speak our language if they're going to live here (and I don't just mean silly grammatical issues like above; I mean the ability to get around without a translator).

I got rather frustrated when we had to have a translator present for REPEAT c-sections, all of the previous of which also occurred at our hospital.

I can understand somebody traveling or who just moved here and needs medical attention (that happened to me as the patient once, though I never expected anyone to speak English with me). But 3rd and 4th repeat sections? Please. If you want this to be your home, act like it. Otherwise go back to the place you prefer to hang onto as home.

But why should they? We give them every reason in the world not to. They pay no extra for the translators, who are ridiculously overworked. (assuming they're paying anything to begin with)

I learned a second language, primarily by living where it was spoken - and trying to. After 1 year, I was dreaming in that language, not my native tongue. It's really not that hard if you want to do it.

 

[dilated]

whoa relax there buddy. I think we are saying similar things. You say Paul is arguing for someone's right to be an azzhole. I say he is arguing for someone's right to be a racist. But where we disagree is that I dont think someone running for public office should have these views. When a politician is saying that an owner of a restaurant has the right not to serve a person because of the color of their skin; then I dont care what you say... Paul is condoning racism

So everyone who says that people have the right to say racist things because of the first amendment is condoning racism? OMG THEY'RE LETTING RACISTS TALK! The ACLU is now the most racist organization in the country!

Watching this play out in the media has been just pathetic. Facts have become completely irrelevant in modern America, the media just puts together a "narrative" (Paul says racist things, hurts candidacy) and play it over and over again until it becomes true. For weeks, if necessary.

 

[W222]

I'm glad somebody understands economics. Keynes was a fool. Our system desparately needs some influence from Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian school of economic theory.

Are you kidding? The Austrian School and laisez faire capitalism are DIRECTLY responsible for our current disaster. You had an unregulated mortgage market, an unregulated derivatives market, and unregulated banking; this led to the second greatest economic disaster in our country's history. Please explain how a laisez faire approach could be better at this point? And don't say let the banks fail, this approach is completely unrealistic for anyone with a sense of reality (which both Mr. Paul's seem to be lacking).

 

[ronaldo23]

People have the right to be racists if they want. I agree with this. But the minute someone's racist views infringe on an individuals civil rights, then I take issue with this. This is what the the Civil Rights Act is about and what Paul is talking about.

I dont consider myself a liberal. And the funny thing is I love Ron Paul's foreign policies...I'm assuming Rand Paul believes in the same.

When it comes to foreign policy, it's a little funny because Rand is a bit more willing to play politics than his father, even though I think he holds the same positions in principle. While Ron will openly call for a non-interventionist foreign policy and withdrawal from Afghanistan, Rand has said that he would defer decisions about troop levels to the military generals and that it is the commander and chiefs responsibility to deal with that. He has said that he wants to see more Afghani responsibility, but has come short of calling for a withdrawal. What he has said, though, is he wants to see a declaration of war rather than preemptive strikes around the world.

As to your other point, you are not really infringing on someone's civil rights to deny them to come into YOUR restaurant. It's a private business owners decision, and that decision will have its own consequences in the form of protests and lack of business (its ultimately a bad decision that will hurt him). What gives the boy-scouts any more of a right to deny gays than a private restaurant to do the same thing? Why aren't the same people outraged by Rand equally outraged and protesting outside those headquarters? Anyways, as CfDavid said, the law is the law and rand isn't talking about overturning or changing anything. He's merely asking some rhetorically tough questions that don't have clear cut answers (obviously a mistake in a political race).

 

[W222]

As to your other point, you are not really infringing on someone's civil rights to deny them to come into YOUR restaurant. It's a private business owners decision, and that decision will have its own consequences in the form of protests and lack of business (its ultimately a bad decision that will hurt him). What gives the boy-scouts any more of a right to deny gays than a private restaurant to do the same thing? Why aren't the same people outraged by Rand equally outraged and protesting outside those headquarters?

Frankly, you (and Rand) are dead wrong on this and here is why. Any entity that puts itself in the public sphere as a place of business cannot discriminate because the government gives them certain protections, as they give individuals protections, from interference and those protections are paid for by tax dollars, WHICH WE ALL PAY. So, if a black person is essentially supporting the government which allows racists A-hole bussiness owner to exist then why shouldn't that black person be entitled to the services said business owner provides? Now, I already see the libertarian argument coming down the pipe, it argues at its extreme for a complete lack of government interference. Unfortunitely, this is where libertarian philosophy is flawed and doesn't follow the ideals and political philosophy our country was founded on, namely Locke's natural law and theory of government.

 

[Sergio99]

Hello,

Everybody claims to have a simple formula for a perfect government and wants to apply it indiscriminately in every sphere, and extrapolate their little short-sighted philosophy to areas where it won't work. It is the same with liberals, with conservatives, with libertarians, with everybody. We have seen that none of those approaches work perfectly. They have not worked in Europe, they have not worked in America, they have not worked in the Middle East, and they have not worked in Asia or in Africa. Further, they have not worked in the past, and they are not working today.

Unfortunately, I have not a simple solution either. I see the national and global political and economic arenas as a jungle with the same laws: the strong eats the weak, the wise tries to stay away from danger and hides as best he can, and there is little more that can be done.

I used to think one party was right and the other was wrong, then some things the "right" party did were worse than the other's and I became disenchanted with both and voted Independent, then voted for one of the black candidates whose name I don't remember, then voted Libertarian, and now I don't know whom to choose.

Politics is not clean play and will never be. Every party has its good points and its bad points. Today I feel pessimistic. I don't know whether I will find someone to vote for in the next elections. Let's see what happens after I eat something and drink a glass of wine. And no, I am not taking it lightly, it is just that I cannot see an exit to the disaster our politicians and financiers have created.

Greetings, or should I say "Cheers"?

 

[Prof Moriarty]

OK, I guess the Tea Party can mean whatever it wants to whoever is talking about it, but the origin "Tea Party" comes from the Boston Tea Party. The basis of the foundation revolves around huge taxes and wasteful big government and nothing else, ie The Boston Tea Party.

I don't see how the conclusion can be made that people concerned with an out of control government debt are therefore racist. This has absolutely nothing to do with disagreeing with me. I already said let's disagree and talk about it, but the discussion ends when you tell me Tea Partiers (people concerned with out of control government spending and taxes that can never cover it) are a bunch of racists.

I never said that. You're thinking of someone else. My point is that the current Tea Party (not the one from ~1773) is a waste of political space, and I tend to discount politicians that I see as pandering to this "movement." I'm disappointed that a smart and apparently principled guy like Rand Paul - agree with him or not - was pandering to them in his speech. It makes me take him less seriously. Maybe it's just a political move, maybe there's a short-term benefit for him... I just think in the long run it's detrimental to lend any credence to this ragtag band of angry political misfits. For all the hubbub, the main thing I see this "movement" accomplishing is to increase incivility and dumb down the level of political discourse.

 

[ronaldo23]

I never said that. You're thinking of someone else. My point is that the current Tea Party (not the one from ~1773) is a waste of political space, and I tend to discount politicians that I see as pandering to this "movement." I'm disappointed that a smart and apparently principled guy like Rand Paul - agree with him or not - was pandering to them in his speech. It makes me take him less seriously. Maybe it's just a political move, maybe there's a short-term benefit for him... I just think in the long run it's detrimental to lend any credence to this ragtag band of angry political misfits. For all the hubbub, the main thing I see this "movement" accomplishing is to increase incivility and dumb down the level of political discourse.

😕 You haven't listed any reason why are against the tea party, except that they "dumb down political discourse" and are "angry political misfits". These are just generalized statements...why are they any of these things and give an example? Rand Paul was pandering to them, because the vast majority of his finances came in from small donations from tea-party supporters. He would not have come close to being elected without the support and grass-roots energy they brought to him...

 

[sleepallday]

You didn't answer to my questions - go ahead and do that (in order to have a dialogue).
"if your going to live in this country" - I live in this country and I have an EU passport too. I hope at least that you agree that everybody has to learn English - including the "illegals" in Arizona.
I got it - you are not an illegal and you are not on welfare..
How much did you pay in taxes for 2009?
I'll tell you how much I paid after that.
See who's the "sponsor" for all the illegals.
One day - all of us who make these money - will leave and let you and all the beggars naked in cold weather.
Just saying....

I still dont know what you're talking about. Why do you want to see my tax returns? We're not even talking about illegals. 😕
I'm sure most of us here are anesthesiologists. We all make around the same coin.

 

[sleepallday]

You mean "you're".

"Your" is possessive. "You're" is a contraction.

I'm weary of the posts to individuals on this thread, but if you're going to call somebody out on language, be careful with your own.

This is actually hilarious. I feel like such a bone-head. You totally got me...should have proof read. But in my defense, this was a minor grammatical mistake and not the same as a lack in ability to speak the language.

Nonetheless, you got me.

 

[sleepallday]

So everyone who says that people have the right to say racist things because of the first amendment is condoning racism? OMG THEY'RE LETTING RACISTS TALK! The ACLU is now the most racist organization in the country!

Watching this play out in the media has been just pathetic. Facts have become completely irrelevant in modern America, the media just puts together a "narrative" (Paul says racist things, hurts candidacy) and play it over and over again until it becomes true. For weeks, if necessary.

I really dont know how many times I have to say this. But people have the right to say whatever they please. However, once these words carry over into action and an individual's civil rights are violated is when it is wrong.

 

[cfdavid]

When it comes to foreign policy, it's a little funny because Rand is a bit more willing to play politics than his father, even though I think he holds the same positions in principle. While Ron will openly call for a non-interventionist foreign policy and withdrawal from Afghanistan, Rand has said that he would defer decisions about troop levels to the military generals and that it is the commander and chiefs responsibility to deal with that. He has said that he wants to see more Afghani responsibility, but has come short of calling for a withdrawal. What he has said, though, is he wants to see a declaration of war rather than preemptive strikes around the world.

As to your other point, you are not really infringing on someone's civil rights to deny them to come into YOUR restaurant. It's a private business owners decision, and that decision will have its own consequences in the form of protests and lack of business (its ultimately a bad decision that will hurt him). What gives the boy-scouts any more of a right to deny gays than a private restaurant to do the same thing? Why aren't the same people outraged by Rand equally outraged and protesting outside those headquarters? Anyways, as CfDavid said, the law is the law and rand isn't talking about overturning or changing anything. He's merely asking some rhetorically tough questions that don't have clear cut answers (obviously a mistake in a political race).

Excellent post. No business that had an OPEN policy of discrimination would survive in TODAY'S climate. I believe that's what Rand Paul was eluding to (obviously not so effectively), in that the "market" would decide. And the "market" would include condemnation from every corner of the country (even if some folks were all for it), including the press, organizations, regular people etc etc. So, the question was, again, purely philosophical and related mostly to his views on the powers of the FEDERAL government.

cf

 

[cfdavid]

I never said that. You're thinking of someone else. My point is that the current Tea Party (not the one from ~1773) is a waste of political space, and I tend to discount politicians that I see as pandering to this "movement." I'm disappointed that a smart and apparently principled guy like Rand Paul - agree with him or not - was pandering to them in his speech. It makes me take him less seriously. Maybe it's just a political move, maybe there's a short-term benefit for him... I just think in the long run it's detrimental to lend any credence to this ragtag band of angry political misfits. For all the hubbub, the main thing I see this "movement" accomplishing is to increase incivility and dumb down the level of political discourse.

Why can't you accept the possibility that these non-career politicians simply agree with the principles of the Tea Party that Narc described??

 

[cfdavid]

This is actually hilarious. I feel like such a bone-head. You totally got me...should have proof read. But in my defense, this was a minor grammatical mistake and not the same as a lack in ability to speak the language.

Nonetheless, you got me.

No need to apologize dude. We all make such mistakes. I never spell check my work (or very rarely do), and we're often posting when tired or simply thinking too much about what we're writing.

 

[cfdavid]

Hello,

Everybody claims to have a simple formula for a perfect government and wants to apply it indiscriminately in every sphere, and extrapolate their little short-sighted philosophy to areas where it won't work. It is the same with liberals, with conservatives, with libertarians, with everybody. We have seen that none of those approaches work perfectly. They have not worked in Europe, they have not worked in America, they have not worked in the Middle East, and they have not worked in Asia or in Africa. Further, they have not worked in the past, and they are not working today.

Unfortunately, I have not a simple solution either. I see the national and global political and economic arenas as a jungle with the same laws: the strong eats the weak, the wise tries to stay away from danger and hides as best he can, and there is little more that can be done.

I used to think one party was right and the other was wrong, then some things the "right" party did were worse than the other's and I became disenchanted with both and voted Independent, then voted for one of the black candidates whose name I don't remember, then voted Libertarian, and now I don't know whom to choose.

Politics is not clean play and will never be. Every party has its good points and its bad points. Today I feel pessimistic. I don't know whether I will find someone to vote for in the next elections. Let's see what happens after I eat something and drink a glass of wine. And no, I am not taking it lightly, it is just that I cannot see an exit to the disaster our politicians and financiers have created.

Greetings, or should I say "Cheers"?

Jesus Christ! Can you be any more passive?? The strong are only as strong as their opposition is weak. If people became more active, we would have a chance to end the rampant corruption that DOES exist in this country, and which is damaging it almost to the point of no return.

There are plenty of "strong" men and women willing to contribute to righting the ship, so to speak. So, the opposition to the current "establishment" is going to strengthen. Power is fluid. It's often only a single "battle" away. History makes this very clear. So, don't give up and sit on the sidelines.


cf

 

[Narcotized]

The Austrian School and laisez faire capitalism are DIRECTLY responsible for our current disaster. You had an unregulated mortgage market, an unregulated derivatives market, and unregulated banking; this led to the second greatest economic disaster in our country's history.

OK, keep your day job as a doctor. As far as economics goes from the tidbits you repeat from CNN, you pretty much are completely incorrect. I'm not going to attempt to teach you years of economics on a message board, but it is very obvious your background is limited.

I'll throw out one simple idea to you and leave it at that. How can you possibly think an unregulated mortgage market made all those bad loans? For what possible reason would so many capitalistic businesses decide to willingly lose money by giving mortgages to people that had no means to ever pay them back? Outside non-capitalistic forces created incentives to make bad loans, created the non-market driven low interest rates, and then lessened the consequences of bad loans failing. These regulations CAUSED these mortgages in the first place, and now you want more regulations to regulate the previous bad regulations.

If you just think with the same mathematical mind you use for anesthesia then economics isn't rocket science. Turn off the agenda based media. Capitalism weeds out failed businesses and allows an economy to grow until politicians start pandering to certain groups. When you look at Cuba, Russia, and East Germany, do you really think socialistic big government would ever give you today's cell phones and laptops, as just small examples of what a competitive market place does.

OK, like I said, I'm not going to attempt to teach the entire field of economics to you on a message board, but presently you are as far off base as one could be.

 

[2win]

I still dont know what you're talking about. Why do you want to see my tax returns? We're not even talking about illegals. 😕
I'm sure most of us here are anesthesiologists. We all make around the same coin.

I asked about "tax returns" because I wanted to see how much of your money were wasted on illegals. The "colored" ones the we were talking before. Latino, burrito and so on. The one that you called me a "racist".
"I'm sure most of us here are anesthesiologists. We all make around the same coin." - yes I am an anesthesiologist. Doesn't mean that we make the same "coin". Not at all. And again - how much did you pay?
What means " civil rights"?
I have no idea - please educate me...
Means to hire a ***** just because has another color?
In my business I don't care about color, race, religion as far the individuals are competent.
This ACLU stuff that you try to feed us - stinks.
Really bad.

Regards,
2win

 

[pd4emergence]

OK, keep your day job as a doctor. As far as economics goes from the tidbits you repeat from CNN, you pretty much are completely incorrect. I'm not going to attempt to teach you years of economics on a message board, but it is very obvious your background is limited.

I'll throw out one simple idea to you and leave it at that. How can you possibly think an unregulated mortgage market made all those bad loans? For what possible reason would so many capitalistic businesses decide to willingly lose money by giving mortgages to people that had no means to ever pay them back? Outside non-capitalistic forces created incentives to make bad loans, created the non-market driven low interest rates, and then lessened the consequences of bad loans failing. These regulations CAUSED these mortgages in the first place, and now you want more regulations to regulate the previous bad regulations.

If you just think with the same mathematical mind you use for anesthesia then economics isn't rocket science. Turn off the agenda based media. Capitalism weeds out failed businesses and allows an economy to grow until politicians start pandering to certain groups. When you look at Cuba, Russia, and East Germany, do you really think socialistic big government would ever give you today's cell phones and laptops, as just small examples of what a competitive market place does.

OK, like I said, I'm not going to attempt to teach the entire field of economics to you on a message board, but presently you are as far off base as one could be.

I generally agree with the fact that government should stay out of business. But the fact is the mortgage market and mortgage companies in particular made subprime loans that they knew were not going to be repaid. It wasn't out of altruism for lower income people. It was the fact that they could make the loan, charge points on the loan, make their money, then sell it to someone else (Bear Stearns, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddy) and make it someone else's responsibility. Bear Stearns, Lehman would then package these loans (that most of the time they knew nothing about other than the fact that they were considered "subprime") into a "mortgage security" and sell it to somebody else or buy it themselves. Nobody was looking at the individuals ability to repay except for the originating mortgage company and they were more interested in making the loan and then making it somebody else's problem. There was a total disconnect between loan originators, individual ability to repay, and profitibility. At another level there was a disconnect between the big investment banks and risk exposure. They were able to package these subprime loans with better loans and then sell the security. All of this along with government encouragement to make loans to lower income people is what led to disaster.

 

[Prof Moriarty]

😕 You haven't listed any reason why are against the tea party, except that they "dumb down political discourse" and are "angry political misfits". These are just generalized statements...why are they any of these things and give an example?

Why can't you accept the possibility that these non-career politicians simply agree with the principles of the Tea Party that Narc described??

Fair enough. I don't know everything about the tea party. My opinion is based on casual observation for the past couple of years. If they simply stood for lower taxes and responsible gov't spending, I wouldn't have the opinion that I do. But you know that's not the case.

I recall a year or so ago when narc or pgg said something like: 'Hey the tea party express is coming around. Let's get out there and rally. BUT, let's keep it about taxes/spending. Let's leave the "Immigrants Go Home" and "I Shoot Hippies On Site" signs at home.' I'm paraphrasing.

So, you guys know the tea party doesn't just espouse this one position. I know you know it. When I stop hearing about Obama's birth certificate, death panels for grandma, and how half the members of Congress are "un-American" then maybe I'll change my opinion.

It is patently obvious to me that the vast majority of these tea partiers don't know what they think. Or better yet, they have no idea why they think it. They were fed someone's agenda and they swallowed it down. At best, they can repeat a couple of stock phrases.

Some of the signs I have seen on video footage:

• Obama's Plan: White Slavery
• Barack Hussein Obama: The New Face of Hitler
• America is a Christian Nation
• Wake Up America: You're Muslim President Bowed to His Muslim King
• Obamanomics: Monkey See, Monkey Spend
• Impeach the Muslim Marxist

And these are the tame ones.

Tea partiers trying to explain themselves:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXaILy3GE7U&feature=related
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk&feature=channel
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr-0088ZLno&feature=related

My point is this: It's time for some adult supervision within the Republican Party. Some of the rhetoric has really been irresponsible. My appraisal is that there are politicians and entertainment personalities manipulating these people for personal gain, be it $ or power. I don't put Rand Paul in this category b/c I see him as a more thoughtful, principled guy than Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman.

As I stated before, there is nothing in what he said that suggests he's a racist to me. What I said is he loses credibility when he panders to this political element. I say "panders" because I do not believe he identifies with the bulk of what these people are saying. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[W222]

OK, keep your day job as a doctor. As far as economics goes from the tidbits you repeat from CNN, you pretty much are completely incorrect. I'm not going to attempt to teach you years of economics on a message board, but it is very obvious your background is limited.

I'll throw out one simple idea to you and leave it at that. How can you possibly think an unregulated mortgage market made all those bad loans? For what possible reason would so many capitalistic businesses decide to willingly lose money by giving mortgages to people that had no means to ever pay them back? Outside non-capitalistic forces created incentives to make bad loans, created the non-market driven low interest rates, and then lessened the consequences of bad loans failing. These regulations CAUSED these mortgages in the first place, and now you want more regulations to regulate the previous bad regulations.

If you just think with the same mathematical mind you use for anesthesia then economics isn't rocket science. Turn off the agenda based media. Capitalism weeds out failed businesses and allows an economy to grow until politicians start pandering to certain groups. When you look at Cuba, Russia, and East Germany, do you really think socialistic big government would ever give you today's cell phones and laptops, as just small examples of what a competitive market place does.

OK, like I said, I'm not going to attempt to teach the entire field of economics to you on a message board, but presently you are as far off base as one could be.

I know alot more than CNN tidbits and it is clear from your post that your knowledge of what actually occurred is questionable and your "years of economic knowledge" sounds more like a regurgitation of Ann Rand. I don't care if you hold an MBA from Wharton, when you bring up communist/Eastern Block countries and use terms like "socialistic big government" you sound completely uneducated on the subject of economics. The Austrian/laisez faire theory has been disproven by our current economic disaster. Now, if you are in the "let them fail" camp, you (and the Pauls) are insane. If we had let the investment banks fail, we would see the collapse of the world economy and an economic downturn that would last generations.

Now for the facts of our current economic mess. Mortgages companies were making bad loans at all income levels, not just the low income loans of the government backed agencies, and they didn't care whether they got paid as long as they were off the books before default. And exactly as pedi4emergence said, these loans were packaged and resold to many different entities, everyone from mid-level commercial banks to countries (look at Iceland). The repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1996 had allowed large banks to develop both commerical and investment banking divisions; allowing both mortgage production and investment instrument production under the same house. Large banks were then able to cover their poor mortgage investments by selling financial instruments based on these investments and they were also at the same time investing in their banking competitors in the derivatives market(CDOs/CDSs). When the real estate market became saturated and defaults on mortgages went up, everyone from mortgage companies to large banks could no longer dump their bad investments and since the large investment banks had essentially taken out "insurance" on each other via CDOs/CDSs they took enormous losses and held inflated assets on their books. Now, when those banks were forced to take losses for their CDSs they ended up bankrupt, as they put so much money into CDSs which they felt would never fail they loss billions. Hence our current economic mess.

 

[dilated]

I really dont know how many times I have to say this. But people have the right to say whatever they please. However, once these words carry over into action and an individual's civil rights are violated is when it is wrong.

But you haven't explained _why_ supporting somebody's right to say racist things isn't racist, but supporting somebody's right to only associate with their own race is.

It's pretty simple: either supporting principles that permit racism (like unlimited free speech or free association) is in itself racist, or else it's not. The media obviously believes the former, they just don't want to come out and admit that they think racist speech should be banned like it is in their dream society of Europe.

 

[traxtar511]

Are you kidding? The Austrian School and laisez faire capitalism are DIRECTLY responsible for our current disaster. You had an unregulated mortgage market, an unregulated derivatives market, and unregulated banking; this led to the second greatest economic disaster in our country's history. Please explain how a laisez faire approach could be better at this point? And don't say let the banks fail, this approach is completely unrealistic for anyone with a sense of reality (which both Mr. Paul's seem to be lacking).

I think you may be misinformed. The mortgage market was supported by unreasonably low interest rates, set by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This allowed companies to take higher amounts of risk, as their cost of originating loans was unnaturally low. Politicians loved the "growth" our economy experienced, although it was far from organic.

As far as the derivatives market ... if we didn't bail out the people who took unnecessary risks with their own money, do you think counterparty risk would be better managed in the future by purchasers of derivatives contracts?

 

[mangareader]

I don't know what it is about the anesthesiology section, but you guys have some strange threads.

 

[2win]

I don't know what it is about the anesthesiology section, but you guys have some strange threads.

Can you clarify your statement please?
2win

 

[hoyden]

I don't know what it is about the anesthesiology section, but you guys have some strange threads.

It's a free country, isn't it? You do not have to torture yourself and read our Anesthesiology section.

 

[Salt Creep]

But the fact is the mortgage market and mortgage companies in particular made subprime loans that they knew were not going to be repaid. It wasn't out of altruism for lower income people.

It happened, very largely because of pressure from the Clinton Administration. It happened, also largely, because of fears of being painted as racist and discriminatory. Note the date on this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

If you read much at all about the lowering of credit standards that brought this about, at least 3/4 will mention Clinton's pressure on the lenders to do it - and I don't mean people blaming him in retrospect; I mean articles like this one that commented on it 10 years ago.

And incidentally, I don't see how these actions could possibly be considered to be evidence of the failure of laissez faire economics. The lenders very clearly were not free of government interference. Our problem, with this, as with health care, is not too much capitalism. It is a paucity of the same.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

It happened, very largely because of pressure from the Clinton Administration. It happened, also largely, because of fears of being painted as racist and discriminatory. Note the date on this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

If you read much at all about the lowering of credit standards that brought this about, at least 3/4 will mention Clinton's pressure on the lenders to do it - and I don't mean people blaming him in retrospect; I mean articles like this one that commented on it 10 years ago.

And incidentally, I don't see how these actions could possibly be considered to be evidence of the failure of laissez faire economics. The lenders very clearly were not free of government interference. Our problem, with this, as with health care, is not too much capitalism. It is a paucity of the same.

That article is scarily prescient!

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

That said, the loan terms in the article are mild by the standards that (I think) caused the crash. In the article they talk about 30-year, fixed mortgages and a slight reduction in down payments. By the pop of the bubble, people were getting $500K loans with no proof of income or assets and no down payment.

Second, the article also clearly states there was plenty of pressure from investors to keep the profits coming in. So, I guess my take-home point is that it's impossible to say, "The government caused the crash." or "Capitalism is a failure." Both radically oversimplify the true nature of the economy.

 

[sweetalkr]

First off, I am a brown non-muslim american born citizen.
my parents moved here, waited 2 years to get their immigration approved, and learned ENGLISH (Look no further than quebec's efforts to secede from canada stemming from french being an official language and creating cultural problems, a la spanish/english)
they are citizens that pay taxes
every illegal in this country not doing the above is a slap in the face to the law and to hard working immigrants that build/built this country

Also, I do NOT mind being patted down and xrayed at the airport. you know what, i get it every time and i love it because chances are, you are going to have someone that looks like me trying to do something. also, check my immigration status/ drivers license. I have nothing to hide, and if you don't then don't cry about it.

it's not like we don't consider race when we treat people's health at the hospital, and we all profile patients for their better safety. so why not profile society to make it safer? It is a no brainer to me!

Last, on his comment about private businesses, I was not able to get a seat at a certain restaurant right after 9/11 in my city. Honestly in retrospect, if they had seated me, they would've put some bodily fluids in my food anyway. I would rather be discriminated against openly and never give them my business, let all my friends know, than to be sat down and who knows what happens to my food

 

[Kimaris]

Its easy to say you support Rand Paul when you're a White Conservative Heterosexual Male. However, when you're not, things tend to get more complicated. Due to the racism and bigotry in the south, the American people have decided to put limits on what a private business can do. I'm happy that they did.

 

[maxwell0]

Its easy to say you support Rand Paul when you're a White Conservative Heterosexual Male. However, when you're not, things tend to get more complicated. Due to the racism and bigotry in the south, the American people have decided to put limits on what a private business can do. I'm happy that they did.

I'm a white conservative heterosexual female, and I support Dr. Paul. He's my eye doctor. Nice guy.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I'm a white conservative heterosexual female, and I support Dr. Paul. He's my eye doctor. Nice guy.

This is really neither here nor there, but did you know he's not board certified? I thought that was pretty uncommon these days.

 

[ronaldo23]

This is really neither here nor there, but did you know he's not board certified? I thought that was pretty uncommon these days.

When Ron Paul ran in '08, I remember him speaking out against third-party regulation in medicine, so I suspected that Rand has a libertarian opposition to the concept of a "board certification". Then I found he was certified from 1995 to 2005, but didn't renew it again. I think a lot of the younger eye surgeons were rubbed the wrong way that they had to keep retaking every 10 years while older ones opted themselves out of this rule

 

[maxwell0]

This is really neither here nor there, but did you know he's not board certified? I thought that was pretty uncommon these days.

Yeah, he isn't board certified anymore, but he is still a good doctor, and he was nice enough to talk to me a few months ago even with his busy schedule, about whether I should do med school or PA.

 

[jdh71]

When Ron Paul ran in '08, I remember him speaking out against third-party regulation in medicine, so I suspected that Rand has a libertarian opposition to the concept of a "board certification". Then I found he was certified from 1995 to 2005, but didn't renew it again. I think a lot of the younger eye surgeons were rubbed the wrong way that they had to keep retaking every 10 years while older ones opted themselves out of this rule

It's silly to keep on recertifying

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Yeah, he isn't board certified anymore, but he is still a good doctor, and he was nice enough to talk to me a few months ago even with his busy schedule, about whether I should do med school or PA.

Oh, yeah, I wasn't trying to slander him or anything. I had just read that somewhere, and I thought certification was a necessity for insurance companies and working in hospitals and whatnot.

Just thought it was curious. Other posters have added useful info as well!

 

[Narcotized]

The Austrian/laisez faire theory has been disproven by our current economic disaster.... you sound completely uneducated on the subject of economics.

I'm sorry, but I can't even take you serious after a statement like this. It was the Austrian School that uniformly said we were heading toward disaster while they were dismissed by everyone else. I guess you missed that little tidbit.

Your summation of the economic mess is like a physician chasing and treating symptoms and having no idea what the illness is. I would expect to sound uneducated to you because you truly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you have absolutely no idea that you have absolutely no idea. Nobody was forced to buy or sell anything. If you make a bad investment you lose your money; simple as that. Somebody else has that money. It didn't disappear. Socializing certain losses is truly insane. There's no disincentive to not take the exact same high risks all over again.

According to you, if a few things were tinkered with some more we would still be booming along, when in reality the debt driven boom we had was the problem, and the collapse is the first step in the right direction. There was no real wealth lost in the real estate collapse; it was all an overpriced mathematical fantasy to begin with.

When the worthless dotcom bubble collapsed nobody tried to prop it back up. Suckers lost money to somebody else and life moved on. In the latest collapse people have the mistaken belief that it is a good thing to borrow money from China and use it to prop up and stabilize overpriced real estate and to bail out failed companies. It's fool's math and leading us toward disaster. It won't make the real wealth that has been transferred out of this country over decades magically reappear, and it doesn't increase our net capital or productive capacity.

 

[Narcotized]

I don't care if you hold an MBA from Wharton.

btw, neither would I. I think Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman have more than shown that a very liberal Ivy League education does not translate into economics understanding.

 

[cfdavid]

Its easy to say you support Rand Paul when you're a White Conservative Heterosexual Male. However, when you're not, things tend to get more complicated. Due to the racism and bigotry in the south, the American people have decided to put limits on what a private business can do. I'm happy that they did.

Don't let the establishment shape your opinion. I can NOT emphasize this enough; What the Tea Party movement, and it's pseudo-leaders are fighting for are an end to the status quo and corruption that has overtaken our government and many institutions, including the very corrupt Federal Reserve system.

****If you buy into the fact that traditional minorities have occupied the bottom rungs on the socioeconomic totem pole (i.e. the most vulnerable), then you NEED to begin to realize that these are the people, generally, most harmed by the same policies promoted to "help" them, or at the very least, the current status quo in terms of indebtedness, monetary and industrial policy, etc. etc.

cf

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[pd4emergence]

Nobody held a gun to Bear Sterns' or Lehman's head to make such stupid purchases. If they are *****s for doing, guess what? They lose money and go out of business. Someone else has that money and life moves. Why should I start paying for their loses when they never cut me in on the winnings??? You don't suck up the country's limited capital to bailout out failing Enron or to prop up a loser Wang Computer getting its butt kicked by Microsoft and HP. And you don't prop up Chrysler and AIG.

Ray Zalinsky said it best in Tommy Boy when taking over Callahan Auto Parts: "I'm providing a service. I'm thinning the corporate herd. You've seen Daktari? The weaker animals always go. So the kids cry when you tie an old tiger to a tree and shoot him. But that's life! America's in a state of renewal. We've gotta have the strength to tie a few factories to a tree and bash 'em with a shovel."

If only Ray Zalinsky lived at the White House.

I don't disagree with you. I don't feel sorry for Bear and I don't feel sorry for Lehman, I am glad they went away. Their management failed to understand the risk that was inherent in these securities and they deserve to be out of a job. I do feel sorry for the rest of their employees who had nothing to do with this mess. I reread my post and part of my point I meant to make but ran out of time is that alot of this mess can be laid at the governments doorstep. They encouraged these lending practices. I think the role of govenment is mostly to stay out of the way. What could have been done here? Somebody was taking out these loans and somebody else was buying them. No responsibility was assigned to the middlemen. They didn't care if they were selling sh%t. They were still making money off it. Funds and banks were buying them without really understanding them. Alot of them were sold as being backed by the federal government so they were safe right? So my opinion, government should never have gotten into the mortgage business. It would have been nice to have some more transparency related to these mortgages and securities but honestly I am not sure it would have helped. I think the only thing that would have helped would have been minimum lending standards and regulation of mortgage products. But that was the opposite of what they were trying to do. Ultimately it comes down to misinformed and ignorant consumers either in regards to the initial mortgage and then the sale of that mortgage in the form of a security to somebody who didn't really understand what that security was.

 

[cfdavid]

Nobody held a gun to Bear Sterns' or Lehman's head to make such stupid purchases. If they are *****s for doing, guess what? They lose money and go out of business. Someone else has that money and life moves. Why should I start paying for their loses when they never cut me in on the winnings??? You don't suck up the country's limited capital to bailout out failing Enron or to prop up a loser Wang Computer getting its butt kicked by Microsoft and HP. And you don't prop up Chrysler and AIG.

Ray Zalinsky said it best in Tommy Boy when taking over Callahan Auto Parts: "I'm providing a service. I'm thinning the corporate herd. You've seen Daktari? The weaker animals always go. So the kids cry when you tie an old tiger to a tree and shoot him. But that's life! America's in a state of renewal. We've gotta have the strength to tie a few factories to a tree and bash 'em with a shovel."

If only Ray Zalinsky lived at the White House.

Narc. Good post. I agree, absolutely, in principle.

However, we've been fed the "free market" mantra for over 30 years while we've seen U.S. manufacturing/industrial jobs go down the drain. In some cases these jobs have been replaced by high paying service sector jobs. In many other cases they've been replaced by even more easy to offshore service sector jobs (think call centers and the like).

While many in the U.S. have been championing "free trade", the friggin CHINESE are eating our lunch. Even U.S. corporate ventures in China are generally less than 50% partnerships with, either the CHINESE GOVERNMENT, or a quasi-independent Chinese oligarchy.

And, it's not just the Chinese. Many in the U.S. were almost "hoping" for GM's demise. To just let GM go out of business (in fairness, many have argued on behalf of a structured bankruptcy, realizing the importance of the auto sector to the economy as a whole, and manufacturing in general).

I've heard people on this forum "refuse to buy a GM vehicle because it's state owned"...... Then, they log off, and run up to WalMart to buy a CHINESE state owned manufactured trinket..... The hypocrisy is staggering.

That being said, I assure "you" (Narc, I'm not speaking directly to you on this one) that if Volkswagen were in serious trouble, the German government (and it's banks) AND the German people would be quick to the rescue. The same for Toyota in Japan.

******We can no longer listen to the "free trade" mantra that the same economic "thought leaders" whom got us into the real estate debacle, and are now trying to inflate away our fiscal problems, preached for years. That is, that manufacturing doesn't matter anymore.

I've deviated from Narcs post, and even the topic of the thread itself, but come on guys.... We need to see through the BS.


My buddy that does investment banking and other financial deals for a regional financial firm was recently in South Korea. He was absolutely shocked at how some of the small manufacturing firms he visited were able to "secure" loans in order to buy very high-tech and expensive machinery and automation equipment. The answere when he enquired???? Those loans were heavily subsidized by the S.Korean government. So, we can "free trade" ourselves into oblivion to the entertainment of the entire world. In the meantime, THEIR corporations will enjoy the benefit of strong industrial policies which attempt to strengthen and develop WEALTH PRODUCING sectors of their economies.


cf