News What are the economic impacts of government growth and corruption?

[DeadWolfe]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1066072

 

[kach22i]

I remember reading a good article four years ago saying that Howard Dean really won NH.

There might be something about counting votes in NH that favors the inside party favorite.

 

[kach22i]

Hello,

My favorite guy Bill Richardson is out of the race already. The best qualified, and the most experienced is no longer campaigning - nuts!

Situation is that the Republican's had seven states
trying to move their primary dates up, the Democrats
only had to contend with Michigan and Florida. The
Republicans were forced into making a reasonable
compromise of counting and seating only half of the
delegates. The Democrat's however will not seat anyone
from Michigan and Florida as a punishment.

I cannot vote or have my vote count in the Democratic
primary, that leaves the Republican primary.

I've decided to vote for Ron Paul.

I will not vote for any candidate with an "R" by their name in the general election because of the out of control spending they have had at the tax payers expense these past seven years.

I want to see Ron Paul to continue to raise
heck and to discuss the issues others seem afraid to
tackle.

Doctor Paul's uncanny ability to cut away the typical
facade of hypocrisy is refreshing and as the only
anti-war and anti-spending like a drunken sailor
Republican, I think his voice is an important one.

Also I think Mitt Romney could be the most threatening
to the eventual democratic nominee (smooth talker), so anything to keep Mitt from winning Michigan (and continuing war spending) is a plus in my eyes.

Ending the war spending in Iraq is priority with me. Spending toppled the old Soviet Union and it could be our undoing as well.

Vote Ron Paul, he is the crazy guy that's most likely NOT to win in the general election - but he's a hoot.

Cheers, George

 

[ShawnD]

I guarantee you that government will get bigger if [Ron Paul] wins.

Here's what would happen:
Paul says something, congress votes the same way it did before, and all of his ideas are shot down. Checks and balances

 

[mheslep]

Here's what would happen:
Paul says something, congress votes the same way it did before, and all of his ideas are shot down. Checks and balances

Highly unlikely. At least in the first few years elected Presidents (e.g. not Ford, not Johnson) tend to get much of what they want. You are thinking about a Ron Paul w/ his current 3-8% vote counts. An elected President Paul, or most anyone else with ~60 or 70 million votes in their pocket will have political clout which a congressman ignores at peril. After a couple of those ill considered Paul policies were implemented and the consequences seen, then I agree, that'd be the end of it.

 

[ShawnD]

Highly unlikely. At least in the first few years elected Presidents (e.g. not Ford, not Johnson) tend to get much of what they want. You are thinking about a Ron Paul w/ his current 3-8% vote counts. An elected President Paul, or most anyone else with ~60 or 70 million votes in their pocket will have political clout which a congressman ignores at peril. After a couple of those ill considered Paul policies were implemented and the consequences seen, then I agree, that'd be the end of it.

I was thinking more like the congress is elected by people over 60 while Ron Paul would somehow snake the 18-<age> vote, mostly from people who never voted for congress . The huge disconnect between people putting them in power would lead to a disconnect between the prez and a bunch of congressmen elected by senior citizens.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Currently, Ron Paul has more votes in Michigan than Thompson and Giuliani combined!

 

[Evo]

Currently, Ron Paul has more votes in Michigan than Thompson and Giuliani combined!

But those two are also dead. Being on top of the zombie pile isn't too awe inspiring.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is highly significant. It shows that Ron Paul's message has legs. It is a significant percentage of the vote that everyone else wants.

 

[kach22i]

Currently, Ron Paul has more votes in Michigan than Thompson and Giuliani combined!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229213/

Candidate Votes % of votes Delegates won Projected winner
Mitt Romney 337,847 39% 23
John McCain 257,521 30% 6
Mike Huckabee 139,699 16% 1
Ron Paul 54,434 6% 0
Fred Thompson 32,135 4% 0
Rudy Giuliani 24,706 3% 0
Uncommitted 17,971 2%
Duncan Hunter 2,823 0%

54,000 votes for Ron paul with Thompson + Giuliani = 54,000 votes together.

 

[falc39]

Hey all, quick update of a finding of a book I'm now currently reading:

I already own Ron Paul's book on foreign policy, A Foreign Policy of Freedom. I have an electronic copy of his most recent, Pillars of Prosperity. But on the 200th anniversary of the constitution (more than 20 years ago), Ron Paul wrote the book Freedom Under Siege. I find this book interesting because it is not like the previous two that I've been reading, which were mostly a collection of all his speeches made in congress. This book is Ron Paul, written more than 20 years ago, speaking directly to the book reader. He touches a lot of his inner beliefs, like how morality fits in with government and the sources that have influenced a lot of his views (quotes a lot of Mises and history in general). Much more personal than his speeches in congress. I actually enjoyed reading the critique of the absurdness and hypocrisy of the draft. There's also a lot of monetary policy too (like always). I think what is most remarkable about his book is that what he has been saying and writing 20 years ago, is still relevant (maybe even more) when read today. Compound that with the fact that he has been saying the same thing, never straying from his principles- I'm really beginning to see Ron Paul as a statesman, because he sure as hell doesn't portray your average politician.

Here's a free copy for those who are interested:
http://www.mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

I think I already posted his Pillars of prosperity link earlier in this thread.

I believe there's another book on economics that ron paul wrote a while ago with someone else. I think it's called The Case for Gold. I'll probably check that one out next.

Has anyone on this forum been reading any of his books?

 

[kach22i]

Here's a free copy for those who are interested:
http://www.mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

Cool, I'll pass it around - thanks.

 

[falc39]

hahaha, and I thought I've seen it all...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SK3cH061iz4&feature=related

 

[denverdoc]

Many docs have trued their hand in politics, Dr Paul should actually test the medicine he proposes under some throwback platform to the middle ages when landed gentry ruled all. The constiturion and our early gov't had serious flaws--I fail to see the attraction except insofar as to regain privacy. The fiscal policies are nuts. The man has less compassion then my pet palm, but neatly disguises it under these atavistic policies aimed at further polarization between the have nothings and those with lawyers.

 

[falc39]

Ron Paul unveils Comprehensive Economic Revitilization Plan

This is a relief for me to see, all the other candidates plans seemed the same. Finally, a plan that actually attacks our problem of runaway spending.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity

I love the monetary policy reforms too. Bravo

Comments?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I like some of the measures there but these ones: Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings, Repeal the Death Tax, Accelerate Depreciation on Investment, Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains - seem like they would be an absolutely gargantuan boon to wealthy and extremely wealthy people, not balanced by the relatively small-peanuts measures on the list that might benefit the less wealthy. I have to wonder what percentage reduction in taxes for the average multi-millionaire this would represent.

Also, I agree that SOx has probably been too restrictive but he seems to be talking about getting rid of it without replacing it with anything. Is he saying that Enron-type disasters won't happen again for some reason or is he saying that we should accept the possibility of them happening for the good of the economy? And what about the subprime mortgage thing, does he think nothing needs to be put in place to avoid that kind of stuff?

 

[Evo]

I agree, his proposal would greatly help big business and the rich.

For those that aren't familiar with Sarbanes-Oxley, this was a law that now makes the "protected" officers of a corporation financially and legally responsible for mismanagement and illegal activity. The law does not (as Paul would have you believe) affect privately owned companies.

 

[falc39]

I believe he wants to reform sox, not completely remove it.

Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

 

[falc39]

Today, McCain on CNN said "We have to stop borrowing money from China."

geeez, talk about stealing what Ron Paul has been saying all this time.

Anyway, how would he fund his military occupations then?

 

[Evo]

I believe he wants to reform sox, not completely remove it.

Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses

Unless the small business is a corporation, it's not affected by Sarbanes-Oxley. Most small companies aren't incorporated. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

 

[falc39]

Unless the small business is a corporation, it's not affected by Sarbanes-Oxley. Most small companies aren't incorporated. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

I believe that was the intention of sox. But from what I've read, there are many that have complained of it affecting businesses outside of the corporation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_Feb_2/ai_112723160"
http://smallbusinessreview.com/finance/Sarbanes_Oxley_Hits_Small_Business_Too/"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060502/2sbw.htm"

 

[mheslep]

...The law does not (as Paul would have you believe) affect privately owned companies.

Paul's website says about S-O:

...the burden it places on small businesses.

. I see nothing about private businesses. There are many small family based corporations in the US, the incorporation being a good way to stop the bank from getting your personal assets if the business fails.

Edit: On reviewing S-O I see that it is not the size of the corporation that matters; it applies only if the corporation is publicly traded.

 

[falc39]

Wow, anybody watching the debate? Huckabee now just used the 'borrowing from China' line. unbelievable. They should cite dr paul as the source. I'm not surprised though, Huckabee has been stealing from Paul's platform for a while now.

 

[Evo]

the burden it places on small businesses

Not really a burden. If the company is a supplier to a company that falls under Sarbanes, and only if they are requested to show compliance do they have to show such compliance, or refuse to show compliance. If they refuse to show compliance, then they can't blame the other company if they choose not to use them. It's actually a plus for these companies that usually have to have these audits done anyway.

But paying for a SAS 70 audit has several benefits, he says. “Instead of having every single client come in and look at their controls, they have an independent party come in and do a report,” he says. And, for certain industries, he adds, SAS 70 “is almost always part of contract negotiations.” In businesses such as IT outsourcing, not having a SAS 70 can keep suppliers from getting new contracts.

Do you know what Sarbanes-Oxley is? Is a a set of accounting rules to show that corporations have adequate controls in place to avoid disasters like Enron and WorldCom where employees and shareholders were defrauded out of millions of dollars. It's to prevent executives of a company from making money off of fraud. Usually it is the little guys that get hurt when there are no controls. Removing or modifying SOx would benefit big business.

Have you not seen the trend here on who Ron Paul wants to help? Ron Paul speaks with forked tongue. (as the old Indian movie characters said)

 

[falc39]

Not really a burden. If the company is a supplier to a company that falls under Sarbanes, and only if they are requested to show compliance do they have to show such compliance, or refuse to show compliance. If they refuse to show compliance, then they can't blame the other company if they choose not to use them. It's actually a plus for these companies that usually have to have these audits done anyway.



Do you know what Sarbanes-Oxley is? Is a a set of accounting rules to show that corporations have adequate controls in place to avoid disasters like Enron and WorldCom where employees and shareholders were defrauded out of millions of dollars. It's to prevent executives of a company from making money off of fraud. Usually it is the little guys that get hurt when there are no controls. Removing or modifying SOx would benefit big business.

Have you not seen the trend here on who Ron Paul wants to help? Ron Paul speaks with forked tongue. (as the old Indian movie characters said)

Yes, but there has been criticism of it and its regulations. I know what the intent was. But there are many times when good intentioned things end up giving bad results.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I believe he wants to reform sox, not completely remove it.

Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses

The bullet above what you quoted, in large bolded text, says Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. So a bit of a mixed message...

 

[Evo]

Yes, but there has been criticism of it and its regulations. I know what the intent was. But there are many times when good intentioned things end up giving bad results.

What *doesn't* get criticism? Nothing is going to make everyone happy. You need to look at the reasons this law was passed and what the positives are. Does it prevent greedy corporate executives from pocketing millions, sure.

 

[falc39]

What *doesn't* get criticism? Nothing is going to make everyone happy. You need to look at the reasons this law was passed and what the positives are. Does it prevent greedy corporate executives from pocketing millions, sure.

The problem here is that you keep trying to smear Ron Paul by saying he is trying to help 'greedy corporate executives'.

In Ron Paul's own words:

This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. Instead, we should focus on repealing those monetary and fiscal policies that distort the market and allow the politically powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr020402.htm

You can tell that he sees the bigger picture. It's not just an 'us vs. greedy corporate executives' issue.

 

[Evo]

In Ron Paul's own words:

This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. Instead, we should focus on repealing those monetary and fiscal policies that distort the market and allow the politically powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Either he is grossly uninformed or he's dishonest. Unless he hasn't read a newspaper in the last 10 years, he's dishonest.

It wasn't just Enron, Sarbanes was made into law after a number of corporate scandals which cost investors and employees billions of dollars. It was Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Pergrine Systems to name the largest.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

More of Ron Paul's words from that link:

While most of my colleagues are busy devising ways to "save" investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money.

What the heck is he talking about here? The main problem with Enron was that they were concealing massive debt by moving it onto the books of subsidiaries, concealing it from the public and their own shareholders. Less government is not going to prevent things like that; I have difficulty seeing how less oversight could result in anything other than more problems like that. Really seems as though he's pushing his pet causes with disregard to reality here.

For another one he's talking as if big business would stop influence peddling if government was smaller! Where does he even begin to get that from? It certainly isn't true in this country's past, robber barons were at their height during smaller federal governments.