July 10, 2006
Those who forget the past are doomed to sound like Ron Paul
Ron Paul got a lengthy mash note in the WaPo over the weekend. Usually, there's no such thing as bad publicity, but every once in awhile one realizes that with some politicians, less is more. For instance:
As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."
("Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . .")
I can only presume that the Great Depression never occurred in whatever universe Paul inhabits. Maybe he can write the history textbooks for the Free State Project
In Texas's 14th District, which runs along the northern Gulf Coast and includes the cities of Galveston and Victoria, Paul is either a beloved figure or a mystifying one. He calls himself the "taxpayers' best friend," and this has led him to controversial stands, such as voting against federal farming subsidies despite the wide swaths of agricultural land in his district. Because he won't cooperate with fellow Republicans in the House unless a bill is in line with his principles, some constituents feel he puts his libertarian agenda over the district's needs.
"He's certainly the taxpayer's friend if the taxpayer doesn't want to get anything done," says John W. Hancock Jr., a rice farmer and banker in El Campo. "All he does is go to Washington and write articles and vote no."
You know what the answer to that is
Posted by Charles Kuffner on July 10, 2006 to Election 2006
Seems to me that Dr. No has managed to stay in the House for so long only because the voters aren't doing their jobs or thinking about their own self interests. He is the least relevant, most ignored member of the House and we here in the 14th district ought to ashamed of ourselves if we send this man back to Washington in November.
Am I reading this right? Ron Paul thinks that people were doing just fine before Social Security?
He's never read Steinbeck, never seen the Little Orphan Annie comic strip, never seen archival footage of bread lines, never read a history or economics book that covered the Great Depression?
So, uh, what does he think motivated Roosevelt and Congress to enact Social Security in 1935?
I wonder if he thinks that Congress's repeated efforts to pass meaningful, effective child labor laws were similarly unmotivated by the actual horror of child labor?
Ron Paul for president! He is one of the few shining lights up there in Congress.
You surely must understand that America is dead, and it has been replaced with a surrogate Fascist wannabe (9/11 was the takeover).
Ron Paul and people like him are there to put their bodies forth and physically block the Machine from running completely unchecked.
In the event that the previous comment is not a joke, I'll simply remind everyone that Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party candidate. He got 0.47% of the vote. 'Nuff said. (Source)
As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment?"
LOL! That's the funniest gaffe I've heard since Shrub explained "[terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we [in my Administration]." Make sure our friends at the People's Republic of Seabrook see this - if this doesn't qualify Rep. Paul for a [email protected]$$ Award, I don't know what will.
Perhaps Rep. Paul learned all he knows about the Great Depression from "Those Were The Days," the theme song to the All In The Family TV series. In which case he clearly has trouble telling satire from reality, so it sounds like it's time to have him on Steven Colbert's 433-part [sic] series "Better Know A District!"
Well...it is apparent that our "liberal" fellows have no command of history. You actually touch on the issue by stating: "Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food"
You are correct. There was no cash in the Great Depression. Who do you suppose created that situation? Hmmmmm? If you were versed on history, you would know that the "cash" or money supply in the country was deliberately & drastically (over 30%) reduced by a certain cabal as a means to redistribute the wealth from the middle class to the uber wealthy. Before you slam a good man....learn your facts. You sound foolish and uneducated.
By the way....wonderful to see that the "culture of corruption" will be upheld by trying to elect a lobbyist (Sklar) to Congress. Reeeeeeeeal smart guys. Couldn't you have picked someone with a bit more integrity? Say....perhaps Marc Rich?
Thank God for Ron Paul! He is a gem. We need many more just like him.
Regardless the depression (made much worse by FDR), the fed govt. still has no constitutional authority to take from some to provide for others.
The fed govt. still has no constitutional authority to take from some to provide for others.
Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution literally provides exactly that authority, via the grant of power to levy taxes to pay for the general welfare of the United States.
May I suggest that you abandon disingenuousness in favor of interacting with the rest of your fellow citizens on common ground in the marketplace of ideas?
Maybe you think the government shouldn't have certain powers, but everyone else think it does have those powers. You'll have to convince us to take away those powers, because you won't be able to convince us that it doesn't.