The Untold Daschle Story – The Blacklisting of Leo Hindery
Very interesting post on “Open Left” came over the transom this AM.
Blacklisting Progressives: The Untold Story Beneath the Daschle Headlines
by: David Sirota
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 16:46
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11343
Amid the swirling headlines about Tom Daschle withdrawing his nomination for Health and Human Service Secretary is a very dark, very foreboding story that tells us a lot more about what to expect from the Obama administration than a single nomination fight. It is a story that every single voter who supported Barack Obama because of his progressive economic platform should know about – and worry about.
As every newspaper in America has been happy to report, Daschle worked with venture capitalist Leo Hindery after he left the Senate. Hindery was a top economic adviser to John Edwards and later to Barack Obama, and many had floated his name for U.S. Trade Representative or Commerce Secretary. Now, though, that won’t be happening, as anyone mentioned near the Daschle flap is being shunned by the Obama administration.
But is that really why someone as accomplished as Hindery was never seriously considered for a top economic post in the administration? The media and the Obama administration would like us to believe yes – but the answer is no. It has far less to do with the Daschle situation and far more to do with Hindery’s progressive economic ideology.
Buried in a Politico dispatch, we get the real story:
Hindery did his best to carve out his own public profile, with generous contributions to a range of Democratic-leaning organizations and a 2005 book, “It Takes a CEO,” decrying outsourcing, Wal-Mart, and “an ethical and aesthetic ‘race to the bottom’” in the media industry.
He also hoped to land a job in the Obama administration, and he had a close Obama adviser – Daschle — in his corner, the two Democrats said. United Steeelworkers union officials also backed him.
But while Hindery complained that he “waited for the phone to ring,” a source said, Obama’s aides appear never to have taken his bid seriously. One possible source of friction: Hindery had set himself up in opposition to Obama’s top economic advisors, many of whom were associated with The Hamilton Project, an economic think tank that was the inheritor of former Treasury Secretary Rubin’s generally pro-trade position.
In the same story, of course, we get hedge fund shark Steve Rattner – a huge Democratic fundraiser on Wall Street – bashing Hindery for backing populist Democratic candidates for local and national office.
And that’s the big story here: Leo Hindery, one of the few business leaders to use his wealth to challenge deregulation, corporate trade deals and anti-worker policies was blacklisted by the Obama administration well before the Daschle flap ever happened – and he was blacklisted because he dared to clash with the same Wall Street Democrats whose corporate-backed policies destroyed the economy.
You can go ahead and tell yourself that this is just theory – just a single example. But that’s willful ignorance, as the Hindrey scalping is only one chapter in what has been one long narrative arc whereby economic progressives have been deliberately shut out of top administration jobs. Just step back and think about it for a minute: Amid a stable of eminently qualified and well-respected progressives like James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Larry Mishel, Obama has chosen Rubin sycophants like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy – the same Larry Summers who pushed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the same Geithner who masterminded the kleptocratic bank bailout, the same duo whose claim to fame is their personal connections to Rubin, a disgraced Citigroup executive at the center of the current meltdown. And the list of Rubin sycophants keeps getting longer, from Peter Orszag to Jason Furman.
As the Nation’s Chris Hayes shows, its the same in other key regulatory positions, as free market fundamentalists who created the problem take the helm of the regulatory agencies they tried to destroy. Indeed, the only movement progressive in a top economic position is Jared Bernstein, and he was relegated to an amorphous job in the Vice President’s office.
And now we see that’s not an accident. Though Obama won states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana on promises to challenge Wall Street and reform our trade policies, there has been a deliberate and calculated effort to stack the administration with the very Wall Street Democrats who created the problems he lamented, and shun those who have been fighting the good fight.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I think the staffing trends are more linked to last successful democratic administration then a deliberate attempt to crowd out ‘progressives’. No doubt market fundamentalism has been discredited but it is more of a dilution then an out right repudiation. The progressives are as dogmatic as the rabid fundamentalists. Having Volker acting as a mediator will go along way in reforming the Rubin disciplines to be more pragmatic. Watch the actions they take, the environment has indeed shifted underneath us all.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I think that Chris is somewhat insane. Progressives should be considered unfit for public office because they have no support among the voting public. And he needs a dictionary because there have never been free market fundamentalists in any administration since your country began. The simple fact is that the US, like most other Western democratic nations, has been ruled by a Keynesian political elite that has kept expanding the size of government and increased regulations, which is why we find ourselves in the mess that we are in. This crisis was began by a failure of the secondary mortgage markets, which were driven by government policies that subsidized mortgage interest and ‘encouraged’ banks to lend money to poor people or risk being hassled and fined. Most of the mortgages were held by Government Sponsored Entities that were under the watch of regulators who had no other jobs but to examine their practices. At the same time as the government was encouraging a bubble in real estate the Fed, which has a monopoly on counterfeiting, was busy manipulating interest rates to prevent an overdue economic correction that was made necessary by lax monetary policies under the ‘Maestro.’
The simple fact is that the US is a much better nation when it has smaller government and when businesses and shareholders are allowed to fail when they make bad decisions. In a real free market society government would limit its role to protecting individuals from force and fraud and insist that people take responsibility for their own actions.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am
If the Rubin gang shovels out $1 trillion to “save” the banking system, it won’t matter. Obama will go down as a one term failed President. Borrowing costs are seductively low right now but they won’t stay that way much longer, especially if this crowd continues to be in control of the situation.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Good for VangelV.
We must move ASAP away from debt and toward equity. Interestingly, though I am a small-gov conservative, the progressives share my anti-Establishment views in some respects. So I am strangely sympathetic to their outcry.
Honest progressives if not totalitarians may be able to make common cause w small-gov guys re the giant financial institutions.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:54 am
There are points of truth in the article, but it also has no quotes or sources. Lastly Hindery is a scumbag all by himself – so here’s a counter argument – he’s outside the Obama economic team because he’s a jerk all on his own.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Paul Krugman didn’t get a job in the Obama administration because he wrote many articles attacking Obama during the primaries. It didn’t have anything to do with him being a progressive.
According to the New York Times Leo Hindery has repeatedly lied about his childhood experiences. When confronted with his lies he refused to disavow them. I would be uncomfortable hiring someone who lies about their background. I suspect that most vetting processes would eliminate Leo Hindery.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1D6163CF932A15755C0A96E958260
February 4th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen:
What we are witnessing now through the political spectrum is self preservation trumping self interest in the Beltway domain. It’s a question now, of who can hang on the longest. In the game of “Musical Chairs”, Obama has one ass cheek on the only chair, Biden, Holder, Geithner, Clinton, Emanuel and Gates have partial hand-holds and everyone else has a finger or is trying to get a finger on the chair. I wonder what Schumer looks like with his hair-piece ripped off, not too attractive, I presume…. Or even funnier, McCain holding his ball sack with a look of excruciating pain.
Best regards,
Econolicious
February 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“Honest progressives if not totalitarians may be able to make common cause w small-gov guys re the giant financial institutions.”
Progressives believe in positive rights and such a view is incompatible with liberty. No matter how we try to spin it we cannot create a good society by assuming that people are immoral and forcing them to act in ways that they would reject in the absence of coercive force. If we want to live in a good society we need to limit the role of government to protecting people from the use of force and from fraud and let people look after themselves, their families and their communities. Our history shows that there were many social mechanisms in place that helped to protect people against bad luck (but not their own bad character) long before governments got into the business of social engineering and welfare programs. By meddling governments have created all kinds of unintended consequences that we have to pay to clean up and have made things worse.
My own view is similar to that advanced by many libertarians. I believe that freedom is our birthright and cannot see any argument for permitting government to limit that freedom by regulating voluntary social and economic interactions. Please note the use of the word voluntary. Obviously it is the belief of most libertarians that we have no right to use force against others, to steal or damage the property of others or to use fraud for our benefit. I believe that it was Charles Murray who used the image of a normal honest individual who minded his own business as he made an honest living. He asked what this individual owes the government other than to keep making an honest living and minding his own business. While our individual may owe many things to other people and institutions, (his family, friends, church, clubs, schools, employers, customers, associations, etc.,) what does he owe the government? Librarians say very little and believe that an adult who is making an honest living and minds his own business should be left alone. But the Progressives argue that the individual owes a great deal and that he must pay to fund programs that are put in place by central planners who know what is good for society and have created programs to promote social goals that the individual may not wish to support. If seen as legitimate, this view is very dangerous because it accepts as legitimate positive rights and makes us little more than serfs. It has been this evolution towards legitimizing positive rights that has permitted government to grow out of control and has burdened our children with huge debts that they cannot pay while living lives as free men and women. I suggest that if Americans want a better life they start to look to the principles of liberty that once made their nation the greatest in the world. That said, I doubt that Americans have the courage to do what they must and expect them to go along until the system collapses and there has to be a transition to a different economic and political arrangement. Sadly, there is no guarantee that the transition will lead to freedom and a great deal of evidence suggests that the future will lead to serfdom instead.
http://mises.org/multimedia/video/Serfdom.wmv
February 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
VangelV, excellent commentary regarding the distinct differences between Progressive and Free economies and persons. We may be surprised as to how the classical American responds to ever encroaching government.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
For the record, I am in the negative liberty camp. Just thought this was an interesting post and revealing of the coming internecine wars in and among the left.
Personally, I think the statist tendency that increasingly dominates Washington politics will excise Larry Summers afore long. And in relative terms, that is bad because Summers may be the only counter to the Geithner/Treasury position favoring a taxpayer bailout of the larger banks.
And God bless Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) who is already talking about the bottom line: bond holders vs. taxpayers.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
As an Obama supporter from before he announced to run, I must say I’m rather disappointed. I understand that it takes people who know the system to run things. But I highly doubt things will be much different if they are run by the same people.
All said, it’s just hard to change something as big as the U.S. government. At least he seems to be making an effort.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“As an Obama supporter from before he announced to run, I must say I’m rather disappointed. I understand that it takes people who know the system to run things. But I highly doubt things will be much different if they are run by the same people.”
American voters had a clear choice to pick someone who did believe in liberty and limited government, who understood economics, natural rights, common law and who predicted exactly what would happen. That man was Ron Paul and he was soundly rejected by the majority of voters who should have known better.
Last March I was having breakfast with a former Chinese government official at the Golden Flower Hotel in Xi’an. One of the issues that came up was the election. What he could not understand was how a man like Paul, who sounds and reads just like one of your Founding Fathers, could be considered unacceptable by voters who owed their past standard of living by the same ideas that he was supporting. It is very sad that an official for the Communist Party had a far better grasp of Austrian Economics than the self proclaimed free market supporters in the Bush Administration or in the McCain/Obama/Clinton camps.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
@ VangelV:
The Federal Reserve Board and other data cited in this article paint a different picture. The larger issue is the use of complex financial instruments to hide risk (i.e. deceive) and the enormous, untransparent, accompanying leverage. Any system or market that fails to deal with hidden deception facilitates loss of freedom, financial and otherwise.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I really like Dr. Ron Paul a lot, but he is not the most articulate exponent of his own views!
February 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“shoreline wrote:
The Federal Reserve Board and other data cited in this article paint a different picture. The larger issue is the use of complex financial instruments to hide risk (i.e. deceive) and the enormous, untransparent, accompanying leverage. Any system or market that fails to deal with hidden deception facilitates loss of freedom, financial and otherwise.”
Ah, the revisionist article is provided again without actually looking at the underlying reality. Well, let us see the picture as it really is.
First, Congress made low income home ownership a goal and started to put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to increase add to their portfolios mortgages issued to low income borrowers. By the mid 1990s HUD had set targets for the GSEs and expected that around 40% of mortgage financing had to go to people who had incomes below their area’s median. That number increased to more than 50% by 2005. Now you may think that these goals had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis but there is no way to argue that when artificial demand is created you won’t create a bubble. I will write more about the artificial demand later but for now let us stick with the banks.
By 2005, HUD required that more than 20% of all mortgages that were purchased by Fannie and Freddie had to go to borrowers with incomes that were below 60% of their area’s median income. Fannie and Freddie met the targets by funding subprime mortgagees and by goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and by purchasing subprime securities for its portfolio.
Of course, the government didn’t just force the GSEs to meet its political and social goals. It rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 and by doing so forced an increase of 75% in the number of bank loans that went to low income borrowers. The banks resisted the CRA at the beginning but dropped their objections when they figured out how to reduce their risk substantially. By 1997 Bear Stearns came up with the first securitization of CRA paperm, which was guaranteed by Freddie. In the first year, Bear Stearns issued more than $2 billion of CRA based paper that was backed by Fannie or Freddie. Of course, the GSEs got into the act directly and by 2002 Fannie Mae had securitized about $400 billion in CRA loans.
Keep in mind that the banks and GSEs resisted the CRA changes and only dropped their resistance when they figured out that they could make profits from the process. But to make a profit they needed help from the Fed, which was more than happy to lend a hand by lowering rates and encouraging the public to reduce borrowing costs by using adjustable rate mortgages. By 2003, rates had fallen to 1.25%, which was below the inflation rate.
Not wishing to be left out of the process Congress and the Clinton Administration pushed through the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which increased the capital-gains exclusion from $125K to $500K while it also made some minor changes to renal property rules, thus making it easier to exclude capital gains from rental properties. These changes increased demand artificially.
The bottom line is that the bubble was created by the artificial increase in demand and that came from regulatory changes pushed through by Congress and the Fed’s artificial lowering of interest rates in its attempt to prevent needed economic corrections. Without goals set by Congress, home-ownership rates would never have approached 70% and flipping of houses in pursuit of easy profit would never have become popular.
No matter how the political class and its statist apologists try to spin it, the housing bubble could not have been created without Congress, the Bush and Clinton administrations and the Fed. Sorry but what we have seen is the failure of government. It seems that the statists need to learn a few things about unintended consequences of central planning.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“Chris Whalen Says:
I really like Dr. Ron Paul a lot, but he is not the most articulate exponent of his own views!”
Actually, he is very articulate. The problem is not what he says or how it is said but of the ability of listeners to accept the message. I have a good laugh when foolish reporters on CNN or CNBC ask questions that are clearly answered but not understood because of the poor education on the part of the so-called experts. It seems that anyone who has been indoctrinated in a Keynesian or Monetarist education cannot understand the clearly stated ideas of the Austrian School economists. Sadly, Dr. Paul, a physician by training has a better economic education than most of the mainstream economists and understands American history better than most American historians.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I agree on your view of the media and others. Their retreat to stimulus and other idiocy is learn’t behavior.
I have watched, painfully, as Dr. Paul tried to grill Alan Greenspan and other fraud economists. He is not trained for the crude world of pundit-talk.
I have no problem accepting the Austrian School as basic fact, even after a lifetime with Keynesians. That said, I often wonder if any system is complete, just as the physics world now admits that a unified theory in that field is unlikely to ever be. The essential truth in both physics and Austrian economics is that people are people and are thus impossible to predict or manage or regulate.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
@ VangelV:
My final two questions (with apologizes to everyone for being off-topic again):
(1) Have you come across any hard data that contradicts the following assertions:
(2) Why do all those who blame the financial crisis solely on government efforts to make housing more affordable for lower-income Americans ignore the larger issue of toxic asset-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps?
February 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’ve never posted a flame before in my life, but I hate Chris Whalen. Long winded, no facts or references, guilt by association, presumptions based on nothing… He just wants to aggrandize himself like the other half wits we see on cable TV or talk radio. Barry, please, please, enough of Chris F***ing Whalen!
February 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
To mkkby; Flames only count if they have real names. And your name is… ?
February 5th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I have not seen yet, in any article or discussion about bank bailouts, govt insurance, or bad bank formation, the acknowledgment that the housing bubble WAS INDEED a bubble. Yes, people do still purchase tulip bulbs, but who would argue that eventually tulips will reach the peak valuations they reached at the top of the tulip mania bubble?
Pretending that housing valuations (or oil, tulips or any other bubble) were driven by underlying demand rather than speculation driven by those who exploited loopholes in the financial system is…worse than useless. It’s criminal.
For those who argue otherwise, a viewing of “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)” will be highly instructive. Precisely the same events happened (and are happening again) less than 10 years ago.
What Obama needs around him are not the smartest guys in the room, but the most ethical, compassionate guys in the room. Unfortunately, the current cadre does not meet that standard.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Re: CRA. I hear both ways. Some bankers claim that CRA lending is a dead loss, a marketing/lobbying expense in disguise, but others say no. I really think it is dependent upon the region where the institution is located and active in lending.
Speaking of CRA slime, here’s my question: Why is OneUnited Bank in Boston still open? WSJ story from last month below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258284337504295.html
Gonna do some digging on this dead hamster and look at when it crossed the line into the bottom decile of the peer group. As of Q3 2008, OneUnited rated an “F” on our system with a stress score of 21 vs 1.5 for the whole industry. That’s more than an order of magnitude above the entire industry. Bank’s in this strata get resolved very frequently, more often than not. Less than 2% leverage and nasty losses, but no charge-offs to speak of and good operating efficiency. IMHO, this bank should have been sold/closed last year. But because Barney Frank (D-MA) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) want the bank to remain open, it remains open.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
VangelV says: “housing bubble could not have been created without Congress, the Bush and Clinton administrations and the Fed. Sorry but what we have seen is the failure of government. It seems that the statists need to learn a few things”
“failure of government” .. I disagree in a sort … more like circumvented established processes by focused interests for that interests advancement in collusion with others .. a cabal or non-nation fascist effort
Interesting thread
Ron Paul in the GOP would have been another figurehead puppet imo. He is/was functional in place. Obamas IQ and localboy got me in his camp. Could not support a Bush Clinton X2. The other party candidates unfortunately would have been a thrown vote. I think I am see’g the figurehad puppet strings being attached to Barack.
VangelV I agree with ya “we want to live in a good society .. we need to limit the role of government to protecting people from the use of force and from fraud” … but that is governments role in a highly engineered world of deceit and specialized real weapons.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
shoreline wrote:
“…mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans….only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and…to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates.”
There is no dispute on this point. The heavily regulated banks and GSEs were looking for mortgages to repackage into securitized paper and sell to your pension plan, the Chinese government, European banks, etc. The brokers stepped up and filled the need. They certainly were not stupid enough to invest their own money in the toxic paper and pretty much made their money collecting fees. That would not have happened if the government did not push home ownership among low and moderate income groups, changed the CRA to force banks to lower lending standards and if HUD had not pushed the GSEs to be reckless. And let us not forget the Fed, which dropped rates to historical lows to prevent an economic contraction.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Greg0658 Says:
““failure of government” .. I disagree in a sort … more like circumvented established processes by focused interests for that interests advancement in collusion with others .. a cabal or non-nation fascist effort”
You might want to be a bit clearer because this sounds a but like tinfoil hat gibberish, which is clearly not your intent.
My argument is very simple. When all human beings act they select among various options available to them. If we want a good society we need to maximize individual options and minimize the regulation of voluntary transactions by politicians. The right seems to ignore the fact that you cannot have liberty unless you have social freedom while the left seems to ignore the fact that you can’t have liberty unless you have economic freedom.
“Ron Paul in the GOP would have been another figurehead puppet imo. He is/was functional in place. Obamas IQ and localboy got me in his camp. Could not support a Bush Clinton X2. The other party candidates unfortunately would have been a thrown vote. I think I am see’g the figurehad puppet strings being attached to Barack.”
Obama’s IQ? He is a lawyer who does not understand the Constitution and shows a total ignorance of economics. He certainly has very little understanding of American history and has no clue about the power of the ideas that once made the US the greatest nation in the world.
President Obama is bailing out failed companies, their shareholders and employees and is pushing all kinds of dangerous policies that will make Americans much poorer and less free. He is leaving the most of the troops in Iraq for some time and is promising to increase the troops in Afghanistan. This is in contrast to Dr. Paul’s desire to start pulling troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Korea, Japan and elsewhere immediately. While President Obama keeps ignoring the bankruptcy of the SS and Medicare Ponzi schemes, which are many orders of magnitude larger than the Madoff scam, Dr. Paul has said that people would be permitted to opt out. While President Obama is cheering the Fed’s attempt to destroy the purchasing power of the USD, Dr. Paul has pointed out that the Fed is not permitted to exist under the Constitution and is a private cartel that exists to transfer wealth from the many to the few. As such Dr. Paul would eliminate the Fed. And while President Obama is for increased fees and taxes Dr. Paul points out that the income tax is not required and should be eliminated. I don’t understand how that makes Dr. Paul a puppet but Obama gets a pass. And keep in mind that the Republican Party has opposed Dr. Paul and keeps trying to run other candidates against him because Dr. Paul points out that there is little difference between the two main parties; they are both run by a political elite that is a danger to the wealth and liberty of Americans. For the record, President Obama made it through the ranks of the corrupt Chicago political machine and has shown that he will appoint the typical political insiders even after he promised change. If you want to look at a puppet you might wish to look at him.
“we want to live in a good society .. we need to limit the role of government to protecting people from the use of force and from fraud” … but that is governments role in a highly engineered world of deceit and specialized real weapons.”
Government needs to stick to protecting individuals from the use of force and fraud. That means a much smaller government and fewer laws that are taken more seriously. It also means that if someone wants help s/he can only ask for it and not demand it by voting into office charlatans who promise a free lunch.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Cybernaught wrote:
“Pretending that housing valuations (or oil, tulips or any other bubble) were driven by underlying demand rather than speculation driven by those who exploited loopholes in the financial system is…worse than useless. It’s criminal.”
Here is something to think about. Demand for oil stands at around 85 million bpd. Depletion from existing fields is running at around 6.5% and we are producing less light sweet crude than we did in 2005. New fields are smaller and much more difficult (and much more expensive) to develop. This means that unless demand falls off a cliff prices will have to rise. My personal guess on this point is that eventually American, European and Japanese demand will fall as developing nations bid up oil prices to levels that indebted American’s cannot afford.
“For those who argue otherwise, a viewing of “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)” will be highly instructive. Precisely the same events happened (and are happening again) less than 10 years ago.”
Here is something else that we should be thinking about. Enron was hoping to make a killing by trading carbon credits and was lobbying the Bush Administration to take the European route on climate change. While Bush resisted the lobbying as he should have (average temperatures fell during the past eight years) we are now looking at an administration that is considering the idea even after Europe showed that it did not work. It is somewhat interesting that Al Gore is a partner in an outfit that is set up to make money by trading carbon credits. I guess that $100 million isn’t enough for Mr. Gore and he is looking for some more gains courtesy of the taxpayers.
“What Obama needs around him are not the smartest guys in the room, but the most ethical, compassionate guys in the room. Unfortunately, the current cadre does not meet that standard.”
Hayek warned of the fatal conceit. Compassion and ethics can do just as much harm if politicians meddle with the economy because motivations don’t mean much if they create false signals and interfere with the marketplace. The central planners in the USSR or Mao’s China were not any dumber or any more evil than the people that President Obama will choose. They failed because nobody can plan an economy and Americans would be much better off if they understood that point.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
gibberish “interests advancement in collusion” .. ya ok – I don’t get paid for this .. VCs (venture capitalist) hire and use think tanks to design a plan of attack for financial gain
IQ = Dem candidate > GOP candidate
I heard this comment myself “Dr. Paul points out that the income tax is not required and should be eliminated” … in the complex society that exists today .. that is a reach to far .. the US Military is a corporation for hire?
I agree that the laws are making lawyers and accountants rich thru complexity – real working people are not given the cash on the check to hire the best and therefor these laws favor the corporation cartel funded by the real working people
I’ve been pushing a long time for a system where the majority or super -majority tell the elected what to do. They do it or are fired by a majority recall. The internet makes this world possible.
Thanks for the banter – I’m not going to write a book here .. I’m a blogger and a voter hope’g my 30 dollars into my 1st election drop .. pay off .. like any lobbist. Ya know $30 don’t get ya much muscle.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Greg0658 wrote:
“IQ = Dem candidate > GOP candidate ”
Sorry but I have seen too much of Nancy Pelosi to accept this as a true statement. The simple fact is that there are some very smart people on both sides and there are many idiots on both sides. But having a high IQ can be very dangerous if your fundamental assumptions about reality is wrong. For a perfect example look at all the very intelligent morons that populate most Western university departments.
“I heard this comment myself “Dr. Paul points out that the income tax is not required and should be eliminated” … in the complex society that exists today .. that is a reach to far .. the US Military is a corporation for hire?”
If you eliminated the income tax the federal budget would shrink to the size it was around 1995. Why is that a crisis?
“I agree that the laws are making lawyers and accountants rich thru complexity – real working people are not given the cash on the check to hire the best and therefor these laws favor the corporation cartel funded by the real working people”
The problem is that the laws are arbitrary and unclear. That limits liberty because nobody knows when they are breaking laws. It does not help that judges, who are often ignorant of the laws and have their decisions overturned, claim that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and do not stop to think how any individual could be familiar with all of the laws that effects his/her life.
“I’ve been pushing a long time for a system where the majority or super -majority tell the elected what to do. They do it or are fired by a majority recall. The internet makes this world possible.”
Ok. The super majority tells the government that all people have to be stripped of any wealth in excess of $1 million or that all earnings above $75K have to be taxed at a rate of 90%. Why is that acceptable? Or how about the majority tells the government that it must deport all Jews? Is that acceptable?
No matter how you try to think about it, you have to conclude that a tyranny is unacceptable and mob rule is no more just or legitimate than the rule of an oligarchy or the rule of a solitary individual. Hitler and Mussolini came to power in democracies and used the democratic process to consolidate their power by manipulating the mob. The crimes they committed did not really impact negatively the great majority of the population and as a result they had support for what they did. No amount of dancing around the issues can ever change the fact that one of the necessary conditions for having a good society is the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of initiating force against others.