You are blaming health care reform for the financial crash? For real??? The crash happened during the Bush administration long before the health care law was even voted on. Most provisions of the law are yet to even be enacted. And you wonder why it is so hard for progressives to take anything you right wing crazies say seriously.
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

We may support or not support the Obama healthcare bill, but to blame the current economic mess on a bill that has largely not yet taken effect is pretty ridiculous.

It has been suggested politicians should wear their sponsors' logos on them just like in Nascar, so who truly owns Washington by sponsoring these people into office or supporting them throughout their political careers for self gain? The raping and pillaging of the 99% must stop for a healthier society. I do not ever condone handouts or more gov't regulations, but I do condone fairness, ethics and goodwill. If the corporate greed blinds these powerful and global entities from acting justly, equitably, honorably and ethically, then there should most certainly be safeguards to prevent rampant abuses, would you not agree?

@ Tony I've heard the Nascar patch suggestion before, and I love it!

LOL just keep blaming Bush. The rich got richer under Obama more than with any other president thanks to his cronyism.

And the 'crash' happened because the bankers and George Soros wanted to crash the market in 2008 but were stopped by banks who prevented Soros from taking $350B from it as he tried to do in the UK.. (he's convicted you know?) He wanted to ensure that Obama won.

Your progressive heroes are puppets of the bankers.. not the conservatives and certainly not RP supporters.

He supports the movement, Ron Paul is no rich conservative snob who will ignore peoples complaints, because Ron Paul is right the unemployment is due to government policy.

John, have you been reading off Glen Beck's chalkboard? Do you have any sources to support these claims?

@ LJoel Isn't it wild how people claim Obama screwed up our economy? They do! With a straight face! They'd have you believe GWB handed over an America to Obama that was humming along just fine.

Actually, America was doing fine when Bill Clinton handed off to GWB. Remember those Clinton years? All that peace and prosperity? Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS, and in less than a year everything went to hell.

@ Cassidy

Good, thought provoking post. Thanks.

And now Ron Paul and the libertarians[ Who wish to wipe out government and
bring our country back to the Herbert Hoover- Robber Baran state that precluded the great depression] are to somehow be the moderate midiators between conservatives and progressives? How does that work?????????

Here Here!

OK ForThePeople, I'll bite. If I invent whatever, it's mine. I can do what I want with it, the same way I can do anything with music I make, words I write, things I say, whatever. If I want to charge $4 or $4 billion, I can do what I want. Would I do what you describe? Probably not. I would sap enough money out of people to never have to work again - so I could invent many more cool things - and then, figure out what to do with the invention next. But, that's my right.

Actually, rethinking what you've written again, I might not do anything. I might sit on the invention. Because if no one ever died again, the world would be consumed much faster than it ever will be now. In fact, now that I think about it, if I invented this, I probably wouldn't ever release it to anyone. What a horrible place the planet would be if seven billion people quickly become 100 billion people and they consumed everything in sight until there is nothing left. Or maybe I would be selfish, take the pill myself, and never share it with anyone else, and live forever. Who knows. Interesting comment though. Thanks for making me think about this a bit.

Thanks for your reply Tony. I realize that the pill experiment has moral implications, but I wanted people to honestly think about what it means to generate wealth uninhibited, what it means to gather as much as you can in a laissez-faire system. In your conclusion, you mentioned that the consequence of uninhibited growth is the exhaustion of the planet, and that's actually not too far off from what I'm getting at!

Uninhibited growth in an economy is no more possible than it is for a population on a planet; you have to have a symbiotic system. A complaint against a true free-market system is that it is extremely easy for someone who owns a resource (or a magic pill, as this thought experiment goes) to clean the pockets of everyone around them- to various extremes. Without some kind of regulation in place, I don't know how you would prevent that in a society that is extremely dependent on resources like energy, water, and food. We already see this kind of gouging taking place now. Imagine if Exxon owned your town water supply!

Do you remember "The Sneetches" by Dr. Seuss? It's one of my favorite books. I remember reading this as a small child, and it has stuck with me to this very day. That's how I feel about a true free market. If you are not careful, the 'man' will distract you with your prejudices, give you a small souvenir (like legalizing pot), take all the money, and move on to the next village.
And that is why you should be concerned about people like Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMolzESn4oI

A reading of "the sneetches" (by Dr. Seuss) on YouTube.

Are talking about the original Constitution? The one that allowed slavery? The one that did not allow freedom of speech? If not, which year are you referring to that we should regress to? This is the problem with the people who are obsessed with the Constitution; it is a living document that reflects the life and times that it came from.

As far as the states having "a lot of the powers" (you should specify this, as it is much too vague), the original Constitution was extremely explicit in asserting the federal government's rights. The war fought was for the United States of America, not for the enumeration of the colonies. Note that the document is what privileges the parties therein, not the other way around. I would be happy to engage in a constitution discussion, and if you want to cite the Constitution, please do so explicitly. There is far too much "well they really meant this!" going around every four years.

As for the thought experiment, it discusses a hypothetical with the "true free market," advocated by Ron Paul. The economy becomes the dictator in that scenario, as people vote with their money. The problem is, we all know that some people have 99% more than others, so in a true free market economy, all voices are not equal. Finally, my thought experiment was to show you the limits of the economy. You cannot have infinite growth- of anything on this planet- another flaw of the free market.

But you didn't answer my questions. Like most Ron Paul followers, you just seem starstruck by the rhetoric and unable to actually dig into the meat of it. I asked you very specific questions about the Constitution, and you cannot reply. I'm not sure what is more to discuss, as the continued sidestepping by the right doesn't get us anywhere.

I encourage you to actually do the research and struggle with the ideas instead of repeating some dire warnings from the Ron Paul newsletters past and present, which we all know have had very extremist- and sometimes bigoted- views.

Giving free reign to corporations doesn't sound like preventing rampant abuse to me.