Is selling California a viable solution to government funding?

[Ryumast3r]

as to our forgien policy, as a Marine Infantry vet, i agree again with Ron PAul. we don't belong in hundreds of countries and we're not wanted there by their people, trust me both the Japanese nor the germans like us off base! And our current air power and Navy and Marine Corps can protect us from any international threat. Currently we have a MEU/MEF Marines traveling around in Navy ships, which launch from the US and they can be anywhere in the world within 24hours. Thats our mission. Our stealth bombers can launch from the US and utterly destroy a target easily from the US as well. The only real purpose for us to be over seas is to see after the special interest of US corperations. I thought i swore an oath to protect america not haliburton or OPEC...

On the Japanese base:

We are required - BY TREATY - to provide direct military support to Japan, (and, if I recall correctly, keep military bases there) a right that they have kept since World War II. We have actually tried to get them to agree to suspend the treaty, but they have refused. The most we've been able to get them to do is agree to provide their own state-run national guard for domestic matters.

So, the people of Japan might not like us off of the base, but that's for their people to take to the Japanese government, not for the U.S. President to take to our people, because, he is bound by treaty to keep that base there.

 

[WhoWee]

The only real purpose for us to be over seas is to see after the special interest of US corperations. I thought i swore an oath to protect america not haliburton or OPEC...

Isn't the protection of our energy supply a national security issue?

 

[drankin]

Isn't the protection of our energy supply a national security issue?

I agree with you on most things but protecting our energy supply on foreign soil is not necessarily a national security issue IMO.

That opens the can of worms around being energy independent though.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with you on most things but protecting our energy supply on foreign soil is not necessarily a national security issue IMO.

That opens the can of worms around being energy independent though.

I specified "energy" because of the 2 companies named in the prior post. More specifically, many large US based corporations operate globally. There are US citizens working throughout the world. Additionally, many retirement funds including 401K's and union pensions are vested in these global corporations. Travel and tourism is another concern. This is not a simple deploy or don't deploy question. The national interests of the US and it's citizens are diverse.

 

[CAC1001]

There's no point continuing with this, since you still haven't provided any source where Paul claims that inflating the money supply, devaluing the dollar, is a secret, which was what my disagreement was about.

That's not how I interpreted it. Maybe I was wrong though.

There's nothing mysterious about it. The Fed makes a healthy profit, and everyone else pays the effective tax of dollar devaluation. But the primary financial beneficiary is big government, since it gets to pay its debts by printing dollars, and reduce the amount, in real terms, that it owes its creditors after the fact, all at the expense of working people. If you could provide a quote it might help to figure out what you're referring to as "conspiratorial".

I agree, but according to Paul, the Fed is there to benefit more than just the government. Again, read his book End the Fed. he also gave praise to the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I have seen think the Fed is a private corporation (Glenn Beck has been harping about this lately).

Politically unrealistic, maybe. But making progress in that direction instead of expanding government further is certainly possible. After all, who would have thought that it was realistic to transform government so drastically last century, without even amending the constitution to allow it?

I agree, but all conservatives tend to be, at least on paper, for this. Moving in the direction of limited government, and reducing government here and there, and slowing its growth to slower than that of the economy (so as a percentage of the economy it shrinks over the years), are all reasonable goals. But Paul has an extreme idea on how to do this.

That makes no sense. It's called "classical" liberalism because it's what was referred to as liberalism prior to the 20th century. What is it specifically about the 21st century that makes it incompatible with "Paul's brand" of liberalism? If anything, it's more compatible.

Classical liberalism means one who supports human freedom, limited government, market economy, etc...but the definitions of "limited government" can vary with time. A person in 21st century America's definition of limited government could be the definition of a huge government to a person in 1844 America. Paul has the idea of limited government meaning a government like we had in the 1800s it seems.

 

[CAC1001]

To your dispute over the secret group receiving benefits from the fed. It's a ligit argument if you read it in detail. RP's view is that by printing money then giving it to chosen people that are kept secret, they are able to spend it before it devalues the rest of the money in the market. This makes them richer and more powerful for awhile before the dollar value restabilizes. it's also favoring a select few groups that are kept secret, since we're not allowed to know who the fed gives money to. So it's not a conspiricy theory type deal it's relivent market manipulation.

and god i wish i could spell better.

The Fed doesn't per se "print money," it depends. Monetary policy is not that simple. And the Fed is audited and the Fed banks are audited.

as to our forgien policy, as a Marine Infantry vet, i agree again with Ron PAul. we don't belong in hundreds of countries and we're not wanted there by their people, trust me both the Japanese nor the germans like us off base! And our current air power and Navy and Marine Corps can protect us from any international threat. Currently we have a MEU/MEF Marines traveling around in Navy ships, which launch from the US and they can be anywhere in the world within 24hours. Thats our mission. Our stealth bombers can launch from the US and utterly destroy a target easily from the US as well. The only real purpose for us to be over seas is to see after the special interest of US corperations. I thought i swore an oath to protect america not haliburton or OPEC...

The U.S. military needs bases to operate out of in order to project power to protect the national security. And those Germans and Japanese would miss the American bases if they closed because they stimulate their local economies.

 

[CAC1001]

He's me.

AHHH, okay

 

[amwest]

On the Japanese base:

We are required - BY TREATY - to provide direct military support to Japan, (and, if I recall correctly, keep military bases there) a right that they have kept since World War II. We have actually tried to get them to agree to suspend the treaty, but they have refused. The most we've been able to get them to do is agree to provide their own state-run national guard for domestic matters.

So, the people of Japan might not like us off of the base, but that's for their people to take to the Japanese government, not for the U.S. President to take to our people, because, he is bound by treaty to keep that base there.

That treaty actually ended right after i left, and Japan can start building a military again if they choose to.

 

[amwest]

I specified "energy" because of the 2 companies named in the prior post. More specifically, many large US based corporations operate globally. There are US citizens working throughout the world. Additionally, many retirement funds including 401K's and union pensions are vested in these global corporations. Travel and tourism is another concern. This is not a simple deploy or don't deploy question. The national interests of the US and it's citizens are diverse.

by this argument we HAVE to police the world, no matter what the people of other countries might want. we have 2 "hikers" in prison in Iran, so we should send in the military to get them out? after all they were just tourists along a boarder of a country we were "protecting"

Sorry but i believe in the greed of those countries that the main stream say we have to protect, if they want our money they'll sell to us. if we're not occupying their country they'll hate us less. We don't have troops in china proctecting our supply of goods now do we?

 

[WhoWee]

by this argument we HAVE to police the world, no matter what the people of other countries might want. we have 2 "hikers" in prison in Iran, so we should send in the military to get them out? after all they were just tourists along a boarder of a country we were "protecting"

Sorry but i believe in the greed of those countries that the main stream say we have to protect, if they want our money they'll sell to us. if we're not occupying their country they'll hate us less. We don't have troops in china proctecting our supply of goods now do we?

Please don't twist my words.

If Iran ever begins to welcome the US tourism industry and US tourists - then decides to start throwing US citizens in prison for hiking in the mountains - then yes, the US military should stand ready. At this point - any US citizens hiking in Iran is on their own- IMO.

 

[amwest]

The Fed doesn't per se "print money," it depends. Monetary policy is not that simple. And the Fed is audited and the Fed banks are audited.

the fed isn't audited as was clearly deminstrated this past year when they finally had a partial audit. The fed is in charge of monitary control, and they do give out money, and to people they secretly choose. I don't think anyone in america would have publicly choosen to give mony to Libya...

The U.S. military needs bases to operate out of in order to project power to protect the national security. And those Germans and Japanese would miss the American bases if they closed because they stimulate their local economies.

We can opperate out of our own bases in the US. We can still cruze our shipps to ports that except us as we do right now, and work with willing allies. our bases in Japan are being closed and moved to Guam(a US territory) now. We can still maintain our projected power without occupying foriegn nations. Please tell me why we couldn't do it with our bomber fleet and Naval fleet? Yes they'll miss the revinue in those countries once its gone, but are we saposed to be proping up other peoples economies or should we focus on our own?

 

[amwest]

Please don't twist my words.

If Iran ever begins to welcome the US tourism industry and US tourists - then decides to start throwing US citizens in prison for hiking in the mountains - then yes, the US military should stand ready. At this point - any US citizens hiking in Iran is on their own- IMO.

Sorry that was a bit over the top example. i still don't accept the idea that we have to protect our citizens from bad decisions they make though. As for protecting our interests or the interest of corperations absolutly not! PArt of business is accepting and taking risks, this idea that business should be risk free for us is BS and a large reason why the economy is tanking. When they gambled with money and lost they still expect to be protected. We have to be grown up and face the fact that it will happen and the governemnt shouldn't try to save them.

 

[WhoWee]

Sorry that was a bit over the top example. i still don't accept the idea that we have to protect our citizens from bad decisions they make though. As for protecting our interests or the interest of corperations absolutly not! PArt of business is accepting and taking risks, this idea that business should be risk free for us is BS and a large reason why the economy is tanking. When they gambled with money and lost they still expect to be protected. We have to be grown up and face the fact that it will happen and the governemnt shouldn't try to save them.

Let me be clear (President Obama likes to say that doesn't he?) I'm not endorsing the US Government guaranteeing bad investments (derivatives) to help European banks. But I think a US based company that acquires a manufacturing facility off-shore or builds world-wide distribution facilities, or other capital investments abroad - should be protected from hostile foreign forces - UNLESS THEY WERE WARNED NOT TO DO SO.

 

[amwest]

Let me be clear (President Obama likes to say that doesn't he?) I'm not endorsing the US Government guaranteeing bad investments (derivatives) to help European banks. But I think a US based company that acquires a manufacturing facility off-shore or builds world-wide distribution facilities, or other capital investments abroad - should be protected from hostile foreign forces - UNLESS THEY WERE WARNED NOT TO DO SO.

Why? if they acquire properties outside the US then they should expect that to be a risk, it may be cheaper to build a factory in sudan, but if they built it in the us they would have US protection under the law. My problem is they expect the same protection in sudan.(hypithetical) and my other problem is that it's not all US business that receives this benifit, it the ones that have bought and paid for their congressmen.

 

[CAC1001]

We can opperate out of our own bases in the US. We can still cruze our shipps to ports that except us as we do right now, and work with willing allies. our bases in Japan are being closed and moved to Guam(a US territory) now. We can still maintain our projected power without occupying foriegn nations. Please tell me why we couldn't do it with our bomber fleet and Naval fleet? Yes they'll miss the revinue in those countries once its gone, but are we saposed to be proping up other peoples economies or should we focus on our own?

I think we'd have a lot more trouble projecting power without our bases. Those bases are also to protect our allies against other countries.

 

[WhoWee]

Why? if they acquire properties outside the US then they should expect that to be a risk, it may be cheaper to build a factory in sudan, but if they built it in the us they would have US protection under the law. My problem is they expect the same protection in sudan.(hypithetical) and my other problem is that it's not all US business that receives this benifit, it the ones that have bought and paid for their congressmen.

Do you have any support for that comment (my bold)?

 

[OmCheeto]

Just to check, you know who "this Fitting guy" is, right?

Doch...

I'm still waiting for your question; "Why did you call me an idiot the other day?"

 

[Char. Limit]

Doch...

I'm still waiting for your question; "Why did you call me an idiot the other day?"

Well, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but tell me anyway.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but tell me anyway.

Because we pretty much agree on lots of stuff, so I figured I should throw a turd at you, before I nodded in agreement. It's more fun that way. And I figured it would confuse the hell out of the vanilla brained people.

 

[Al68]

I agree, but according to Paul, the Fed is there to benefit more than just the government. Again, read his book End the Fed. he also gave praise to the book The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Again, you have provided no quote to refer to, and using an entire book as reference for a claim on PF is a very impractical substitute.

Most of the Ron Paul supporters I have seen think the Fed is a private corporation (Glenn Beck has been harping about this lately).

The Fed is a government created enterprise organized as a private corporation. But as a practical matter, it is under the control of government. I have never heard Paul say otherwise, and you have not provided any evidence that he has.

I agree, but all conservatives tend to be, at least on paper, for this. Moving in the direction of limited government, and reducing government here and there, and slowing its growth to slower than that of the economy (so as a percentage of the economy it shrinks over the years), are all reasonable goals. But Paul has an extreme idea on how to do this.

Calling an idea "extreme" has no value in honest discussion. Explaining why you disagree with a policy Paul advocates would be.

Classical liberalism means one who supports human freedom, limited government, market economy, etc...but the definitions of "limited government" can vary with time. A person in 21st century America's definition of limited government could be the definition of a huge government to a person in 1844 America.

Classical liberalism generally refers to a government limited primarily to protecting liberty, not a government that is "small" in a subjective relative sense. Economically, classical liberalism specifically means that the private economy is free from government interference and control.

Paul has the idea of limited government meaning a government like we had in the 1800s it seems.

That's not "Paul's idea", that's classical liberalism. And again, what specifically about the 21st century makes it incompatible with classical liberalism? What justification for restricting economic liberty exists today that didn't exist in 1844?

What is the point of your comparison between the 21st and 19th centuries?

 

[amwest]

I think we'd have a lot more trouble projecting power without our bases. Those bases are also to protect our allies against other countries.

With a show of force by visiting ports around the world as we already do, and holding exercises with other nations which we already do we project our power enough. this on top of the fact that we're the number one weapons supplier in the world.(no i don't have a link to fact check that, but I am confident its true.) Having participated in the military for almost 6 years i FEEL that we can accomplish our national defense from home. (this includes our territories, to cover SE Asia.)

The only contry where i see our bases protecting our ally is S Korea, all the other bases, especially in europe do not really protect anything.

 

[amwest]

Do you have any support for that comment (my bold)?

No i don't this is my jaded belief. I comes from having seen special favor given to select people during my time in the military then afterwards as a government contractor.

 

[BobG]

I agree with you on most things but protecting our energy supply on foreign soil is not necessarily a national security issue IMO.

That opens the can of worms around being energy independent though.

I specified "energy" because of the 2 companies named in the prior post. More specifically, many large US based corporations operate globally. There are US citizens working throughout the world. Additionally, many retirement funds including 401K's and union pensions are vested in these global corporations. Travel and tourism is another concern. This is not a simple deploy or don't deploy question. The national interests of the US and it's citizens are diverse.

Let me be clear (President Obama likes to say that doesn't he?) I'm not endorsing the US Government guaranteeing bad investments (derivatives) to help European banks. But I think a US based company that acquires a manufacturing facility off-shore or builds world-wide distribution facilities, or other capital investments abroad - should be protected from hostile foreign forces - UNLESS THEY WERE WARNED NOT TO DO SO.

Focusing on energy does cloud the issue just a bit.

Energy (or at least energy from fossile fuels) is a special case in that there is no true petroleum production in the world; there's only recovery of petroleum that's been produced by natural processes over hundreds of millions of years. In that sense, energy independence is a pipe dream since the entire world is living on accumulated 'savings' vs production.

But economic independence is important. The United States is the world's third largest oil producer and that's one major reason the US has experienced such steady growth in its standard of living (and its corresponding increase in consumption). But it's not the only reason. Unless other resources are available as they are in the US, then a country isn't going to grow fast enough to use the oil they produce. You really have to look at overall resources and overall consumption and oil is just one commodity produced and consumed. A country can compensate for shortages in one product by trading a different product for it.

A country needs to produce as many overall products/resources as it consumes or it becomes dependent on the rest of the world for its survival. A country with a lot of resources will grow faster than a country with few resources, and that fast growth means it will still eventually grow large enough that it's consuming all that it can produce. Once that happens, the country has to accept a certain stagnancy where it just won't grow anymore or it has to start bringing in more resources from foreign sources to continue growing.

And, since it can't trade for more than it can produce, it honestly does come down to its military capabilities - if not by outright invasion and forced possession of resources; then by enabling its companies to bring in resources below true market costs so that they're affordable (and the US certainly does have lower fuel costs than the rest of the developed world).

I don't find WhoWee's options attractive, but they are the options that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of historical world powers have chosen when they've grown beyond their capability to support themselves. In fact, part of the unattractiveness of WhoWee's options are that they tend to signal the beginning of the last stage of a world power's growth.

Hopefully, we're not really quite at the point where WhoWee's options are the best and most dominant options, but, if we're not quite there yet, we will be eventually. (In fact, it would probably be naive to say they haven't played any part at all in maintaining the US current standard of living.) No country has ever continued to grow forever - especially by relying solely on its own resources.

 

[CAC1001]

Again, you have provided no quote to refer to, and using an entire book as reference for a claim on PF is a very impractical substitute.

I listed a source. It's a short book. if I had it with me, I would quote it, but I had taken it out of the library to read.

The Fed is a government created enterprise organized as a private corporation. But as a practical matter, it is under the control of government.

The Federal Reserve is a hybrid institution. It is not a standard private corporation nor is it a nationalized central bank.

I have never heard Paul say otherwise, and you have not provided any evidence that he has.

I never said he thinks it is (although I wouldn't be surprised at all as he keeps claiming it needs to be audited). His fans all sure believe it is however. And G. Edward Griffin, who wrote the book The Creature from Jekyll Island (which Ron Paul praises) thinks it is.

Calling an idea "extreme" has no value in honest discussion. Explaining why you disagree with a policy Paul advocates would be.

He wants to shrink the government to an 1800s level for a 21st century nation. That's pretty extreme. We had very few, if any, labor laws, regulations, no social safety nets, etc...whatsoever in the 1800s.

That's not "Paul's idea", that's classical liberalism. And again, what specifically about the 21st century makes it incompatible with classical liberalism? What justification for restricting economic liberty exists today that didn't exist in 1844?

What is the point of your comparison between the 21st and 19th centuries?

There is nothing about the 21st century that makes it incompatible with classical liberalism. But the definition of classical liberalism that fit the 19th century does not fit the 21st century. It didn't really fit the 19th century either, it's just people had to deal with it then.

You say that economically, classical liberalism means that the private economy is free from government interference and control. Well how does one define what that is exactly though? The ideal of a private economy with literally no government interference of any kind is a fantasy. You have to have some degree of regulation, you just want it to be as light as possible, not overly-burdensome.

Otherwise we'd end up with corporations working people literally to death, no worker rights of any kind, industry polluting as it pleased (companies used to dump gasoline into the rivers), in the 1950s, I forget which river, but it even caught fire from all the pollutants in it, they had to clean it up, there was a tremendous level of corruption it was discovered that had occurred after the 1929 crash within the financial system, etc...so regulations to some degree are required.

The idea of classical liberalism as it might have fit the 19th century is incompatible with the 21st century. The idea of classical liberalism for the 21st century is you want the government to mostly keep its paws out of the economy and regulate to the degree necessary, light and efficient regulation basically. Paul however seems to want the 19th century variety. He said he would like to shrink the government to the point where there is no income tax required.

 

[CAC1001]

But economic independence is important. The United States is the world's third largest oil producer.

I thought Norway was the world's third-largest oil producer...?

And, since it can't trade for more than it can produce, it honestly does come down to its military capabilities - if not by outright invasion and forced possession of resources; then by enabling its companies to bring in resources below true market costs so that they're affordable (and the US certainly does have lower fuel costs than the rest of the developed world).

That's true, but part of the reason for this is that many other countries artificially drive up the cost of their fuel via things like a VAT tax.

 

[Al68]

Otherwise we'd end up with corporations working people literally to death, no worker rights of any kind, industry polluting as it pleased (companies used to dump gasoline into the rivers), in the 1950s, I forget which river, but it even caught fire from all the pollutants in it, they had to clean it up, there was a tremendous level of corruption it was discovered that had occurred after the 1929 crash within the financial system, etc...so regulations to some degree are required.

The idea of classical liberalism as it might have fit the 19th century is incompatible with the 21st century. The idea of classical liberalism for the 21st century is you want the government to mostly keep its paws out of the economy and regulate to the degree necessary, light and efficient regulation basically. Paul however seems to want the 19th century variety. He said he would like to shrink the government to the point where there is no income tax required.

I'll just make three points here, and not address what has already been addressed:

First, laws against pollution, etc, or laws in general prohibiting inherently criminal acts, have absolutely nothing to do with classical liberalism. The relative lack of certain laws in the 1800s merely coincided with classical liberal economic policies. Classical liberalism didn't preclude such laws, they are separate issues. Paul advocates the classical liberal economic policies of the 1800s, not every policy that existed alongside. That would be insane, considering the most notable anti-classical liberal policy of allowing slavery.

Second, violating everyone's privacy with an income tax is clearly not needed to fund government, for two reasons: (1) There are far better ways to raise revenue, which has been discussed extensively in other threads. The advantage to government of the income tax is the fact that it's so convoluted that people can be misled about who is paying how much. And (2) the costs of operating the government itself, including all constitutional duties, is but a tiny fraction of government spending. The bulk of the federal budget has nothing to do with operating the government itself, it's composed of wealth redistribution of one form or another, and to a lesser extent, military spending we can do without.

Third, I never claimed Paul was the perfect candidate. And his foreign policy positions do concern me, although it's not like he would just dismiss the entire military. His economic positions don't bother me at all, because their effect in reality would be to move the government in the right direction a modest amount at best. A century of government expansion simply can't be undone in a few years by anyone man in the White House.

 

[CAC1001]

I'll just make three points here, and not address what has already been addressed:

First, laws against pollution, etc, or laws in general prohibiting inherently criminal acts, have absolutely nothing to do with classical liberalism. The relative lack of certain laws in the 1800s merely coincided with classical liberal economic policies.

If they are regulations that infringe on economic freedom to a certain degree, they to a degree infringe on classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism didn't preclude such laws, they are separate issues. Paul advocates the classical liberal economic policies of the 1800s, not every policy that existed alongside. That would be insane, considering the most notable anti-classical liberal policy of allowing slavery.

I am not saying he advocates every policy of the time, but by advocating a government the size of the one at the time, he is going to be for the repeal (or lack of enforcement at least) of a heck of a lot of laws and regulations.

Second, violating everyone's privacy with an income tax is clearly not needed to fund government, for two reasons: (1) There are far better ways to raise revenue, which has been discussed extensively in other threads. The advantage to government of the income tax is the fact that it's so convoluted that people can be misled about who is paying how much. And (2) the costs of operating the government itself, including all constitutional duties, is but a tiny fraction of government spending. The bulk of the federal budget has nothing to do with operating the government itself, it's composed of wealth redistribution of one form or another, and to a lesser extent, military spending we can do without.

Yes, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, and defense make up (around 70%) of the budget.

 

[Al68]

If they are regulations that infringe on economic freedom to a certain degree, they to a degree infringe on classical liberalism.

Yes, but laws against pollution and slavery don't infringe on economic liberty.

I am not saying he advocates every policy of the time, but by advocating a government the size of the one at the time, he is going to be for the repeal (or lack of enforcement at least) of a heck of a lot of laws and regulations.

What a coincidence, that's the exact number of them (heck of a lot) that we should get rid of.

Seriously, I don't think we're in danger of government becoming too small. It's like a 600 pound man worried about becoming too skinny from his diet: he's thinking a little too far ahead.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Second, violating everyone's privacy with an income tax is clearly not needed to fund government, for two reasons: (1) There are far better ways to raise revenue, which has been discussed extensively in other threads...

hmmm... I've heard of the purple monkeys prophesy, but I have not heard that the goose that laid the golden egg parable had come true.

How does a government raise revenue without taxation? Sell California?

Can you please point out the thread(s). I'm very interested.

 

[Al68]

hmmm... I've heard of the purple monkeys prophesy, but I have not heard that the goose that laid the golden egg parable had come true.

How does a government raise revenue without taxation?

LOL, it seems you misread my post. I said that funding government didn't require an income tax specifically, not that no form of taxation was needed. Pretty significant difference there, no purple monkeys or golden eggs yet.

Sell California?

Now that you mention it, yes, that would be better than any form of taxation.