Comments on: Bartlett vs The Paulistas

By: daddysteve

daddysteve — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:10:14 +0000

Ahhh…nothing like Ron Paul to stir up the comments. He’s a damned hero if no other reason than getting so many Americans to think for themselves.

By: Robert Taylor

Robert Taylor — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:48:58 +0000

The Fed should first be audited…then eliminated. The Treasury should then peg quarterly or annually to a specie or species such as gold and silver.
Interest rates, ALL interest rates , should be allowed to “float” on a daily basis from the larger banking institutions to the small town rural bank.
Interest rates are a “commodity”, just like lamps, John Deere tractors, jewelry, etc. Let supply and demand and a free-market work out daily all the differentials involved. Billions of economic decisions are made in the U.S. along every single day. No czar or central planning can “in your wildest dreams” do that.

By: Marcello

Marcello — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:34:19 +0000

If you can’t take some crazy comments on your articles, you shouldn’t be writing on the web. The internet is a big place and there are plenty of people who aren’t polite or intelligent.

That being said, most of the comments seemed rational and civil. Perhaps the blog author is a little thin skinned. It seems that he didn’t research his topic very well. Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he does not want the power to that exists at the Fed to be handed over to the Congress.

There are a large number of Ron Paul supporters who are disgruntled and looking for a fight. They feel slighted by the mainstream media, especially during the election, and rightfully so in my oppinion. Terms like “Paulistas, Paulites and Paultards” don’t help. The truth is, he is one of the only politicians who has a proven track record of championing liberty at the Federal level. This may make his followers seem like they have more of a personality cult than they do.

PS: Thanks to the American Conservative for covering the Sibel Edmonds case. It has gotten very little attention.

By: JMunny

JMunny — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:57:32 +0000

I have never heard more mean, hateful, and uninformed comments when I hear people talking about politicians they don’t like including Dr. Paul, Obama, Bush, Palin, etc. I read through most of these comments and saw mostly well-informed and thoughtful answers discussing monetary policy. Its a shame poor Bartlett got his feelings hurt. I think that this blog, which attacks the readers of this magazine and citizens of this country is worse than any comment I read on there. It should be in the interest of The American Conservative to support its readers and not condemn them. I mean c’mon! When I read this all I could think was “Is this serious??!?!?”.

By: James Orleans

James Orleans — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:39:52 +0000

I just don’t get what all the fuss is about. The comments by Ron Paul supporters on Bartlett’s article appear to be more logical and better written than the piece itself.

Note to Mr. Bartlett: Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

By: Jean Lafitte

Jean Lafitte — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:26:44 +0000

Woefully, this childish tactic of name calling to discredit an opponent is so over used these days and it most telling with regard to the user. Rather than use critical thinking and empirical evidence to depose a opponents position they resort to name calling to redirect attention from what they dont know or can not prove. To me it says they no real argument or evidence to defend their position so they attack the messenger rather than the message. Fortunately, the new energy in the world is allowing people to see through such poor attempts making these tactics worthless. A tactic known is a tactic blown. I never personally cared for Mr. Bartlett from the first time I listened to him could not explain it at the time but now I know as his true colors as an employee of the Banksters. It is truly strange that someone with truly a diminutive political and moral stature attacking the messages instead of the messages stemming from the Paulests and the campaign for liberty movement is truly laughable. When the Banksters resort to using such poorly prepared and educated persons to defend their position against the Tsunami of public opinion in support of Dr. Paul and those who cherish liberty and freedom it is truly and evident that the dark days are coming to an end soon.

By: Jack Tracey

Jack Tracey — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:16:14 +0000

Although he may be warming to it, Paul never asked to be the figurehead of any movement. The man is just a Congressman that’s interested in telling the truth about American government and its impact on our liberty. Regardless of how his “followers” behave, the facts of his public and private service speak for themselves.

Regarding the Fed audit, if Congress is going to grant its powers to a private monopoly, then an audit is in order. However, as I understand it, the audit is a first step to rouse public opinion against the Fed and in favor of its dissolution.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:16:39 +0000

Of course having the legislature or an executive body or any federally-controlled, legally accountable body controlling interest rates and money supply would be ABSOLUTELY 100% HANDS-DOWN preferable to having a private, secretive clique control it.

And that rings true whether you be a socialist or an Austrian economist.

And that is why the so-called “cult” is so fiercely attacking, because it is such a no-brainer. There is little to no room for intellectual debate on the idea of auditing the most powerful institution in the country that holds the livelihoods of so many in its hands.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:21:34 +0000

Greater knowledge of the fed’s open market operations and other actions can only benefit the free market, because the more variables are known, the more accurate decisions are made. This is a even a basic principle of science.

Anyone who dares to claims they are pro free market should understand this reflexively.

Over the long term, transparency is even more important than the specific decisions that are made. The only people who benefit from secrecy are insiders.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:44:52 +0000

I read the original post, the supposed hate filled comments and this blog post and I am stumped. What I saw was a man who attacked Ron Paul personally for being “foolish”, he called Ron Paul’s ideas “crackpot ideas” all the while not responding to any arguments that Ron Paul actually made. Instead, he assigned pretend conclusions to Ron Paul and then attacked him for those non-existent ideas.

Meanwhile, people who either support Ron Paul, or simply support the idea of auditing the Fed tried to point out the fallacies in the article.

The article was filled with factual inaccuracies and the worst thing I saw the author being called was “liar.” Well, people who write factual inaccuracies run the risk of being called a liar.

Moreover, using phrases like “there is no reason whatsoever to believe”, “crackpot ideas” and then bringing straw men into the debate tends to lead to less than intellectual debates. That is why my professors taught me to avoid these kinds of logical fallacies.

All in all, it appears to me that Mr. Bartlett threw the first punch and then started crying when someone called him names. If you don’t want a fight, don’t draw a ring around your opponents.

I really don’t understand the author of this piece feeling the need to rush to Mr. Bartlett’s defense and rushing to throw punches of his own. Paulistas? Madmen? Cultism? Really? A man writes an inaccurate and misleading article, gets criticized and corrected for doing so and you see a cult of madmen?

Frankly, I would suggest you both get a skin thicker than a five year old girl’s if you are going to throw stones at others. The two of you are coming across much more imbalanced than any of the folks who wrote comments.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:34:15 +0000

Bruce Bartlett is pretty much a down-the-line liberal at this point. He was originally an Austrian economist who abandoned that for Reaganomics when it became politically expedient. He has now abandoned that to support Obama’s policies. He has a lot of experience in migrating to the poll numbers.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:35:14 +0000

It took me a long time to understand that the Fed is a cartel. It’s a banking monopoly that literally steals wealth from the population. It collects profits for a small group of mandarins in booms and busts, yet when it gets into trouble, socializes the losses on the taxpayers. I sympathize with the Paulista’s lack of patience with any arguments in favor the Fed, especially when ending it is called a crackpot idea. It’s so obviously criminal and unAmerican, once you understand it, that there’s no going back. End the Fed! Put the power of the money back in the hands of the people. And take away the credit card of the politicians to start wars and trouble all over the world. Sound money= Liberty for you and me. It’s really as simple as that.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:49:58 +0000

HR1207 will not dictate monetary policy because the audit will happen 6 months or a year AFTER decisions are made. This means market fluctuations will already have occurred we are just holding a “creature” created by congress accountable through the congress. We shouldn’t be afraid of the truth.

Also Paul supporters have been marginalized by people playing political games so they are very sensitive to these intellectually lazy tactics. Paul will not defend himself because he is a man of honor so we do it for him. This is the very nature of GRASS ROOTS

By: James

James — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:49:20 +0000

# Freddy Gray, on September 29th, 2009 at 6:22 pm Said:

“James, my opinion on the bill isn’t the point here, but since you ask, I support HR1207 in theory because government transparency is almost always preferable. But would shifting responsibility for monetary policy to the legislature necessarily be a good idea? I don’t know.”

HR1207 has nothing with giving congress control on the monetary policc, period
It is such a short, precise and clear bill that even average Joe would understand that it wants only to open the books of the FED. The same books that haven’t been looked into since 1913.

The US constitution acctualy gives congress the power to coin money. Congress is responsible to the people, they can be held accountable if they mess things up unlike the FED.
If you don’t like it, amend the constitution to change the law, but don’t just ignore it.
As for interest rates, Dr. Paul and austrian economists believe that the market is the smartest to set them.
We lived and prospered very well without a central bank. President Andrew Jackson got rid of it in 1832, and he was able to make the USA debt free.
Since its creation in 1913, the dollar lost 95% of its value.
If congress was in charge, the people may have fired their representatives when the dollar would have lost only 10% of its value!

Andrew Jackson opposed the national bank and abolished it because:

* it is unconstitutional;
* it concentrated an excessive amount of the nation’s financial strength into a single institution;
* it exposed the government to control by “foreign interests”;
* it exercised too much control over members of Congress;
* it favors Northeastern states over Southern and Western states.

By: ryan rabalais

ryan rabalais — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:18:54 +0000

monetary policy must be controlled by the u.s. department of the treasury just like it says in the constitution. the founders warned very sternly about the consequences of allowing a privately owned central bank and the printing of fiat currency.