And he's still got a mild case of it himself...
Originally Posted by Tom WoodsTom Woods: In which I blast the MAGA people
View in browser
I thought arguing with SJWs was maddening and pointless.
I'd forgotten about what the so-called right wing can be like.
Now look: I understand people who find Trump entertaining, who are creeped out by his Deep State opponents, who appreciate his occasional deviations from foreign-policy orthodoxy, his deregulation, etc.
But for heaven's sake, be reasonable: Trump is a pragmatist, not an anti-state ideologue. Is that even debatable?
And that's all Stockman is saying. He's saying that Bush, Obama, and Trump alike have a pro-state bias to their thought and economic policy. None has come close to cutting spending or getting a handle on the severe unfunded liabilities problem.
Trump didn't even campaign on those things, so it's not even that we're accusing him of breaking a promise. You can't break a promise you never made.
The rest of Stockman's point is that the real problem here is the Federal Reserve, which has hurt Americans of all classes. Who can argue with that?
Trump supporters, evidently.
The entire thread consists of people calling Stockman a "liberal" -- as if liberals criticize the Fed and demand sound money!
These folks don't even understand what they're supposed to believe.
Oh, Woods, go easy on them. Teach them!
I'm trying!
But I have zero sympathy for people who ignorantly denounce David Stockman -- who's 98% sound on economics and monetary policy in particular -- for being, of all things, a left-liberal!
His point is that Trump is a statist. He used that exact word. Now you may disagree with that description of Trump, but it obviously isn't something a liberal would say. To call Stockman a "liberal" (in the American sense, obviously) is as uncomprehending as it gets. He would be the first liberal ever to criticize Trump for favoring too much government.
Stockman criticizes "the state's central banking branch," and the MAGA folks in the comments can't come to the central bank's defense fast enough.
All right, all right, most of them know nothing about the central bank.
So maybe shutting up might not be a bad idea?
Shouldn't their instinct be that a government-established central bank with monopoly privileges is probably a bad idea?
Instead, a critic like Stockman gets lambasted as a "liberal" -- as if liberals are known for their criticisms, rather than instinctual defenses, of the Fed.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us