They Don't Know What the Devil They're Doing

http://libertymaven.com/2008/10/11/ron-paul-they-believe-in-socialism-and-i-dont/2496/

For those of you like me on dial-up, but unlike me unwilling to wait for the download, here are a couple of quotes I'd like to make sure you read.

I wonder if I can find a transcript of this. This is all important stuff. Just d/l the clip. It's 2 and a half minutes. Worthwhile.

"They don't know what the devil they're doing. They are socializing the entire financial system."

"Boy, I'm worried about this weekend. What are they going to come up with? They're gonna come up with a new idea, probably one central bank for the world. So this, this is not good. And they take this and they build up the panic and they build up the fear to do terrible things. They do it foreign policy, they do it after 9/11, to undermine our system, to undermine our freedoms and now they're going to take over all private ownership. Why don't they allow the correction to occur? Why don't they...there is bad debt out there and you can't prop up bad debt.

They're doing exactly what we did in the Depression, keep the prices high. The prices of houses have to come down. We don't need to stimulate housing. They talk about stimulating housing, keep prices of housing up. It's the worst thing in the world to do that. It's like keeping farm products high during the Depression by plowing crops under. I don't think we've learned a thing from the Depression....."

Well Steph I dont have a hs connection either.

You have quotes around that stuff but it doesnt say who is being quoted.

Do you know who is being quoted?

Also who is "they"?

I watched the clip. Sherm. It's Ron Paul talking.

But I'm not sure who "they" is or are- apparently some folks who are having fiscal related talks on an international scale this weekend.

Thanks zig.

I am surprised, although I know Stephanie is infatuated with him.

He usually is not paranoid like that.

At least he does not come across that way to me.

Heck that sounds like one of those far right black helicopter guys.

Course I guess it is just a small part of the clip and maybe out of context.

"They" would be these folks:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/global-leaders-race-clock-credit/story.aspx?guid=%7B44FEA396-12FB-4643-AEDA-4E49E9055338%7D&dist=msr_1

Now you go and read the things some of these "leaders" have been saying in recent days and weeks.

I find it interesting that when Dr. Paul makes unpopular allegations or predictions you agree, you praise him. On the other hand, when he makes equally unpopular allegations and predicitions you disagree with, you call him "paranoid".

Well Steph if you read my posts you know I believe in International cooperation on this financial mess.

Because it is an international problem.

Not just a U.S. problem.

Like most people I don't always agree with Ron Paul.

Although I agree with him on some issues, I am not one of his "groupies."

I do not support or oppose an idea just because of who said it.

Matter of fact, not much have I agreed with Pres. Bush, but I have given him kudos for international co-operation on this.

But I suspect overall I have agreed more with Ron Paul than Pres. Bush.

.

.

A ........ One World Order ........ is becoming a reality.





.

Well, as I've said before, I don't agree with Ron Paul on all issues either. For example, Ron Paul thinks we should end income tax. That is one area he has been unable to alter my stance on.

I firmly believe we must reduce the size of government and live within our means. However, I'm not an anarchist and recognize legitimate functions of goverment. These things must be paid for and in my opinion, the fairest way to tax people is on their income.

That doesn't mean I agree with the current system with its tangled web of complications and loopholes. I believe people should be taxed on their income, that all income should be taxed and it should be taxed at a flat rate that is the same across the board for all income levels and all types of income. My view is extremely unpopular, acceptable to almost no one, yet I have yet to hear any compelling reason why it isn't more sane, rational, and fair than anything that's been batted around to my knowledge.

Just because I agree with him on most issues, and he has actually persuaded me on a couple, doesn't mean I allow him to do my thinking for me, just as I don't allow the Republican Party do my thinking for me. As much as I respect and admire Ron Paul he is a mere mortal. Granted, he's an exceptionally intelligent man, but he's still only a man.

Now Ron Paul predicted this meltdown and has been saying for years these events would unfold and why. He has been proven correct in recent weeks and months. I see no reason to doubt his prediction of what the response of the G7 and the G20 will be, particularly given some of the comments made by the leaders of these nations.

One such example:

"European Crisis Deepens; Officials Vow to Save Banks",
Bloomberg Financial News, October 6, 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who convened the Oct. 4 meeting, called for a global summit 'as soon as possible' to implement 'a real and complete reform of the international financial system'. He said 'all actors' must be supervised, including credit-rating firms and hedge funds. Executive-pay systems must also be reviewed, he said.

" We want a new world to come out of this', Sarkozy said."

In a capitalist system "the actors" aren't all supervised by the government. In a sovereign, democratic republic, there is no global supervision of economic policy.

Well now, with all the economic meltdown here in the US and at the rate Obama's popularity is increasing among the disenhearted, by Election Day, he is likely to win by a landside ........... just like Hitler did under similar conditions in 1933, I believe.

If you want change, .....

then an Obama win will get you change, ......

but I don't think you will like it after you get it.

cheers

.

Stephanie,

I hear that you disagree with ending the income tax. I'd like to go toe to toe with you on the question (I know that you, like me, generally like Ron Paul and I also know that you, like me, are willing to think for yourself. Good luck in Obama's America:)

If Dr. Paul can't sway you I likely can't either, but some healthy tariffs (which is how we used to pay for things) could help the US on many levels. It is not only a money maker but it also makes domestic production more viable. In the words of Alan Keyes, the US is like a mall, and just as a mall charges stores to operate within it, so too should we charge foreign production that wishes to operate within the US. We have such a crippling trade deficit that I cannot imagine tariffs making things any worse.

But let's say you do not want to go the tariff route. Originally in the US, the states could be taxed based on population, but they were then responsible for how to collect those taxes. The states had real power in such a scenario. Article One prohibited direct taxation except on the states based on population, and our founders knew what they were doing.

Even a national sales tax would be less intrusive into private lives than a national income tax, and it would be easier to catch the cheats.

SamCogar wrote:Well now, with all the economic meltdown here in the US and at the rate Obama's popularity is increasing among the disenhearted, by Election Day, he is likely to win by a landside ........... just like Hitler did under similar conditions in 1933, I believe.

If you want change, .....

then an Obama win will get you change, ......

but I don't think you will like it after you get it.

cheers

.

Well Sam the Dems promised us change in 2006 if they won Congress, and sure enough unemployment is up and we are in an economic crisis.

Talk about fulfilling a campaign promise!

SheikBen wrote:If Dr. Paul can't sway you I likely can't either, but some healthy tariffs (which is how we used to pay for things) could help the US on many levels. It is not only a money maker but it also makes domestic production more viable. In the words of Alan Keyes, the US is like a mall, and just as a mall charges stores to operate within it, so too should we charge foreign production that wishes to operate within the US. We have such a crippling trade deficit that I cannot imagine tariffs making things any worse.

Tarriff's are a two way street Mike and if we impose them on imports, they'll be placed on exports as well. It happened in 1930 and made things worse.

Over the past year with the weakened dollar, exports are the only reason we as a nation have not entered into a recession. If we impose tarriff's on imports, that will likely change.

At least IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Aaron is right.

After the Hoover stock crash in 1929 they did just what Mike recommended.

It was called the Smoot Hawley act, and, if anything, made the Hoover depression worse.

Because other countries responded in kind just like Aaron said,

And it was over 20 years before we recovered from that.

But Mike is also right in that we dont have a level field now.

So maybe a kinder gentler Smoot-Hawley with lighter tariff?

What does Ron Paul say.

I bet he opposes because as I understand he wants unfettered trade no matter if other countries use slave labor and no enviro standards.

And that's what gives other countries the advantage.

sodbuster wrote:
After the Hoover stock crash in 1929 they did just what Mike recommended.

It was called the Smoot Hawley act, and, if anything, made the Hoover depression worse.

You are correct Sherm. I'm glad that you've finally read the act that I've been trying to tell you about for 6 months. And you're right that it was a Republican thing as both Smoot and Hawley were both Republicans.

Smoot Hawley was actually in the works before the stock market crash and even though Hoover knew he should have signed it, he kept his promise to farmers to increase tarrifs on agricultural products to help American farmers.

And it plagued the American economy and lead to FDR's election in 32. Which lead to the New Deal. Which PROLONGED the depression for 8 more years and made things much worse and is the primary reason that we have a $60,000,000,000,000.00 (that's $60 trillion for those who can't count that high) in unfunded liabilities today.

Government intervention doesn't work and if anything, is worse the unfettered trade.

But we never seem to learn from the past, do we!!!

I did not say we should set tariffs in the same way that we did in 1930. Tariffs could be specifically targetted towards those nations NOT taking American exports but selling plenty here.

SheikBen wrote:I did not say we should set tariffs in the same way that we did in 1930. Tariffs could be specifically targetted towards those nations NOT taking American exports but selling plenty here.

Well Mike what countries are you talking about?

Can you give specific examples?

Mike,

I think that tariffs have their place, and if implemented properly they could be a good source of revenue and beneficial. However, if they are slapped on products we can't or don't produce here that people actually need, that's just an additional tax on working people the way I see it.

I would like to see tariffs on goods produced in other nations we do produce here. It has gotten to be routine for the Chinese government to subsidize a product, lead pipe for example, flood the US market with it and close down US manufacturers. We should never allow that to happen. Of course we're in so much debt to China our hands are basically tied at this point.

I just don't think the federal, state, or local government should be able to tax us on goods and services we require. When I lived in RI I thought it deplorable they taxed toilet paper. Then I spent a few months in Ohio and was incensed they tax clothing. I move to WV.....my reaction to the food tax is indescribable. I can't imagine anything worse than taxing milk and bread and eggs and peanut butter.

I would much prefer to see all income, regardless of type or source, taxed at a flat rate for all citizens at the federal, state, and local levels. There are a few items I can see taxing additionally, but they are few and the revenue they generate would have to fund very specific items in order to satisfy me. Like that's anybody's goal, right?

For example, I think federal and state taxes on gasoline is acceptable, provided it's actually all being spent to fund new construction and repairs to our roads and bridges etc. If they ever legalize recreation drug use in this country, I could support taxing them to pay drug addiction treatment.

I think one of the worst taxes is property tax. You have people who work so hard to buy a home. They pay all kinds of interest and insurance and upkeep and each and every year the local goverment taxes their home. It's really a terrible burden on lower income folks and people living on a fixed income, like the elderly. Set a standard deduction for everyone.....I don't know, $15000.00 per person, and then set a flat tax rate across the board for anything over that regardless of source. Wages, capital gains, retirement benefits, profits from gambling or the profit you realize when you sell the home you paid $25k three decades ago for $150k today.

I just can't justify taxing people for groceries, clothing, educational supplies like books, personal hygiene products, cleaning supplies and other life necessities. Especially after they've already paid income tax, it just seems so unfair.

You know, there is another reason why I so favor the income tax. If you take a look at Newport, which for decades was the summer playground for America's wealthiest families, you'll see what I mean. Newport has opulent mansions with breathtaking views. Dr. Seuss would tell you they have enormous enormance. The furnishings and fixtures are all of the finest materials.... nothing was too good. Gold and crystal and marble abound. Some of these mansions were actually destroyed but the Newport Historical Society has saved some and a couple were donated by families who could no longer support them, much less the lavish parties once hosted that were rivaled only by ancient Greek orgies in their excess.

If you learn about the history of Newport and the members of high society who built these palaces and decked themselves out in the finest jewels and gorged themselves on the finest champagne etc, you'll soon learn what allowed these people to acquire such startling wealth and just how abrupt the ending was for most of them. That end came with the income tax.

So anyway, those are my thoughts. If you've read all of this, thank you for your attention. I hope perhaps you'll do a bit of research on some of the issues I have raised and see if you don't view the income tax in a new light.

Well Steph you say you oppose property tax.

What about a Land Holding Company with 50,000 acres of coal?

Also you mentioned the elderly.

In wv the elderly dont have to pay taxes normally due to the homestead exemption.

Do they get an exemption of paying sales tax on their tp, denture adhesive, and pinto beans too?

I don't know what the homestead law is here in WV. In RI there is no state law. It is dealt with by the individual cities and towns, some have it and others don't. In my parents' case, for example, their property taxes froze last year because my father turned 65. They didn't disappear, they just froze.

No, I don't think companies should pay property tax either. They should pay taxes on the profits they make, and on the increase in the value of their assets. So, if that 50k acres increased in value 100k this year, they pay taxes on that.

sodbuster wrote:Well Steph you say you oppose property tax.

What about a Land Holding Company with 50,000 acres of coal?

Also you mentioned the elderly.

In wv the elderly dont have to pay taxes normally due to the homestead exemption.

GIMME A BREAK, ..... Shermmy, you are still living in the past, ..... before Property Re-evaluation was implemented.

Homestead Exemption gives one a $20K discount on the Accessed Value of their Real Estate.

Before Property Re-evaluation many/most homes owned by the over 65 crowd, no matter what their actual market value was, ..... their Accessed Value was less that $20K ...... and thus no taxes were paid.

And anyone registered Democrat, supported and praised the Democrats, contributed to the re-election of Democrats and voted the way the local Democrat Party told them to vote, .......... the Accessed Value on their Real Estate holdings were set at a bare minimum, thus saving them hundreds if not thousands in Property Taxes each year.

And those Democrat Accessors had a guaranteed "lifetime elected" job until they decided to retire.


.

SheikBen wrote:I did not say we should set tariffs in the same way that we did in 1930. Tariffs could be specifically targetted towards those nations NOT taking American exports but selling plenty here.

Well now Mike that does make some sense. It might actually get us within a trillion trade deficit of China.

One question though. How would trade agreements affect tariffs?