Ron Paul comments on Ponzi and govt laws

[galtgulch]

Congressman Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:

Billions of dollars were recently lost in the collapse of Bernie Madoff’s self-described Ponzi scheme, in which too-good-to-be-true returns on investments were not really returns at all, but the funds of defrauded new investors. The pyramid scheme collapsed dramatically when too many clients called in their accounts, and not enough new victims could be found to support these withdrawals. Bernie Madoff was running a blatant fraud operation. Fraud is already illegal, and he will be facing criminal consequences, which is as it should be, and should act as an appropriate deterrent to potential future criminals. But it seems every time someone breaks the law, politicians and pundits decide we need more laws, even though lack of laws was not the problem.

The government itself runs a fraud much bigger than Madoff’s. Our Social Security system is the very definition of a Ponzi, or pyramid scheme. If the government truly had an interest in protecting people’s savings, they would allow people to opt out of Social Security altogether. We would cut wasteful spending, such as our overseas empire, to honor current obligations to seniors, and eventually phase the program out. Instead, as with Enron and Sarbanes Oxley, I expect new, unrelated legislation to be proposed that further damages freedom in the name of protecting us, amidst loud proclamations that they have made the world safe.

Merely passing a law does not fix any problems, just as throwing paper at a recession does not stop it. How can a government so complicit in mandatory public fraud effectively pre-empt private fraud? I see no reason to believe that any new law, or regulatory agency will solve anything. But I do see liberty slipping away every time Congress decides to “do something”. We already have an oversight agency, the SEC, which did a poor job overseeing and preventing this, but does a great job hamstringing honest, productive businesses and driving them overseas.

Total trust in government solutions only creates moral hazard, and amplifies risky behavior. Trust in government got us here. We trusted government to eliminate risk, but it just made risk more creative and dangerous. We trusted the Federal Reserve, a supra-governmental cabal of private banks, to know better than the free market what interest rates should be, and how to stabilize the business cycle, but like a spinning top that loses its balance, it has instead spun the business cycle and the economy wildly out of control.

No governmental activity can negate market forces or nullify the cardinal rule of caveat emptor. Government can however, use our fears against us and promise unrealistic outcomes as a means to consolidate power and erode our liberties. Liberty comes with risk. This is a fact of life. But life without liberty is not much of a life at all.

The only way the American people will get through these difficult times is through our own resilience and ingenuity. At best, the government is irrelevant in finding prosperity again. At worst, government can present a massive obstacle for the economy to overcome. If we do not wise up and rein government back in to its Constitutional limitations, bloated government could be a cumbersome unnecessary weight the economy will continually have to support to stay afloat.

[Selene]

Galt:

There are plants that wander to places that do not resist.

So you chose to not answer the six or seven questions that I have respectfully asked you in about four different threads.

That is fine.

Please do not use the following prior defenses:

a) that means you are in favor of creationism...or the straw man of choice;

B) so apparently you have nothing better to do than check what I have stated and argued passionately about before; or

c) you are wrong, meaning we actually heard what you said and read what you wanted to say and actually asked you a clarifying question about what you asserted;

Adam

[galtgulch]

Galt:

There are plants that wander to places that do not resist.

So you chose to not answer the six or seven questions that I have respectfully asked you in about four different threads.

That is fine.

Please do not use the following prior defenses:

a) that means you are in favor of creationism...or the straw man of choice;

B) so apparently you have nothing better to do than check what I have stated and argued passionately about before; or

c) you are wrong, meaning we actually heard what you said and read what you wanted to say and actually asked you a clarifying question about what you asserted;

Adam

Dear Adam,

I work for a living full time plus overtime. I am not a lurker on this board. I do not read all the posts. I go to other website which are becoming more enjoyable. I have no idea to what you are referring. I must have missed your Four Questions.

I am not interested in arguing with you. I find you to be disrespectful of me. I would rather not deal with you at all. I do not feel the least bit obligated to respond to you. I have no idea what six or seven questions you are referring to and given your manner have no interest.

Leave me alone.

galt

[Selene]

Galt:

There are plants that wander to places that do not resist.

So you chose to not answer the six or seven questions that I have respectfully asked you in about four different threads.

That is fine.

Please do not use the following prior defenses:

a) that means you are in favor of creationism...or the straw man of choice;

B) so apparently you have nothing better to do than check what I have stated and argued passionately about before; or

c) you are wrong, meaning we actually heard what you said and read what you wanted to say and actually asked you a clarifying question about what you asserted;

Adam

Dear Adam,

I work for a living full time plus overtime. I am not a lurker on this board. I do not read all the posts. I go to other website which are becoming more enjoyable. I have no idea to what you are referring. I must have missed your Four Questions.

I am not interested in arguing with you. I find you to be disrespectful of me. I would rather not deal with you at all. I do not feel the least bit obligated to respond to you. I have no idea what six or seven questions you are referring to and given your manner have no interest.

Leave me alone.

galt

Galt:

Have no fear, you will never hear from me again. Good luck.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

I certainly like some of what I read in the Ron Paul post above. I find the part about the "overseas empire" distressing, when I consider what this probably means in the light of Paul's other writing and speaking.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

I certainly like some of what I read in the Ron Paul post above. I find the part about the "overseas empire" distressing, when I consider what this probably means in the light of Paul's other writing and speaking.

Bill P

Bill P

By "overseas empire" I believe Ron Paul is referring to the fact that the U.S. has about 700 to 825 military bases in 120 to 130 countries around the world. It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain all those bases. If elected president Ron Paul intended to bring home most and close most of those bases. He had said that would be a priority which would reduce the Federal Budget enough to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and abolish the IRS.

Then he would whittle away at the entitlement programs at home.

Just what do you find "distressing" and what do you think "this probably means?"

www.campaignforliberty.com 97224

galt

Edited December 24, 2008 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch; I would like to see sources for the statements about the cost of our base overseas. I have serious doubts that all the things Dr. Paul says could be done with their removal. I suspect that Medicare and Social Security are much bigger holes in the budget.

I suspect from your reply to Selene that you wouldn't answer my question either.

From your post to Selene all I could think of was a three year old.

[DavidMcK]

Thanks Galt, for putting numbers to my own sense that our military is way over-extended; well beyond any legitimate need for self defense. I too am non-interventionist which I always took to be part of the Objectivist idea (or at least mostly). War is just another program like SS or Medicare that is meant to raise taxes and exert control over the populace...it doesn't work any better than any other government program. Of course I exempt justifiable wars from this; wars in which we were attacked first (Afhanistan and Pearl Harbor).

Edited December 24, 2008 by DavidMcK

[Alfonso Jones]

I certainly like some of what I read in the Ron Paul post above. I find the part about the "overseas empire" distressing, when I consider what this probably means in the light of Paul's other writing and speaking.

Bill P

Bill P

By "overseas empire" I believe Ron Paul is referring to the fact that the U.S. has about 700 to 825 military bases in 120 to 130 countries around the world. It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain all those bases. If elected president Ron Paul intended to bring home most and close most of those bases. He had said that would be a priority which would reduce the Federal Budget enough to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and abolish the IRS.

Then he would whittle away at the entitlement programs at home.

Just what do you find "distressing" and what do you think "this probably means?"

www.campaignforliberty.com 97224

galt

That is what I think it probably means to Ron Paul, and that is what concerns me.

1) I'm not confident about whether the mission of defense of the USA can be accomplished after closing so many of those bases.

2) I think Ron Paul's willingness to close so many (the rhetoric often suggests closer to all of the bases than "most") displays a naive understanding of what is required to defend the USA.

The last time I looked at the federal budget, the "entitlement programs" (social security, medicare, medicaid, . . .) were the items which dominated the budget and continued to relentlessly grow. Maintaining a strong military is one of the few legitimate functions of government - hardly my concept of a good first target for shrinkage.

You keep posting the number of signups at the campaign for liberty site. I wonder if anyone has a source for current population of the USA. I'm not certain if the fraction who have signed up is growing or shrinking.

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

Bill P; I suspect Gulch wouldn't answer your questions either.

Do he and Dr. Paul consider the detachments of US Marines who guard our embassies as examples of military bases abroad. There are attachés who are military at many of our embassies. Are those bases?

As someone who has been around a while I have come to the conclusion that there is no easy solution to the problem of the Federal budget. Reagan used to talk about getting rid of "waste, fraud, and corruption" as a quick solution to the problem. The only way is to take the axe to big programs which includes many but not all of our bases overseas.

Getting rid of them would alone would not mean we could get rid of the income tax.

[galtgulch]

I certainly like some of what I read in the Ron Paul post above. I find the part about the "overseas empire" distressing, when I consider what this probably means in the light of Paul's other writing and speaking.

Bill P

Bill P

By "overseas empire" I believe Ron Paul is referring to the fact that the U.S. has about 700 to 825 military bases in 120 to 130 countries around the world. It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain all those bases. If elected president Ron Paul intended to bring home most and close most of those bases. He had said that would be a priority which would reduce the Federal Budget enough to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and abolish the IRS.

Then he would whittle away at the entitlement programs at home.

Just what do you find "distressing" and what do you think "this probably means?"

www.campaignforliberty.com 97224

galt

That is what I think it probably means to Ron Paul, and that is what concerns me.

1) I'm not confident about whether the mission of defense of the USA can be accomplished after closing so many of those bases.

2) I think Ron Paul's willingness to close so many (the rhetoric often suggests closer to all of the bases than "most") displays a naive understanding of what is required to defend the USA.

The last time I looked at the federal budget, the "entitlement programs" (social security, medicare, medicaid, . . .) were the items which dominated the budget and continued to relentlessly grow. Maintaining a strong military is one of the few legitimate functions of government - hardly my concept of a good first target for shrinkage.

You keep posting the number of signups at the campaign for liberty site. I wonder if anyone has a source for current population of the USA. I'm not certain if the fraction who have signed up is growing or shrinking.

Bill P

Bill P.

I wonder that the U.S. requires troops in England, Spain and Italy in order to defend America? I believe that there are military bases in those friendly countries which are on the order of 5000 in each. Many bases such as those in Germany are useful to back up our efforts in the middle East. I don't think Ron Paul intended to close every base just those which were non essential. I googled overseas military bases and there are many links. I don't know just how many bases there are currently. It is a moving target. New huge bases are being erected in Iraq suggesting an intention to remain there forever. You know we have a Division in Korea down from two divisions when I served there in 1970. Just the presence of the American Flag so we would be drawn in if the North Korean invasion used the traditional attack route to Seoul.

I have no idea what the cost is to maintain all the bases. There are certainly embassies with support.

I don't think Ron Paul is naive. He has served in the Congress for ten terms over 33 years. I think that his son may run for office next presidential election. Rand Paul. Also a physician.

I wouldn't be surprised if the population is growing faster than the membership in Campaign For Liberty. Also faster than the Objectivist movement or the Libertarian movement. So what?

www.campaignforliberty.com membership at 5 PM 24 Dec 97284 8AM 25 Dec 97336

I appreciate your relevant response and questions on topic.

I am certainly no expert on any of these issues and the internet is a source which may not always be reliable. I have no way of knowing whether any of these numbers are real or manipulated. I am confident that Existence exists and that the universe is not a haunted house. Also trust in gold and silver rather than Bernanke's paper currency which I find hard to believe he does not realize he is inflating!

It has been suggested that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme which surpasses Madoff in scope. Difference is that at least Madoff's customers volunteered whereas SS enslaves us all.

galt

Edited December 25, 2008 by galtgulch