Hudgins Quoted in Boston Globe on John McCain

[Ed Hudgins]

Hudgins Quoted in Boston Globe on John McCain

Dr. Edward Hudgins, executive director of The Atlas Society, was quoted in a Boston Globe article on September 18, 2008 entitled “Amid turmoil, McCain turns to regulation.” This piece looked at the Republican presidential candidate’s recent advocacy of more government regulation in the face of the problems in the banking and housing markets.

Many observers quoted in the article criticized McCain for having a history of favoring deregulation and changing his position only in the past few days for political reasons. But the Globe reported that:

“ Edward L. Hudgins, former director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute, and the executive director of the Atlas Society, a Washington-based free-market think tank, called John McCain ‘someone who is not a man with firm ideological or economic principles. It is not that he is not passionate. It’s that he doesn't have a rule that he could generally apply to any situation’.”

In portions of the interview with journalist Farah Stockman not included in the article, Hudgins observed that McCain has always called himself an admirer of Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican president known as a “trust-buster” and opponent of big business. Hudgins also observed that McCain’s record on free markets has been mixed, criticizing wasteful government spending on the one hand but also opposing tax cuts on the other.

As with most elections, this one shows philosophical confusion and the desperate for a discussion in terms of clear, rational, moral principles as well as sound economics. This country needs the Objectivist perspective now more than ever!

[Selene]

Ed:

Precisely, McCain is a conservative pragmatist, which is not unusual on Republican ranks. He is unfortunately, the better of the two disasters we have been presented with.

I pushed for McCain very hard in 2000, but since his "hit job" in S.C. by my dear Machiavellian friends in the Bush juggernaut, he became, again in my opinio, quite bitter at several levels.

Then came the insane McCain-Feingold Law, which remember was going to take money out of politics. It took me almost a year to stop laughing. By the way, how well is that keeping money out of politics law working out this cycle?

Then came his dangerous stance on immigration reform which would have continued to compromise this Constitutional Republic's national security. Now I am mad.

Therefore, the only way I could have supported this ticket was the Palin pick which I think is one of the top 5 picks in V.P. history and might very well be the best.

So, I can accept this ticket now.

The Libertarian Party has once again proven itself to be a joke and basically toxic.

Believe me, this Marxist that the Democrats are running will be a disaster. Unfortunately, the Alinsky spawn are now, with 47 days left, starting their extortion model. Little local psycho's getting face time on the internet or local and cable TV stating, flatly, that if Barry loses, there will be a race war and blood in the streets.

This would be a great time for all of us to read Capable of Honor by Alan Drury. Scenario's are to damn close for my comfort.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

McCain's War Street Bankers

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars

September 17, 2008

Earlier today, I wrote about McCain’s harebrained idea to appoint a commission to go after the crooks on Wall Street. McCain is, of course, just rolling out a flimsy parade float constructed of toilet paper, something that will disappear on the day after the election, provided he wins or the Diebold machines come up in his favor. He will say and do anything to get selected.

As it turns out, McCain receives big time support from the very people he promises to clean out of the nooks and crannies of War Street. It didn’t take long for the hypocrites over on the Dem side of the Banker Party to dig up some damage.

“Several of McCain’s most senior campaign aides have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers,” write David Corn, Jonathan Stein, and Nick Baumann for Mother Jones.

Of those 177 lobbyists, according to a Mother Jones review of Senate and House records, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation’s capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, the newest symbol of corporate excess; Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday sending the stock market into a tailspin; Merrill Lynch, which was bought out by Bank of America this week; and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain’s chief political adviser, Charlie Black (JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America); McCain’s national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman (AIG, Blackstone, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac); the campaign’s congressional liaison, John Green (Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Icahn Associates, Fannie Mae); McCain’s veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse (Fannie Mae); and McCain’s transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr. (Citigroup, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group).

As usual, the Dems stink to high heaven. It’s kinda ironic they’d release this dirt on McPalin when Obama is a banker magnet extraordinarie.

“Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS and heavyweight law firm DLA Piper are among Obama’s top contributors,” reports the Phoenix Business Journal. “At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup,” the adds the New York Times.

Funny thing is, it doesn’t matter, because no matter who wins the bankers will own the country lock, stock, and barrel.

Not since the days of Andrew Jackson has a president seriously gone after the bankers. “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning,” Jackson told investment bankers in 1828 as they pestered him to renew their central bank charter.

Founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed the First Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England, and saw it for what it was — an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption.

Less than a hundred years later, we had the “currency panic” of 1907, and then the Federal Reserve System as a solution. It is currently owned by the Rothschild Bank of London and Berlin, the Warburg Bank of Hamburg, the Lehman Brothers of New York, Goldman, Sachs of New York, the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, and others, most throwing money after McObama.

It really does not take a clairvoyant to realize the bankers own not only McCain and Obama, but us too.

[Selene]

Rich:

I am always surprised by people arguing that they have discovered that there is consistent power/money pressure on both sides of the aisle as if it is a surprise.

All cultures, all governments and all societies are influenced, controlled or manipulated by power and money.

Therefore, we should not get involved, fine.

I have lobbied. I have been paid by both parties to organize field campaigns, develop and conduct polls, be a speechwriter.

In Mt. Vernon, NY, we were hired by the D's and we elected the first D mayor in Yonkers history. I got hired 4 years later by the R's when the 'D' guy ran for re-election.

My participation in that R campaign was quite black box.

This is the way it is.

What I would like to see established by law is that any contributions of any amount can be made, but they be on a publicly accessible web site.

Secondly, any firm or individual who donate, cannot be employed by that administration or recieve contracts from that administration.

How soon do you think the spigot would be gushing the way it is now?

Adam

[algernonsidney]

Not since the days of Andrew Jackson has a president seriously gone after the bankers. “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning,” Jackson told investment bankers in 1828 as they pestered him to renew their central bank charter.

Jackson's actions led to the era of wildcat banks. It was the closest thing to a free market in money that the country has had. After a panic under Van Buren, it was also the most prosperous time the nation has had. Jackson often said that it was his proudest accomplishment: "I killed the bank."

This was all destroyed by Lincoln's civil war. Regardless of your feelings about the civil war, nobody can deny that Lincoln was also a major advocate of corporate welfare. This was mainly in the form of land grants to railroads. Also during Lincoln's time came things like the Morrill Act, which created land-grant colleges and was the first time the feds interfered with the colleges. There were also things like the Homestead Act (the first federal welfare program for the poor) and national banks.

Bankers have been bribing McCain since the late 1980's. He was one of the Keating Five.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Chris Baker

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... it was also the most prosperous time the nation has had.

Chris,

Say what?

I look around me, see all this wealth floating around, and it just doesn't look that way.

America is a VERY WEALTHY nation.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

Great to see you.

Yup. McCain is a mixed bag. But he does have a lot of common sense. That's probably his saving virtue.

He sure knows how to pick a running mate.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

It is not fair to use direct observation of reality in an argument with a conspiracy advocate.

I think you should spot him a Bishop just to be fair.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rich,

I have dealt with money and debt in another section:

Money and Politics - The Money Masters

Here is a video from that post and this is where my whole understanding of money changed. It's about 47 minutes, it's a cartoon, but it is worth every second. I have no problem understanding the present crisis, and this thing has helped me understand what to do about it. In a strange way, it is one of the reasons I have gone into Internet marketing, one of the few places where capitalism is practically unrestricted and unregulated.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Selene; Your last post was mean. Of course Ayn Rand was also mean.

[Selene]

Chris:

I have always been a savage satirical debater. We debated the Oxford team in the finals, which was a humorous debate, Resolved: that sex will never replace night baseball as a spectator sport.

The Oxford folks also had that witty, sharp satirical style, folks were rolling on the floor between the dinner tables, it was quite a night.

The difference is I never take it or mean it personally, some folks do, and for those types, I wish to not be in the same room.

However, I respect the criticism and I know it is part of the way I enjoy arguing.

By the way, how was the think tank day in Washington?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Well, to be fair, I remember the good old days when people didn't use to bicker or fight wars, crime was only a word, there was money for everyone, debt was unheard of and the land practically flowed with milk and honey for the taking. People never got sick and no one used to die. Not a single soul.

I don't know what the hell happened to the world.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I don't see what's so sharp or satirical about calling me a "conspiracy advocate." I thought Oxford put out better than that. Spot me a bishop, my ass. I mean, even out of practice I still play at about 1700.

Is reality not involved reminding people where the banks stand in campaigns? Geez, dude, go mend yer perfesser patches.

[Selene]

Rich:

My my, a little touchy on the conspiracy issue?

At any rate, just to correct the record, I said we debated the Oxford team in the finals. We were the Queens College, CUNY team.

Second, I taught for 5 years because it had a deferment. It is called channeling by the SS system. I was opposed to the Vietnam war for two simple reasons, as a Randian/Libertarian:

a) I was opposed to any draft; and

B) We were not fighting to win which would have meant leveling Hanoi, and leveling all three major mountain passes from China which were the main ground resupply routes. We owned the air and the sea, we did not prosecute the war fully.

Limited wars are a contradiction in terms and make war somewhat palatable by stretching out casualties so the public can get "used to" a low level of pain.

It is an insult to our troops and devastating to our national interest.

I did not mean to offend you, if I did, accept my apology. I really could not be angry with a person who has my favorite Sci Fi writer as his quote on his posts.

Adam

[algernonsidney]

... it was also the most prosperous time the nation has had.

Chris,

Say what?

I look around me, see all this wealth floating around, and it just doesn't look that way.

America is a VERY WEALTHY nation.

Michael

It seems like you are trying very hard to make me wrong here. This argument could be called "use different words as if they are synonymous." Observe that your response does not use the word "prosperous" or any form of that word. You then use another word as if it is synonymous.

Prosperity is not wealth. Prosperity is an increase in wealth, just as acceleration is an increase in speed.

It is the general nature of things for wealth to grow over time. However, some periods see greater growth of wealth than other periods. After adjustments were made, we had about 20 years without any downturn. We have never had a period like that since then. It was a period of some of the best growth the country has seen.

Consider also that the country absorbed millions and millions of immigrants during that time. There was the Irish potato famine. There were many people leaving the upheaval of 1848. It was this new imbalance in population that partially helped lead to the Civil War, as most of the immigrants stayed in the north.

Here are the numbers. Observe that there were increases of over 30% between every census up until 1860:

1790 3,929,214

1800 5,236,631 33.3%

1810 7,239,881 38.3%

1820 9,638,453 33.1%

1830 12,866,020 33.5%

1840 17,069,453 32.7%

1850 23,191,876 35.9%

1860 31,443,321 35.6%

1870 38,558,371 22.6%

1880 49,371,340 28%

1890 62,979,766 27.6%

1900 76,212,168 21%

1910 92,228,496 21%

1920 106,021,537 15%

1930 123,202,624 16.2%

1940 132,164,569 7.3%

1950 151,325,798 14.5%

1960 179,323,175 18.5%

1970 203,211,926 13.3%

1980 226,545,805 11.5%

1990 248,709,873 9.8%

2000 281,421,906 13.2%

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I am not trying hard for anything. I just like precision and I have never liked the "good old days" arguments because they are simply wrong. Nostalgia and dreaming about the past are not a good substitutes for obvious facts.

So let's look at facts, at least one. The simple fact is that it is nearly impossible to starve to death in the USA nowadays. That goes for anybody, regardless of neighborhood. There's just too much wealth and modern-day Americans have a wonderful humanitarian spirit. Back in the "good old days," it was very easy to starve to death almost anywhere. And people killed you for stealing food.

Thus, all those numbers you posted mean next to nothing to me. They don't feed people.

To me, wealth is a meaningless term unless you can eat.

Besides, we have come to a place where dirt poor means owning a TV and cell phone at the minimum. That's produced wealth by any standard.

If you want to convince me of any idea, it will have to be grounded in facts I can see. Pretending that people had more wealth the early 1800,'s than today just doesn't work.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Oh, good, not Oxford...I generally hate those guys--bunch of putzes.

I'm not "touchy" on "conspiracy (fill in stereotypical descriptor):" I'm just bored of the stereotype. It usually implies some kind of paranoia-based psychology, if not outright schizophrenia, and I'm not interested in that.

The problem is that certain realities (not theories) involve things that a lot of paranoid schizophrenics have always raved about. I think a lot of them have an innate sense of evil, they just can't articulate it clearly, what with being nuts and all. I think even crazy people feel evil on some level.

One of these realities is that there are elite, globalists, and there are active secret societies composed of same. There is a demonstrable hierarchy, over time. There are relationships between these secret societies. Their symbology dates back at least to early Egyptian times. These are the real crazy people, the real evil people. Basically, what we would usually call Satanists. They worship death, decay, killing, blood. Witness the elite snapping up work of artist Damien Hirst--they love zebras in formaldehyde tanks, jewel-encrusted antique skulls. They consume equally necrotic delcacies at top restaurants. Only a couple days ago Hirst got, what, 93 milion off of selling that garbage at Sotheby's.

So yeah, there are powerful, inbred freaks with their hands on the world, and that's a very hard thing to accept, because their actions cause inconveniences like financial collapse, wars, foot shortages, police state escalations, vaccines with mercury on them, tracking chips, and other delights.

Crazy shit is hard to look at because you can feel the craziness. But if you are sane and rational and strong, you know that.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Rich Engle

[Selene]

Chris:

Now I think you know better. Beware having one side define the word.

"Prosperity is an increase in wealth, just as acceleration is an increase in speed." First of all these are not equal terms to compare.

Second and most important, is that you assert that the meaning of prosperity is an increase in wealth. That is not accurate. Prosperity is an "...advance or gain of anything good or desirable."

Defense rests.

Adam

[algernonsidney]

I am not trying hard for anything. I just like precision and I have never liked the "good old days" arguments because they are simply wrong. Nostalgia and dreaming about the past are not a good substitutes for obvious facts.

Again, you are attributing ideas to me which I do not hold. Please respond to things I actually say, not what you think I say. It's quite annoying. You must be desperate for an argument.

I did not say that the standard of living was higher in those times. I am saying that the increase in the standard of living was higher in those times.

It's the same way that going from $1 to $10 is a greater increase than going from $100 to $200. One is a gain of 1000%. The other is a gain of 200%.

[algernonsidney]

I'm just bored of the stereotype. It usually implies some kind of paranoia-based psychology, if not outright schizophrenia, and I'm not interested in that.

One thing I've noticed is that many of the WTC conspiracy buffs were also buying electric generators back in December of 1999. They tend to believe some weird things.

Every theory about the WTC is just that, a theory. Every theory is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy by definition is when two or more people conspire to commit a crime.

Most of the time, Hanlon's Razor is true. It says: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." It would be difficult to prove any malice regarding the events of 11 September 2001. However, you can easily prove incompetence.

One of these realities is that there are elite, globalists, and there are active secret societies composed of same.

All one has to do is look at all the intermarrying and inbreeding of European monarchs. Look at all the monarchs Queen Victoria was related to.

We also suffer from a conspiracy of bad ideas. What we need to do is make governments less powerful. Then, people would have less ability to manipulate financial markets or whatever.

Even if the WTC is not an inside job, it is definitely a tremendous failure. I personally believe that it was allowed to happen on purpose. I am still open to hearing both sides on the issue of whether it was made to happen on purpose.

It's all theory anyway, because nobody is going to spend the billions that it would take to test the theories. That is, nobody is going to spend billions of dollars to build the buildings just so we can test to see if burning jet fuel can bring them down or not. With that kind of money, someone who really cares about freedom could ultimately start his own country, free of politicians, academics, lobbyists, judges, lawyers, and legislators. And that would do more good anyway.

Rich, how are you doing on your 70 approaches?

Edited September 19, 2008 by Chris Baker

[Selene]

Folks:

Everyone knows the complete definition of the word "lie":

1) Lies

2) Damned lies ...and

3) Statistics.

Same goes for % arguments.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jackson's actions led to the era of wildcat banks. It was the closest thing to a free market in money that the country has had. After a panic under Van Buren, it was also the most prosperous time the nation has had.

Chris,

You can play all the word games you want, but I think you are smart enough to know what the above conveys. If you want to say things like that, don't be surprised when people think you actually mean what you write.

That statement is flat out wrong under many different standards and no one needs to be master of the obvious to see it. Now you want to give it a spin.

Heh.

Sorry. I just can't take that one seriously.

Call me a skeptic about them good ole daze...

Michael

[Greybird]

Ed Hudgins, your organization posted outright, vicious smears of the one genuine anti-McCain (and anti-Obama, for that matter) presidential candidate. In the text of your magazine and, more notoriously, on its cover.

So don't complain now. You're getting precisely what you asked for.

[algernonsidney]

Ed Hudgins, your organization posted outright, vicious smears of the one genuine anti-McCain (and anti-Obama, for that matter) presidential candidate. In the text of your magazine and, more notoriously, on its cover.

So don't complain now. You're getting precisely what you asked for.

That's more Bidinotto's doing than Ed's. Check out his blog. Bidinotto seems to have an obsession with Ron Paul. He has toned it down somewhat, now that he has a schoolboy crush on Sarah Palin. It's quite hilarious.

[Chris Grieb]

Greybird, Baker, Galt and all of the rest of you who have gone round the bend about Ron Paul;

You can dish it out but you can't take it. Ron Paul keeps introducing ear-marks. I also continue to think he is soft on Islamic Fascism.