Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[jpinpb]

[quote=UCGal]Presidents nominate supreme court justices.[/quote]

That is the reason that a candidate is questioned about their stand on it, and gun laws, etc. Anything that can impact the SC and laws. It would be nice if there were a way to say that after 40 years or 50 years the law is the law. People keep their guns and personal health issues should be between patient and doctor, not micromanaged by government.

In any case, back to RP. It does appear he is glossed over.

[afx114]

I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “

[afx114]

I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “

[afx114]

I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “

[afx114]

I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “

[afx114]

I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “

[blahblahblah]

[quote=afx114]I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “[/quote]

The opposite is true of Sullivan’s audience.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=afx114]I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “[/quote]

The opposite is true of Sullivan’s audience.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=afx114]I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “[/quote]

The opposite is true of Sullivan’s audience.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=afx114]I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “[/quote]

The opposite is true of Sullivan’s audience.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=afx114]I read a good quote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today: “Best way to explain it is because Paul’s support is a mile deep and an inch wide. “[/quote]

The opposite is true of Sullivan’s audience.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.

The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.

To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
[/quote]

I very much agree with you.

However, I was more specifically referring to the populism of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party has some anti-populist positions, IMHO. Paying bondholders ahead of Federal employees and beneficiaries, contractors, farmers, and everybody else is one such non-populist view.

Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride.

The Tea Party claims to be the party of working middle-class Americans. I don’t see how average Tea Party adherents reconcile Tea Party positions to their own populist anger.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.

The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.

To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
[/quote]

I very much agree with you.

However, I was more specifically referring to the populism of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party has some anti-populist positions, IMHO. Paying bondholders ahead of Federal employees and beneficiaries, contractors, farmers, and everybody else is one such non-populist view.

Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride.

The Tea Party claims to be the party of working middle-class Americans. I don’t see how average Tea Party adherents reconcile Tea Party positions to their own populist anger.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.

The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.

To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
[/quote]

I very much agree with you.

However, I was more specifically referring to the populism of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party has some anti-populist positions, IMHO. Paying bondholders ahead of Federal employees and beneficiaries, contractors, farmers, and everybody else is one such non-populist view.

Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride.

The Tea Party claims to be the party of working middle-class Americans. I don’t see how average Tea Party adherents reconcile Tea Party positions to their own populist anger.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.

The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.

To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
[/quote]

I very much agree with you.

However, I was more specifically referring to the populism of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party has some anti-populist positions, IMHO. Paying bondholders ahead of Federal employees and beneficiaries, contractors, farmers, and everybody else is one such non-populist view.

Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride.

The Tea Party claims to be the party of working middle-class Americans. I don’t see how average Tea Party adherents reconcile Tea Party positions to their own populist anger.

[Author]

Posts