12 votes

Tea Party and Small Government Candidates (Ron Paul) being blamed for debt crisis

Aired 26th July 2011 Fox Freedom watch. Judge Napolitano discusses with jack Hunter how democrats and the white house are blaming the tea party and small government candidates such as Ron Paul,Gary Johnson, for the debt ceiling crisis. Naming them "crazy" and "pathetic" and that it is they who are preventing the government from "progressing" really meaning borrowing and spending more money.

http://youtu.be/Z18z9KEptHY

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So wait, DEMOCRATS are blaming Ron Paul? Milk shot out my nose!

Oh boy, that's a good one! So Ron Paul, the Tea Party and Republicans are now to blame for the debt crisis am I right? HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Forgive me as milk just shot out of my nose! 'Those darn rotten Tea Parties', so says the most communist authoritarian bed wetters this side of mount Olympus. Go ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot you obvious wackos. Good god, this is amazingly great free advertising!!

I want to hear the Democratic Party just come out of the closet already and say Ron Paul is a leftist lunatic. Lets hear it on National TV Democrats, Ron Paul is "crazy" because he will end Lockheed Martin and Social Security. Get it over with!

The same party who brought us this bunch of Communist Oligarchs to force us all into a One World Government, the same party who brought us that good for nothing traitor HW Bush, Timothy Geithner, Ricky Perry, France Townsend, Hank Paulsen, Alan Greenspan, Dildo Rumsfeld, Lawrence Summers, Bo "Crook" Jackson, Bill Kristol, Libby, Cokie Roberts and the armchair chicken hawks.....wants to call Americans out as unpatriotic loons!!!

Man, more power to you bunch of jackals! *fires a M-9*
Go ahead and call them names, and watch as voters swarm in legions away from (Err...Democrat) Rick Perry/Mitt Romney as they run from her in droves!!
Ron Paul is and will never be no liberal, because he's the most conservative rock in Congress.

Ron Paul is actually the most

Ron Paul is actually the most liberal, if you use the classical meaning of the word.

Classic was populist puritan....

In 1812, all of them known as populist puritans(fiscal conservatives). Liberal only on domestic social issues. NOT government handoff programs, government subsidies for the Machine War Empire.

When the "LIBERALS" forcibly took over the textbooks, and I mean after 1812....they struck all that history from the books. They wanted it their way period. Liberal on "ALL" big government programs, no compromise.

John Calvin, another one of these jackboots helped them do just that. Thanks to their subterfuge, we have never had small government since that time or since Cleveland.

Since the "PROGRESSIVE" liberals said no compromise, they call black white. Ron Paul is now a leftist, instead of them! Because paranoia runs their lives.

Out of curiosity

How many people here have recently (or ever) contributed to an IRA of any kind?

If you have, do you believe that money will still be there for you at retirement, or do you think the government will reach in and steal these accounts?

The spin is in... July 26,

The spin is in... July 26, 2011, The View had ABC News Correspondent Jim Avila explain to the ladies what the debt ceiling is. He conferred that the tea party candidates in the Republican party want to..."cause a meltdown and start all over..." much was said and it was intimated that the country is being held hostage by 60 tea party candidates holding up raising the debt ceiling. One can only vomit at the weak attempt at layman economics on the current issue. I don't know how this show gets away with it. They really need to be called out on this naive, gullible ignorant spewing of political punditry. They are ABC's trained Obamanoids who target their audience for political persuasion.

ecorob's picture

the blame game...

isn't this what our sleazy politicians have been doing for decades?

they blame each other and the "game" goes on...

now, they both blame the one group of people responsible for moving the country forward, the "tea" party...see how they seek to stop us from gaining any more clout?

even as they continue to FAIL the American people they go down unrepentent, and unashamed for destroying this country

if your name is mccain, kerry, dodd, frank...or, if you have been in "politics" for more than 4 years you have sold this country down the road!

you will be exposed!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

No one should BLAME them.

Everyone should CREDIT them.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I called a radio talk show

I called a radio talk show yesterday in southeastern New England with the theme that fiscal responsibility is not extreme, then got to speak for a couple minutes using my favorite fiscal example for the general public, "if you make $24,000 per year and spend $38,000 per year, how responsible is that.... add 8 zeroes.... no plan on the table closes this gap at any point in the next 10 years.... etc, etc." Was pleased the host described it as an excellent call.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

bigmikedude's picture

Daily Paul - Great Quote Of the Day^

!

"if you make $24,000 per year and spend $38,000 per year, how responsible is that.... add 8 zeroes...."

Thanks laissez, I'll be using that as a tool to reach deep into keynesian mindsets.

This is front page material!

This is Front page material!!

Does anyone remeber that Ron Paul proposed across the board...

cuts that would balance the budget in one year? Guess not.

What plan was this? I find it

What plan was this?

I find it funny that Ron Paul on one hand says

"We need to stop stealing from the American people"!

And on the other, "We need drastic cuts to social security and medicare".

Any cuts to Social Security should be revenue neutral. Any cuts to medicare should mostly be revenue neutral.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What he actually said

What he actually said was his plan would be to cut militarism, unneeded federal departments and other places, and tide people over on Medicare and SS, allowing people to opt out of those. But, he said given the political climate perhaps the most "possible" thing to do would be across the board cuts. And Social Security has always been a tax, not a savings account, even though the American people were lied to about it being a savings account under the government's care. Turned out to be more of a Ponzi scheme.

Yeah, but social security has

Yeah, but social security has always been treated as a savings account under the government's care. Politicans have made quotes of such a nature. Social security tax is collected by that measure; paid out by that measure. You get paid depending on what you put in...

Are you saying that you are comfortable with decieving the American people? Saying, "we stole your money! It is gone, no use crying about it!"

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Inflation is stealing

as is a system that supports one generation to the detriment of another.

The fact is Medicare and SS creates a welfare state, which ultimately is destructive to the middle and low income classes. Sure you get your checks today, but you have to mortgage your kids future in the process.

But you pay into the

But you pay into the system.

Congress stole from SS and Medicare "bondholders" by spending the tax revenue. Does that mean that we now will excuse America's debt and reduce what SS and Medicare people get.

I don't think at all SS is destructive to the middle and low income classes. 30% of all seniors rely on SS to keep them out of poverty; over 60% get half their income from SS. This is money they PAID INTO THE SYSTEM!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

what system?

You, I, and everyone else has paid a tax. If you are ignorant enough to believe that your paying a tax will take care of your retirement, and you choose to not take care of your own retirement, then I suppose you get what you get.

Knowing what a bloated and deceitful bureaucracy the US government is...why in the living hell would anyone depend on them to supply your retirement? Just doesn't make any stinking sense. It would be like trusting Bernie Madoff to your retirement funds...AFTER he got out of prison.

My family has always taken care of their own retirements. It wasn't because of retirement from a company, nor social security that allows us to retire. It is our own due diligence to stay out of debt and build our financial lives in order to live without being an employee, at whatever the age. We have no 401k to lose, or to be stolen by the government, and if SS is still alive when we turn 85 (surely the age of retirement by the time we get there) then we can save that to pay for our funerals.

"You, I, and everyone else

"You, I, and everyone else has paid a tax. If you are ignorant enough to believe that your paying a tax will take care of your retirement, and you choose to not take care of your own retirement, then I suppose you get what you get."

I 100% agree. In a perfect world, that is what would happen.

But the realities of what it means when half the elderly population is on the streets has to be dealt with. You need to force people to take care of themselves in this small way, or you end up having to take care of them.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

most elderly are just like obama. they are willing to put this nation's bankruptcy on the table and threaten the other half to do something about it. 'but oh no, you don't touch MY ss!'

No no no, they are just

No no no, they are just saying,

"Why are you coming for MY social security and medicare, that I've paid for"!

Politicians who don't want to raise taxes find it easy to cut entitlements, even though that is just a retroactive tax hike.

If you go after social security and medicare, you have to increase taxes. Not even just on the rich; on everybody. How can you ask seniors to sacrifice if you don't want to sacrifice?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ours is an unfortunate period

Ours is an unfortunate period in American history thanks to a twist of fate in demographics. The next several decades are going to be hard-scrabble living for a lot of folks due to the vast difference between population of Boomers versus Generations X and Y.

let me put it this way

it will be better off for families like mine in which older parents have already paid into the system to just give up and admit the money is gone and never ask it back, and at the same time for me to no longer pay any taxes on ss and simply use those savings to plan for my parents' retirement on my own. you can see the money my parents already paid in as a make up for my future ss taxes, and since they don't get any benefits, it all balances out. for the rest of you who insist on taxing me to make up for a system i may have to retire at 80 on, go screw yourself. either way i don't want a system that puts direct tie between the government and the health industry. i guess you haven't learned the econ 101 where it teaches how this is the fastest way price becomes inflated.

I agree and disagree

Did they pay into the system? Yes. Will it bankrupt us? Yes. Either way, the promise will be broken.

Now, I also believe in what Dr. Paul says in establishing priorities. First we need to address foreign policy. This is the easiest and quickest cut, besides also benefiting our foreign relations. Then go after executive branch welfare, ie. departments of education, energy, commerce. Because Paul would have almost full control over this, it shouldn't be too difficult. Only then do you start to address SS and Medicare.

For SS, I would give everyone the opportunity to opt out. I'm a financial advisor, and I've heard clients say they don't need or necessarily want their checks. They would view it as a good deed to society to give it up, of their own volition of course. Young people, like myself, would also like to get out. There's a group in the middle where hard choices would need to be made. If you want a benefit, and you're over 55, you would be grandfathered in. Under 55, and the full retirement age is increased by 2-5 years, phased in over a decade. Then I'd tie it to life expectancy and hopefully do away with the whole program eventually.

Medicare isn't so easy, but I think a more free market is the solution. Pharma has the highest profit margin of any industry in the US, and I think that is likely caused by government intervention. Gotta think they loved Medicare part D. I differ to the doctor on this, as I know he is much more informed than I.

"Now, I also believe in what

"Now, I also believe in what Dr. Paul says in establishing priorities. First we need to address foreign policy. This is the easiest and quickest cut, besides also benefiting our foreign relations. Then go after executive branch welfare, ie. departments of education, energy, commerce. Because Paul would have almost full control over this, it shouldn't be too difficult. Only then do you start to address SS and Medicare."

Ron Paul vastly overstates how much we can save by cutting defense spending. Forget politically, what you could do. Just mathematically, return our military spending to 2001 levels, while cutting every foreign base, would save about 750 billion/year. That isn't even half the deficit. Taking away everything else you mentioned (all other departments, including FDA, commerce, agriculture, veterans, etc. ALL discretionary spending) would get you another 500 billion. You still have 500 billion to go to balance the budget. Hack off all of medicaid and all unearned unemployment and you would *just* barely balance the budget. Unemployment would shoot through the roof, our clean energy programs would get delayed several decades, etc.

"For SS, I would give everyone the opportunity to opt out. I'm a financial advisor, and I've heard clients say they don't need or necessarily want their checks. They would view it as a good deed to society to give it up, of their own volition of course."

I understand that you are financial advisor. But most America, most people, are fundamentally selfish. No one wants their taxes to increase. You think they are going to give away their benefit? Not going to happen. It may be different when you see someone face-to-face, but asking someone to sacrifice to save a faceless person doesn't work in today's era.

On a further note, remember why social security was enacted. Why a conservative supreme court allowed it to pass...because given the great depression, social security was deemed necessary to the general welfare. You had poor elderly people, who had lost all their money in the stock market, on the streets.

Forget about the moral problems...these people end up relying on government aid ANYWAYS, in the form of government poorhouses. Social Security was made to FORCE people to PAY THEIR WAY. No handouts. It forced people to have a cash alternative, indexed to inflation and not susceptible to the unpredictable stock, bonds, or metals market.

That logic still holds true today. Look at how many 401Ks and IRAs were devastated by the financial meltdown of 2007-09. Luckily a lot of those guys had Medicare and SS to fall back on. Can you imagine if they hadn't had it? If all their money had been in the market?

"Under 55, and the full retirement age is increased by 2-5 years, phased in over a decade. Then I'd tie it to life expectancy and hopefully do away with the whole program eventually."

The program is already indeced to life expectation. One must live until 81.5 to recieve back what you paid in. That is a full year and a half ahead of life expectancy. When life expectancy started to rise, Reagan increased social security taxes in the 80s. We may have to do the same again, except this time prevent government from spending the money.

"Medicare isn't so easy, but I think a more free market is the solution. Pharma has the highest profit margin of any industry in the US, and I think that is likely caused by government intervention. Gotta think they loved Medicare part D. I differ to the doctor on this, as I know he is much more informed than I."

I like Ron Paul, but his view of medicine is heaviliy influenced by the fact that gynecology (or optometry) is not an expensive practice. Ron Paul talks about how C-sections would be 1,000 instead of 10,000 without managed care. Even if that is true, if you extrapolated that into other things, that would make emergency cardiac surgery 20,000 instead of 200,000. Not exactly cheap (not at all realistic either).

Pharma doesn't have the highest profit margin. Its the entertainment industry. Just factually.

Pharma, as an industry, takes tremendous risks. It isn't like making cereal (6% profit) or making cars (13% profit). There is a significant downside if you are wrong. If a car isn't selling well, you stop producing it and lower your cost basis. If a drug doesn't pan out, how will you get the billions you put into research back?

What would be a free market drug industry look like? No patents? Should the government prevent big companies from buying small companies?

And I've never got the argument about free markets and health insurance. It already is fairly free. It isn't like the government is helping one or two companies get a monopoly...heck, the requirements for starting a health insurance firm are quite low. The main is you need the capital to manage you risk.

If you go to the free market, and not your employer for healthcare, you have more than 7-10 options, depending on where you live. You even have NON-PROFIT!!!! health insurance in many states...and these still have high premiums.

Not to go on a tagent, but the main reasons for rising healthcare costs is an increasingly aging and sick population. Its the food we eat and the lack of activity.

Liberals love to say; insurance companies have 25% overhead. Cut them! Conservatives love to say "tort reform!!!!" Pray that every pharmaceutical company makes every drug for no profit...it still is only 30-50% of the problem.

Many European and far East nations have enacted all these ideas...Switzerland has tried all three. Britain has tried single-payer; Germany the public option, tort reform, and pharma reform...France has tried many things. Some of these ideas to help save costs. But the fundamental reason why their healthcare costs less is because they are less sick. Part of it is cultural, part of it is government regulation of toxic food industries, and part of it is the corporate culture. That is the MAIN problem with healthcare.

Any president who doesn't point the finger at the American people is doing them an injustice. The problem with healthcare starts there.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cuts, cuts, cuts

I don't believe it is Ron Paul's desire to go back to 2001 levels....I think he would go farther. Also, because congress has not declared war, they can't stop him from doing ANYTHING regarding the troops. Policing our borders and investing in R&D/intel are significantly cheaper than what we've been doing for over 2 decades. I would not be surprised if we could cut a full $1 Trillion out of military spending. This, plus the departments gets you dangerously close to the mythical balanced budget. Cutting medicaid is not politically possible right now, but some of it can be helped by stronger border security and desolving benefits for illegals.

I agree that most recieving social security would not opt out, including the rich; however they should still be given the opportunity. I would add that I've also heard people say they don't mind paying higher taxes if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted in Washington. This hits at the heart of decentralized governing....people don't mind paying taxes so long as they can see a tangible benefit. You don't get that at the national level, but you do in your local area. Anyways, back on topic.

Social security evolved from a "social safety net" to a retirement benefit....that is why the system is bankrupt (along with unapportioned revenue). When life expectancies rose from mid-late 60s to mid 80s, the formula was never properly adjusted, and thus people came to rely on it as a pension. To say it is tied to life expectancy is only part of the truth...it doesnt fully reflect the societal shift over the last 70 years.

Social security is not "paying your own way". The present value of an inflation adjusted benefit of $2K per month is worth $500-$600K. I can assure you, most have not paid anything close to that.

"Morality" has everything to do with it. How is it ok that one generation can live beyond their means and make another pay for it? Your example of 2007-09 is flawed. Those same people recieved the benefit of an amazing run in the markets from 1982-2000...but instead of saving for the bad times, they spent. Why should either of us be penalized for these bad decisions?

It's a flaw in central economic planning to make people reliant on government for financial needs....especially at the national level. If a local community wants to impliment some type of SS-like program, then by all means do it.

My understanding of medicine/pharma is limited, but I'll try to explain my position.

I understand the risks in Pharma, however, that does not explain the huge discrepency between drug cost in America and drug costs outside. We are subsidizing the world's consumptions of patents and products developed in America.

Patents need to be looked at, though I can't say I'm qualified to address the problem. Tort-reform has had great success in Texas, but should not be a national issue.

Healthcare insurance is absolutley a monopoly...it is dominated by medicare and medicaid. "He who has the money makes the rules". You're example of private insurance is a stretch. The quality of coverage between group plans and private plans is SIGNIFICANTLY different...comparing the two is not apples to apples.

I agree with your last point. The primary problem in healthcare is our habits. Until we change our lifestyles, our problems will persist.

I truly enjoyed this debate. Let's do it again sometime.

"I don't believe it is Ron

"I don't believe it is Ron Paul's desire to go back to 2001 levels....I think he would go farther."

Not politically feasible

"Also, because congress has not declared war, they can't stop him from doing ANYTHING regarding the troops."

They could just declare war.

"I would not be surprised if we could cut a full $1 Trillion out of military spending."

1 trillion is pretty much equal to our entire defense budget right now....

"This, plus the departments gets you dangerously close to the mythical balanced budget."

Except that a lot of those departments have a role. Managing roads, paying for veteran's healthcare, fraud regulation, managing food trade between states, international trade, foreign relations, etc.

"Cutting medicaid is not politically possible right now, but some of it can be helped by stronger border security and desolving benefits for illegals."

I have a strong distate for medicaid. The system is very corrupt and many people abuse it; same for Medicare. Medicare + Medicaid fraud alone would get you 150 billion per year. That is a lot!

"I would add that I've also heard people say they don't mind paying higher taxes if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted in Washington. This hits at the heart of decentralized governing....people don't mind paying taxes so long as they can see a tangible benefit. You don't get that at the national level, but you do in your local area."

Possibly true. But the fact is, outside of social security and medicare, which are programs where you get the money you paid into the system back, we pay about 1.6 trillion in taxes per year. That is 11% of GDP.

"Social security evolved from a "social safety net" to a retirement benefit....that is why the system is bankrupt (along with unapportioned revenue). When life expectancies rose from mid-late 60s to mid 80s, the formula was never properly adjusted, and thus people came to rely on it as a pension."

Uh, yeah, it was properly adjusted. That is why they raised the tax in 1985...check out the social security studies. Calculate your own benefit using their calculator. You can see that you will take in less than you paid in if u factor the employer contribution.

"Social security is not "paying your own way"."

"Yes, it is The present value of an inflation adjusted benefit of $2K per month is worth $500-$600K. I can assure you, most have not paid anything close to that."

So if youy got paid 2K a month with 2% interest a year, living until the age of 80, you would collect 380,000 in SS benefits. That is almost 2 years more than average life expectancy.

"'Morality' has everything to do with it. How is it ok that one generation can live beyond their means and make another pay for it?"

See, that is the thing. The 2.5 trillion dollar social security surplus that has been spent didn't go to present-day and past-retirees. It went to other forms of government spending, including tax cuts for the rich, welfare, and military spending.

"Your example of 2007-09 is flawed. Those same people recieved the benefit of an amazing run in the markets from 1982-2000...but instead of saving for the bad times, they spent. Why should either of us be penalized for these bad decisions?"

Woa, woa. They were penalized. They lost money in the stock market. I'm just saying, that making sure people have their OWN MONEY to retire on is a good way of ensuring no one ends up on the government's dollar.

It is personal responsiblity at its core.

"It's a flaw in central economic planning to make people reliant on government for financial needs....especially at the national level."

I don't think of it that way. I think of the government has a holding facility of your social security money. At least, that is the way it should be. With the stock market, 401Ks, and the high risk financial environment/economy, forcing people to pay their own way has become a necessity.

"I understand the risks in Pharma, however, that does not explain the huge discrepency between drug cost in America and drug costs outside".

Its because they have so-called socialized medicine. They work with drug companies to get lower costs. That is the premier explanation, but a lot of people don't want that because it is not a free market.

"We are subsidizing the world's consumptions of patents and products developed in America."

100% true. Maybe we can do something about that.

"Healthcare insurance is absolutley a monopoly...it is dominated by medicare and medicaid".

Medicaid is hardly anything in the grand scheme of things; Medicare only past 65. Private insurance has no interest in insuring people of that age; otherwise, they would have ended medicare already.

"'He who has the money makes the rules'. You're example of private insurance is a stretch. The quality of coverage between group plans and private plans is SIGNIFICANTLY different...comparing the two is not apples to apples."

But the government doesn't make that...the difference between group and private plans is due to the employer-employee-insurance company relationship.

"I agree with your last point. The primary problem in healthcare is our habits. Until we change our lifestyles, our problems will persist."

Jimmy Carter's greatest feat as president was telling America that they have become fat, lazy, and greedy.

"I truly enjoyed this debate. Let's do it again sometime."

Agreed

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

i sure hope...

this so called super congress never makes it past an idea because if they do there goes our liberties down the drain.

“When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”
― Ron Paul

So they blame RP and extend the debt…

Guess that means more votes coming our way when it’s that much worst come spring…unless America is completely asleep… which I don’t think she is.

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Yes they sure are loving the blame game...

Playing the Blame game..

A MESSAGE FOR ALL OF HUMANITY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsgaFKwUA6g

yes very typical of them!

..