Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[Sweejak]

Nordic wrote: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Dougherty/jan222010.html

The great Mogambo, (Daugherty) is a Paul fan.

OT
Hey mods, I'm going to mention this again but the email notification is still broken, I can't be the only one! Whatever it is it transferred over from the old format.

[Sweejak]

Or who, in the midst of describing the crimes of class and money and state, provides a definition of the state's "minions" that reads as follows: "the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant."

I know a lot of people who are in exactly that position, compliant. They are beholden to the government because they don't want to loose their benefits, their pension etcetera. I'm not saying it isn't the same for those who work in private industries, but here Paul is correct, and there is nothing even slightly counterintuitive about it.

I voted for both Paul and Nader, they've got very different economic takes. I could happily live with either, but neither will work unless you get rid of corruption.

[23]

And I suppose that I really should probably add that I'm very heavily predisposed to assume that all members of both houses of congress are, at best, thieves and tax-cheats. So you might want to adjust for confirmation bias. But, you know. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be so heavily predisposed to assume it if every single one of them who halfway fills out his or her personal financial disclosure forms didn't inevitably appear to be one or the other or both. Or....I at least I hope I wouldn't.

What motivates a legislator to be a cheat or thief is most likely greed. It's what motivates most cheats and thieves.

On the other hand, what would motivate a legislator to vote against a salary increase for himself? Whatever that may be, it's unlikely that it's greed.

Dr. Paul has always voted against the salary increases that Congress routinely approves for itself.

Salaries that we pay for via our taxes.

And he does not contribute to Congress' pension fund either. A pension that is paid for by our taxes as well. (http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prjan30.htm)

Are these the actions of a cheat and thief?

[23]

I voted for both Paul and Nader, they've got very different economic takes. I could happily live with either, but neither will work unless you get rid of corruption.

Ditto here. Dr. Paul in the primaries and Ralph in the general election.


"I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." --- Ralph Nader

[Sweejak]

I voted for both Paul and Nader, they've got very different economic takes. I could happily live with either, but neither will work unless you get rid of corruption.

Ditto here. Dr. Paul in the primaries and Ralph in the general election.

"I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." --- Ralph Nader

Wow, that's some quote.

To get a little more reductionist we can just cut to the chase and assume that anybody who is given favorable TV coverage and press during a campaign is not on your side, and that everything the government tells you concerning geopolitical, politics, science and economy is a lie. You'd be 90% correct and never have to lift a finger doing any research.

[barracuda]

I'll never understand why Ron Paul was somehow unable to ride the popular upswell of that sentiment right through the national gastrointestinal system and take his rightful place at the anus of American politics - the presidency. Such a missed opportunity.

As my proctologist used to say, "shit, it could've been Paul!"

[Sweejak]

How very biting.

[barracuda]

Hey! Quit copying me.

[elfismiles]

"I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." --- Ralph Nader

[elfismiles]

C2W, it would make me very sad to believe Ron Paul is a greedy politician like all the rest who is just trying to fill up his retirement coffers but I recognize (and have tried to all along in my support of Paul) that I can't be unquestioning in my support for him politically.

Which is to say, thanks and duly noted.

[elfismiles]

Mp3 audio clip of Scott Horton asking Dr. Ron Paul about his “Take out the CIA” and other comments about the agency.
http://parapolitics.info/wp-content/upl ... TheCIA.mp3

[compared2what?]

And I suppose that I really should probably add that I'm very heavily predisposed to assume that all members of both houses of congress are, at best, thieves and tax-cheats. So you might want to adjust for confirmation bias. But, you know. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be so heavily predisposed to assume it if every single one of them who halfway fills out his or her personal financial disclosure forms didn't inevitably appear to be one or the other or both. Or....I at least I hope I wouldn't.

What motivates a legislator to be a cheat or thief is most likely greed. It's what motivates most cheats and thieves.

On the other hand, what would motivate a legislator to vote against a salary increase for himself? Whatever that may be, it's unlikely that it's greed.

Dr. Paul has always voted against the salary increases that Congress routinely approves for itself.

Salaries that we pay for via our taxes.

And he does not contribute to Congress' pension fund either. A pension that is paid for by our taxes as well. (http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prjan30.htm)

Are these the actions of a cheat and thief?

That characterization really wasn't specific to Ron Paul. And it may very well not be true and accurate when applied to him. I was just making a general observation about people in positions of power with access to money who are subject to very little oversight. None, for practical purposes, in many cases.

It's true that he's always voted against salary increases for himself. And for term limits. He also puts earmarks in bills while they're in committee, which he then votes against when they come to the floor. As he can well afford to do since they're going to pass with or without his "Yea."

In the last instance, obviously, it's not unreasonable to say that he's having his cake and eating it too. But in the former two, I think it's a legitimate judgment call on the voter's part. I mean, he might be taking a stand on principle because someone has to get it started. Or he might be getting easy credit by voting against raises for himself that there's not really any doubt he's going to receive and which, afaik, he's never had any problem accepting once they're voted into law. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, myself. But I wouldn't argue with someone who thought otherwise, really. Because it's a matter of opinion, either way, you know? And since I assume that you reached yours via honest consideration, same as I reached mine, I got no problem with their being different from one another, per se. That's how a free society ought to be, imo.

About the pension fund: Yes, I know. That's actually what prompted me to look at his foundation's Form 990s before trying to figure out his investments. Because it's common-to-the-point-of-practically-universal (as well as completely legal and also sometimes legitimate) for top-tier career politicians to really floor it wrt campaign fundraising toward the end of their careers (and/or in races that their internal numbers tell them they can't win). For what always look like -- and may actually be -- non-self-seeking reasons. And it's equally common for them eventually to pack up that cash and carry it off with them to their tax-exempt private foundations when they leave office.

I can't predict the future and therefore do not know whether that's what Ron Paul is going to do. And even if I did, neither I nor anyone else (aside from Ron Paul) could possibly be in a position to say whether he was doing the political fundraising with that aim in mind or not. That's why I didn't allege it. I don't know and can't prove that's what he's doing, and don't claim otherwise. I say only: That's what it looks like to me.

That's a totally partisanship-value-neutral personal view on my part. And although it is a political stance, it's sure as hell not confined to the limited-by-definition fundraising hijinks of high-profile politicians. I'd say the exact same thing about any one of the thousands and thousands of mom-and-pop non-profits (and, for that matter, millions of closely held public charities) that:

(a) put most of their assets into profitable investments that would be taxed at capital-gains rates if they weren't tax exempt; and

(b) spend every cent of their minimum-percentage-required-by-the-IRC program expenditures on publications and conferences in the furtherance of what they and the IRS (and pretty much the whole world) all agree are educational purposes and not -- as I'd say they were -- lightly disguised self-promotion for the purposes of technically unrelated commercial gain and/or private benefit.

There's no constitutional right to tax exemption for philanthropic activities even when they're genuinely philanthropic, incidentally. Although I'm certainly not opposed on principle to their having it, when they really are non-profits in spirit as well as letter. I'm all for it, in fact. I just feel strongly that the bar an EO has to clear in order to qualify as one is too low by so fucking far that most of it is in the gutter. And it hardly helps that there's not any systematic oversight or enforcement to speak of even then.

In short: It's not a Ron Paul thing. Tons and tons of people have the same set-up he does, or a very close equivalent to it. And they all look like scammers to me. Except for the ones that look like they're running money laundromats. But that's not applicable in this instance.

Except.....I think Grover Norquist's name has come up on this thread, right? While it would be going farther than the transactions reported on the disclosures warrant to say that his (c)(3)s and (c)(4)s look like money laundromats to my eyes, the flow of funds from the former to the latter does look less that squeaky clean to me. And not just to me, either. I think there may have been a thread on it, actually. It's more than sorta off-topic, though.

I really just wanted to elaborate a little on the honest considerations that led me to form the opinion I expressed. So that you could see that's what they were. But it's perfectly okay with me if you and others see and call it differently. There are other legitimate and honest considerations, and I don't pretend otherwise. The above just happen to be among mine.

If I get anywhere wrt Ron Paul's investments in particular, I'll report back. Otherwise, I'll stop cluttering up the thread, though. I know these things aren't very major issues to most people. Since they are to me, I feel like it's not too far out of bounds to mention them every once in a way. And I hope I'm right about that. But, you know. I don't want to hijack the thread. So absent BREAKING NEWS (like I'll ever find any ), I'm done.

Oh! And I hope I satisfactorily addressed your concerns. Obviously. But please let me know if I didn't.

[JackRiddler]

Or who, in the midst of describing the crimes of class and money and state, provides a definition of the state's "minions" that reads as follows: "the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant."

I know a lot of people who are in exactly that position, compliant. They are beholden to the government because they don't want to loose their benefits, their pension etcetera. I'm not saying it isn't the same for those who work in private industries, but here Paul is correct, and there is nothing even slightly counterintuitive about it.

Except that your statement is full of shit.

Who is more compliant in the face of economic exploitation - unionized state workers like teachers, firefighters, cops and civil servants? Or the happy private-sector employees of Walmart? I'm not saying either of these categories are fighting the revolution, but what's the answer to the question? No anecdotes about your lazy stoner neighbors on welfare, please. Just make an empirical case of private vs. public sector based on relative numbers of strikes, or concessions won from management, or relative wages, or relative willingness of the workers to be active in politics.

The slaves in this country are the people with jobs at the bottom of the private sector.

One of the biggest differences between the active workers' movements of Europe and the compliant, indeed fearful working class of the United States is in the relative levels of unionization and legal protection for unions. Another is in guaranteed health coverage - Europeans might worry about losing their jobs, but they don't worry that losing their jobs will lead to death from being unable to afford health care. Another is in the relative safety net. Being uncompliant as a worker in the US can put you in a precarious situation and the brink of homelessness much more easily than in Europe.

When hundreds of thousands of French take to the streets to protest any challenge to their rights and privileges as citizens, what do you think the difference is?

Otherwise, elfi, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the tired reactionary talk about Congressional salaries. I honestly don't give a shit when they give themselves raises - I'd be happiest if their salaries were sufficient to guarantee financial independence and make them less likely to take bribes and favors in addition to the millions they need in campaign contributions just to be elected in the first place.

It would be great if they made a million dollars a year but weren't allowed to make money from any other source of income for the first ten years after they leave office. (That would be tough to arrange, yes. It's a utopian thought. So sorry.)

Above all campaign finance and lobbying are what fuck up politics in this country, and end up costing taxpayers literally trillions in corporate welfare. Congressional salaries are a joke by comparison.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if Paul is in line with Libertarian thinking, then he would remove any limits on campaign spending. No? (Yes, I'm aware the SC just did that. Can anyone point me to Paul's statement criticizing the decision?)

How noble it will be, when the banks and oil companies can spend billions instead of tens of millions on buying the Congress, when they can continue giving ex-lawmakers 20 times their public salaries on entering the private sector - but at least the lawmakers stop giving themselves raises (as they vote another trillion for the Pentagon and banks).

[compared2what?]

Above all campaign finance and lobbying are what fuck up politics in this country

Rap on, brother, rap on.

I mean: Seconded.

[exojuridik]

Joe Bageant in his latest post, responding to a Ron Paul supporter, trenchantly illustrates how libertarian politics translates into support for Far Right policy positions as advocated by Grover Norquist and his ilk.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/01/t ... .html#more

highlight quote:

Even those among us who can see, who can observe the hardening condition induced by the enemies of human liberty and well being, feel powerless in the face of this darkening and omniscient order. Despite the quadrennial claims of our political parties during national election years, no savior has arrived and none is coming. No Obama, no miracle of "green science," no national genius will emerge to lead us. We have only the simple, direct, undeceived intelligence of ordinary men and women to rely upon. We must regain respect for the seemingly meager and often lonely powers an individual does have, and choose work and a way of living upon which we can all rely.

Acknowledgment of that, and living accordingly, engenders humility, success and the physical and spiritual thrivance of men and women and children everywhere. It is the animating spirit of socialism.

My concern is not over actually libertarian policies as they are by definition non-existent. What worries me is how the teabagger/libertarian movement with its populist appeal to nationalism and vague concepts like liberty, is actually setting up facism's goal making shot. In the political/policy vacuum of a libertarian world, it doesn't take much to rally the disaffected masses into embracing an authoritarian government that actually does work. However, instead of fostering a critical awareness of each person's interdependent political economic self-interest, this government will rally the citizens with a message of strength through unity flying under a paternalistic banner of national freedom/self-determination.

IOW- Libertarianism + Government = Authoritarian cult of Personality politics. And if the past 6,000 years of recorded history are any evidence, government is an irreducible constant in the whole equation of human civilization. I would argue that institutionalized government exists in some form even among preliterate hunter/gatherer tribes. Simply blaming all society's problems on it and wishing it is exactly the kind of magick thinking from which the dark spirits animating the Far Right feed.