I wouldn't say low salaries are completely unavoidable, there are jobs that can only offer such salaries but the long-term tendency in a free market is for better salaries to be available to those more competent and specialized, with a general increase in quality of life and purchasing power attenuating most concerns on the lower end.

Minimum wages today are calculated with goals like "sustaining a family of four" or something, but teenagers or people who live with their parents sometimes are just working for extra bucks, or they might be looking for entry level employment for the experience, to acquire a skill, etc. So the govt steps in and says NO, and that represses an entire market for lesser jobs in every sector of the economy, taking away freedom of choice both from the unemployed and the employers. In the end, it won't matter when unemployment reaches high percentages and desperation sets in.

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (FM2) offer free credit and backed up loans made in the real estate market? Because politicians decided it should be easier for people to have houses, yay! A noble goal any politician would promise for votes.

Now here's a thing about the nature of people: They're greedy, but they're also fearful. It's a very important balance because they want stuff, but they also fear losing what they have. But FM2 stepped in and took away the fear: ZERO risk, we are federal institutions and we totally back up all your loans! So people were free to be greedy without the fear. That's the housing bubble in an austrian nutshell for you.

Money spent by govt is, in principle, rarely spent as wisely as money spent by people, because people work to earn and therefore value their money, they usually have to be productive to earn it (which isn't easy), while govt is just politicians and bureaucrats deciding over money they easily appropriate from productive people. I don't know how I can put this in simpler terms.

The govt isn't just police officers and VA hospitals. How about our multi-trillion dollar warfare machine, how can any liberal think that's indispensable? What about institutions like Homeland Security, Departments of Education, Agriculture, DEA, FDA, and countless other needless resource wasting bureaucracies at the Federal level? I'm all for cutting them out first.

You say you're not pleased with the bailouts, yet you don't consider govt at fault for handing money to investment banks. Could you elaborate on this apparent contradiction?

When I give you money, the money is now yours, what you do with it is your own business. But when I'm the govt, and I give you money, I'm giving you money that IS NOT MINE and that I SHOULDN'T BE GIVING TO YOU (at least that's what I'm arguing, a keynesian might think differently). So there lies the root of the problem: govt is to blame for handing out free money, not what people did with it, because it's expected that people will be careless about money that is freely handed to them, as opposed to money that is earned.

People with guns don't inevitably commit murder. About the bus driver, it's expected that he'll drive poorly and crash when drunk (maybe not though if he's lucky), even though I said he was force-fed the alcohol, which is not accurate since I'm not sure investment banks were legally obligated to accept govt money, but it's easy to imagine how a bank might be strongly influenced to accept money if it has no strings attached and it's also offered to its competitors.

The rest of us go bankrupt or get jail time if we lose or steal money, a politician, with luck, doesn't get reelected. That's what I meant with "exempt from accountability".

Even though I think Ben Bernanke is an idiot, he's smart enough to be the current chairman of the Fed and even he thinks the Fed helped cause the Great Depression. The conclusions one can take about what happened in the 20's and 30's are not as clear cut as you'd think. What is important to understand are the motivations behind those that acted and those who interpret what happened.

The privileges granted from the govt to the Fed make it a very very powerful institution, and the govt LIKES the Fed. Just keep that in mind.

@ ^NetRunner

The principal sponsor of the "audit the fed" bill is Ron Paul, he wants people to see how much the Fed stinks, so he can push his agenda to abolish it. Far fetched, but his heart is in the right place.

So, again, instead of reaching the conclusion that economic intervention is bad, or that the Fed's intervention must've not been so obviously predictable or that the Fed's false guarantees (and those of other federal institutions like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) created moral hazards that subverted the market, you'd rather think that markets are dumb. Way to go.

Central banks are huge interventions in an economy, hell, we should be glad that markets even work despite them. Not you, no, you think markets are slow and stupid, because they can't adapt to being strangled (or, according to you, "gently caressed") by central banks.

If you say the Fed arose from the necessity to stabilize interest rates, you just bought into their alleged purpose, you're drinking the kool-aid. You're starting from the premise that because currency used to be issued by private banks, they'd always have an evil agenda and take advantage of people who used it.

Think about it: If I could print my own currency, sure, I'd be tempted to inflate it, but wouldn't that ruin my reputation? This leads people to adopt the best currency over time, the one with the best history of retaining value and high liquidity.

The Fed is no less dishonest than those banks could be, what in the nature of the Fed makes you think otherwise? With the added grievance that it has a monopoly over the entire national currency market! So, if you don't like the dollar, the govt says "f*** you, move to Canada!", using anything else is forbidden by law. Tell me, how is taking away your freedom of choice supposed to make things any better?

Think about the amount of wealth the Fed has been stealing through inflation from all of us this whole time since the gold standard was criminally dropped in the 70's, its colossal compared to whatever private banks would be able to get away with in a free currency market.

Linking to an article and just saying "False" makes your view of economics seem simplistic to me. Entire schools of thought were built around mistaken or dishonest premises. There are a lot of political motivations behind false economics (which is also one of the reasons I'm opposed to public education: Govt using taxpayer money to further its statist agenda, but I digress).

When you mock me saying I assume something created by govt is bad, it makes me wonder if you truly understand the corruptible nature of govt. It's not just ideology speaking, its very real: Govts usually have NO incentive to be productive, they tend to grow and become corrupt, as evidenced by history, which is why we should strive to have govt institutions be as small and transparent as possible.

In any case, I was pointing out that people usually assume we live in a capitalist society, even though we have these massive anti-capitalistic monsters sticking out of it. Critics of capitalism and the market selectively blame it for everything wrong in society yet fail to acknowledge how uncapitalistic our economy actually is.

The 100-Day Assault on America

by Larry Elder

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

There's good regulation and bad, good deregulation and bad. Look at how much airline prices fell after deregulation as a moderately successful example of how dereg can work. Look at the mess of the energy industry in California as an example of how not to dereg stuff. She comes off as a blithering idiot by claiming that all deregulation is bad, and that we should huzzah for more regulation (when regulation often has a severe chilling effect on an economy.)

It may sound odd coming from a libertarian, but there are times when you need more laws, and times when you need less. As a libertarian, I think that less is usually more, but laws ARE necessary instruments - anarchy is bad - and laws are important tools for dealing with fraud. Of course, you'll end up with situations where the cure (Sarbanes-Oxley) causes even more problems than the fraud it was trying to prevent (Enron-like schemes), AND have a chilling effect on the economy as well. I'm very grateful my corporations are small and not public, or the overhead of having to deal with it would drive me insane and really hurt our bottom line.

Having a byline that the GOP is responsible for the current mess is nearly fraudulent. It was the GOP that was calling for MORE regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and criminal idiots like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters were responsible for blocking it. They were as responsible as anyone in the government for our current mess, but the press gives them a complete pass.

Like all of Sir Michael Moore's art, this is bound to be an objective, unbiased look at capitalism and Wall Street. Will there be any mention of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, or Barney's Frank and Friends' Congressional criminal incompetence? Perhaps in the Director's Cut...

DEMOCROOKS

$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.

$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.

$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.

$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Government-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.

$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."

$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.

$1,646,000,000,000: ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

>> ^imstellar28:
^If you want to argue that a spider has 4 legs, we might as well bust out the bibles and start quoting revelations.


So... you are claiming that freddy mac funded houses are nationalized ?

>> ^imstellar28:
A + B. One example of Nationalization is the government buying stock in a company.

I read the WP page, the whole thing, not a cherry picked excerpt, and double checked my dictionaries. Nationalization means controlling ownership, not simply investment.

Holding common stock is not ownership in the sense of control. As a share holder of common (non-voting) stock in a company the only power I have is to contribute to the modification of the share price by selling or holding the stock.

If I got a Freddy Mac loan to buy a house would my house be "Nationalized", it has clearly been paid for by a Gov administered monopoly, they clearly have a right of ownership, as they can foreclose if I don't make my payments, but I have control, as long as I make the payments. If you think all such houses, or any stock buy, are nationalization, then I must conclude that you don't use the word in other than rhetorical terms.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker has a position, which while absurd, at least claims that the gov has practical control of the industries in question, which would make them nationalized, if it were true.

How DO Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac figure into this crisis? And ACORN? And the CRA?

Unmentioned at the "Turning Point" in the video.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying sub prime loans. Previously there was a much smaller market for sub prime mortgages, but with Fannie and Freddie buying the paper the availability of sub prime loans skyrocketed. With time-tested lending practices out the window, these two institutions ended up controlling 90% of the secondary market for mortgages. Those within the organizations who raised objections to the irresponsible lending being encouraged by Fannie and Freddie were overruled and eased out.

"Fannie and Freddy began hiring Democratic operatives as CEO’s and upper management. At the same time, Fannie and Freddie began making huge contributors to Congress, spending millions to influence votes. While some Republicans also received financial contributions from the two institutions, most of the money went to Democrats. Top recipients of those campaign contributions were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Chairmen of the Committees that should have been providing over site of the two financial giants. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were also among the top receipts of Fannie and Freddy campaign contributions.

"Wall Street investors liked the new arrangement and the easy money. Democrats liked the votes they could garner by being the party that advanced homeownership and they liked the dependable source of campaign contributions. This was the “crony capitalism” that led to the crisis."

The "Community Reinvestment Act" was another Jimmeh Carter abortion, strengthened in the 1990s by Clinton. Poor people deserve to live in the same houses as their more well-off neighbors. It's only fair.

ACORN and the Clinton "Justice" Department did threaten banks to keep making bad loans. In a 1992 New York Times article, ACORN’s longtime housing leader, Michael Shea, admitted that banks would not have adopted ultimately harmful policies “if there was no community pressure and the law,” but that those factors made “a lot of bankers see it’s in their self-interest.”

The irony is that liberals claim to hate greed, yet their one-size-fits-all socialism created artificial market conditions that encouraged greed.

>>I don't get the whole 1 Trillion for killing Iraqis is fine, 1 Trillion for corrupt failing banks is fine, but 1 Trillion for rebuilding the infrastructure of the US or helping the National Parks is "Socialism"

Actually, the $1T for banks was socialism. As in state-run government, etc. Our government is now the biggest shareholder of Citibank, for example.

Don't confuse Bush and Paulson with standard conservative ideology.

The neo- part of neo-con meant they were big-government conservatives. I.e., liberal on expansion of government spending, conservative on things like defense.

In a weird twist of fate, it was the Republicans that tried to increase regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrats (including Barney Frank, who was literally in bed with their leadership while chairing the house finance committee) that blocked it.

Obama sued banks to get them to increase subprime loans.

But something tells me all this will be cleverly rebutted by liberals by having them stuff their fingers in their ears and yelling loudly...

>> ^quantumushroomRs get some of the blame, but no Republican ever woke up and said, "Let's force banks to give the poor houses they can't afford. It's the fair thing to do"

Still pushing that bullshit claim eh?

Former Housing CEOs: Poor People Did Not Cause The Current Financial Crisis»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/09/myth-fannie-freddie/

Richard Syron, former Freddie CEO: “I would think that it wasn’t mostly trying to do things for poor people.”

Daniel Mudd, former Fannie CEO: “[W]hen the market goes down, it’s the folks who are the closest to the margin who — who get hurt first and longest every time.”

Leland Brendsel, former Freddie CEO: “I cannot recall ever being forced to make — or to purchase a mortgage loan that I didn’t feel, as a matter of policy at Freddie Mac, was a good mortgage loan, a sound mortgage loan, and an attractive mortgage loan for the homebuyer or the owner of an apartment building.”

Franklin Raines, former Fannie CEO: “I do not believe that poor people are the cause of the current financial crisis. … Most of the losses, as I read the record, have come on mortgages that were made to middle-class and upper-middle-class people, not to poor people.”

the ad hominem attacks cut-n-pasted from Daily Komatose's baboonery are tiresome; instead of dealing with the FACTS of the matter you're...just making a fool of yourself.

That's rich for someone whose entire thinking comes almost directly word for word from Rush Limbaugh, Red State, NRO and Powerline. I noticed you stopped reading littlegreenfootballs

No matter, this generational looting of the Treasury--the second time Congressional majority taxocrats will be voting for one--won't make it through in its present odious form.

Wait what was that Republicans pushed for when Bush was in office? Oh yeah a Wall Street bailout. What happened with that? Did anyone track the expenditures? Didn't Wall Street give out a huge bonus package out to people who essentially caused all this? Who was running the Fed and had majority control when the housing market entered this crisis? Wait wasn't it Republican controlled with a Republican President? Jeez but oh no its all the Democrats fault off a scheme written back in what the 1970s? What is the Republican plan for saving American jobs? Oh Tax cuts? How did that work out back in 2005 and 2006? Did it prevent this? Nope.

I knew this would happen to liberals when Bush left office. All that titanic machine-against-the-RAGE has to go SOMEwhere.

Oh that's so rich for someone who was a die hard Bushie for years and only claimed he was a demo-in-disguise once it was clear he fucked up a Republican majority control.

Your inability to even put a question mark on your own beliefs is staggering and amusing.

LOL. QM. Still trying to push that myth around that poor people caused the crisis? Ha.

Former Housing CEOs: Poor People Did Not Cause The Current Financial Crisis»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/09/myth-fannie-freddie/

Richard Syron, former Freddie CEO: “I would think that it wasn’t mostly trying to do things for poor people.”

Daniel Mudd, former Fannie CEO: “[W]hen the market goes down, it’s the folks who are the closest to the margin who — who get hurt first and longest every time.”

Leland Brendsel, former Freddie CEO: “I cannot recall ever being forced to make — or to purchase a mortgage loan that I didn’t feel, as a matter of policy at Freddie Mac, was a good mortgage loan, a sound mortgage loan, and an attractive mortgage loan for the homebuyer or the owner of an apartment building.”

Franklin Raines, former Fannie CEO: “I do not believe that poor people are the cause of the current financial crisis. … Most of the losses, as I read the record, have come on mortgages that were made to middle-class and upper-middle-class people, not to poor people.”

The claim that poor people or the government forced the banks to loan to people is a conservative myth. Listen to the Fannie/Freddie CEOs testify on C-SPAN:



Richard Syron, former Freddie CEO: “I would think that it wasn’t mostly trying to do things for poor people.”

Daniel Mudd, former Fannie CEO: “[W]hen the market goes down, it’s the folks who are the closest to the margin who — who get hurt first and longest every time.”

Leland Brendsel, former Freddie CEO: “I cannot recall ever being forced to make — or to purchase a mortgage loan that I didn’t feel, as a matter of policy at Freddie Mac, was a good mortgage loan, a sound mortgage loan, and an attractive mortgage loan for the homebuyer or the owner of an apartment building.”

Franklin Raines, former Fannie CEO: “I do not believe that poor people are the cause of the current financial crisis. … Most of the losses, as I read the record, have come on mortgages that were made to middle-class and upper-middle-class people, not to poor people.”

Hyperinflation necessitates the existence of at least 50% inflation rate per cycle current average inflation from 2000 to 2008 hovered at 2% to 3%. Last inflation rates for 2008 for Nov and Dec stand at 1.07% and 0.09% respectively. Don't be stupid.

This sounds like a very old video from before the bailouts.

Wiki the Community Reinvestment Act, a gift from that loser Jimmy Carter and a 70s democrap congress.

Democrats bullied lending institutions in the mid-90s, forcing them to give bad mortgage loans to people that couldn't afford them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac involved themselves and were ordered by Blarney Frank and friends to make 40% of their loans to the same poor folks. Fannie and Freddie are government-controlled and therefore not subject to the scrutiny of the Security Exchange Commission.

AIG and Friends sold "derivatives" which are insurance on these bad loans. When the bubble burst, they couldn't pay.

Republicans tried to warn what would happen but obviously failed.

The moral is: big government sucks. Anything they touch outside of their prescribed constitutional powers turns to dung.

The moral wasn't learned as the American people just elected another Carter.

>> ^volumptuous:
I've watched every video clip of Schiff, and listened to Ron Paul in the senate hearings with the banks.
I have yet to hear either one of them to tell the rest of us what they think can help us get out of this mess. Neither of them, as far as I can find, have said anything productive.


I sincerely hope you're joking, because they constantly state that withdrawal symptoms after the inflationary high are unavoidable and can't be fixed, but that the best thing the government can do is see the hangover as the solution and stop administering more drugs and shock therapy. The recovery to a viable economy can happen a lot sooner if the government stops trying to inflate and redistribute its way out. We need to immediately start cutting Federal government excess to reduce the financial burden on our citizens. Their retirement schemes are unsustainable no matter what and need to be phased out over many years. Entire departments like FEMA, Homeland Security, and the Department of Education have to go, along with our military empire, so that we can abolish the 40% of Federal revenue attributed to Federal Income Tax. With a flat tax or no income tax, the IRS is then superfluous and can be abolished. GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to be outlawed, subsidies and marriage debates will be resolved because without an income tax, it will be impossible for government to issue tax differences on particular types of marriage, families, incomes, or investments based on social engineering concepts.

The constitution will then need to be clarified to abolish the central bank, because congress has no constitutional authority to create a fiat money or delegate such powers to the private industry. This will require some new judicial appointments. I'm also quite certain a Paul presidency would look at every piece of legislature and ask "was this a lobby bill? does it prevent a cheaper product or service from being chosen?" I hear these are prevalent in the medical industry where he was an OBGYN. For example, there are regulations that bar nurses from performing services doctors can. Lots of licensure and red tape protects that industry. And I'm 100% sure he would immediately end the Federal ban on marijuana bought by the drug industry, that would consequently save billions wasted by the FBI and our prison system trying to fight something 10x less harmful than legal drugs.