pjrnemtp's Blog

Paul H, Male, 47, SC, US
Member For: 6 months, 4 weeks
Posts: 56
Top Post By pjrnemtp (3 thumbs up):

NO NO NO NO.  This is not the time for revitalization projects, bicycle paths, new buildings. We need to get back to basics.  Tighten the belt. We are woefully behind on infrastructure.  Roads and bridges need to be a priority.  I will not support a new tax initiative that:

Widens roads instead of repaving

Provides for a sidewalk extension

Considers a bicycle lane

Spends 4.2 million dollars on a new public safety facility

Revitailzes the Pendleton downtown (no specifics)

Ball Park at a quarter of million dollars

Provides $500,000 for a sports and entertainment complex

$85,000 for planning and studying

1 million for a recreation building

Lastly, maybe someone can enlighten me, but why would a capital projects list encompass improvements for the Broadway Water District?  Even if someone can sell me on why this 4.2 million dollars is placed in this tax initiative and not passed on to the end users of that system, I would continue to be unable to support the initiative with this type of wasteful spending proposals on the table.

Petunia, if you utilize the argument that some projects are so far down on the list they will never be completed, what's to keep a politician from attempting to gain some political traction by proposing to move one of their projects up on the list.  Of course to do this he/she must agree to let another politician to do the same etc etc. There needs to be someone with some spine to stand up and say that the basics need to be covered and not allowing extraneous projects.

 

 

- from the topic: Capital Projects Sales Tax - Redux

Recent Posts by pjrnemtp:

Re: Catholics: No communion for Obama supporters

November 17, 2008 by pjrnemtp

I must disagree with you JD. If freedom of religion is going to apply to everyone it requires a freedom from religion.  You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions. Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to believe or not believe is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

 BTW I have read the First Amendment as well as the entire Constitution of the United Sates. You would be hard to find anyone that believes more in the strict application (Jeffersonian) of it's precepts than myself.

 

Re: Anderson An med Hospital Emergency Room is a nightmare! It needs to be fixed a.s.a.p.

November 16, 2008 by pjrnemtp

There are currently three locations that a patient can present for medical care in an acute situation.  Main campus emergency department located in the main hospital, Urgent Care located in the Women's and Children's Hospital on Hwy 81 and Minor Care located in the building that once held the AnMed Family Practice Clinic, which as republikin pointed out is directly across from the entrance to the main emergency department.

The main emergency department (ED)  is open 24 hours a day.  Urgent care operates from 8 am - 7 pm and Minor Care operates from 9 am - 9 pm

There are several factors that impact a visit to the ED and the associated delays.  While andersonretro had a not so pleasant experience with his visit to the ED I am sad to say that his is not the exception. First I will provide some information that allows for some perspective.  Anderson County has an estimated population (2004) of 173,800 people.  Greenville County has an estimate (2004) of 401,174 people. There is one ED serving Anderson County and there are six serving Greenville County (Greenville Memorial, Greer Memorial, North Greenville Medical, Hillcrest Memorial, St Francis Downtown and St Francis Eastside).  The per capita income for Anderson County is 24,983 dollars and 29,544 dollars in Greenville County.

The AnMed ED treated over 73,000 patients in 2007 and is on track to treat in excess of 85,000 in 2008.  Keep in mind that it being done in a facility that was renovated to treat 66,000 patients a year.

Reasons for the increased numbers:

* Greater numbers of uninsured

* ED being utilized as primary care (in 2004 30,000 patients did not have a primary physician, in 2007 that number jumped to 44,120)

*ED used as overflow by family physicians
* Improper utilization of ED (cold symptoms, upset stomach, etc)
The good news is that reducing the waiting time in the ED is a priority.  There is an expansion currently underway that will help alleviate wait times.  The bad news is that as the rate of uninsured and underinsured rises, the emergency department will only become busier.

 

 

 

Re: Catholics: No communion for Obama supporters

November 16, 2008 by pjrnemtp

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of religion also means feedom from religion.

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

November 16, 2008 by pjrnemtp


Me! Me! Let me answer!! [image]

If we do not "level the market" the market will level itself. End story.


-jdtippett

A very simple, but not complete answer.  In a "free market" system which is what we are supposed to have in the US.  The market will level on it's own.  Part of the current problem is the fact that Mr. Greenspan facilitated the housing bubble by keeping interest rates too low for too long in his attempt to prevent the US economy form going in to a recession.  He pretty much admitted to this in front of the Senate Finance Committee a few weeks ago.  The "free market" system was converted to a "semi-free market" system when the government provided it's first bail out.  As I stated, 700 billion is just the beginning.  We have started down a very slippery slope as evidenced by the current debate on the bail out plan for the auto manufacturing industry.

 

Re: Duke Power office in Anderson for sale???? Were are they moving to???

November 16, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Shutting it down.  Payments will have to be made at different locations around town.  Not sure if they will be charging a fee to accept the payments.

Re: Excellent Non-partisan accessment of our future

November 16, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Thank you for the continued fear mongering.

Re: NeoConservatism

October 25, 2008 by pjrnemtp

I am not sure that the article was a complete neoconservative mea culpa. I believe what it reveals is a fundamental flaw with politics in America and that is dogmatism. Politics has moved further away from any semblance of an intellectually directed process and has become almost totally reliant on dogmatism. The vast majority now rely on sources rather than on ideas. This reliance causes many people to only pass judgment on the source rather than the idea i.e. Fox News, NY Times etc. Dogmatism does not allow for a true evaluation of issues and ideas and only emphasizes conformity.

Re: Just How Dumb Is Our Governor?

October 25, 2008 by pjrnemtp




Stupid libertarian parading about as a Republican . . .


- SSHM

-sshm

I am truly offended.

Re: Sheriff Debate

October 12, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Please provide the facts behind this statement

Why this discussion? Gough according to state law is not elgible to run for sheriff.

-a-venter

Re: Liberal Democrats

October 11, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Some of the latest: "

The IMF warned on Saturday that the global financial system was on the brink of meltdown, while France and Germany pushed ahead with a pan-European crisis response to try to prevent the worst global downturn in decades.

At a joint news conference, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said they had "prepared a certain number of decisions" to present at a Sunday meeting of European leaders as they work feverishly to restore blocked credit markets to working order.

The United States appealed for patience, but the International Monetary Fund stressed that time was running short after leading industrialized nations failed to agree on concrete measures to end the crisis at a meeting on Friday.

"Intensifying solvency concerns about a number of the largest U.S.-based and European financial institutions have pushed the global financial system to the brink of systemic meltdown," IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn said.

 

 

 

Re: Casino Gambling

October 11, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Lease Apple Island on Lake Hartwell to the highest bidder (casino operator), let them build a resort / gaming destination, keep the degenerates on the island and reap the benefits.

Global financial meltdown

October 10, 2008 by pjrnemtp

It has become clear that my prediction of the cost of the bailout plan will turn out to be true (both in the cost and the fact that it would'nt work). I present the following suggestions. If our leaders, be they Republican, Democrat, Independent or Libertarian do not act and act quickly America and the rest of the world will experience a prolonged depression.  The time frame estimated to be anywhere from two to ten years (the ten year estimate is based on the very real situation that occurred in Japan).  Here is what needs to be done:

1.  Another rapid round of policy rate cuts on the order of at least 150 basis points on average globally.

2.  A temporary blanket guarantee of all deposits while a triage between insolvent financial institutions that need to be shut down and distressed but solvent institutions that need to be partially nationalized with injections of public capital is made.

3.  A rapid reduction of the debt burden on insolvent households preceded by a temporary freeze on all forclosures.

4.  Massive and unlimited provision of liquidity to solvent financial institutions.

5. Public provision of credit to the solvent parts of the corporate sector to avoid a short-term debt refinancing crisis for solvent but illiquid corporations and small businesses.

6.  Massive direct government fiscal stumulis packages that includes public works, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, tax rebates to lower income households and provision of grants to strapped and crunched state and local government.

7.  An agreement between lender and creditor countries running current account surpluses and borrowing, and debtor countries running current account deficits to maintain and orderly financing of deficits and a recycling of the surpluses of creditors to avoid a disorderly adjustment of such imbalances.

The Fish Standard

October 3, 2008 by pjrnemtp

The Wall Street Journal's Justin Scheck reports:
There's been a mackerel economy in federal prisons since about 2004, former inmates and some prison consultants say. That's when federal prisons prohibited smoking and, by default, the cigarette pack, which was the earlier gold standard.

Prisoners need a proxy for the dollar because they're not allowed to possess cash. Money they get from prison jobs (which pay a maximum of 40 cents an hour, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons) or family members goes into commissary accounts that let them buy things such as food and toiletries. After the smokes disappeared, inmates turned to other items on the commissary menu to use as currency.

Books of stamps were one easy alternative. "It was like half a book for a piece of fruit," says Tony Serra, a well-known San Francisco criminal-defense attorney who last year finished nine months in Lompoc on tax charges. Elsewhere in the West, prisoners use PowerBars or cans of tuna, says Ed Bales, a consultant who advises people who are headed to prison. But in much of the federal prison system, he says, mackerel has become the currency of choice.
One reason the mackeral standard has taken off: Hardly anyone actually wants to eat the stuff. Another reason: "each can (or pouch) costs about $1." (So it's pegged to the dollar, then?)

The authorities' response: a steep tax on excess savings, a crackdown on unauthorized trading, and, um, limits on credit:
The Bureau of Prisons views any bartering among prisoners as fishy. "We are aware that inmates attempt to trade amongst themselves items that are purchased from the commissary," says bureau spokeswoman Felicia Ponce in an email. She says guards respond by limiting the amount of goods prisoners can stockpile. Those who are caught bartering can end up in the "Special Housing Unit" -- an isolation area also known as the "hole" -- and could lose credit they get for good behavior.

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 30, 2008 by pjrnemtp

He may be smart but anyone who understands economics must realize that this situation was not caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  I do not have time to post a full rebuttal and will attempt to later tonight. 

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 30, 2008 by pjrnemtp

He may be smart but anyone who understands economics must realize that this situation was not caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  I do not have time to post a full rebuttal and will attempt to later tonight.  It

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 30, 2008 by pjrnemtp

From about 2001 - current the United States has funded a comprehensive restructuring of domestic government agencies (i.e. Homeland Security) with new and far-reaching "anti-terrorism" programs (e.g. Federal subsidy of enlarged state and local police, USVISIT, etc.), funded an invasion and ongoing active occupation of Iraq (at a cost of about $1 billion per month), while at the same time cutting taxes, and in September 2007 Congress raised the debt ceiling $9.815 trillion.

The U.S. Government went from an ostensibly balanced budget in 1999, to a mind-boggling increase in spending, while at the same time collecting less revenue (i.e. taxes). How do they afford it? They artificially increase the supply of money and credit through the Federal Reserve. This is a stealth tax. By debasing the fiat currency of the dollar, they spend the new dollars which dilutes the value of the dollars we save in our bank accounts (or that we negotiated with our employers to earn in our paychecks), but all of the other goods and services are still just as scarce, so more dollars are needed for the same value to exchange for them, which is inflation.

The "Three Trillion Dollar War" or whatever you want to call it was all paid with inflation, which explains why the price of gold went over $1000/oz, why oil and food prices are up, but people are still generally acting as if dollars are worth what they used to be worth before the new money was created. (Arguably this is also why the Federal Reserve ceased publishing M3 Data in March of 2006, and why the Department of Labor and Statistics has redefined the consumer price index (CPI) to exclude energy (i.e. oil) and agriculture from its "basket of goods" estimation of dollar purchasing power.)

The economic crisis the United States can no longer ignore the unwinding of this inflation. However, economists who speak on television or for politicians will tie themselves in knots and circular logic to avoid ever saying the word "inflation" -- it's like a taboo. So first they pitched this problem as a "sub-prime mortgage crisis", until now the problem is obviously not contained to just that market sector.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, it’s a little late to worry about assigning the blame. There was unbridled greed fueled by free flowing, cheap credit and stoked by the lack of nearly any regulation of the markets. So this bubble didn't even feel like a bubble so much because the "improvement" was marginal over the pre-existing recession from the previous dot-com bubble and the housing "foam" created by Alan Greenspan.

All that inflation is now being defined. If you have faith in a free market economy, one must realize that it is non-linear. Speculation bubbles will always be present which makes the economy fall out of equilibrium. When policy (political or ignorance) supports these speculation bubbles, there comes a point that the economy must return to equilibrium. This equilibrium will have to occur. The decision is whether to spread the return to equilibrium over a long period of time (bailout) or allow the equilibrium to happen quickly (no bailout).

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 29, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 29, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Re: Capital Projects Sales Tax - Redux

September 29, 2008 by pjrnemtp

NO NO NO NO.  This is not the time for revitalization projects, bicycle paths, new buildings. We need to get back to basics.  Tighten the belt. We are woefully behind on infrastructure.  Roads and bridges need to be a priority.  I will not support a new tax initiative that:

Widens roads instead of repaving

Provides for a sidewalk extension

Considers a bicycle lane

Spends 4.2 million dollars on a new public safety facility

Revitailzes the Pendleton downtown (no specifics)

Ball Park at a quarter of million dollars

Provides $500,000 for a sports and entertainment complex

$85,000 for planning and studying

1 million for a recreation building

Lastly, maybe someone can enlighten me, but why would a capital projects list encompass improvements for the Broadway Water District?  Even if someone can sell me on why this 4.2 million dollars is placed in this tax initiative and not passed on to the end users of that system, I would continue to be unable to support the initiative with this type of wasteful spending proposals on the table.

Petunia, if you utilize the argument that some projects are so far down on the list they will never be completed, what's to keep a politician from attempting to gain some political traction by proposing to move one of their projects up on the list.  Of course to do this he/she must agree to let another politician to do the same etc etc. There needs to be someone with some spine to stand up and say that the basics need to be covered and not allowing extraneous projects.

 

 

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 28, 2008 by pjrnemtp

I think that you have to agree that there wasn't much debate about if there should be a bailout but a quick and slick public relations campaign that needed to spread the word that "700 billion dollars is a big number, because this is a big problem".

Skepticism and cynicism permeate my though process, but I am willing to happily admit I'm wrong because of both of these attributes.

What I have concluded from a little research is that Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers didn't go bankrupt because of individual mortgage loans defaults and foreclosures. These were simply the catalysts at the bottom of a huge pyramid of leverage that ultimately uncovered the sheer lack of transparency in the financial markets. But instead of discussing intense new regulation, the US government is just writing out checks.

Professor Nouriel Roubini: http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/

Ron Paul: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/09/19/ron-paul-this-bailout-wont-be-the-last.html

The Motley Fool: http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=89259&t=01001482315991999237

Here is one example of possible plan failure 

http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2008/09/game-theory-why-bailout-wont-work.html

 

The only proponents of the plan are the same people that kept telling us everything was okay up until the last minute.  I have no faith that it will work and believe that there are better ways to shore up the markets than by the purchase of toxic assets, at even a bargin price.  The only benefactors are the share holders of the rescued entities and the unsecured creditors of banks. 

At last count (April 2008) Japan and China owned 1.1 trillion dollars in US treasury securities.  Does anyone want to venture a guess as to how the government will come up with the 700 billion dollars?  That's right, sell treasury securities.  What country currently has the fiscal ability to purchase significant chunks of these securities?  You got it, China. (Hence the analogy of the Carpathia rescuing the surviviors of the Titanic).

The better way to solve the problem would have been to reduce the debt overhang on millions of insolvent households through government backed refinancing plans (possibly utilizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae now) thereby reducing the toxicity of the current assets and reducing the debt burden from the bottom up.  Once the share holders are relieved by this bailout, what incentives are present to force change in corporate menatality...none.

 

Re: $700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 28, 2008 by pjrnemtp

 

$700 billion dollars is just the beginning

September 28, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Don’t believe for a minute that the $700 billion Paulson plan will be the last bailout. There are estimates from economists that a bailout that saves the economy will require upwards of 1.5 trillion dollars. This mounting national debt will be nearly impossible to overcome and ultimately lead to the financial collapse that the “bailout” is attempting to prevent.

If we listen to all the high level government officials, the economy was not in a recession, our financial markets were safe and America’s economy was fundamentally sound. These assurances continued right up until September 18th. This is the date that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made the stunning announcement that a $700 billion bailout was needed to save the American economy from the largest economic disaster since the great depression. Nobody saw this coming?


I can only guess that they had other things on their mind because even after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized without a vote September 7th, the “experts” remained optimistic.
A week later on September 14th when Merrill Lynch sold itself (without a vote by it’s board of directors) to Bank of America (without submitting the proposal to it’s Board of Directors). We were constantly assured that our money was safe and the economy was sound.


When Lehman Brothers Holdings declared bankruptcy on September 15 – the largest bankruptcy in American history – WE WERE TOLD EVERYTHING WAS UNDER CONTROL.

Paulson, Bernanke, President Bush and John McCain all assured us that everything was okay. This sentiment was continuously spewed by the talking heads on television considered experts.


Prof. Nouriel Roubini is an expert, one that has no horse in the race and one, that I believe attempts to provide insightful meaningful commentary on economic and financial issues. In December of 2007 Prof. Roubini made the following comment regarding the direction of the US economy: “Overall the most severe financial crisis in the Anglo-Saxon financial system in the last 20 years: crisis of insolvency and not just illiquidity; crisis of the “originate and distribute” model of securitization as wrong incentives and asymmetric information have led to a massive lack of confidence/trust in counterparties; rise of a disintermediated non-bank shadow financial system that is now in serious trouble. Need for massive reforms and regulations of the financial system.”

The Titanic has been sinking.  We've been told over and over again that it wasn't, but the water is lapping at out feet.  Some will get a life raft, some will get a life vest, some may even jump without either, but the government is attempting to insure that nobody goes down with the ship.  The biggest concern is that our Carpathia may very well be China.

 

Ron Paul's take two years ago regarding the impending economic troubles.

September 28, 2008 by pjrnemtp

What is your assessment of Alan Greenspan's record as Fed chief?

Ron Paul: If you evaluate Greenspan from a conventional perspective, you'd have to say that he was successful in that he kept the charade going. He fooled people long enough that trust in the U.S. economy's health was maintained. In other words, he was able to manufacture bubbles when they were necessary and get away with it. In the short run that looks beneficial, but in the long run it's very dangerous, just delaying the inevitable.

When you keep interest rates lower than the market rate by creating new money and credit, that is inflation. That's the source of much mischief, and he did this continuously. When the interest rate is 1 percent, you know it's way below the market rate. When it's 6 or 7 or 8, you can't be certain it's not higher than the rate would be if they had a totally hands-off position. But for the most part Federal Reserve chairmen keep the interest rate that they control lower than the market rate, and therefore they are running an inflation machine.

The incentive is always short-run, because Wall Street enjoys low interest rates. They see it as a positive sign psychologically, and it plays a role in keeping stock prices high. The majority of people still believe this is the road to prosperity, that with lower interest rates businesses do better and banks do better and everyone is going to be happy. What the Fed does is just a form of central economic planning that this country and its business community have come to accept and that I reject.

reasononline
November 2006
www.reason.com

Re: Capt. Johnson/Anderson City Police

September 28, 2008 by pjrnemtp

He circumvented the chain of command, simple.

Could not agree more with this email that I received.

September 27, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

What have you done for me lately?

September 25, 2008 by pjrnemtp

From a nurse that volunteered in Texas.

Before everyone thinks I am a terrible, prejudiced, horrible
person, just wanted to send a copy of the letter I sent to
the Times editors and Bill O'Reilly. Please pray that
Hurricane Ike will NOT come to Louisiana - I don't think
I have the attitude of Christ yet!
Sherri

Dear Editor,
I am a nurse who has just completed volunteer working
approximately 120 hours as the clinic director in a
Hurricane Gustav evacuation shelter in Shreveport,
Louisiana over the last 7 days. I would love to see
someone look at the evacuee situation from a new
perspective. Local and national news channels have covered
the evacuation and "horrible" conditions the
evacuees had to endure during Hurricane Gustav.
True - some things were not optimal for the evacuation and
the shelters need some modification.
At any point, does anyone address the responsibility (or
irresponsibility) of the evacuees?
Does it seem wrong that one would remember their cell
phone, charger, cigarettes and lighter but forget their
child's insulin?
Is something amiss when an evacuee gets off the bus, walks
immediately to the medical area, and requests immediate free
refills on all medicines for which they cannot provide a
prescription or current bottle (most of which are
narcotics)?
Isn't the system flawed when an evacuee says they
cannot afford a $3 copay for a refill that will be delivered
to them in the shelter yet they can take a city-provided bus
to Wal-mart, buy 5 bottles of Vodka, and return to consume
them secretly in the shelter?
Is it fair to stop performing luggage checks on incoming
evacuees so as not to delay the registration process but
endanger the volunteer staff and other persons with the very
realistic truth of drugs, alcohol and weapons being brought
into the shelter?
Am I less than compassionate when it frustrates me to scrub
emesis from the floor near a nauseated child while his
mother lies nearby, watching me work 26 hours straight, not
even raising her head from the pillow to comfort her own
son?
Why does it insense me to hear a man say "I ain't
goin' home 'til I get my FEMA check" when I
would love to just go home and see my daughters who I have
only seen 3 times this week?
Is the system flawed when the privately insured patient
must find a way to get to the pharmacy, fill his
prescription and pay his copay while the FEMA declaration
allows the uninsured person to acquire free medications
under the disaster rules?
Does it seem odd that the nurse volunteering at the shelter
is paying for childcare while the evacuee sits on a cot
during the day as the shelter provides a
"daycare"?
Have government entitlements created this mentality and am
I facilitating it with my work?
Will I be a bad person, merciless nurse or poor Christian
if I hesitate to work at the next shelter because I have
worked for 7 days being called every curse word imaginable,
feeling threatened and fearing for my personal safety in the
shelter?
Exhausted and battered,
Sherri Hagerhjelm, RN

The government just doesn't do enough, does it?

Re: Blog lunch?

January 31, 2008 by pjrnemtp

I will be there.

Re: 295,091 fell for it...........

January 30, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Since some of you have been wondering, I have 3 simple rules when voting for someone:
1. Will they stay out of my wallet?
2. Will they do everything possible to keep government out of my life?
3. Will they prevent the further shredding of the Constitution and try to restore whats already been taken away?

I don't think thats much at all to ask for.


As for elevating the poor, you really are clueless. Do you think people are going to line up to give away large amounts of their hard earned money to elevate the poor? That money will come from increased taxes, but then again if you don't work or already live on the govt. cheese, why would you care? Look back in history, Democrats raise taxes to support social programs more than anyone else, its a known fact, its what they're born to do. Personally I already have too much money stolen from my paychecks as it is and Obama WILL continue this tradition. The only thing he'll change is the increasing percentage of money stolen from your paycheck. (And that goes for Hillary and Edwards too.)

As for healthcare, sorry but there is no Constitutional right granting subsidized healthcare for everyone. Want better benefits? Better yourself and get a better job that has those benefits. This is capitalism, and since we have a top, we have to have a bottom, you sink or swim, thats just the way it is.

Conservative waste? Democrats control the House and Senate, pork spending goes up 32%!!!

**biggest pork spender in 2007: **

-- Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) 96 pork projects worth $196.3 million.

and she's a democrap...go figure.......


Also why should I watch the debate? Its the same s**t every four years, the only 2 things that change are the windbags behind the podiums the BS they try to make us believe, and the ever increasing amount of money stolen from my paycheck.


oh yea....YELLOW=COWARD


now for your amusement......
ha ha..

- zn706



A response that belies your very shallow thought process or your complete ignorance of the subjects to which you address. Either that or the fact that you just spout something to create entertainment. From what you have stated, all poor have the option to find gainful employment and those employed without health benefits can just go out and obtain a better job that includes health benefits. Please tell me you have a better understanding of the social condition in America that what you have expressed.

Re: Mike Huckabee

January 8, 2008 by pjrnemtp

Flat tax and national sales tax are two different animals click here to help with the discussion.

Re: Facism in America

November 12, 2007 by pjrnemtp


Paul would have us shrink government but vets need big government involvement to reverse its shameful treatment of those that offered up their lives so that we could post to blogs in safety and freedom.

- PAPPY



The size of government irrelevent. There is no excuse for mistreatment of veterans. My belief in the constitution means that I believe that our government is tasked with protecting its citizens from our enemies, this means maintaining a standing army, which means the governement has the obligation to insure that our veterans have the best medical care and benefits. They also have the obligation to insure that a soldiers family is taken care of while that soldier is out of country protecting us. In this, there should be no argument or discussion, just a minimum standard of decency that is maintained regardless of cost.