QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) â€" President Barack Obama's promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.
It will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future â€" the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals â€" don't roll it back.
Underscoring the gravity of the nation's high employment rate, Obama chose a joint session of Congress, normally reserved for a State of the Union speech, to lay out his proposals. But if the moment was extraordinary, the plan he presented was conventional Washington rhetoric in one respect: It employs sleight-of-hand accounting.
A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: "Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything."
THE FACTS: Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future â€" the "out years," in legislative jargon â€" but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.
Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today's Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.
Currently, roughly all federal taxes and other revenues are consumed in spending on various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, food stamps, farm subsidies and other social-assistance programs and payments on the national debt. Pretty much everything else is done on credit with borrowed money.
So there is no guarantee that programs that clearly will increase annual deficits in the near term will be paid for in the long term.
___
OBAMA: "Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight."
THE FACTS: Obama's proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax does seem likely to garner significant GOP support. But Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated stiff Republican opposition.
For instance, Obama makes a pitch anew to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which he has defined as couples earning over $250,000 a year or individuals over $200,000 a year. Republicans have adamantly blocked what they view as new taxes. As recently as last month, House Republicans refused to go along with any deal to raise the government's borrowing authority that included new revenues, or taxes.
___
OBAMA: "It will not add to the deficit."
THE FACTS: It's hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery. Deficits are calculated for individual years. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. Perhaps Obama meant to say that, in the long run, his hoped-for programs would not further increase the national debt, not annual deficits.
___
OBAMA: "The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away."
THE FACTS: Not all of the president's major proposals are likely to yield quick job growth if adopted. One is to set up a national infrastructure bank to raise private capital for roads, rail, bridges, airports and waterways. Even supporters of such a bank doubt it could have much impact on jobs in the next two years because it takes time to set up. The idea is likely to run into opposition from some Republicans who say such a bank would give the federal government too much power. They'd rather divide money among existing state infrastructure banks.
___
Associated Press writer Joan Lowy contributed to this report.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/FACT-CHECK-Obama-s-jobs-plan-paid-for-Seems-not-2162363.php
Moody's is predicting the plan would raise GDP 2-3% and cut unemployment by at least 1%.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2011, 08:47:42 AM
Moody's is predicting the plan would raise GDP 2-3% and cut unemployment by at least 1%.
That's sure better than 0.
At least we now have a definition of "wealthy" or "rich". :)
Quotethe wealthiest Americans, which he has defined as couples earning over $250,000 a year or individuals over $200,000 a year.
^You mean the "job creators"? ;)
Yes! ;)
I know the $900 billion did not do anything but this $400b is surely the answer. I am so happy,, this is sure to work. Good times are coming,,, and the best part about this plan,,, ITS ALL PAID FOR!! Yeah. If it does not work though,, you know its the Tea Baggers fault.
The republican party will do nothing..as they stated and have kept their word..."we want everything this president does to fail"...they are obstructionist and should be hailed as political terrorist. The party lead by the wealthy of america could care less about the average middle class american yet these exact people believe the lies and bs fed to them by the party...i think they'll turn this down.
Quote from: Garden guy on September 09, 2011, 04:51:29 PM
The republican party will do nothing..as they stated and have kept their word..."we want everything this president does to fail"...
that seems a little farfetched. source?
I heard a few Republicans at work today including one real Obama hater that were fairly positive on the speech. Most were wondering where that had been all along.
I'm just glad we're finally saved!
Quote from: johnnyman on September 09, 2011, 04:02:34 PM
I know the $900 billion did not do anything but this $400b is surely the answer. I am so happy,, this is sure to work. Good times are coming,,, and the best part about this plan,,, ITS ALL PAID FOR!! Yeah. If it does not work though,, you know its the Tea Baggers fault.
please tell me this was you being sarcastic. this is the most outlandish comment I've seen here in a while
i'm quite sure he was, and you not beïng sure tells me a lot about your expectations ov people who disagree with you. you seem to think we're all political cartoons.
Quote from: johnnyman on September 09, 2011, 04:02:34 PM
I know the $900 billion did not do anything but this $400b is surely the answer. I am so happy,, this is sure to work. Good times are coming,,, and the best part about this plan,,, ITS ALL PAID FOR!! Yeah. If it does not work though,, you know its the Tea Baggers fault.
Remember that over half of that 400 bl is not spending but the Tax cuts that republicans worship like golden calves.
It's obvious the real "worshippers" have never learned or taken the time to learn from history.
Quote[/quoteBefore 1929, the US government did not systematically attempt to moderate or reverse general business contractions. Recovery usually came about spontaneously within the market system within a year or two. Exceptions to this rule, especially the protracted slump of the mid-1890s, reflected major uncertainties about the government's adherence to the gold standard and about its possible interference in the market system as urged by Populists and others. Beginning with the Hoover administration and running to the present, however, the federal government has attempted by a great variety of measures to smooth the boom-bust cycle.
These measures, which run the gamut from "pump-priming" expenditures to protectionism to changes in taxes and regulations to forced reorganizations of broad sectors of the economy, share three qualities: they focus on the attainment of visible benefits while more or less disregarding unseen burdens and other negative consequences; they focus on ostensibly beneficial short-term changes while more or less disregarding harmful longer-term effects; and they represent actions founded on the pretense of knowledge â€" top-down impositions by central planners who use the government's coercive power to make the general public act in accordance with the ruling elite's one-size-fits-all designs.
"Notwithstanding all of these ostensibly anti-Depression measures, full recovery had not been achieved when the New Deal petered out in the late 1930s."During the 1930s, these actions began with the Hoover administration's interference with the wage rates offered by major employers; attempts to keep up farm commodity prices; increases in public-works spending; approval of the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill; creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to prop up banks and other firms; sponsorship of steep tax increases; and many other measures. The Roosevelt administration went much further by taking the country off the gold standard; cartelizing the entire industrial economy; semicartelizing agriculture; further increasing taxes; greatly extending the scope of federal regulations, especially in banking, securities markets, and labor markets, among many others; engaging the federal government directly in the production and marketing of electricity; and intervening in many other ways. Notwithstanding all of these ostensibly anti-Depression measures, full recovery had not been achieved when the New Deal petered out in the late 1930s.
The George W. Bush and Obama administrations seemingly looked to the New Deal as a model of how to respond to a perceived economic emergency. Bush undertook stimulus programs and, more important, the Troubled Assets Relief Program as well as a host of bailouts, takeovers, and other interventions in financial markets by the Treasury and the Fed. Obama upped the ante by gaining enactment of a massive "stimulus" program, taking over GM and Chrysler, and continuing to use the Fed and the Treasury to flood the economy with liquidity in hopes of stimulating lending and consumer spending. Notwithstanding the welter of government antirecession actions during the past three years, the economy continues to wallow far short of complete recovery, with high unemployment, depressed private investment, and tepid growth of real output, at most.
The webinar to be presented on September 16, via the Mises Academy, will deal with these topics, drawing on examples from the Great Depression and the present recession to show how the government's antislump actions and programs have the effect overwhelmingly of slowing, rather than speeding, recovery. By propping up de facto bankrupt banks and other firms and malinvestments (especially in housing) that should be liquidated, interfering with the operation of the price system, and creating regime uncertainty, the government's antislump activity tends to make slumps deeper and longer than they would be if the government followed the traditional pre-1929 policy of letting the economy repair itself.
]
http://mises.org/daily/5594/How-Government-Impedes-Recovery
Yes the new deal took longer than one would like but clearly worked. The stimulus have been hit or miss mostly due to the lack of strings attached to the money. Basically we have gone from free fall to slow growth in the two and half years and we could have done better even though most of the world has done worse.
The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is tariffs...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 01:00:12 PM
The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is tariffs...
Yea Chris no one wants to talk about those at all.
Here is a WSJ Take:
QuoteA Tariff-Reduction Plan for U.S. Jobs
Eliminating duties that U.S. producers pay on imported raw materials would instantly boost competitiveness.
BY DANIEL IKENSON
In his address to Congress Thursday night, President Obama offered a tepid endorsement of the idea that reducing trade barriers could help put Americans back to work. But if the president is serious about creating jobs, he must take more decisive actions to spur trade and investment and reject protectionism. That means convincing trade-hostile Democrats of the merits of the long-pending bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which he plans to submit to Congress this month or next. He will also need to steer Congress away from inciting an unwelcome trade war with China.
As important as ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546910548548544.html
Ridiculous.
Republican Strategy 101:
1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.
Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
Ridiculous.
Republican Strategy 101:
1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.
Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.
I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.
Quote from: manasia on September 13, 2011, 02:15:30 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
Ridiculous.
Republican Strategy 101:
1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.
Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.
I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.
If US free-trade policy is protectionism, I guess I was reading the wrong definition.
Quote from: manasia on September 13, 2011, 02:15:30 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
Ridiculous.
Republican Strategy 101:
1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.
Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.
I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.
We don't have any, is primarily why. Or very few anyway.
For whatever reason, our government is content to hand this country's wealth off to China, Mexico, etc., as long as their deep-pocketed corporate constituents are profiting from it. Jobs shipped overseas at $0.50/hr, everything we buy here is made somewhere else, and it's been that way since the early/mid 1990s. This can't go on forever, these huge trade deficeits. At some point, we have to make something here and sell it somewhere else, if for no other reason than eventually our currency will collapse. The economy, by and large, already has collapsed, and is not improving.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
Quote from: manasia on September 13, 2011, 02:15:30 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
Ridiculous.
Republican Strategy 101:
1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.
Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.
I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.
We don't have any, is primarily why. Or very few anyway.
For whatever reason, our government is content to hand this country's wealth off to China, Mexico, etc., as long as their deep-pocketed corporate constituents are profiting from it. Jobs shipped overseas at $0.50/hr, everything we buy here is made somewhere else, and it's been that way since the early/mid 1990s. This can't go on forever, these huge trade deficeits. At some point, we have to make something here and sell it somewhere else, if for no other reason than eventually our currency will collapse. The economy, by and large, already has collapsed, and is not improving.
+1 Man, I have been saying this for years.
You guys should have voted for Pat Buchannan instead of Bill Clinton.
I agree with the need for protectionist policies.
A bit of isolationism could go a long way, as well.
Free trade is a misnomer, btw. It does not exist.
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2011, 02:33:11 PM
You guys should have voted for Pat Buchannan instead of Bill Clinton.
I agree with the need for protectionist policies.
A bit of isolationism could go a long way, as well.
Free trade is a misnomer, btw. It does not exist.
I agree NAFTA sucked, and can't for the life of me understand why Clinton signed it, let alone DADT, came down on the side of the Russians in bombing Sarejevo, etc., etc., etc. He's another one like Obama, where I don't understand why you conservatives don't absolutely love the guy. We've had a spate of Democrat conservatives lately, and all the good little Repubs hate them just because they have that "D" next to their name, forget the fact that they turn out to be better conservatives than any of the Republican ticket. Much to my infinite chagrin. We're enduring another one now, I'm shocked you guys aren't lining up to give Obama the Republican nomination frankly.
It's bankers and the MIC calling the shots. President Obama is just playing the hand he was dealt.
Vote Ron Paul in 2012. Forget all the rest of the crap you hear about this or that.
Job #1: End the wars
Job #2: Defeat the Banksters
Everything else is fluff. We can hash out those things afterwards. Until Jobs 1 & 2 are handled, nothing else will happen. I would vote for Bernie Sanders to take on the same job, but he isn't running.
^Then we'd just get even more private money dumped into 527s to attack candidates obliquely from the dark. They're much worse than anything official campaigns ever do.
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2011, 02:41:20 PM
Vote Ron Paul in 2012. Forget all the rest of the crap you hear about this or that.
i hate to come off like a single-issue voter, but every other candidate would have to be really awful before i'd vote for someöne so intent on criminalizing abortion.
actually, scratch the single-issue bit--i decided to do a bit ov quick research before posting this comment, and the more i see, the more goddamn terrifyïng ron paul is in almost every way. if i liked the idea ov a worrisomely religious (he opposes separation ov church and state) racist (he denies it, but it looks to me like he is) president, i wouldn't've hated GWB so much.
KKH, please tell me which one looks like a racist.....
(http://jerseybride.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/shutterstock_close-up-white-woman.jpg)
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSl6EbK9jf8PcDAc3nIYTdPMACFZsZeGabzYGpRu04142l6fwa-qiWI5t4Zew)
(http://www.singleparenting34.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/single-parents-and-black-males.jpg)
(http://www.rickross.com/graphics/kkk2.jpg)
could be all of them....
it's not about the way he looks, it's about the opinions he published in his newsletter (yes, he said it wasn't him when the excrement hit the air conditioning, but it turns out he'd been expressing similar views in articles that he definitely wrote for years).
edit: oh, right, 'it looks to me like he is'. that's not the same thing as 'he looks to me like he is', and actually means 'the evidence i have seen strongly suggests that he is'.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 13, 2011, 03:31:03 PM
it's not about the way he looks, it's about the opinions he published in his newsletter (yes, he said it wasn't him when the excrement hit the air conditioning, but it turns out he'd been expressing similar views in articles that he definitely wrote for years).
edit: oh, right, 'it looks to me like he is'. that's not the same thing as 'he looks to me like he is', and actually means 'the evidence i have seen strongly suggests that he is'.
Please post the evidence.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 13, 2011, 02:53:13 PM
^Then we'd just get even more private money dumped into 527s to attack candidates obliquely from the dark. They're much worse than anything official campaigns ever do.
No, that gets eliminated too. No private funding for anything that benefits an individual candidate, including adverts.
Evidence of Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters:
QuoteThere has been controversy over Ron Paul’s ties to racism for some time now. Many people have pointed to Ron Paul’s Newsletters as proof of his racism. Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008. He has given no explanation, for how the racism entered his newsletter. If we are to take Paul at his word, he is guilty of at least promoting racism on a large scale. Paul earned almost a million dollars a year from the racist, conspiracy theorist newsletters. Here are some excerpts that I’ve found.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
I believe that people change, and people can be forgiven. However, this is disturbing.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/why-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-matter/
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html
Consider the source, Manasia.
http://newsone.com/newsone-original/boycewatkins/arizona-state-fans-blackface-2/
This is a touchy subject and probably best left untouched, but I only read one other article on the site and it's definitely slanted - in the other direction.
Take this for what it's worth, but it feels like the Huff Post slanting a Repub view or Fox News doing the same to the Dems. It's all about the author and their 'perception' of an event.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 13, 2011, 02:53:13 PM
^Then we'd just get even more private money dumped into 527s to attack candidates obliquely from the dark. They're much worse than anything official campaigns ever do.
No, that gets eliminated too. No private funding for anything that benefits an individual candidate, including adverts.
That still leaves you with the ads that don't benefit any particular candidate directly, but attack another candidate on some side issue. And those are the most insidious of all.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2011, 03:38:03 PM
No, that gets eliminated too. No private funding for anything that benefits an individual candidate, including adverts.
Sure. As soon as we eliminate Amendment Numero Uno.
Basic Hamiltonian economics that served the country so well and was eradicated by Regan and Clinton. (supported by Bush and Obama as well)
Fair Trade not Free Trade and Streetcar Now!!!!!!
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 13, 2011, 04:33:49 PM
Consider the source, Manasia.
http://newsone.com/newsone-original/boycewatkins/arizona-state-fans-blackface-2/
This is a touchy subject and probably best left untouched, but I only read one other article on the site and it's definitely slanted - in the other direction.
Take this for what it's worth, but it feels like the Huff Post slanting a Repub view or Fox News doing the same to the Dems. It's all about the author and their 'perception' of an event.
From what I read from the newsletters, the proof is in the pudding.
The thing is Westide, is that you are doing a better job of defending Ron Paul than he is himself. I think that in itself is a testament.
Here is another investigation from a non African American News Source:
QuoteRon Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:
1 - Ron Paul's newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.
2 - The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.
The possibilities:
1 - Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter.
2 - A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).
3 - Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul's newsletter and couldn't have written the articles.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/#ixzz1XrxNYMjk
It says just about the same thing as the newsone source and other sources mentioned on the thread.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 13, 2011, 03:09:56 PM
i hate to come off like a single-issue voter, but every other candidate would have to be really awful before i'd vote for someöne so intent on criminalizing abortion.
I may be exposing myself as somewhat of an idiot, but I don't recall hearing Ron Paul say that he wants to criminalize abortion. If he did say it, maybe I missed it because I thought the issue was settled. If so, I apologize, but if anyone has any proof, please share it.
My understanding is that Ron Paul's personal feelings (based on his experience as an obstetrician) is that he's not in favor of abortion. But it seems that it would go against everything he says about getting the government out of our personal affairs if he were to try and outlaw abortion.
Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to get enlightened.
I just did a quick search and didn't find anything that showed where Ron Paul would try and criminalize abortion. He's personally opposed to it, but he sees it as settled law, and if there were to be any change it's something that should be decided by the states. Here's a direct quote from Paul: “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need."
Sorry for moving this thread even further off topic.
short answer: he believes abortion should be illegal, but doesn't believe the federal government has the right to make it so.
according to his website, he doesn't believe the federal government should have any say in it--he believes it should be decided at state level. he words it (to the best ov my knowledge, this quote is specifically in regard to abortion) "I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being."
on the other hand (and surprising to me), he apparently voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation
You are making stuff up.
President Obama is just another in the long line of Oligarch controlled puppets. I'm not sure if he understood what he signed up for, but we are getting more of the same thing we got from previous presidents.
Carter was the last independent President, while before him was Kennedy. We saw how that worked out.
Would RP suffer the same fate? ( I hope not)
I think if you looked deeper than the MSM or left wing, blogsites you'll see a different picture than they paint.
As to Abortion: The President does not put forth legislation, but he can veto it. This is where his power lies. All other power as afforded by the constitution, lies within congress, and all other powers lie at the state level.
The most important issues facing our nation are warmongering and the destruction of the middle class through globalization and bankster pilferage.
Ron Paul will (at least attempt to) deal with these paramount issues.
Quote from: manasia on September 13, 2011, 05:12:51 PM
Here is another investigation from a non African American News Source:
QuoteRon Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:
1 - Ron Paul's newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.
2 - The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.
The possibilities:
1 - Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter.
2 - A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).
3 - Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul's newsletter and couldn't have written the articles.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/#ixzz1XrxNYMjk
It says just about the same thing as the newsone source and other sources mentioned on the thread.
And here's an article from the libertarian website reason.com that says exactly the same thing. They list a bunch of news articles from 1996 in which Paul and his campaign not only don't deny writing this material, they own up to it and defend it.
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
And he're an article written by Paul himself where he uses the slur "anchor babies" for American children of immigrants, and argues that the 14th amendment should be ammended so that natural born American citizens are no longer citizens (his article contains a number of laughable falsehoods to try and make his argument tenable, but that's another story).
And then of course there's his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (yes, a standing U.S. Congressman is opposed to the Civil Rights Act).
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/
But on the plus side, he's unelectable, so there's that.
A hack piece you read with prejudice. Keep voting Bilderberger and you'll keep getting it.
Well, actually it's a number of pieces from different sources with different leanings, as well as his own writings. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
Thank you for those posting the links regarding Pauls alleged racism. IMHO... the evidence is hardly compelling... but I can see where people could come to that conclusion. The fact that he is virtually unelectable makes the point moot. We will have to select among the current crop of "electable" bozos... >:(
I think you guys are "misunderestimating" Ron Paul.
He has won every debate.... hands down, and he also won the Iowa straw poll except for Bachmann busing in shills.
The press is in fact ignoring him (as the good little puppets they are) but the electorate is not.
Don't be too surprised if the republican party rank and file sheds it's neocon snakeskin and rejects the Military-Industrial Complex and Oligarch rule of Bankers.
I know quite a few Liberals and Democrats who feel the same as me; End Wars + Demote the Oligarchy then we can have an honest debate about the proper role of government.
Again, I'll take Bernie Sanders as President to achieve the same goals.
We are not in a race for Ideology this time. We are in a race to save our nation and it's middle class. There is no Ideology.
Bush is Obama is Reagan is Clinton. Obama was given to us to quell the masses. How do you feel that's working?
Quote from: buckethead on September 14, 2011, 07:42:08 AM
I think you guys are "misunderestimating" Ron Paul.
He has won every debate.... hands down, and he also won the Iowa straw poll except for Bachmann busing in shills.
The press is in fact ignoring him (as the good little puppets they are) but the electorate is not.
Don't be too surprised if the republican party rank and file sheds it's neocon snakeskin and rejects the Military-Industrial Complex and Oligarch rule of Bankers.
I know quite a few Liberals and Democrats who feel the same as me; End Wars + Demote the Oligarchy then we can have an honest debate about the proper role of government.
Again, I'll take Bernie Sanders as President to achieve the same goals.
We are not in a race for Ideology this time. We are in a race to save our nation and it's middle class. There is no Ideology.
Bush is Obama is Reagan is Clinton. Obama was given to us to quell the masses. How do you feel that's working?
Always get a kick out of the Ron Paul supporters, He always wins the debates! He always wins the internet Polls!! Shame he never wins the primaries
Actually, the Iowa Straw poll was not internet based.
When you keep doing what you've always done....
(http://obeygiant.com/images/thumb.php?src=http://obeygiant.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/imperfect-u-poster-21.jpg&w=154&h=120&zc=1&q=100)
edit for uncalledforism
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 14, 2011, 07:13:59 AM
Thank you for those posting the links regarding Pauls alleged racism. IMHO... the evidence is hardly compelling... but I can see where people could come to that conclusion. The fact that he is virtually unelectable makes the point moot. We will have to select among the current crop of "electable" bozos... >:(
It's too bad the word 'racism' has lost its meaning. Any time I hear someone accusing someone of being a racist, I put on my critical thinking cap and my bullshit decoder ring and go on about my business.
Quote from: Ajax on September 14, 2011, 09:07:25 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 14, 2011, 07:13:59 AM
Thank you for those posting the links regarding Pauls alleged racism. IMHO... the evidence is hardly compelling... but I can see where people could come to that conclusion. The fact that he is virtually unelectable makes the point moot. We will have to select among the current crop of "electable" bozos... >:(
It's too bad the word 'racism' has lost its meaning. Any time I hear someone accusing someone of being a racist, I put on my critical thinking cap and my bullshit decoder ring and go on about my business.
Perhaps the term is tossed about too often...
I think we are seeing an interesting dynamic where most of the country has moved away from it's racist past. Then we see maybe more evidence of racism from those who haven't let go being inspired by 9-11 and a black President. All in all a positive move forward but that move has activated those opposed to the move. Just an opinion.
Oh, I didn't say that Paul was racist. In fact I doubt that he is in the real definition of the term. But these remain some truly insensitive and unproductive things to say. It takes someone gravely clueless to say things like this, and to continue saying them over the entire span of his career, and to consistently act surprised when people call him out on it. This cluelessness on racial and related issues is one of the reasons he's unelectable as president.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
I think we are seeing an interesting dynamic where most of the country has moved away from it's racist past. Then we see maybe more evidence of racism from those who haven't let go being inspired by 9-11 and a black President. All in all a positive move forward but that move has activated those opposed to the move. Just an opinion.
I guess we stay in two different America's, because I do not see this country moving away from Racism anytime soon.
Racism is entrenched in this country, it is going to take more than 9-11 and a black president to get the country to move away from it in my opinion.
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 11:34:20 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
I think we are seeing an interesting dynamic where most of the country has moved away from it's racist past. Then we see maybe more evidence of racism from those who haven't let go being inspired by 9-11 and a black President. All in all a positive move forward but that move has activated those opposed to the move. Just an opinion.
I guess we stay in two different America's, because I do not see this country moving away from Racism anytime soon.
Racism is entrenched in this country, it is going to take more than 9-11 and a black president to get the country to move away from it in my opinion.
Do you think the Obama presidency has been good for blacks in this country?
Quote from: Ajax on September 14, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 11:34:20 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
I think we are seeing an interesting dynamic where most of the country has moved away from it's racist past. Then we see maybe more evidence of racism from those who haven't let go being inspired by 9-11 and a black President. All in all a positive move forward but that move has activated those opposed to the move. Just an opinion.
I guess we stay in two different America's, because I do not see this country moving away from Racism anytime soon.
Racism is entrenched in this country, it is going to take more than 9-11 and a black president to get the country to move away from it in my opinion.
Do you think the Obama presidency has been good for blacks in this country?
The Obama presidency has yielded more results, for the sanity of White America that it for African Americans.
However, a president has to lead a nation not a group of people. One thing I do not squabble in, is what is Barack doing for us as a people, he has to lead us all not just African-Americans.
If their was a female president, Asian, or any other race in office, black people would still have the problems we face now in my opinion.
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 12:19:38 PM
However, a president has to lead a nation not a group of people. One thing I do not squabble in, is what is Barack doing for us as a people, he has to lead us all not just African-Americans.
If their was a female president, Asian, or any other race in office, black people would still have the problems we face now in my opinion.
Thanks - I guess that's the best way to look at it. I didn't vote for Obama, but for a brief moment after he won there was a part of me that sort of felt like "I'm proud of my country for electing a black President - whoo, thank God that racism stuff is behind us now." But that moment was very brief.
Racism is not behind us but I believe you are not seeing the big picture if you do not think we are making progress. I believe some of the racists have been coming out into view as a result of some of the progress we have made.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 01:06:21 PM
Racism is not behind us but I believe you are not seeing the big picture if you do not think we are making progress. I believe some of the racists have been coming out into view as a result of some of the progress we have made.
JeffreyS I stopped seeing the little picture, when I had kids.
For some strange reason in this country, we believe that time will change the hearts and minds of human's, unfortunately for some people it does not. Racism is too profitable and polarizing, to be relinquished yet.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 01:01:47 PMum yeah. racist question. The American people had a choice between McCain/Palin or Obama Biden.
Was the Obama/Biden administration better for everyone in the country than the alternative?
Definitely yes.
This country dodged a bullet by not having Grumpy McBombzalot and that demonstrably stupid snowbilly in charge of the Presidency and the Presidency of the Senate.
The democrat could probably elected a John Murtha/William Jefferson ticket and it would still have been better for the country than the alternative.
Maybe it was a racist question, I don't know. I didn't mean to offend manasia, and judging by the response, I don't believe I did. I've heard a few prominent black leaders asking the question and it just made me curious.
I wasn't asking if Obama was better for the country than McCain. I think that's impossible to answer. However, I'm not sure that it would have made much of a difference. They're remarkably similar on a lot of points.
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 01:50:40 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 01:06:21 PM
Racism is not behind us but I believe you are not seeing the big picture if you do not think we are making progress. I believe some of the racists have been coming out into view as a result of some of the progress we have made.
JeffreyS I stopped seeing the little picture, when I had kids.
For some strange reason in this country, we believe that time will change the hearts and minds of human's, unfortunately for some people it does not. Racism is too profitable and polarizing, to be relinquished yet.
I'm afraid people are always going to find superficial reasons to hate other people. I guess we're tribal by nature.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 01:43:28 PM
No one has ever claimed that the election of a black president meant that racism came to an end.
No, but it felt like a big step.
Quote from: Ajax on September 14, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 01:01:47 PMum yeah. racist question. The American people had a choice between McCain/Palin or Obama Biden.
Was the Obama/Biden administration better for everyone in the country than the alternative?
Definitely yes.
This country dodged a bullet by not having Grumpy McBombzalot and that demonstrably stupid snowbilly in charge of the Presidency and the Presidency of the Senate.
The democrat could probably elected a John Murtha/William Jefferson ticket and it would still have been better for the country than the alternative.
Maybe it was a racist question, I don't know. I didn't mean to offend manasia, and judging by the response, I don't believe I did. I've heard a few prominent black leaders asking the question and it just made me curious.
I wasn't asking if Obama was better for the country than McCain. I think that's impossible to answer. However, I'm not sure that it would have made much of a difference. They're remarkably similar on a lot of points.
I do not think the question you asked was racist, you just asked a question. In regards to people being tribal. Racism is actually a new social phenomena, Greeks, Romans, and other cultures, lived with each other in ancient times. They were more nationalistic and less racist in my opinion. Racism is a different form of tribalism.
1. So you do not believe electing a black President has caused some of the racists to up their vitriol?
2. Do you believe we have made no progress at all?
I am not in denial that racism is a big part of the world. Maybe I am too Pollyanna but I liked that Obama was the best candidate so we did not let race stand in the way same for Mayor Brown.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2011, 03:09:31 PM
1. So you do not believe electing a black President has caused some of the racists to up their vitriol?
2. Do you believe we have made no progress at all?
I am not in denial that racism is a big part of the world. Maybe I am too Pollyanna but I liked that Obama was the best candidate so we did not let race stand in the way same for Mayor Brown.
I think the progress is small, not really meaningful.
I do believe that electing a Black President has upped the vitriol quite a bit. However, I wonder how where that vehement rhetoric and anger would be, if the economy was great an unemployment was like 2 percent, and we were in a peace time.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 02:45:29 PM
So you naturally took it a couple of steps further, right?
Sorry, but I don't understand your question. If you're accusing me of "irrational exuberance", then, yeah, I guess I took it a couple of steps further. But I'm hardly the only one. I seem to remember a lot of articles right after the 2008 election about Obama's election bringing us to some post-racial era. And then after all the fanfare died out and we still had wars and a crappy economy, everybody remembered that he's just a man and not a whole lot has changed as far as race relations go. I will say that the trend since the 1970s (when I was a kid) to today has been positive.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 03:27:20 PM
I just disagree. The President of the United States is not elected to be the president of any race or affiliation, and its racist to assume that one black poster can speak on behalf of all other black people in regards to the political benefit in their lives of an elected official.
I see your point. The thread had morphed off into a discussion about racism and then about having a black President, so for whatever reason the thought entered my mind and I asked the question. I'll admit to being a bit clumsy in my asking of the question.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Feel free to ask questions. Its america after all, and I personally like vigorous discussion. ;)
Heh heh - noted!
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Quote from: Ajax on September 14, 2011, 03:51:28 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 03:27:20 PM
I just disagree. The President of the United States is not elected to be the president of any race or affiliation, and its racist to assume that one black poster can speak on behalf of all other black people in regards to the political benefit in their lives of an elected official.
I see your point. The thread had morphed off into a discussion about racism and then about having a black President, so for whatever reason the thought entered my mind and I asked the question. I'll admit to being a bit clumsy in my asking of the question.
Feel free to ask questions. Its america after all, and I personally like vigorous discussion. ;)
Ajax, Stephen may disagree, but I have to respect him for not moderating comments that are not to his liking as our forum Mayor.
Metrojacksonville.com is one of the rare places online, where you can have an opinion about something, and not be considered unpatriotic, a heretic, or any other negative adjective insert here________________
Quote from: manasia on September 14, 2011, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Quote from: Ajax on September 14, 2011, 03:51:28 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2011, 03:27:20 PM
I just disagree. The President of the United States is not elected to be the president of any race or affiliation, and its racist to assume that one black poster can speak on behalf of all other black people in regards to the political benefit in their lives of an elected official.
I see your point. The thread had morphed off into a discussion about racism and then about having a black President, so for whatever reason the thought entered my mind and I asked the question. I'll admit to being a bit clumsy in my asking of the question.
Feel free to ask questions. Its america after all, and I personally like vigorous discussion. ;)
Ajax, Stephen may disagree, but I have to respect him for not moderating comments that are not to his liking as our forum Mayor.
Metrojacksonville.com is one of the rare places online, where you can have an opinion about something, and not be considered unpatriotic, a heretic, or any other negative adjective insert here________________
Agreed - and that's why I keep coming back!