Sen. Paul Responds to President Obama’s Nomination of Alan Krueger

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Yesterday, President Obama nominated Princeton labor economist Alan Krueger to become the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Sen. Rand Paul issued the following statement in response:

"Alan Krueger is nothing more than an extreme government interventionist, cut from the same cloth as those who have failed to correctly predict, diagnose, and manage our economic problem.

"During his tenure at the Treasury Department, Alan Krueger helped design the 'cash for clunkers' program and even supported a European style value-added tax that would raise prices on American families.
Sen. Paul Responds to President Obama’s Nomination of Alan Krueger Rand Paul | United States Senator

I agree with him, but this seems pointless. Might as well ask Obama to step down as well.
 

MiddleClass

Moderate American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
81
Points
28
Location
Delaware
Look, everyone has a right to criticize our president, but the cry wolf obsession coming out of the Republican Party nomination process is simply overkill. We are all becoming desensitized to the relentless trivial attacks on our President, and starting to turn it all off. Republicans would be served communicating their platforms more effectively to the American People instead of crying wolf about our President every day. Its whining at its worst, and reflects more poorly on them than the President.
 

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
These are not petty attacks, Obama is a shit leader who won’t step outside of his tiny little overly educated box. If for just a moment Obama could realize that he lacks real life experience on many issues and appointed someone that has a history of success than maybe the economy would not be in thr trash and still declining Trillions of dollars later.
 

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
Look, everyone has a right to criticize our president, but the cry wolf obsession coming out of the Republican Party nomination process is simply overkill. We are all becoming desensitized to the relentless trivial attacks on our President, and starting to turn it all off. Republicans would be served communicating their platforms more effectively to the American People instead of crying wolf about our President every day. Its whining at its worst, and reflects more poorly on them than the President.
I like Ron Paul, he has lots of plans and you can ask him about any issue and he will talk about it until you scream SHU THE FUCK UP!

That's a real leader, and I like that he has criticisms about the President of the United States... Obama is destroying the country, just as Bush did. There is no rule that once a president proves to be absolute shit that we should just except them and let it runs its course.... I mean Obama attacks Republicans at every given opportunity. How often do you watch an Obama speech and feel like "yeah, fucking Republicans!" When Obama is done? That's because Obama is always dividing and never uniting.
 

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,397
Reaction score
3,047
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
Can someone tell me something Ron Paul has done for the nation? Some meaningful piece of legislation that passed and is a consensus good thing. I know he votes nah often, but does that count for anything.

Why I Am Not a Libertarian

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
Can someone tell me something Ron Paul has done for the nation? Some meaningful piece of legislation that passed and is a consensus good thing. I know he votes nah often, but does that count for anything.

Why I Am Not a Libertarian

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
And he would be wrong. Because for that to be the concern of government they have to take from people prosperity in its most physical form. The very thing Locke says they are to provide. Their money. People like Paul, get that they ARE in fact doing something for you by voting no on so many government programs. They are protecting the physical form of your prosperity be keeping from having to give to the government for whatever program some libtard of the week thinks is best for people.

You are a sucker Midcan. You apparently vote for the candidate that promises you the most 'free shit' every election cycle. You and Locke are both idiots to wonder why people don't prosper when you advocate for a form of government that doesn't require people and whos only means of provdiing prosperity to some is to deprive, in some measure, other of it.
 
Last edited:

Suzanimal

Rookie
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Points
1
Can someone tell me something Ron Paul has done for the nation? Some meaningful piece of legislation that passed and is a consensus good thing. I know he votes nah often, but does that count for anything.


"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke

Dr Ron Paul has introduced lots of legislation, most notably for me is the Federal Reserve Transparency Act - yeah he almost always vote no, because almost everything that comes out of Washington is a load of garbage.

Here's my response to your Robert Locke quote:
"But security, prosperity and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and principal issues that concern governments."

1- Security - National Security, yes, is the responsibility of our government. "provide for the common defense" - Nation Building and war mongering is NOT defending our country

2- Prosperity - Absolutely, and a truly free market with REAL currency is the only way to obtain that. Under the current system of over taxation, over regulation, bureaucratic red tape, over spending, thievery by the Federal Reserve that perpetuates a boom - bust cycle it's almost impossible of the average American to even earn a living.

3- Family - This is where the bulk of my happiness comes from and I don't think the Federal Government needs be legislating any morals to my children. I can do that just fine, thank you very much. I think we can all agree most of the politicians in DC are scumbags so who the heck are they to say how I should educate my children, who I should marry and whether or not I should own a gun (which by the way the CONSTITUTION, you know the alleged law of the land - GUARANTEES me that right in the 2nd Amendment).

In summary, I think the role of government IS to secure our freedoms, not take them away.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Look, everyone has a right to criticize our president, but the cry wolf obsession coming out of the Republican Party nomination process is simply overkill. We are all becoming desensitized to the relentless trivial attacks on our President, and starting to turn it all off. Republicans would be served communicating their platforms more effectively to the American People instead of crying wolf about our President every day. Its whining at its worst, and reflects more poorly on them than the President.
I actually like them.

More and more Republicans are showing just how radical they are about how to govern. They hate the government, they want to destroy it..and if someone else is in power they will make it grind to a halt.
 

newpolitics

vegan atheist indy
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,931
Reaction score
262
Points
48
Can someone tell me something Ron Paul has done for the nation? Some meaningful piece of legislation that passed and is a consensus good thing. I know he votes nah often, but does that count for anything.

Why I Am Not a Libertarian

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
And he would be wrong. Because for that to be the concern of government they have to take from people prosperity in its most physical form. The very thing Locke says they are to provide. Their money. People like Paul, get that they ARE in fact doing something for you by voting no on so many government programs. They are protecting the physical form of your prosperity be keeping from having to give to the government for whatever program some libtard of the week thinks is best for people.

You are a sucker Midcan. You apparently vote for the candidate that promises you the most 'free shit' every election cycle. You and Locke are both idiots to wonder why people don't prosper when you advocate for a form of government that doesn't require people and whos only means of provdiing prosperity to some is to deprive, in some measure, other of it.
It has nothing to with getting free shit. I wish republicans would get this misplaced anger towards liberals out of their head.
 

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,519
Reaction score
9,089
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles CA
First of all, Ron Paul did not make the comments, Rand Paul did. With this nomination, Obama cements his legacy as an economic illiterate.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,128
Reaction score
15,869
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Yesterday, President Obama nominated Princeton labor economist Alan Krueger to become the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Sen. Rand Paul issued the following statement in response:

"Alan Krueger is nothing more than an extreme government interventionist, cut from the same cloth as those who have failed to correctly predict, diagnose, and manage our economic problem.

"During his tenure at the Treasury Department, Alan Krueger helped design the 'cash for clunkers' program and even supported a European style value-added tax that would raise prices on American families.
Sen. Paul Responds to President Obama’s Nomination of Alan Krueger Rand Paul | United States Senator

I agree with him, but this seems pointless. Might as well ask Obama to step down as well.
ummmm... kevin... let me get this straight... you want someone who thinks the way you want things done is really, really, really goofy.... to pick someone who would do things the way *you" would want them done in that goofy goofy way?
 

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
First of all, Ron Paul did not make the comments, Rand Paul did. With this nomination, Obama cements his legacy as an economic illiterate.
Yes, nominating a highly qualified economist as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers is "illiterate".
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top