Why this progressive is now on board

[progressiveforpaul]

What I would really like to happen is for both parties to be busted up into 4 parties: Cultural Conservative Party, Libertarian Party, Labor Party and Green Peace Party. And let us have proportional representation with a unicameral parliamentary system, with public financing and with 12 year term limits. None of this, of course, is going to happen so what can I do to make my vote really matter?
Like many progressives I am disappointed in President Obama and the Democratic party. The moment is all but passed to make fundamental changes in our nation. Health care reform is looking like a big subsidy program for insurance and drug companies. The banks have paid back much of the TARP but at the cost of no lending to small businesses and little folks. The president has proposed a freeze on non defense spending. The Republicans are not going to offer an alternative. Sure, tax rates might change a hair here or there but nothing great is going to happen. The only question to be settled for the next generation is how are we going to pay for what we have already spent?
The Democrats' plan to raise the highest tax brackets back to the Clinton levels is not going to make a huge difference (not to mention we need massive tax cuts and massive spending right now). There will in the end be a choice and it is a rather simple one: Medicare or military. We are not going to cut both significantly. That is neither politically doable nor desirable. What has to happen is an election (probably won't happen before 2016) in which the vote is a referendum. One candidate will advocate cutting Medicare while the other candidate will opt for cutting military spending. My vote will be for the latter candidate and against the former's party. President Obama has already indicated he wants to preserve both spending levels and so he has sadly become irrelevant to the economy for the next 2 to 6 years.
What does this have to do with me changing party's? There have been two candidates for president who have advocated for big spending cuts in the military budget: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Kucinich will never get his party's nomination as there will always be a LINO or two who will draw votes away from true liberals like himself. Paul on the other hand could very well take the nomination as there is no other consistent libertarian in the Republican race.
How does he win? First a Romney and a Pawlenty split up the establishment (military investor-side Keynesian) vote and a Palin and a Huckabee split up the cultural conservative vote. Second, he gets enough Democrats like me to jump ship for the 2012 primary and particularly in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. If he could get 10% of the progressive Democratics to do this in these states, the GOP as we know it ceases to exist. A more doable 5 percent, which would mean about 2 to 3 percent of all Democrats in these states would need to switch parties to vote for him, would put him in at least a dead heat with 2 other Republicans should the other GOP clones yield to the tremendous pressure to drop out after a very strong Iowa caucus for Paul.
The only hope to stop Paul at that point is for the Palin type candidate to endorse the Romney type candidate and for all other Republicans to step aside. Even in this scenario a Paul v.Romney showdown on Super Tuesday 2012 would increase Democratic defections.
I would like be a part of such a campaign. I might even vote for Paul in the general election, especially since Obama's liberal corporatism seems calcified. I realize that Paul's economics don't square with mine, but he has said that he is open to a deal which greatly reduces our military spending in exchange for domestic spending increases if there is an overall net cut (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&NR=1).
Permanent war is the biggest enemy of a progressive agenda and a deal like Paul is willing to make is probably the last chance for such an agenda to actually have a future. The alternative is more deals like the health care bill, if that much ever again. I wish we could have an Obama like we imagined him to be or a Howard Dean like he pretended to be, but it has not worked and will not work, at least in the near term.
Republicans are poised to turn us into a military state. They could actually create jobs by building and selling more bombs if they want to and then the Dems are doomed. We Democrats obviously do not want to put up a real job creating alternative so it seems more likely that I and perhaps others may go for unconventional desperate measures: Paul 2012. This might just happen and I would love for my vote to count just once in my life. http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

[realtonygoodwin]

Welcome!

[jrskblx125]

Glad to hear it. The biggest problem is that we have liars and fakes representing us. Changing the president wont change the bogus nothingness of bipartisanship. Start local to create the change this phonies promise. I hope more liberals jump ship because the only honest candidate (with voting record to back it up) is ron paul.

[Jack Bauer]

I don't like people who want to "fundamentally transform" this country into a socialist shithole.

[specsaregood]

//

[Jack Bauer]

That is because that is exactly what it is. Hey, but thats what happens when you give power to the govt, power corrupts.


I am sure we can remedy that by electing the "right" people!

Isn't that true progressiveforpaul?

[silverhandorder]

Welcome. We may disagree on things but as long as Paul can bring you in over the war issue we can work together.

[progressiveforpaul]

thanks

[Bern]

Welcome to the party, pal! :)


... The banks have paid back much of the TARP ...

Less than half of what is *known* to have been dispersed has been repaid:

http://bailout.propublica.org/list

*The Fed spent unknown amounts in backdoor bailouts (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/totally-busted-truth-about-goldmans.html)


... Republicans are poised to turn us into a military state. ...

The neocons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) who gained prominence within the GOP during the Bush years were certainly on that path. Fortunately, there are a bunch of spammers who decided to take the party back. ;)

[amy31416]

Welcome. We may disagree on things but as long as Paul can bring you in over the war issue we can work together.

+1

That's a huge first step...we need allies.

Oh, and welcome to the OP.

[progressiveforpaul]

Glad to hear it. The biggest problem is that we have liars and fakes representing us. Changing the president wont change the bogus nothingness of bipartisanship. Start local to create the change this phonies promise. I hope more liberals jump ship because the only honest candidate (with voting record to back it up) is ron paul.

Local organization is good and we need to do more of it but maybe the 2012 election becomes a referendum that scares congress into line.

[CaseyJones]

Freedom is Popular!!! :p

[HOLLYWOOD]

WELCOME~! What's great about this forum, is we all learn much about the swindlers and charlatans that continue to steal our, Freedoms, Liberties, and Rights. The False dichotomy of the duopoly continues to steal everything from We The People.

[progressiveforpaul]

I don't like people who want to "fundamentally transform" this country into a socialist shithole.

I'm against the like across the political spectrum.

[amy31416]

I'm against the like across the political spectrum.

Oh yeah...we do have some recovering neocons on this board, have patience with them...we also have some recovering socialists.

[progressiveforpaul]

The right people from the left and the right would be helpful but we've got to hold their feet to the fire once they are in office.

[Jack Bauer]

The right people from the left and the right would be helpful but we've got to hold their feet to the fire once they are in office.

The best way to hold their feet to the fire is to make sure they have as little power as practically possible in the first place.

[progressiveforpaul]

Welcome. We may disagree on things but as long as Paul can bring you in over the war issue we can work together.
Glad to be here.... I'll probably be here until 2020 if we can get and keep RP (with the deal he is willing to make) in the White House.

[justinc.1089]

Welcome!

Please stick around and if anyone's rude don't think we all are lol!

I'm glad you see what Obama is now. He's really not different than Bush with the exception of some small details to make him appear different.

Did you know more people have died in Afghanistan now during Obama's presidency than all of Bush's presidency? I heard that yesterday or the day before, its pretty crazy. Its a mess. We have got to end these wars.

Do you do much reading about economics, society, or politics? Or anything else similar? If you do, I really really really really really suggest "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek. It should be required reading for everyone at some point in their life lol! It really is that good. If you're not big on reading you could still buy it and just read like a page or two now and then that looks interesting to you. Reading anything out of it is better than nothing lol!

And by the way, if Kucinich was running for the Democratic nomination, not that there is one this time, just theoretically, and all the Republicans were types like Romney and Palin, I would vote for Kucinich in the primary and the general in a second, even though in my opinion he's far from perfect.

[sailingaway]

Paying back tarp wasn't the point. They were given money for free through a discount window then instead of loaning it out, invested it in bonds where we paid the interest to them, so they had a money machine using our 'free money' as capital to get a return and their 'repayment' was of the capital but not the return which they also got from us. The point of the money was to loan out not to get themselves a risk free return from taxpayers. Not that I think TARP should have happened at all, but that was infuriating.

However, I'm glad you're on board.

[Pericles]

Personally, I'd like to see the elimination of any official recognition of any political party. They are private organizations, and any organization that wants to combine resources to run candidates should have to meet the same requirement for ballot access as any other candidate, and the public financing of party primaries only re-enforces the closed system of access.

[progressiveforpaul]

The best way to hold their feet to the fire is to make sure they have as little power as practically possible in the first place.

Hopefully the right people with the right ideas will not be disempowered as they are now. Political power is the ontological partner of economic power and vice versa. We should push both powers toward the same end which is power of, for and by all the people.

[sailingaway]

Hopefully the right people with the right ideas will not be disempowered as they are now. Political power is the ontological partner of economic power and vice versa. We should push both powers toward the same end which is power of, for and by all the people.

I agree with power of by and for the people, but I don't confuse the government with the people. If they become representative, we can have a discussion.

[Jack Bauer]

Hopefully the right people with the right ideas will not be disempowered as they are now. Political power is the ontological partner of economic power and vice versa. We should push both powers toward the same end which is power of, for and by all the people.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, if only the right people get into power.

Hmmmm... Where have I heard that before?

[specsaregood]

Hopefully the right people with the right ideas will not be disempowered as they are now. Political power is the ontological partner of economic power and vice versa. We should push both powers toward the same end which is power of, for and by all the people.

Power to do what though? The govt shouldn't have any rights that you yourself don't have as you can't give rights to the govt that you don't already have in the first place. Theft being one such example.

[progressiveforpaul]

Paying back tarp wasn't the point. They were given money for free through a discount window then instead of loaning it out, invested it in bonds where we paid the interest to them, so they had a money machine using our 'free money' as capital to get a return and their 'repayment' was of the capital but not the return which they also got from us. The point of the money was to loan out not to get themselves a risk free return from taxpayers. Not that I think TARP should have happened at all, but that was infuriating.
You have restated exactly what I meant. Thanks.

[sailingaway]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, if only the right people get into power.

Hmmmm... Where have I heard that before?

And yet it is true, however unlikely.

Ease up, our version of utopia is equally unlikely. The point is we both want the same next steps.

[Jack Bauer]

Power to do what though? The govt shouldn't have any rights that you yourself don't have. You can't give rights to the govt that you don't have in the first place. Theft being one such example.

Zing!

[progressiveforpaul]

Power to do what though? The govt shouldn't have any rights that you yourself don't have. You can't give rights to the govt that you don't have in the first place. Theft being one such example.
Don't want to get too bogged down in a debate but I believe that where ever two or three or more are gathered in the name of economics, government is ontologically there in the midst. I hope that our philosophical differences will not cloud the agreement that RP is offering the best deal for both libertarians like you and progressives like me.

[progressiveforpaul]

And yet it is true, however unlikely.

Ease up, our version of utopia is equally unlikely. The point is we both want the same next steps.

Exactly Sailing Away!

[Immortal Technique]

BRING THE TROOPS HOME !!!
Oh and welcome !

[justinc.1089]

Progressiveforpaul don't worry about people being kind of rude here, they do that to other paleoconservatives and libertarians on here too. They just don't know how to talk to people very well apparently lol.

[specsaregood]

Don't want to get too bogged down in a debate but I believe that where ever two or three or more are gathered in the name of economics, government is ontologically there in the midst.
So you think mob rule is a OK, yet seem upset when mob rule goes against your wishes.


I hope that our philosophical differences will not cloud the agreement that RP is offering the best deal for both libertarians like you and progressives like me.
We all disagree on this board on many issues, it doesn't mean we don't all (well most) support Dr. Paul. If we all agreed on all issues here it would be quite boring.

[progressiveforpaul]

I agree with power of by and for the people, but I don't confuse the government with the people. If they become representative, we can have a discussion.

You are right. what we have right now in Washington is not representative of the people. That's why the deal that RP is offering seems to me to be the best chance to get that representative government in place doing the will of the people.

[progressiveforpaul]

BRING THE TROOPS HOME !!!
Oh and welcome !

Thanks and AMEN!

[progressiveforpaul]

Progressiveforpaul don't worry about people being kind of rude here, they do that to other paleoconservatives and libertarians on here too. They just don't know how to talk to people very well apparently lol.

No problem...I'd rather hear the sincere rude responses than the sugar-coated, patronizing ones. I'll try my best not to be rude myself.

[progressiveforpaul]

So you think mob rule is a OK, yet seem upset when mob rule goes against your wishes.

Not sure I was clear. I am against mob rule whether the mob is mine or anybody elses. My point was that every economic transaction is also a political (I use the word in its original rather than pejorative sense) event. For me it is ontologically impossible to remove government from economics or economics from government. The operative question is not: "should government be involved in economics?" but rather "what kind of government should be involved in economics?".

[progressiveforpaul]

+1

That's a huge first step...we need allies.

Oh, and welcome to the OP.

Thanks

[specsaregood]

For me it is ontologically impossible to remove government from economics or economics from government. The operative question is not: "should government be involved in economics?" but rather "what kind of government should be involved in economics?".

I'm pretty sure it is easy to remove govt from economics. Why would you want to require a 3rd party always be involved in any transactions you take part in?

[malkusm]

Welcome to the forums. When you get a chance, be sure to review the forum guidelines: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?22-Forum-Guidelines-Moderation-Process-and-Problems-Registering

The guidelines are pretty standard. If you have any issues or think that the guidelines are being broken, you can "report" a post by clicking the triangular "!" button at the bottom of the post. If you think a post is good, you can add to the user's reputation by clicking the button that looks like a badge at the bottom of the post.

Enjoy your stay, and don't feed the trolls. :)

[malkusm]

Sorry, not sure if I did that on accident. Resume normal posting.

[progressiveforpaul]

Sorry, not sure if I did that on accident. Resume normal posting. thanks for bringing us back.

[Bern]

http://baseballengineer.com/wp-content/media/2011/01/peter_parker_uncle_ben.jpg

[erowe1]

http://baseballengineer.com/wp-content/media/2011/01/peter_parker_uncle_ben.jpg

Nice. That was subtle. It took me awhile. I had to stop and say to myself, "Now who's this young guy in the foreground?" before it all clicked.

[Anti Federalist]

Winning!

[progressiveforpaul]

I'm pretty sure it is easy to remove govt from economics. Why would you want to require a 3rd party always be involved in any transactions you take part in?
I am convinced that every economic transaction involves government. That government may be remote or direct or somewhere in between but government is involved nonetheless. Even in a very primitive situation that is just between two persons (which is very rare unless it's a matter of bartering) there is a legislative action (we agree that something is valuable and that we want to swap) an executive action (here it is or i'll bring it to you tomorrow) and a judicial action (we agreed but you did not pay so now you will). The question is not "should government be involved in the economy?" but rather "what kind of government should be involved in the economy?".

[trey4sports]

The right people from the left and the right would be helpful but we've got to hold their feet to the fire once they are in office.

Welcome!

There will be some people who want to start a flame war with you because you're a progressive but ignore them. What's important is that you're supporting Ron Paul and we're all glad to hear that. Huzzah!

[erowe1]

Even in a very primitive situation that is just between two persons (which is very rare unless it's a matter of bartering) there is a legislative action (we agree that something is valuable and that we want to swap) an executive action (here it is or i'll bring it to you tomorrow) and a judicial action (we agreed but you did not pay so now you will).

That's a very broad definition of "government." It's not a bad definition. But it's not what most people here are talking about when they complain about government. Those who are more keen to that would normally distinguish between "government," which may include all sorts of ways any group of people, large or small, regulates its behavior, and the state, which refers to a form of government that involves subjugating participants without their consent. The reason we get away with muddling that distinction is that the state is the kind of government we're so used to that we take it for granted that that's what government is.

With that distinction, the state should not be involved in economics, nor anything else.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

Don't want to get too bogged down in a debate but I believe that where ever two or three or more are gathered in the name of economics, government is ontologically there in the midst. I hope that our philosophical differences will not cloud the agreement that RP is offering the best deal for both libertarians like you and progressives like me.

I agree, I would rather have a true Progressive like Ralph Nader as President than some pro war faux-constitutionalist like Jim Demint or Sarah Palin. I think there is actually a lot that the Libertarian/PaleoConservative Right and True Progressive Left agree on, like Foreign Policy, the Federal Reserve, Trade Deals, Civil Liberties etc, and these are the most important issues in my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQRvW4-Spdc

[Doug8796]

What you guys have to understand is President is not dictator. Ron Paul wants to revert gov power, but he can only do so much as Commander in Chief. RP's vision for america can only be partially accomplished if elected.

[progressiveforpaul]

That's a very broad definition of "government." It's not a bad definition. But it's not what most people here are talking about when they complain about government. Those who are more keen to that would normally distinguish between "government," which may include all sorts of ways any group of people, large or small, regulates its behavior, and the state, which refers to a form of government that involves subjugating participants without their consent. The reason we get away with muddling that distinction is that the state is the kind of government we're so used to that we take it for granted that that's what government is.

With that distinction, the state should not be involved in economics, nor anything else.
I am not an anarchist so I do think that limited government (state) is needed. If the state is not representative of all the people then it is representing a limited number of people. Such privileged representation is de facto intervention in the economy. That is the kind of intervention we have today. I want a different kind of intervention, the kind that represents the will and interest of all the people, not just a few.

[LatinsforPaul]

I agree, I would rather have a true Progressive like Ralph Nader as President than some pro war faux-constitutionalist like Jim Demint or Sarah Palin. I think there is actually a lot that the Libertarian/PaleoConservative Right and True Progressive Left agree on, like Foreign Policy, the Federal Reserve, Trade Deals, Civil Liberties etc, and these are the most important issues in my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQRvW4-Spdc

I agree. I just hope RP gets more Progressives on his side like progressiveforpaul. I have been trying to open their eyes at Dailykos for quite some time (see diaries (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Latins%20for%20Peace)) and have had little luck. Though I do admit that progressiveforpaul has given me much more hope...

progressiveforpaul on Dailykos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/948173/-Unconventional-progressive-strategy-to-reverse-GOP-gains)

progressiveforpaul on Daily Paul (http://dailypaul.com/157544/im-considering-switching-parties)

progressiveforpaul Blog (http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/)

Welcome progressiveforpaul, glad to see you here too. :)

[muzzled dogg]

welcome~

[ClayTrainor]

I am not an anarchist so I do think that limited government (state) is needed.

Do you think some people should have the right to take property from other people, under the threat of coercion and violence?

[erowe1]

If the state is not representative of all the people then it is representing a limited number of people.

I don't call myself an anarchist either.

Going back to the distinction between the state and government, as you defined it above, while there can be government that exists on the consent of all people involved, as you illustrated, there cannot ever be a state that exists with the consent of all people involved, by definition. The state necessarily can only ever represent a limited number of people.


I want a different kind of intervention, the kind that represents the will and interest of all the people, not just a few.

There's something wrong with this sentence. Either you don't really mean "intervention," or you don't really mean "all the people." Because the only system in which the interests of all the people are met is one in which the only economic transactions that occur are those that free people choose to enter freely without the intervention of another party.

You cannot, for example, have a law that tells me I'm not allowed to offer my labor at a rate of $1/hour, even if I want to offer it at that rate, and then claim to be representing the interest of all the people, since you would necessarily be neglecting my interests. The same could be said of any other intervention.

[madfoot]

There's something wrong with this sentence. Either you don't really mean "intervention," or you don't really mean "all the people." Because the only system in which the interests of all the people are met is one in which the only economic transactions that occur are those that free people choose to enter freely without the intervention of another party.

You cannot, for example, have a law that tells me I'm not allowed to offer my labor at a rate of $1/hour, even if I want to offer it at that rate, and then claim to be representing the interest of all the people, since you would necessarily be neglecting my interests. The same could be said of any other intervention.

If your business receives government benefits, could you then have a minimum wage law?

[fisharmor]

I am not an anarchist so I do think that limited government (state) is needed. If the state is not representative of all the people then it is representing a limited number of people. Such privileged representation is de facto intervention in the economy. That is the kind of intervention we have today. I want a different kind of intervention, the kind that represents the will and interest of all the people, not just a few.

You are quite obviously not an anarchist because anarchists do not conflate the state with government.
I disagree with erowe1. The broad definition of government isn't just a good definition: it's the only definition.
Non-profit entities typically have Boards of Governors, yet this is not the state.
Ecclesiastical documents quite often refer to Church government, yet this is also not the state.

Choosing to employ the narrow definition further encourages society to believe that there is only one source of government.
That's an insidious and demonstrable lie.

As a mostly completely converted anarchist, I agree with you 100% that government exists in every transaction we undertake.
What I disagree with - sharply - is the idea that since this government exists, it follows that that government must be undertaken by the state.

I second the idea that you read some of The Road to Serfdom. In it is a whole chapter where Hayek explains pretty clearly why it is that, when the state is given the task of ordering society, the almost immediate consequence is the wrong people getting into office.

I appreciate your candor and welcome you to the forums. I hope you stick around, and I truly hope you come around on the notion that the state can ever be used as a force for good.

[erowe1]

If your business receives government benefits, could you then have a minimum wage law?

If your business receives government benefits, then that's just another intervention that needs to be eliminated.

And elimination or decrease of such benefits is the only method of mitigating them we should support. Using them as an excuse to provide some other intervention that somehow makes up for them, thus trying to solve a big government problem with a big government solution, is what usually happens, and why the government never gets out of its growth spiral.

But, to answer your question, no you shouldn't have a minimum wage law in any circumstance. Such laws are always bad. There are no exceptions.

[Jack Bauer]

If your business receives government benefits, could you then have a minimum wage law?

You don't counter a bad law with another bad law. You repeal the bad law. You say NO!

[Doug8796]

Most "rich" that you despise are people whom are corporatists which most free-marketers despise.

[erowe1]

Most "rich" that you despise are people whom are corporatists which most free-marketers despise.

I doubt that.

[Acala]

Welcome to the OP!

An end to the world empire, an end to the drug war, an end to the patriot act, an end to corporate welfare, an end to TSA Gate Rape, an end to the monetary system designed to suck wealth out of the pockets of the people and into the accounts of the banks and Wall Street, etc. It seems to me that there are MANY important issues that should be dear to the heart of a progressive that are totally ignored, or made worse, by the Democrats.

On the other hand, y'all have to accept that we can't go on the way we have been domestically either. Even if you could totally eliminate the entire defense budget we would STILL have a deficit and that doesn't even consider the looming catastrophe of unfunded programmatic obligations like Social Security and Medicare. We have allowed government to run amuck in every direction and it needs to be reigned in HARD or we are not going to survive. It isn't even a question of philosophy anymore. It is simple math.

[RyanRSheets]

Glad to have you on board, OP. I think we can all agree that we need to remove corporatism from Washington, and Washington from corporatism, and Ron Paul is the man to do that. When the dust settles, we can have our battles over what government should do, but for now End the Fed!

[TruckinMike]

@Progressive for Paul...(fresh meat)


...Do you do much reading about economics, society, or politics? Or anything else similar? If you do, I really really really really really suggest "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek. It should be required reading for everyone at some point in their life lol! It really is that good. If you're not big on reading you could still buy it and just read like a page or two now and then that looks interesting to you. Reading anything out of it is better than nothing lol!

Even better....try "The Law" (PDF) (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf) by Frederic Bastiat ---- first. ;)



Claude Frederic Bastiat was born on June 30, 1801, in
Bayonne, France, the son of a prominent merchant.11 His mother
died when he was seven years old, and his father passed away
two years later, when Frederic was only nine. He was brought
up by an aunt, who also saw to it that he went to the College of
Sorèze beginning when he was 14. But at 17 he left without finishing
the requirements for his degree and entered his uncle’s
commercial firm in Bayonne. Shortly afterward he came across
the writings of the French classical-liberal economist Jean-
Baptiste Say, and they transformed his life and thinking.12 He
began a serious study of political economy and soon discovered
the works of many of the other classical-liberal writers in France
and Great Britain.

Welcome aboard, from a "recovering neo-con". Finding Ron Paul was like having a mind meld with Spock! :D

TMike

[dannno]

Not sure I was clear. I am against mob rule whether the mob is mine or anybody elses.

When he says "mob rule" he is actually referring to a full on Democracy where the majority (the "mob") dictates rights to the minority, rather than admitting at the beginning that all individuals have rights and the majority cannot take rights away from the minority (a Constitutional Republic, as our country was initially setup)

[Acala]

Even better....try "The Law" (PDF) (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf) by Frederic Bastiat ---- first. ;)



An awesome book. Short, simple, direct, and brilliant. (don't be put off by the "gift from God" stuff at the beginning. You don't have to accept the natural rights doctrine to get the benefit of Bastiat's profound economic reasoning.)

[Freedom 4 all]

I am sure we can remedy that by electing the "right" people!

Isn't that true progressiveforpaul?

No, that's not the way shit works. Near the fall of the Roman republic, there were a hell of a lot of poor in Rome. This mainly came about as a result of A) conscription taking all the men off their farms to die in wars of aggression, and B) government agents annexing farmland from the now defenseless family. There was one good man in Rome at the time, a socialist named Gaius Graccus (or something like that, I heard this story a while ago). If history is accurate, this was a seriously noble and brave man, exactly the kind of mythical leader socialists seem to envision. He increased the size and scope of his office (a mistake) and tried valiently to help the poor, but every time he did, governmental bodies independent of him would just steal whatever he gave to the poor. Eventually he was assassinated by the consulary and the poverty became even worse as a result. The moral of the story is that government is the reason shit is bad, and more government only makes things worse no matter how noble individual leaders may be.

[eduardo89]

We need to promote more Democrats to cross over for the primaries.

Democrats for Ron Paul (http://www.facebook.com/Dems4RonPaul)


To have a general election in 2012 between only Peace candidates, free of war-mongering, anti-gay, anti-civil liberty, neo-conservatives by voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary election. Barack Obama vs. Ron Paul 2012!

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Welcome to the forums. I am glad you are here and look forward to many future discussions with you. Please stop in the chat some night where the is always a spirited discussion taking place.

[TomtheTinker]

Welcome to the team.

[eduardo89]

Welcome to the team.

He's on our team, even though he swings the other way

[tangent4ronpaul]

A progressive bemoaning lack of "health care reform" and not "universal health care". That's a first! - ???

So what do you want to happen with health care?

-t

[Kregisen]

To OP: bring more progressives with you.

[Sentient Void]

For me it is ontologically impossible to remove government from economics or economics from government. The operative question is not: "should government be involved in economics?" but rather "what kind of government should be involved in economics?".

Rothbard & Anarcho-Capitalists weep. Vigorously.

[libertybrewcity]

Welcome, but Kucinich will not be the VP nominee is RP is the Republican nominee.

[amy31416]

Have any of you rudeniks issued him his standard "I heart Ron Paul" tinfoil hat yet?

Sheesh, all of you damn libertarians just wanna jump right in and start yappin' about socialism, health care and blah, blah, blah...be civilized and get him his damn hat...and blue pill, or red pill...I forget which.

[Pericles]

Have any of you rudeniks issued him his standard "I heart Ron Paul" tinfoil hat yet?

Sheesh, all of you damn libertarians just wanna jump right in and start yappin' about socialism, health care and blah, blah, blah...be civilized and get him his damn hat...and blue pill, or red pill...I forget which.
Having meetings in a VW gets kind of lonely, and its exciting when someone new shows up.

[TruckinMike]

Have any of you rudeniks issued him his standard "I heart Ron Paul" tinfoil hat yet?

Sheesh, all of you damn libertarians just wanna jump right in and start yappin' about socialism, health care and blah, blah, blah...be civilized and get him his damn hat...and blue pill, or red pill...I forget which.

Here is the red Pill...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2246155421_5c248cb966.jpg

TMike:D

[amy31416]

Here is the red Pill...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2246155421_5c248cb966.jpg

TMike:D

:eek:

What the heck are you haulin' in that thing?

[TruckinMike]

:eek:

What the heck are you haulin' in that thing?

FREEDOM!!!!!

TMike

[amy31416]

FREEDOM!!!!!

TMike

WIN!!!! Hope you're delivering to my neck o' the woods. :)

[tangent4ronpaul]

Have any of you rudeniks issued him his standard "I heart Ron Paul" tinfoil hat yet?

Sheesh, all of you damn libertarians just wanna jump right in and start yappin' about socialism, health care and blah, blah, blah...be civilized and get him his damn hat...and blue pill, or red pill...I forget which.

Red Pill

[Who girl]

It's a pleasure to have you with us. I think we are pretty inclusive and while we may all not agree on issues, it is important that we are able to discuss them.:D

[Vessol]

Welcome to the rEVOLution!

I wish more progressives and liberals were able to see what a pro-war pro-corporatist Obama is.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

I agree. I just hope RP gets more Progressives on his side like progressiveforpaul. I have been trying to open their eyes at Dailykos for quite some time (see diaries (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Latins%20for%20Peace)) and have had little luck. Though I do admit that progressiveforpaul has given me much more hope...

progressiveforpaul on Dailykos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/948173/-Unconventional-progressive-strategy-to-reverse-GOP-gains)

progressiveforpaul on Daily Paul (http://dailypaul.com/157544/im-considering-switching-parties)

progressiveforpaul Blog (http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/)

Welcome progressiveforpaul, glad to see you here too. :)Are you a real live Latin? I have Roman ancestors to, we should do a Ron Paul toga party.

[Echoes]

Welcome aboard, the more the merrier.

I hope others on the left wake up and see there's hardly any difference between Obama and the Bush regime.

[KramerDSP]

I believe this video I made a few months ago also appeals to the left and progressives. Spread it around again, if you can. The left is afraid that Paul would gut everything in sight, so this video highlights a bunch of clips where he outlines his transition plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3iK6Hy6xMA

[progressiveforpaul]

To OP: bring more progressives with you.
How have you been reaching out to us? I would love to hear where you think you have been successful and where you were not. i would love hear others respond as well.

[progressiveforpaul]

Welcome to the OP!

An end to the world empire, an end to the drug war, an end to the patriot act, an end to corporate welfare, an end to TSA Gate Rape, an end to the monetary system designed to suck wealth out of the pockets of the people and into the accounts of the banks and Wall Street, etc. It seems to me that there are MANY important issues that should be dear to the heart of a progressive that are totally ignored, or made worse, by the Democrats.

On the other hand, y'all have to accept that we can't go on the way we have been domestically either. Even if you could totally eliminate the entire defense budget we would STILL have a deficit and that doesn't even consider the looming catastrophe of unfunded programmatic obligations like Social Security and Medicare. We have allowed government to run amuck in every direction and it needs to be reigned in HARD or we are not going to survive. It isn't even a question of philosophy anymore. It is simple math.

Obviously there will have to be cuts outside of defense. I think we can find more cuts but part of what we need to get on board is for RP's deal to be given some numbers specifying how much of cuts can be redirected toward domestic spending if we agree to the net overall cut. I think libertarians will have to face the reality of needing to raise revenue through new taxes or increasing old taxes. Right now all this talk of cutting spending and raising taxes does not make sense. I 'm afraid that if we start too soon with this agenda we are going to have a double dip with much more unemployment and then the debt problem will be worse.

[progressiveforpaul]

@Progressive for Paul...(fresh meat)



Even better....try "The Law" (PDF) (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf) by Frederic Bastiat ---- first. ;)




Welcome aboard, from a "recovering neo-con". Finding Ron Paul was like having a mind meld with Spock! :D

TMike

Thanks for the recommends. I taste better if you marinate me overnight and grill me low, slow and long.

[progressiveforpaul]

Welcome aboard, the more the merrier.

I hope others on the left wake up and see there's hardly any difference between Obama and the Bush regime.

Do we have to have a total conversion to join in the campaign?

[progressiveforpaul]

It's a pleasure to have you with us. I think we are pretty inclusive and while we may all not agree on issues, it is important that we are able to discuss them.:D

Thanks Who girl.

[low preference guy]

I think libertarians will have to face the reality of needing to raise revenue through new taxes or increasing old taxes.

Food for thought:

Canada's corporate tax is 17%
United States corporate tax is 35%

If we raise taxes, is it possible that even more businesses will be encouraged to go abroad? If they don't, wouldn't they have a significant competitive disadvantage if their competitors do?

I think it's great that you are here despite our differences, but you don't know us very well if you think we will want to raise taxes. Regardless of the facts stated above, almost all libertarians want to completely eliminate the income tax. If there is a conflict because there exists some other program that will be cut, I am quite sure most of us will choose to slash the program. Personally, I don't really think the Federal Government should do anything except national defense.

[April1775]

"A libertarian is a liberal who understand economics, or a conservative who's had his ass kicked by the cops."

[Andrew-Austin]

Welcome.


Food for thought:

Canada's corporate tax is 17%
United States corporate tax is 35%

If we raise taxes, is it possible that even more businesses will be encouraged to go abroad? If they don't, wouldn't they have a significant competitive disadvantage if their competitors do?

I think it's great that you are here despite our differences, but you don't know us very well if you think we will want to raise taxes. Regardless of the facts stated above, libertarians want to completely eliminate the income tax. If there is a conflict because there exists some other program that will be cut, I am quite sure most of us will choose to slash the program. Personally, I don't really think the Federal Government should do anything except national defense. Everything else should be left to the states.

You are crazy, what red pills have you been popping? I don't know you anymore, you have become, some.. some kind of radical. Slash instead of tax? I must be in the wrong place, thought this was a site for mildly libertarian conservatives, -conservatives who smoke pot and don't have a problem with the existence of gay people.


/joke

[Sentient Void]

Welcome.



You are crazy, what red pills have you been popping? I don't know you anymore, you have become, some.. some kind of radical. Slash instead of tax? I must be in the wrong place, thought this was a site for mildly libertarian conservatives, -conservatives who smoke pot and don't have a problem with the existence of gay people.


/joke

You also forgot to add brown people.

are you a racist. are you.

[progressiveforpaul]

A progressive bemoaning lack of "health care reform" and not "universal health care". That's a first! - ???

So what do you want to happen with health care?-t

Is this question for me? What I would like to see is a VAT funding the government portion of a hybrid system. With that we can eliminate the medicare and medicaid portion of payroll taxes. The plan itself would work like this on the first $100K of coverage the government is responsible for 80% and the copayer/coinsurer 20%. From there to a million dollars coverage would the split would become 60/40 and above 1million 40/60. Cut the copay/coinsurance in half for seniors, soldiers, disabled and children. the percentage based copay/coinsurance would be a great cost containment mechanism. The fact that that portion is low at the lower end of coverage encourages and helps to get people early, preventative and less costly care over the long run.

[April1775]

-conservatives who smoke pot and don't have a problem with the existence of gay people.



Sounds like Dondero.

[progressiveforpaul]

Food for thought:

Canada's corporate tax is 17%
United States corporate tax is 35%

If we raise taxes, is it possible that even more businesses will be encouraged to go abroad? If they don't, wouldn't they have a significant competitive disadvantage if their competitors do?

I think it's great that you are here despite our differences, but you don't know us very well if you think we will want to raise taxes. Regardless of the facts stated above, almost all libertarians want to completely eliminate the income tax. If there is a conflict because there exists some other program that will be cut, I am quite sure most of us will choose to slash the program. Personally, I don't really think the Federal Government should do anything except national defense.

I would be in favor of doing away with all income taxes if we could have a progressive consumption tax. No...not the fair tax or flat tax but something more like this: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/robert-frank-we.html

[low preference guy]

Is this question for me? What I would like to see is a VAT funding the government portion of a hybrid system. With that we can eliminate the medicare and medicaid portion of payroll taxes. The plan itself would work like this on the first $100K of coverage the government is responsible for 80% and the copayer/coinsurer 20%. From there to a million dollars coverage would the split would become 60/40 and above 1million 40/60. Cut the copay/coinsurance in half for seniors, soldiers, disabled and children. the percentage based copay/coinsurance would be a great cost containment mechanism. The fact that that portion is low at the lower end of coverage encourages and helps to get people early, preventative and less costly care over the long run.

Out of curiosity:

What do you think of the idea of having states as laboratories of innovation? I'm taking about you having the ability to propose the plan you're proposing in your own state. If it works, other states will copy it. If it fails, then other states will be able to learn from that experience and try something else. Are you open to this approach or do you prefer immediate nationwide reforms?

[progressiveforpaul]

To OP: bring more progressives with you.

If you want them here, send them to my blog first: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

[progressiveforpaul]

Glad to have you on board, OP. I think we can all agree that we need to remove corporatism from Washington, and Washington from corporatism, and Ron Paul is the man to do that. When the dust settles, we can have our battles over what government should do, but for now End the Fed!

This is my realistic desire and I am glad it is yours as well.

[Andrew-Austin]

You also forgot to add brown people.

are you a racist. are you.

Who me? Oh no sir, I respect all brown people.. I mean Indians.. I mean Mexicans.. I mean Latinos.

And I hear we have this line on the map called a border, thus the Latino people are okay so long as they perform certain rituals upon crossing said line and indoctrinate themselves in the ways of our continent. Heck so long as they vote democrat and shutup obey the decrees of our territorial monopolists, we should give them free stuff.

[progressiveforpaul]

When he says "mob rule" he is actually referring to a full on Democracy where the majority (the "mob") dictates rights to the minority, rather than admitting at the beginning that all individuals have rights and the majority cannot take rights away from the minority (a Constitutional Republic, as our country was initially setup)

I want a constitutional democratic republic with checks and balances, proportional representation, term limits and equal protection of minorities. Is that mob rule?

[progressiveforpaul]

Welcome to the forums. I am glad you are here and look forward to many future discussions with you. Please stop in the chat some night where the is always a spirited discussion taking place.
thanks for your hospitality.

[progressiveforpaul]

I agree. I just hope RP gets more Progressives on his side like progressiveforpaul. I have been trying to open their eyes at Dailykos for quite some time (see diaries (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Latins%20for%20Peace)) and have had little luck. Though I do admit that progressiveforpaul has given me much more hope...

progressiveforpaul on Dailykos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/948173/-Unconventional-progressive-strategy-to-reverse-GOP-gains)

progressiveforpaul on Daily Paul (http://dailypaul.com/157544/im-considering-switching-parties)

progressiveforpaul Blog (http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/)

Welcome progressiveforpaul, glad to see you here too. :)

I don't want to deflate your hopes but have you seen the few responses on my dk post? thanks for the plugs.

[axiomata]

I want a constitutional democratic republic with checks and balances, proportional representation, term limits and equal protection of minorities. Is that mob rule?

No, it's not, but it sure doesn't sound like most progressive I know. But then again, most progressives I know are not on board the Ron Pan bandwagon.

[malkusm]

progressive - Here are the issues where I find that liberals/leftists/progressives are listening 100%:

Corporatism - Honestly, this cuts to the heart of the matter fairly quickly. People on the left are skeptical of large corporations. It is imperative that they understand that (1) the companies of that size that are doing legitimate harm, are only as big as they are because of economic barriers to entry in the market, which were set by government; (2) RP republicans/libertarians are as much opposed to the current structure of DC lobbying as they are; we just believe that the cause of this phenomenon is the existence of the center of power itself.

This is how I explained it to a liberal friend of mine recently. Feel free to tweak as needed.


Politicians shake hands with corporate representatives who want laws passed and have money to spend. Politicians pass the laws and get that money deposited to their campaign accounts, so they can stay comfortably in office. The Federal Reserve (comprised of private banks on Wall Street) prints the money and sends it to the Treasury to be spent on the new programs, knowing they will earn interest on the money when it's paid back - though they don't really care if it is ever paid back. The Treasury puts the money in the hands of the government contractors who had enough political connections to get them the job. Everyone scratches everyone else's ass, and the people who aren't in this little circle pay via inflation when the newly created money devalues the money that was already circulating.

War - What is it good for? ...Honestly though, if you find someone who's disappointed in Obama over the wars, that's low-hanging fruit. We have video after video after video (dating back to the 1980s!!) of Ron Paul standing up against foreign aggression and intervention.

Drug war - Liberty means that you can choose to do with your body and your life what you wish. Aside from that moral argument, though, we've spent billions of dollars since the 1970s, for what end? There has been no decline in recreational drug use at any level, including minorities. Over 10% of the adult population says they've used marijuana in the last year, and we don't have nearly that much prison capacity. We need to go on the offensive here: What is the purpose of this "War on Drugs?" Can it be achieved? If not, why are we wasting the time, money, and manpower on it?

I'm sure there are other easily identifiable examples, but those stick out to me. All of these are issues where Dr. Paul has been consistent for many years, and they are also near the top of the list in the mind of the present-day progressive.

[progressiveforpaul]

I don't call myself an anarchist either.

Going back to the distinction between the state and government, as you defined it above, while there can be government that exists on the consent of all people involved, as you illustrated, there cannot ever be a state that exists with the consent of all people involved, by definition. The state necessarily can only ever represent a limited number of people.



There's something wrong with this sentence. Either you don't really mean "intervention," or you don't really mean "all the people." Because the only system in which the interests of all the people are met is one in which the only economic transactions that occur are those that free people choose to enter freely without the intervention of another party.

You cannot, for example, have a law that tells me I'm not allowed to offer my labor at a rate of $1/hour, even if I want to offer it at that rate, and then claim to be representing the interest of all the people, since you would necessarily be neglecting my interests. The same could be said of any other intervention.

To represent all the people does not mean that all the people get their way all the time. Today or representatives listen to those who can pay. In order to change this, one has to reform the election financing process (prime intervention) and then those that are elected have to listen to all of their constituents and if they would, I think we would have better economic policy. This is enhanced when we have proportional representation. Your being allowed to pay a worker $1 per hour is a clear example of the libertarian exception....Your freedom ends where another is violated.

[Vessol]

I want a constitutional democratic republic with checks and balances, proportional representation, term limits and equal protection of minorities. Is that mob rule?

I'll give you a fair warning that there are many here that are either radical minarchists or full out market anarchists, which includes myself :P. Don't be alarmed if some of us start a debate here, people are free to debate ideas here, just not attack persons.

[CableNewsJunkie]

progressiveforpaul,

Do you think you'd be able to talk any sense into people that talk like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3DLGP4UKQ

Full thread at tickerforum: http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=181273

(I'm referring primarily to the part where 'Rob' says he wants to take over his boss's business after calling it a dictatorship.)

[progressiveforpaul]

progressiveforpaul,

Do you think you'd be able to talk any sense into people that talk like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3DLGP4UKQ

Full thread at tickerforum: http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=181273

(I'm referring primarily to the part where 'Rob' says he wants to take over his boss's business after calling it a dictatorship.)

Obviously this guy is naive. That will change hopefully with age. I advocate a mixed economy and within that mix, there are a growing number of worker owned businesses that are successful. More of this particular ingredient in the mix, where workers own the means of production (isn't that both simultaneously socialism and capitalism?) would go far in establishing a more just and prosperous economy. If local, state and national governments can peacefully encourage this model of workers being investors and managers of their own businesses, I am all for it.

[erowe1]

If local, state and national governments can peacefully encourage this model of workers being investors and managers of their own businesses, I am all for it.

"Encourage" sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for something much worse. What kinds of things do you have in mind when you say that?

[progressiveforpaul]

"Encourage" sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for something much worse. What kinds of things do you have in mind when you say that?

Perhaps things like small business loans or tax incentives and at the local level community investment since worker owned businesses are more likely to stay put than flee to cheaper wages elsewhere.

[progressiveforpaul]

Perhaps things like small business loans or tax incentives and at the local level community investment since worker owned businesses are more likely to stay put than flee to cheaper wages elsewhere.

Here is some more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDtnp5dlTVE

[Jack Bauer]

Perhaps things like small business loans or tax incentives and at the local level community investment since worker owned businesses are more likely to stay put than flee to cheaper wages elsewhere.

Governments giving loans or backing up loans is a terrible idea.

Look at what happened when they tried that in the housing market.

If people/businesses aren't able to get loans in the market, there is usually a very good reason why.

[hugolp]

Welcome,

As a former social-democrat now turned libertarian, I hope stay around the forum.

[rolle]

Perhaps things like small business loans or tax incentives and at the local level community investment since worker owned businesses are more likely to stay put than flee to cheaper wages elsewhere.

Why shouldn't business's and workers have the freedom to choose the wages they pay and earn? Also, government incentives is central planning, which results in miss allocation, leading to more expensive, as well as fewer goods and services for consumers.

[Brett85]

Do we have to have a total conversion to join in the campaign?

No. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and I'm not a hardcore libertarian like many here. I consider myself to be more of a paleo-conservative or libertarian leaning conservative. I've been called a "troll" many times here, so don't be surprised or insulted if you are called the same.

[specsaregood]

I don't want to deflate your hopes but have you seen the few responses on my dk post? thanks for the plugs.

You'll be banned from dk before too long if you keep it up as you are going against that site's mission statement. It explicitly states that it is for promoting democrats. ie: party over principle.

[ronpaulhawaii]

dissolving lines between opposing camps takes courage... E komo mai a me mahalo. (welcome and thanks)

[progressiveforpaul]

Why shouldn't business's and workers have the freedom to choose the wages they pay and earn? Also, government incentives is central planning, which results in miss allocation, leading to more expensive, as well as fewer goods and services for consumers.

I think you're right about central (remote) planning; that's why I mention local government getting involved. If a struggling small town can be allowed to utilize funds they raise, which may be matched by state and federal funds, to make these types of investments, centralized planning is averted and the people who understand the situation the best can be responsible for the management of assets. Right now businesses are allowed to pack up and leave factory buildings empty, having already received tax abatements and other benefits. At a minimum town governments should be allowed to seize unused assets to establish community based and worker owned businesses. As far as the question: Why shouldn't business's and workers have the freedom to choose the wages they pay and earn? You seem to assume that there are no degrees of freedom and that workers' freedom is equal to owners' freedom in negotiating wages. If this is your assumption then respectfully I must say your assumption is wrong. That's precisely why we need minimum wage laws. I also believe that it is a moral imperative that owners should pay workers who do their jobs a living wage.

[Jack Bauer]

I think you're right about central (remote) planning; that's why I mention local government getting involved. If a struggling small town can be allowed to utilize funds they raise, which may be matched by state and federal funds, to make these types of investments, centralized planning is averted and the people who understand the situation the best can be responsible for the management of assets. Right now businesses are allowed to pack up and leave factory buildings empty, having already received tax abatements and other benefits. At a minimum town governments should be allowed to seize unused assets to establish community based and worker owned businesses. As far as the question: Why shouldn't business's and workers have the freedom to choose the wages they pay and earn? You seem to assume that there are no degrees of freedom and that workers' freedom is equal to owners' freedom in negotiating wages. If this is your assumption then respectfully I must say your assumption is wrong. That's precisely why we need minimum wage laws. I also believe that it is a moral imperative that owners should pay workers who do their jobs a living wage.

You do understand that minimum wage laws are laws against employing people whose productivity is less than the minimum wage, right?

And no, any government shouldn't have the right to seize any assets.

[Sola_Fide]

Methinks our progressive friend may still need some desensitization from statism:collins:

[rolle]

I think you're right about central (remote) planning; that's why I mention local government getting involved. If a struggling small town can be allowed to utilize funds they raise, which may be matched by state and federal funds, to make these types of investments, centralized planning is averted and the people who understand the situation the best can be responsible for the management of assets. Right now businesses are allowed to pack up and leave factory buildings empty, having already received tax abatements and other benefits. At a minimum town governments should be allowed to seize unused assets to establish community based and worker owned businesses. As far as the question: Why shouldn't business's and workers have the freedom to choose the wages they pay and earn? You seem to assume that there are no degrees of freedom and that workers' freedom is equal to owners' freedom in negotiating wages. If this is your assumption then respectfully I must say your assumption is wrong. That's precisely why we need minimum wage laws. I also believe that it is a moral imperative that owners should pay workers who do their jobs a living wage.

I agree that local government interventions would be far superior to Federal interventions. However, I believe the ideal would be to have private institutions raise and allocate funds/credit/capitol.

There has been quite a few good discussions on how damaging minimum wage laws are to an economy, if your interested, you can use the search function. The one question I would like to ask, though, is how does one determine a "living wage"?

Edit: Here is a good thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?151879-Why-is-minimum-wage-bad&highlight=minimum+wage

[pcosmar]

Methinks our progressive friend may still need some desensitization from statism:collins:

Not only that, but also an understanding of market economics.

Right now businesses are allowed to pack up and leave factory buildings empty,
The reason the businesses leave is because they are unprofitable. And that in large part due to workers being paid more than they are worth.
The employees wage is a production cost. If production costs are more than the market selling price of the product the business fails.

This has happened all across this country due to minimum wage laws and union costs. Manufacturing has moved elsewhere.

[hugolp]

Not only that, but also an understanding of market economics.

The reason the businesses leave is because they are unprofitable. And that in large part due to workers being paid more than they are worth.
The employees wage is a production cost. If production costs are more than the market selling price of the product the business fails.

This has happened all across this country due to minimum wage laws and union costs. Manufacturing has moved elsewhere.

And lets not forget the burden of regulations and the descoordination that inflation creates.

If it were not for all this things the USA workers would be earning higher wages without the need for minimum wage laws.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

You do understand that minimum wage laws are laws against employing people whose productivity is less than the minimum wage, right?

And no, any government shouldn't have the right to seize any assets.
What are you talking about? I mean, when you talk about "the market", and getting rid of the minimum wage, you talk about it as though there are no government distortions like the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking which bid up prices perpetually. If you abolished minimum wage, the cost of living for these low wage earners would go up as they would now be making less. Sure, you might have more people working at the lower wage, but you would have a bunch of low wage peons with a very low quality of living. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that minimum wage laws, or hiking the minimum wage, increases unemployment, if you look at the data.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/minimum-wage-jobs_n_776831.html

[Sola_Fide]

What are you talking about? I mean, when you talk about "the market", and getting rid of the minimum wage, you talk about it as though there are no government distortions like the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking which bid up prices perpetually. If you abolished minimum wage, the cost of living for these low wage earners would go up as they would now be making less. Sure, you might have more people working at the lower wage, but you would have a bunch of low wage peons with a very low quality of living. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that minimum wage laws, or hiking the minimum wage, increases unemployment, if you look at the data.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/minimum-wage-jobs_n_776831.html

Labor is a cost to businesses that they pass on to everyone who uses their products or services, rich and poor. Don't discount how insidious minimum wage laws are.

[erowe1]

Perhaps things like small business loans or tax incentives and at the local level community investment since worker owned businesses are more likely to stay put than flee to cheaper wages elsewhere.

If loans, then either these would be loans the businesses could get from private banks, or they would be better loans than what they could get from private banks. If they're the same they could get from private banks, then it seems pointless to have the government involved, and, if anything, the government would be taking business away from the private sector (i.e. those banks) by doing this, which is the opposite of what you supposedly want. On the other hand, if these loans are better than what these local businesses could get from private banks, then that's an indication that it would be unprofitable for them to make those loans, in which case the government would be putting the taxpayers on the hook for unprofitable loans, and why should the taxpayer be forced to make loans that they wouldn't otherwise want to make for someone in a free market?

If tax incentives, then I suppose it depends what kind of tax incentive you have in mind. If you mean simple tax cuts, across the board for everyone in the city, that go along with cuts in the city's revenue and spending, then by all means, that would be a wonderful thing. And the deeper the cuts in taxes and spending the better, all the way up to the point of zero taxes. But if you mean some kind of targeted tax cuts, geared specifically to businesses that jump through government hoops (be worker owned, give living wages, hire union workers, be diverse, keep up with some environmentalist trend, buy local products, locate in some revitalization zone, and so on), so that everybody who doesn't do those things pays higher taxes and essentially subsidizes the corporate welfare of these businesses that the government picked to be the winners, then that sounds pretty bad to me. It would be better to cut everyone's taxes equally and let the free market decide who the winners are.

[erowe1]

What are you talking about? I mean, when you talk about "the market", and getting rid of the minimum wage, you talk about it as though there are no government distortions like the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking which bid up prices perpetually. If you abolished minimum wage, the cost of living for these low wage earners would go up as they would now be making less. Sure, you might have more people working at the lower wage, but you would have a bunch of low wage peons with a very low quality of living. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that minimum wage laws, or hiking the minimum wage, increases unemployment, if you look at the data.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/minimum-wage-jobs_n_776831.html

It's so obvious that a minimum wage adversely affects employment that it's not even debatable. This isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of basic laws of math.

But that's not the most important point. Much more importantly than that is the fact that a minimum wage is unethical, always, without exception, irrespective of any other government distortions like the Federal Reserve.

What gives anyone the right to tell a person whose productivity is too low to justify hiring them at the minimum wage that they can't offer their labor at a lower rate than that? Laws like that aren't made for the sake of the poor, they're made for the sake of reducing competition for the unions who support the politicians who support such laws.

[low preference guy]

What are you talking about? I mean, when you talk about "the market", and getting rid of the minimum wage, you talk about it as though there are no government distortions like the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking which bid up prices perpetually. If you abolished minimum wage, the cost of living for these low wage earners would go up as they would now be making less. Sure, you might have more people working at the lower wage, but you would have a bunch of low wage peons with a very low quality of living. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that minimum wage laws, or hiking the minimum wage, increases unemployment, if you look at the data.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/minimum-wage-jobs_n_776831.html

To Adolfo Mena Gonzalez and Progressives for Paul:

A business hires you if your productivity gives them more profit than what they pay you in wages. If someone is willing to pay you $5,000 a month, that's because your work increases their revenue more than $5,000 a month.

It's easy to see that if you set the minimum wage at X level, those people whose productivity is less than X will not get a job at all. If the minimum wage is $1000 a month and your productivity is only $900, a business just can't hire you. It might be sad that someone makes only $900 a month, but is being unemployed better?

Regarding the studies Adolfo Mena Gonzalez is citing, their methodology is flawed. You can't test the laws of Economics like you test the laws of physics. The reason is that you can't isolate just one factor and see its effects. To do so, you will have to implement the minimum wage in one society and see what happens. Then you will have to remove the minimum wage in a society that is exactly equal to the first society except for the fact that it doesn't have a minimum wage. That is impossible. You'll have to go back in time and change the factor which you are testing, and you can't do this, thus, experiments like those you're proposing aren't an effective way to arrive at economic truths. How do you know that there weren't other factors that were also influencing unemployment? There are definitely are other factors, because you never have two societies that are exactly the same in every possible way except that one has a minimum wage law and the other doesn't. The effects of the different characteristics of each society in its employment level makes it impossible to isolate the effect of just the minimum wage laws.

So if you want to analyze the effects of the minimum wage, you need an alternative method. And it's really simple. You just consider this question: What happens if the productivity of somebody is lower than the minimum wage? The answer is simple: he won't get hired. Thus, the minimum wage directly increases unemployment among the most unskilled workers.



You do understand that minimum wage laws are laws against employing people whose productivity is less than the minimum wage, right

Exactly right.

[nayjevin]

posted this thread to reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/fy3uf/the_story_of_a_progressive_democrat_choosing_ron/

[raiha]

And yet it is true, however unlikely.

Ease up, our version of utopia is equally unlikely. The point is we both want the same next steps.

Well spoke! Very nice...welcome PFP it is a lively place.

[7_digitz]

i didnt read all that but i voted for obama(supported ron paul in the gop primaries) in '08 and voted for rand paul in '10 so it can happen

[Pauls' Revere]

"reform" and "change" mean nothing nowadays. Sadly, most candidates will utter the word "jobs" and the sheep will follow.

Personally, I will vote for the candidate who utters the words "repeal" and/or "abolish"

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

Labor is a cost to businesses that they pass on to everyone who uses their products or services, rich and poor. Don't discount how insidious minimum wage laws are.

There is no evidence to suggest everytime wages are increased prices go up, wages are not the only factor in the price mechanism. The reason commodity prices and food and gas prices are so high is because of dollar devaulation through printing of money, speculation, and fractional reserve banking.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

It's so obvious that a minimum wage adversely affects employment that it's not even debatable. This isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of basic laws of math.

But that's not the most important point. Much more importantly than that is the fact that a minimum wage is unethical, always, without exception, irrespective of any other government distortions like the Federal Reserve.

What gives anyone the right to tell a person whose productivity is too low to justify hiring them at the minimum wage that they can't offer their labor at a lower rate than that? Laws like that aren't made for the sake of the poor, they're made for the sake of reducing competition for the unions who support the politicians who support such laws.

If it so obvious, than provide some evidence to disprove the studies I linked to. You are so narrow minded and one dimensional it is ridiculous. I guess if you want Egypt style riots in America because you pull the rug under from the working poor, than go ahead, but just know it will significantly hike the cost of living, lead to drops in consumption and adversely affect employment when you have all these people spending less money in the general economy as their wages remain the same and the costs of goods and services go up due to inflation. I think it is ethical to guarantee a certain standard of living in this distorted corporatist ecnomy. you talk as though we live in a free market, and minimum wage is somehow a distortion when that is not the case.

Unions only represent 9% of the Workforce, and union workers on average make far more than minimum wage. It has nothing to do with unions, if anything, the establishment recognizes hiking minimum wage is the only thing keeping the working class from going into riot mode.

[Jack Bauer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jv1Zae0sgo

[erowe1]

If it so obvious, than provide some evidence to disprove the studies I linked to.

I didn't look at your huffpo link.

But what kind of evidence do you think this would require?

Is there some sample of data out there were we can look at a place that imposed a minimum wage and compare it to itself without a minimum wage over the same time period? Where do we find data like that? In an alternate universe? Because that's the kind of evidence that would be necessary to prove or disprove what we already know from the basic laws of economics, which is that the minimum wage reduces employment. Barring that imaginary evidence, we're left with appealing to the math.


Unions only represent 9% of the Workforce, and union workers on average make far more than minimum wage.

They represent 9% of the workforce, and yet they have the political clout of more than the other 91% combined. These laws aren't a way to increase their own wages directly, they're a way for them to prevent other people who are less productive than they are from undercutting their prices. If you doubt that the unions are behind it, then get involved in politics and pay attention to who votes for minimum wage bills, at all levels of government in all their forms, and what constituencies are behind it. You'll see that it's the unions.

And it's always been that way. The first federal minimum wage act was the Davis Bacon Act. The purpose for it was to protect white union workers from having to compete against nonunionized black workers offering to do labor at rates too low for them to be able to compete with them. It was pure racism.

I don't know if you're right that the union thugs would resort to Egyt-style riots if we got rid of the minimum wage. But I doubt they would. And even if they did, that wouldn't change the fact that the minimum wage is always wrong, 100% of the time, whether other aspects of the economy are a free market or not. It doesn't become ok to violate an individuals' rights to offer their wages at the price of their choosing just because you don't like the indirect consequences you think would result in wider society.

Edit: But if you want to take turns doing google searches and trading links to different authors adducing what they think is evidence that minimum wages either do or don't adversely affect employment. Here's one: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/did-the-minimum-wage-increase-destroy-jobs/

My fear is that playing that game will only divert our attention from the much more reliable and basic approach of simply considering the question logically, at a level any lay person can do. Doing that is more important that getting lost in the details of unreliable economic "evidence," and it's also more sure in its conclusions. The minimum wage does adversely affect employment. It's impossible for it not to.

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

I didn't look at your huffpo link.

But what kind of evidence do you think this would require?

Is there some sample of data out there were we can look at a place that imposed a minimum wage and compare it to itself without a minimum wage over the same time period? Where do we find data like that? In an alternate universe? Because that's the kind of evidence that would be necessary to prove or disprove what we already know from the basic laws of economics, which is that the minimum wage reduces employment. Barring that imaginary evidence, we're left with appealing to the math.



They represent 9% of the workforce, and yet they have the political clout of more than the other 91% combined. These laws aren't a way to increase their own wages directly, they're a way for them to prevent other people who are less productive than they are from undercutting their prices. If you doubt that the unions are behind it, then get involved in politics and pay attention to who votes for minimum wage bills, at all levels of government in all their forms, and what constituencies are behind it. You'll see that it's the unions.

And it's always been that way. The first federal minimum wage act was the Davis Bacon Act. The purpose for it was to protect white union workers from having to compete against nonunionized black workers offering to do labor at rates too low for them to be able to compete with them. It was pure racism.

I don't know if you're right that the union thugs would resort to Egyt-style riots if we got rid of the minimum wage. But I doubt they would. And even if they did, that wouldn't change the fact that the minimum wage is always wrong, 100% of the time, whether other aspects of the economy are a free market or not. It doesn't become ok to violate an individuals' rights to offer their wages at the price of their choosing just because you don't like the indirect consequences you think would result in wider society.

Edit: But if you want to take turns doing google searches and trading links to different authors adducing what they think is evidence that minimum wages either do or don't adversely affect employment. Here's one: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/did-the-minimum-wage-increase-destroy-jobs/

My fear is that playing that game will only divert our attention from the much more reliable and basic approach of simply considering the question logically, at a level any lay person can do. Doing that is more important that getting lost in the details of unreliable economic "evidence," and it's also more sure in its conclusions. The minimum wage does adversely affect employment. It's impossible for it not to.

If you bothered to read the article, it provided a link to the study. The question here is, do hikes in minimum wage increase unemployment, and that data shows that wasn't the case over a long period of time. And there are no benefits to your proposal, sure the demand for more labor might go up, but the supply for labor will go down as inflation rises and wages remain stagnant leading to an overall reduction in real wages. I don't think you are putting forward a realistic solution to the problem we face in the economic system we are in. You are an ideologue, not a consequentialist.

And correlation does not equal causation. Just because some democrats with union backing support minimum wage laws, doesn't mean the unions pushed through the last minimum wage increase, in fact, 82 Republicans supported it with them. And I will give you links to four random republicans/democrats who voted for this, so as to not be skewing the statistics, and three I picked at random had either no financial union support, or weren't among the top 4 donors by sector, the other one had significant support form building trade unions, industrial unions, and public sector unions. They didn't vote for it because of what the Unions say or support, they just recognize the consequences that in their constituency if they don't vote for this, there will be a lot of pissed off people affected by the economic drop off, and they won't get reelected, or hey, maybe some of the congressmen actually care about the people, I don't know, not very likely.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll018.xml
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00003028
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00008091
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00007382
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2006&type=I&cid=N00004196&newMem=N

I don't really care if the first minimum wage law was racist, it doesn't make minimum wage laws bad now. And I don't think racism is the worst sin in the world, I think it would be far worse to pull the rug under from millions of poor people and have them not make ends meet. There would probably be unions involved, but it would most like be a broad people's movement, as the whole economy and society as a whole would be adversely effected by it's repeal. Pissed off poor people that can't afford all the essentials, more poverty, more social decay, and economic contraction generally lead to unrest, independent of unions. And it seems you chart shows that in states with higher minimum wages that part time employment is higher, don't see how that helps your position.

[erowe1]

If you bothered to read the article, it provided a link to the study. The question here is, do hikes in minimum wage increase unemployment, and that data shows that wasn't the case over a long period of time.

Once again. There is no such thing as "the data" for the reason I explained.

But there are the laws of math. And they don't lie.

The minimum wage is always bad, under all circumstances. It's purely unethical. And even if it did have good results, it would still be unethical (you're correct about me not being a consequentialist).

I have a developmentally disabled sister. It's not easy for her to find work, and when she has a job, she can't get many hours. The solution for her is obvious. She should offer her labor at a lower rate. The problem is, she's not allowed to. Self-righteous busy bodies in the state have prohibited her from doing that because they think they know better than she does what she needs to make per hour. Why is it you think you or anyone else has the right to violate her basic rights like that? Don't tell me you're taking the side of the poor. The people who get hurt the most by the minimum wage are the weakest members of society.

[Epic]

If a minimum wage had positive long-term results, then we should just mandate a minimum wage of, say, a million dollars (or more!).

Of course, this is not the case.

And this is not a red herring. The qualitative effect on the supply-demand graph is the same, so it's not a case of "well, some increases are good, but not too much...".

[sailingaway]

I don't want to deflate your hopes but have you seen the few responses on my dk post? thanks for the plugs.

Look at the daily kos poll, the rasmussen poll of Ron head to head with Obama, the ppp polls etc....Ron's problem is not his lack of support, although that needs to be raised, he is around the bottom of the 'top tier', essentially. The problem is the distribution of that support EVENLY between GOP independents and democrats. That is a killer in a primary oriented context. The 'educational' value of Ron's campaign is there regardless. However, to win, we need dems and indies to vote for Ron -- even when that means REGISTERING GOP to vote in a primary, which is like pulling teeth sometimes....

[progressiveforpaul]

Number of responses here that I haven't had time to get to. As to the minimum wage debate... I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment. It was raised during the Clinton administration and unemployment went down. People who are paid enough to spend their money create demand and demand creates jobs. I am puzzled by the suggestion that it is immoral to have a minimum wage. Is assumed productivity the sole basis of morality? Some employers fortunately realize that hiring people who are incapable of high productivity because of their disabilities is a responsible activity that is good for individuals, communities and families. To think that a disabled person should have to be willing to accept slave wages in order to work is incredulous. And yes we have minimum wage laws, for one reason, because if we did not, we would have companies making literal slaves of people. Minimum wage laws are about minimal ethical expectations. Every business should be glad to comply and those that are not ought to lose their business license.

[low preference guy]

As to the minimum wage debate. I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment. It was raised during the Clinton administration and unemployment went down.

I had a friend who was a great runner and also smoked. He practiced hard every day but he also partied hard. That's why I know all those claims about cigarettes being bad for you are non-sense. It made my friend win so many runs!


I am puzzled by the suggestion that it is immoral to have a minimum wage.

It not only increases unemployment, it's also a violation of freedom of contract.

[ClayTrainor]

As to the minimum wage debate... I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment.

Let's say a restaurant makes $50 dollars profit every hour, that they use to pay the wages of their staff. At $10 / hour this restaurant can employ 5 people.

Now, let's say the minimum wage is raised to $11. How many people can the restaurant employ with that $50 now?

[Sentient Void]

Number of responses here that I haven't had time to get to. As to the minimum wage debate... I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment. It was raised during the Clinton administration and unemployment went down. People who are paid enough to spend their money create demand and demand creates jobs. I am puzzled by the suggestion that it is immoral to have a minimum wage. Is assumed productivity the sole basis of morality? Some employers fortunately realize that hiring people who are incapable of high productivity because of their disabilities is a responsible activity that is good for individuals, communities and families. To think that a disabled person should have to be willing to accept slave wages in order to work is incredulous. And yes we have minimum wage laws, for one reason, because if we did not, we would have companies making literal slaves of people. Minimum wage laws are about minimal ethical expectations. Every business should be glad to comply and those that are not ought to lose their business license.

We have much work to do, tiny grasshopper.

(BTW, the immorality is coercing individuals on what they can and can't do with their life and their property (read: business), what voluntary relationships they can and can;t enter into, and coercing them with the threat of violence if they don't obey. Doesn't have to do with productivity. Increased unemployment, poverty and protectionism from competition for the less-skilled workforce are merely consequential by-products of such policies.)

[Bryan]

Number of responses here that I haven't had time to get to. As to the minimum wage debate... I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment. It was raised during the Clinton administration and unemployment went down. People who are paid enough to spend their money create demand and demand creates jobs. I am puzzled by the suggestion that it is immoral to have a minimum wage. Is assumed productivity the sole basis of morality? Some employers fortunately realize that hiring people who are incapable of high productivity because of their disabilities is a responsible activity that is good for individuals, communities and families. To think that a disabled person should have to be willing to accept slave wages in order to work is incredulous. And yes we have minimum wage laws, for one reason, because if we did not, we would have companies making literal slaves of people. Minimum wage laws are about minimal ethical expectations. Every business should be glad to comply and those that are not ought to lose their business license.

First off, welcome to the forum. As to this issue, I have some questions. If some employer sets their own minimum wages that don't meet your standards but their employees are happy with that, will you let them be or will you force your will onto others?

Having minimum wage laws mean you don't let them be. It's not possible to support minimum wage laws and wanting to live in a free country.

Can you explain how one set of minimum wage standards is somehow morally correct and right for everyone?

Thanks. :)

[trey4sports]

here's something interesting......


When I was in College I worked at a sandwich shop and because of the min. wage laws the pay rate for a 16 year old high school employee who barely worked during their shift verses a 20 year old who worked very hard was usually 50 cents but the actually efficiency difference was much larger

[Jack Bauer]

Number of responses here that I haven't had time to get to. As to the minimum wage debate... I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment. It was raised during the Clinton administration and unemployment went down. People who are paid enough to spend their money create demand and demand creates jobs. I am puzzled by the suggestion that it is immoral to have a minimum wage. Is assumed productivity the sole basis of morality? Some employers fortunately realize that hiring people who are incapable of high productivity because of their disabilities is a responsible activity that is good for individuals, communities and families. To think that a disabled person should have to be willing to accept slave wages in order to work is incredulous. And yes we have minimum wage laws, for one reason, because if we did not, we would have companies making literal slaves of people. Minimum wage laws are about minimal ethical expectations. Every business should be glad to comply and those that are not ought to lose their business license.

Do not confuse correlation with causation. Basics of logical thought processes my friend.

[erowe1]

I am not persuaded that it leads to higher rates of unemployment. It was raised during the Clinton administration and unemployment went down.

Unemployment went down for other reasons. If the minimum wage had not been raised, then it would have gone down even more. This is necessitated by the mathematical fact that the minimum wage always adversely affects employment, without exception.

But, again, it doesn't matter what the effects of a minimum wage are. It should never be employed because it's inherently unethical in all circumstances.