Ron Paul Says Tough Luck Tornado Victims

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

That isn't entirely true....

okay, well, let me categorically say that I do not agree with those guys.

Really? Because word at the Brown Derby and Ciro's is that you're on McCarthy's list...

 

[msuspartan]

It is clear the federal solution doesn't work. We might as well try states' rights.

that's absolutely untrue. The system has served the United States remarkably well for 200+ years.

There are certain situations where government has failed on occasion. Indeed, it's made up of humans, and humans err. But that's hardly any reason to make an idiotic blanket statement like that.

The private sector fails all the time. Most notably the real estate crash and bank bailout that required a HUGE public subsidy to keep the private banking sector from crashing and destroying the economy. Or look at the tech bubble near the end of Clinton's term. again, the markets screw up all the time at a huge cost to everyone.

This goes both ways yet no one is suggesting we revert to communism...

the blanket statements you hear from both Conservatives and Libertarians (those confused children in the middle) that "government is bad" like in the famous Reagan quote, have become so pervasive as to completely hamper the basic function of government. It's all predicated on bad economics, bad logic, and partisan politics.

First of all, the size of the federal government has exploded in size in the past 50 years, especially in the last 15. Libertarians prefer stronger government at the state level because it is easier to influence governors than it is to influence presidents. I really don't want people in Washington to make laws for Michigan when people in Michigan are fully capable of governing themselves.

This system is completely broken. The system created by the Founding Fathers 200 years ago is not the same system we have today. We are now $15 trillion in debt (probably well over $50 trillion once you include deals by the Federal Reserve). The path we are on is not sustainable. "Give me liberty or give me death." We are less free and prosperous as nation than ever before.

Yes, the private market does fail, but that is the beauty of it. It does not hand pick winners and losers like the government does. Yes, tech bubble is an example, but the housing bubble is not all on the private sector. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave out loans to people that private sector would not. That sounds like a lot of blame on the federal government to me. Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble in 2003 when no one else did, that is remarkable.

The major difference between Libertarians and Libs/Dems is where they believe power should be. Transparency and accountability is handled much better at the state level.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave out loans to people that private sector would not.

Fannie and Freddie don't give out anything. They purchase loans originated by private lenders. Every crappy loan in this country was originated by a private lender.

Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble in 2003 when no one else did, that is remarkable

Lots of people saw it coming. Just fuckhead politicians didn't like talking about it.

 

[KAWDUP]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Engineers are conservative because they're rich.

some of the most irritating people I know (politically) are engineers or have a background in the natural sciences.

my theory: they major in some of the more challenging fields of academics, and therefore assume they know everything there is to know about every other field, even though they don't.

they also tend to disparage anything that is outside their realm of knowledge if it can't be easily quantified or justified mathematically. But it's not that it can't; it's just that their models are always too simple or don't account for every variable that might emerge (again, because their worldview is limited)

compounding this is the fact that they might take a few survey courses outside of their field - which are of course, not terribly difficult, like psych 101 - and they assume everything in that field, no matter how much empirical research goes into it, is the equivalent of underwater basketweaving.

typical quote: "BAH, I ACED Econ 101. Don't tell me what I don't know about everything."

This explains a lot about your ignorance. I think I get it now.

Some of the most irritating people I know politically are lawyers.

My theory: They spend more time in college than most other professionals taking one of the more challenging doctoral degrees one can get, and because of this they think they have answers to all the world's problems. They are intellectuals to be sure, but they don't just assume they know more than anyone else, they trully believe that they do, and they are happy to tell you that they do.

They also tend to disparage anything that is actually outside their realm of knowledge because they can usually make an argument that sounds plausible even though it really isn't. Their models are always too complex or they try to account for every variable that might emerge (again, because their worldview also includes yours too).

Compounding this is the fact that they also believe they know what is best politically in every situation and mistakenly extend that to everyone and are commonly referred to as elitists.

So even though it starts out differently, it still ends up with someone thinking they know everything about everything, when it is obvious they don't.

 

[msuspartan]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave out loans to people that private sector would not.

Fannie and Freddie don't give out anything. They purchase loans originated by private lenders. Every crappy loan in this country was originated by a private lender.


[quote:yerm5ibt]Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble in 2003 when no one else did, that is remarkable

Lots of people saw it coming. Just fuckhead politicians didn't like talking about it.[/quote:yerm5ibt]

I over simplified with the Fannie and Freddie explanation. In general, people who shouldn't have received mortgages did because of them.

 

[Michchamp]

lawyers don't use models.

also, I didn't spend more time in college than anyone else. I spent 4 years, and I graduated with credits to spare. I spent an additional 3 years in law school, which is not college.

a JD is NOT one of the more challenging doctoral degrees out there. In fact, it's one of the least challenging. You don't need to do a thesis, or any research to get one. The character and fitness requirements, and the bar exam and licensing requirements, are certainly time consuming, and not a walk in the park, but hardly the same thing.

lawyers are experts at nothing, from an academic standpoint, however, they have to be prepared to become an expert at anything their clients' need in order to practice effectively.

lawyers are also really cool and great and evil.

 

[redandguilty]

The idea of a limited government appeals to me just because I think large, powerful entities are inherently dangerous. But right now, big business is also huge...so a stronger government would probably be desirable to counteract the forces of big business, EXCEPT that they don't act like opposing entities. That's where it quits working.

Also, "Everything About Every Other Field" is only a 300 level engineering course.

 

[KAWDUP]

lawyers don't use models.

also, I didn't spend more time in college than anyone else. I spent 4 years, and I graduated with credits to spare. I spent an additional 3 years in law school, which is not college.

a JD is NOT one of the more challenging doctoral degrees out there. In fact, it's one of the least challenging. You don't need to do a thesis, or any research to get one. The character and fitness requirements, and the bar exam and licensing requirements, are certainly time consuming, and not a walk in the park, but hardly the same thing.

lawyers are experts at nothing, from an academic standpoint, however, they have to be prepared to become an expert at anything their clients' need in order to practice effectively.

lawyers are also really cool and great and evil.

Ok, see, even you are saying it was easy. Possibly easy for you or everyone? Passing the bar could be done by any doctoral student right? 3 more years of school past the normal degree is challenging in and of itself. . . . and yes that is more than nearly all masters degree programs, so what are you saying here?

. . . and a Michigan Law degree is what you are saying is not as challenging as the other doctoral degrees? I rest my case.

Lastly, none of this refutes the end result. My theory might need work for how it got there, but you most certainly fit the final conclusion and even one or two of the others.

 

[Michchamp]

The idea of a limited government appeals to me just because I think large, powerful entities are inherently dangerous. But right now, big business is also huge...so a stronger government would probably be desirable to counteract the forces of big business, EXCEPT that they don't act like opposing entities. That's where it quits working.
.

right now business is bigger than government.

to do what Wall Street did... to demand billions of dollars as a "bailout" to fix your incompetent and often fraudulent management of your own risk, and get it.

then demand no strings attached, no ownership interest for taxpayers... and get it.

then demand there be no restrictions on bonuses paid out of the bailout money received... and get it...

yikes.

 

[Michchamp]

lawyers don't use models.

also, I didn't spend more time in college than anyone else. I spent 4 years, and I graduated with credits to spare. I spent an additional 3 years in law school, which is not college.

a JD is NOT one of the more challenging doctoral degrees out there. In fact, it's one of the least challenging. You don't need to do a thesis, or any research to get one. The character and fitness requirements, and the bar exam and licensing requirements, are certainly time consuming, and not a walk in the park, but hardly the same thing.

lawyers are experts at nothing, from an academic standpoint, however, they have to be prepared to become an expert at anything their clients' need in order to practice effectively.

lawyers are also really cool and great and evil.

Ok, see, even you are saying it was easy. Possibly easy for you or everyone? Passing the bar could be done by any doctoral student right? 3 more years of school past the normal degree is challenging in and of itself. . . . and yes that is more than nearly all masters degree programs, so what are you saying here?

. . . and a Michigan Law degree is what you are saying is not as challenging as the other doctoral degrees? I rest my case.

Lastly, none of this refutes the end result. My theory might need work for how it got there, but you most certainly fit the final conclusion and even one or two of the others.

I didn't say it was easy, just not as challenging - or as much work - as a PhD or an MD.

more so than a masters degree though.

I didn't go to Michigan for law skool, I went to Illinois.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The idea of a limited government appeals to me just because I think large, powerful entities are inherently dangerous. But right now, big business is also huge...so a stronger government would probably be desirable to counteract the forces of big business, EXCEPT that they don't act like opposing entities. That's where it quits working.

Also, "Everything About Every Other Field" is only a 300 level engineering course.

What level course is it in law school, do you know?

 

[tsmith7559]

The idea of a limited government appeals to me just because I think large, powerful entities are inherently dangerous. But right now, big business is also huge...so a stronger government would probably be desirable to counteract the forces of big business, EXCEPT that they don't act like opposing entities. That's where it quits working.
.

right now business is bigger than government.

to do what Wall Street did... to demand billions of dollars as a "bailout" to fix your incompetent and often fraudulent management of your own risk, and get it.

then demand no strings attached, no ownership interest for taxpayers... and get it.

then demand there be no restrictions on bonuses paid out of the bailout money received... and get it...

yikes.

and the largest contributor to the Obama campaign

 

[KAWDUP]

The idea of a limited government appeals to me just because I think large, powerful entities are inherently dangerous. But right now, big business is also huge...so a stronger government would probably be desirable to counteract the forces of big business, EXCEPT that they don't act like opposing entities. That's where it quits working.
.

right now business is bigger than government.

to do what Wall Street did... to demand billions of dollars as a "bailout" to fix your incompetent and often fraudulent management of your own risk, and get it.

then demand no strings attached, no ownership interest for taxpayers... and get it.

then demand there be no restrictions on bonuses paid out of the bailout money received... and get it...

yikes.

Are you just as pissed off over the Green Energy companies that are now failing, while their exectuves put away 6 figure salaries? They only got 2 billion - I know chump change so they can't possibly be compared to bonuses from other bailed out industries.

Are the Occupiers going to sit in front of their businesses? Oh wait I forgot - chump change again.

 

[KAWDUP]

Ok, see, even you are saying it was easy. Possibly easy for you or everyone? Passing the bar could be done by any doctoral student right? 3 more years of school past the normal degree is challenging in and of itself. . . . and yes that is more than nearly all masters degree programs, so what are you saying here?

. . . and a Michigan Law degree is what you are saying is not as challenging as the other doctoral degrees? I rest my case.

Lastly, none of this refutes the end result. My theory might need work for how it got there, but you most certainly fit the final conclusion and even one or two of the others.

I didn't say it was easy, just not as challenging - or as much work - as a PhD or an MD.

more so than a masters degree though.

I didn't go to Michigan for law skool, I went to Illinois.

Yeah I thought about that after I posted it. Oh well.

. . . but you don't want me to just call you friggin' stupid do you just because you happen to get your Law Degree from Illinois?

Not definitive in any way, but US News has U of M at #7 and Illinois at #23.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

 

[redandguilty]

right now business is bigger than government.

to do what Wall Street did... to demand billions of dollars as a "bailout" to fix your incompetent and often fraudulent management of your own risk, and get it.

then demand no strings attached, no ownership interest for taxpayers... and get it.

then demand there be no restrictions on bonuses paid out of the bailout money received... and get it...

yikes.

Are you just as pissed off over the Green Energy companies that are now failing, while their exectuves put away 6 figure salaries? They only got 2 billion - I know chump change so they can't possibly be compared to bonuses from other bailed out industries.

Are the Occupiers going to sit in front of their businesses? Oh wait I forgot - chump change again.

90% of green energy companies are going to fail. We should still pump money into them. We should be throwing money at it like it's a war.

 

[KAWDUP]

Are you just as pissed off over the Green Energy companies that are now failing, while their exectuves put away 6 figure salaries? They only got 2 billion - I know chump change so they can't possibly be compared to bonuses from other bailed out industries.

Are the Occupiers going to sit in front of their businesses? Oh wait I forgot - chump change again.

90% of green energy companies are going to fail. We should still pump money into them. We should be throwing money at it like it's a war.

Actually, I was just poking chumpy to wake him up. We actually should invest rather heavily in them, but seriously hope more of the private sector gets involved.

. . . or some way of vetting who we give the money to, to make sure they are viable and have a chance to survive after the initial money flow is gone. I would certainly expect some failure - that is the nature of the beast, but sure seems like a lot - and that is probably because I initially heard it on Fox News. I did check it out before posting though.

A much greater statistical number of these firms are failing than normal even for a fledgling industry.

 

[redandguilty]

90% of green energy companies are going to fail. We should still pump money into them. We should be throwing money at it like it's a war.

Actually, I was just poking chumpy to wake him up. We actually should invest rather heavily in them, but seriously hope more of the private sector gets involved.

. . . or some way of vetting who we give the money to, to make sure they are viable and have a chance to survive after the initial money flow is gone. I would certainly expect some failure - that is the nature of the beast, but sure seems like a lot - and that is probably because I initially heard it on Fox News. I did check it out before posting though.

A much greater statistical number of these firms are failing than normal even for a fledgling industry.

That's because it's not an isolated fledgling industry. It's a fledgling industry trying to compete in a very well established industry with the wealthiest companies out there.

 

[Michchamp]

90% of green energy companies are going to fail. We should still pump money into them. We should be throwing money at it like it's a war.

Actually, I was just poking chumpy to wake him up. We actually should invest rather heavily in them, but seriously hope more of the private sector gets involved.

someone else calls you on the stupid "point" you tried to make, and now you were just kidding. riiiiight.

here's the thing dipshit: the private sector ISN'T going to get involved to the extent needed. The market hardly - if ever - produces the results that society as a whole needs. That's because all "the market" cares about is its own profit and ignores every externality that comes from it's actions.

So a country like China - which doesn't have dumbfuck Conservatives like you arguing that the government has to sit on its hands - can subsidize nascent industries to the extent necessary to enable them to survive, and has now driven most of the U.S. solar industry out of business. Now they benefit from all the added efficiency and innovation the industry can provide as it grows (those positive externalities) while we lag behind for lack of investment.

great job. Wonder what Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush think about it? Better tune in and find out...

 

[byco42]

Actually, I was just poking chumpy to wake him up. We actually should invest rather heavily in them, but seriously hope more of the private sector gets involved.

someone else calls you on the stupid "point" you tried to make, and now you were just kidding. riiiiight.

here's the thing dipshit: the private sector ISN'T going to get involved to the extent needed. The market hardly - if ever - produces the results that society as a whole needs. That's because all "the market" cares about is its own profit and ignores every externality that comes from it's actions.

So a country like China - which doesn't have dumbfuck Conservatives like you arguing that the government has to sit on its hands - can subsidize nascent industries to the extent necessary to enable them to survive, and has now driven most of the U.S. solar industry out of business. Now they benefit from all the added efficiency and innovation the industry can provide as it grows (those positive externalities) while we lag behind for lack of investment.

great job. Wonder what Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush think about it? Better tune in and find out...

They might start by observing that workers in the U.S. would never labor for the chicken-feed that the Chinese pays its labor force.

The workers there ain't benefitting from the goods they are making for the world.

 

[KAWDUP]

Actually, I was just poking chumpy to wake him up. We actually should invest rather heavily in them, but seriously hope more of the private sector gets involved.

someone else calls you on the stupid "point" you tried to make, and now you were just kidding. riiiiight.

here's the thing dipshit: the private sector ISN'T going to get involved to the extent needed. The market hardly - if ever - produces the results that society as a whole needs. That's because all "the market" cares about is its own profit and ignores every externality that comes from it's actions.

So a country like China - which doesn't have dumbfuck Conservatives like you arguing that the government has to sit on its hands - can subsidize nascent industries to the extent necessary to enable them to survive, and has now driven most of the U.S. solar industry out of business. Now they benefit from all the added efficiency and innovation the industry can provide as it grows (those positive externalities) while we lag behind for lack of investment.

great job. Wonder what Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush think about it? Better tune in and find out...

First what in the hell does your first sentence mean? First he didn't try to call out my "stupid quote", and second it was a qualification of parts of the first post on the matter and most certainly does not apply to what I "poked" you about.

Once again, your own dipshit self missed all the salient points. I didn't, and still don't take back a single thing I said concerning my question of whether you got all up in arms about the bonuses being paid the executives of these failed green energy companies? If we follow your stupidly inane logic, maybe not, but you should be.

I support investment in green energy, but once again, being the fuckstick you are, you have no idea how the two posts I made could actually both be just fine in the context.

Answer the question you miserable excuse for a non-biased poster.

Once again I backtrack on NOTHING. I just presented a reason why I was upset with the wastage not that the investment should stop. DUH!

I completely disagree with your private sector comment. The private sector is the best place for it - that way these non-competitive companies would get weeded out. If they can't compete the products should be made somewhere else even overseas. That's how the free market works little man.

Now he is gonna probably say I'm against job growth. If so, you are so transparent, it's ridiculous and of course wrong again.