THE STUMP JANUARY 13, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Amid all the talk this week about whether Newt Gingrich et al will be able to bring down Mitt Romney with their attacks on Bain Capital, there's been little said about the man who's really on the move: Ron Paul. After finishing a strong second in New Hampshire -- tripling his share of the vote from four years ago -- Paul is the one getting a bounce in South Carolina. A PPP poll released today shows him jumping into third place in the state, up six points from last week to 15 percent.
Is it a coincidence that an attack on Romney and Bain that is meant to peel away economically aggrieved working-class voters should be redounding to Paul's benefit? Hardly, I say. It went little noted in the New Hampshire coverage that Paul cleaned up among the state's lower-income voters -- exit polls showed him tying Romney with 31 percent of the voters making $50,000 or less -- that is, Romney did far worse with these voters and Paul far better than their overall performance. Part of this, to be sure, has to do with Paul's popularity among students and other younger voters who aren't earning much yet. But that doesn't explain all of it. Paul also won working-class precincts in Manchester and, for whatever it's worth, the dive bar in Manchester whose WiFi I was using to send my primary night dispatch on Tuesday night was abuzz about Paul and no one else. That is, Paul dominated among the lower-earning voters that his ideological polar opposite, Rick Santorum, was hoping to do well with, a la Pat Buchanan '96.
What are we to make of this? There are plenty of theories for Paul's popularity lower down the ladder -- voting for Paul is a way to stick it to the man; Paul's anti-militarism holds particular appeal among the young and marginalized; his steadfastness holds more appeal for downscale voters than does a polished type like Romney. But must also be noted that it is, on another level, completely loopy that working-class voters are being drawn to a candidate who wants to pretty much eviscerate the safety net these voters benefit from. The liberal argument against Paul -- often made in response to liberals who find his anti-militarism fetching -- usually revolves around his appalling dalliance with racial and anti-Semitic rhetoric. But liberals ought to also be worrying about the sway that Paul's anti-government, fiscal-apocalypse talk seems to have among downscale voters who are hurt most by the ongoing spread of this sort of thinking into the Republican mainstream.
Occasionally, the disconnect between Paul's anti-government extremism and the real needs of his supporters becomes acutely clear, as happened at a town hall meeting of his that I attended in Meredith, N.H. last weekend. A man in the crowd asked: "Dr. Paul, my daughter's been ill for many years. Now she's on our insurance. But she'll graduate from college. Does she have to stand in line at a charity hospital to get help under your administration?"
Paul's answer, which I will quote in full: "Well, you'll probably be standing in line under Obamacare, let me tell you [applause]... [Health care] has been messed up, and that's why I've reserved final decision on the reform of medical care, elderly, children and social services, because it's messed up you can't say that those of us who want to reform it and get it back to sound footing are at fault. Because the money has been spent, the money isn't there for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid has really no money in the bank. So I want to preserve at least what people have become dependent on. The whole thing is, the insurance business and the whole way we've given benefits to insurance over the years has encouraged problems with transferring policies. Under a good insurance system, a free market system, if a child or an 18 year-old or whatever buys an insurance policy and pays for it and it doesn't go with the job you don't have to transfer it, the contract should be there, they should never be able to cancel you. But then we got into this mess where it goes with the company, not with the individual, and if you have individual insurance you don't get the deduction but if you work for a big company you do, and if you transfer your job then you have to have a new insurance company. That's all artificial, the market has been messed up that way. Because it's more complex I want to work to that system but in the meantime the only way we can save the medical care system from total bankruptcy is by cutting spending elsewhere."
Got that? The answer left the man looking slightly befuddled, as it should have. Paul's right, the health insurance market is skewed, in part because of the way tax policy favors employer-provided insurance. But here's the thing: Obamacare is geared toward correcting this and moving us away from employer-based coverage, by reducing the tax benefit for high-priced employer-based plans and by creating new state-based exchanges where people without employer-based coverage will be able to buy their own coverage in a far more transparent and well-regulated market than exists today. Whereas in Paul's imagined "free market system," that man's daughter would indeed be in a terrible spot. What insurance company would sell an ailing teenager or young adult an insurance policy? They wouldn't, not without a requirement that insurers sell affordable policies to people with pre-existing conditions. And such a requirement works only if insurers are also covering young and healthy people, and that works only if there's a mechanism to get everyone into the insurance pool -- that is, something like the Obamacare individual insurance mandate that Paul's libertarian supporters find so utterly anathema. (Obamacare, of course, also explicitly allows that man's daughter to stay on her parents' plan until age 26 -- a godsend for families in just this circumstance.) It's upsetting enough to see Republicans like Romney and Newt Gingrich trashing a health care law that is modeled on reforms they once supported or signed; but it's even more upsetting to see such denigration as part of a pitch that is striking a particular chord with exactly the segment of voters that Obamacare will help the most.
Follow me on twitter @AlecMacGillis
49 comments
Does she have to stand in line at a charity hospital to get help under your administration?" Short answer, yes, and the charity hospital should not be required to treat her if they choose not to because that would be anathema as well. because to be truly free we must let young people and poor people die if they can't afford healthcare.
- blackton
January 13, 2012 at 7:17pm
What the hell is Paul talking about? His beloved market is what got us into this ugly mess in the first place--the health care industry gouging captive consumers--the sick, the injured, and the dying. Yes, let's let the market take over health care completely--forget government intervention. Soylent green, anyone? And when the hell is the working class going to realize what's in its own self-interest? It appears Thanatos is at work here.
- magboy47.
January 14, 2012 at 12:29am
Perhaps next we will bring back the "Poor Laws" of the British Isle hundreds of years ago. Perhaps citizens can once again tug their forelock in the presence of worthies such as Paul. Bring back the class system!
- skahn
January 14, 2012 at 12:30am
Say what? I think the operative word here might be "ignorance," and this guy is simply confusing honest people by pushing certain buttons. What a rat.
- Sophia
January 14, 2012 at 3:09am
Man, do I hate these motherfuckers. If I were in that room, they'd have had to carry me out screaming, "'Yes' or 'No', Dr Paul! It's a simple question, 'Yes' or 'No'!"
- AaronW
January 14, 2012 at 7:26am
Ron Paul's appeal to working folks is obvious, and in my view easily explainable. Current polling shows about 9 out of 10 Americans do not trust government to do the right thing most of the time. Working people know from bitter experience (serving in the military, having to interact with the interface between government and client without lobbyists and tax lawyers to intercede, getting hit by regressive payroll taxes, etc) that government by and large favors the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Ron Paul is the most anti-government guy out there, so he's quite appealing to folks who don't have the same view of government as the relatively well-off professionals, college professors, labor leaders, movie stars etc who increasingly make up the Democratic (which is to say the pro-government) coalition. They are also less concerned about accusations of racism because remarks like those in the infamous newsletters are the kinds they've heard made by soldiers, construction workers, factory hands, etc. to their Black friends. Libertarians cannot be racist almost by definition. For them the most important duy of the State is to protect EVERYONE'S individual rights. The off-color remarks were primarily about people who are, or are seen to be, dependent on The State, without any particular regard to ethnicity.
- Robert Powell
January 14, 2012 at 7:46am
I think this article is the definition of "straw-man." The premise is that Ron Paul supposedly enjoys widespread support among the working class, which he then, before our horrified eyes, proceeds to betray. We are told that he "cleaned up" among those making less than$50K in NH. Oh, wait a minute, what MacGillis meant was REPUBLICANS in NH making less than $50K. Just to put that in perspective, MacGillis, how many votes does 31% of that demographic actually translate into? Then comes the Little Nell moment. A Ron Paul "supporter" pleads, "Penny for the baby, sir, penny for the baby." Good God--can't we recognize an ambush question from a decidedly non-Ron Paul supporter when we see it? Little Nell--almost certainly made up--has been ill, and the presumption, I guess, is that she won't be able to work, yet she has managed to go to school somewhere and is about to graduate. Will she have to go to a "charity hospital"? Yeah, OK--lay it on thick, buddy. Does anyone think an actual Ron Paul supporter would pose such a question to Paul? Since it's a deliberately constructed trap, Paul does what anyone would do--he evades it. Don't get me wrong. Ron Paul's approach to health care is what it is, and its reality deserves media coverage. Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money "saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea." I don't see how that could work. In fact, I'd like to see TNR do a piece on it--a real analytical piece. But let's not package a transparent set-up as a heart-rending example of Paul's duplicitous cruelty and sell it like a serialized Dickens novel. Speaking of which, I note that this is the third in an informal TNR series of "Why do the (Fill in the Blank) support Ron Paul? Libertarians and liberals have already been covered--in much the same style--by Jamie Kirchick. I wonder who is next? My guess: Youth. There are plenty of ways to critique Paul's health care proposals. Is it too much to ask that TNR do it with some intellectual honesty?
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
January 14, 2012 at 9:54am
The reason working class people like Ron Paul is that they do not know the historyof thelabor movement in this country. The think that their rights as workers will be protected even under a libertarian. This is a problem with labor union leadership who have not bothered to tell working class people how they benefit even under regimes like Reagan, Bush etc that hate unions. Ron Paul isn't going to tell them because his libeertatrianism is pretty close to anarchism. He believes in minimum government which means minimum laws: laws only to protect those in power. Under Ron Paul no one will have to stand in line for health care because there isn't going to be any health care for workers. It's like the old joke had it, "under communism no one pad income taxes because no one had income." Here no one will stand in line for health care because there won't be any.
- arnon
January 14, 2012 at 12:31pm
As usual Xenophon refuses to engage the argument. He is someone who has been wandering off shore for so long that he has lost his way.
- arnon
January 14, 2012 at 12:33pm
"Paul also won working-class precincts in Manchester and, for whatever it's worth, the dive bar in Manchester whose WiFi I was using to send my primary night dispatch on Tuesday night was abuzz about Paul and no one else." Hardly a straw-man argument.
- arnon
January 14, 2012 at 12:55pm
The answer as to when the hell working-class Americans will see what is in their self-interest is 'never,' as they do not regard themselves as working-class but rather as potentially rich Americans who just happen to be, at the moment, without the income that goes with that.
- ironyroad
January 14, 2012 at 1:26pm
The Democrats spent over 40 years dividing Americans by race, age, sex, and national origin and designed government programs accordingly. Then some smart Democrats (including contributors to this magazine) realized that the party that divides Americans into minorities would be the minority political party, and they came up with economic status as a more equitable method for dividing Americans and designing government programs. Of course, as with a recovering alcoholic, the Democrats slip fom time to time and revert back to the old rhetoric if not the old ways. ACA is the model for the Democrats' new path, as it divides Americans solely according to economic status (to qualify for the new public benefit). But Americans, especially white male working class Americans, haven't yet accepted the Democrats' new path because they don't believe it. It's a reasonable response, given over 40 years of contrary experience. So it will take some time for Democrats to gain their trust, several election cycles at the least. This is also why the issue of income inequality is so important, because it highlights the merits of the Democrats' new path. But don't be surprised if Democrats slip from time to time until a new generation of Democrats, Democrats who see all Americans the same except for economic status, replace all those old school Democrats who cannot resist temptation.
- rayward
January 14, 2012 at 2:05pm
Rayward, the Democrats didn't "divide" Americans into "race" "class" and "sex" "age" etc. It was the Southern segregation laws and the discrimination against non Whites that divided America. The same with the so called division into "class" or "economic" status. These divisions were and are real and are part of the fabric of American life. American history isn't your subject, is it?
- arnon
January 14, 2012 at 2:29pm
Rayward remind me of those white Southern politicians during the civil rights era who blamed all their problems on "outsiders."
- arnon
January 14, 2012 at 4:05pm
Anyone who believes that decriminalizing illegal drugs will ameliorate racisim in our country, doesn't need to have a sound footing in any of his other arguments either. For instance, Paul says:
Exactly how does he intend to accomplish that without major reform and government intervention, like we see in the ACA?- Nusholtz
January 14, 2012 at 4:24pm
ray, I am with Arnon, what the hell are you talking about? For one, people divide themselves up by a whole host of measures, skin color, ethnicity, income...are you really buying the evil Republican falsehood that class somehow doesn't exist? And xenophon never did answer the original question. What to do about denial of care?
- blackton
January 14, 2012 at 5:40pm
ironyroad, You're exactly right. Working-class people often see themselves as getting a piece of the capitalist pie. When I worked in a UAW auto plant or a non-union furniture store (where I loaded trucks for $2 an hour), many of my fellow workers were collectively buying rental property and profiting from high rents. The American dream of simply owning a home morphed decades ago into a vision of making big bucks from housing. That, more than anything, is what caused the housing market and the American economy to crash--greed. And the working class is in on it. That's why so many of them vote for Republicans, even the kooky ones like Paul
- magboy47.
January 14, 2012 at 6:49pm
magboy47, there is nothing wrong with workers saving their money and investing it. Also is there proof somewhere that working people's investment in real estate caused the market to crash? I thought derivatives and Big Banks like Bank of America pushing mortgages on people who couldn't afford it was one of the main the main causes.
- arnon
January 14, 2012 at 8:06pm
arnon, I said the housing crash was caused by greed, and the working class is in on that greed. I experienced that directly. In Morgantown, WV, where I loaded furniture, working people were part owners of rental property where WVU students were being gouged. I have nothing against people making a healthy profit, but I'm against gouging captive consumers. The health industry is gouging captive consumers. Will that be the next bubble to burst? You're right--the criminal activities of the big banks and mortgage companies was the main cause of the housing crash, but everybody had a part in it. The flippers, the folks who used their homes as ATM's, real estate agents, rent gougers, etc. I smile when I see adult people referred to in news stories as "innocent." There are very few of those creatures on this earth. And, yes, I, too, am part of the problem. Am I part of the solution? I'll leave that for others to say.
- magboy47.
January 14, 2012 at 9:01pm
Rayward is right, and rather than dismissing his remarks loyal Dems really ought to be paying attention. The national Democratic Party fell apart after 1968 in large part because it seemed to be composed entirely of small identity groups that put the agenda of their group ahead of the good of the country as a whole. That's what the "What's Wrong with Kansas" faction could never get--there are a lot of voters out there who really do think what's best for the country should take precedence over their own short-term interest when they go into the voting booth. No one figured this out and acted on it more effectively than Bill Clinton, who remains the most successful Democrat to sit in the White House since FDR.
- Robert Powell
January 15, 2012 at 3:57am
Ask the question. Has the support of the working class, how about the support of the non working class? The unemployed are 25 million strong. By the way foreclosures are 10 million strong. Holly Beans, that amounts to a third of USA population, and most of them are of voting age. I reiterate Ron Paul was and continuous to be a clown. Even his pitch voice makes me laugh. The eternal candidate attacking the government, proposing changes that will never happen. He has been the clown of previous republican charades. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter, an embarrassment to his party and to his country. They are octogenarians and septuagenarians . Phony both on social security and Medicare. There you have it Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter, we need a third one for the three stooges. Thus far they are Abbott and Costello. Ron Paul the whistle libertarian. Jimmy Carter is now telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are good chaps. Previously he told us that Hamas and Hizbullah were good chaps, all is great as long as petrodollars are contributed to the Carter Center. Agree we are having a good show. Keeps the pages of the news media busy. How much do they charge for a commercial? Unfortunately Jimmy Carter has been ignored this time.
- JAIMECHUCH
January 15, 2012 at 9:35am
Give me a break, Robert Powell. 1968 was a couple of generations ago and since then the Democrats won a number of Presidential elections. We also have a Democrat in the White House. Not bad for a party you say has fallen apart.
- arnon
January 15, 2012 at 9:57am
How do you turn off the red lettering?
- arnon
January 15, 2012 at 9:57am
Of course Rayward and Robert Powell forget the Vietnam War strongly supported by the Democratic leadership, and seen by the country as the Democrats War. That was the main reason the Democratic party went bust. Then we had the Republicans in charge for eight years under Nixon and Gerald Ford. Shazam!!!!!! Then we had Jimmy Carter four years of Democratic Malfeasance. Republicans dominated for the next twelve years under Reagan and Bush the First. And finally Clinton comes in. Third party candidate Ross Perot helped. Clinton balanced the budget thanks to the technology stock market bubble. Erotic cigars became popular, gulps. Then we had eight years of Bush the Second, Iraq War II , Sadam Hussein caput, housing bubble and unemployment of the working class. And now we had three years of Obama, and the way it looks he will be re-elected. Back to the premise. Who or what divided the country according to income? Why there are no jobs for some? Why the rich have become richer, and the middle class poorer? According to Mitt Romney it is envy. And this imbecile wants to be President. How silly to blame the Democrats of dividing the country according to income, when indeed we are divided according to income.
- JAIMECHUCH
January 15, 2012 at 10:06am
The most prolific author on the subject of class and government (affirmative) action is Richard Kahlenberg. Google his name and you will find a treasure trove of articles and scholarly works and recorded symposia. But read them in the broader context of government programs, not affirmative action specifically (in the narrow sense of preferences). We (Democrats) are moving away from race, sex, age, and ethnic based programs to class based programs. I am not making a judgment about this move, only acknowledging it as a fact. That working class people don't recognize it yet isn't surprising; neither do many readers of TNR.
- rayward
January 15, 2012 at 11:11am
I don't know Kahlenberg, however the Democrats always supported programs to help people with low income. This is nothing new. Remember social security, medicaid, medicare ans many others. This are all Democratic programs opposed by even the most centrist of Republicans.
- arnon
January 15, 2012 at 11:24am
I guess my age is showing arnon. Having lived through the meltdown of the Dems, I forget that it might not have made the same impression on younger folks. For the record, the party was a shambles after 1968, losing five out of the next six presidential elections (and probably only winning the one in 1976 by default after Watergate). They went from controlling a big majority of statehouses and legislatures and the Congress for decades to major losses on all counts. Of the two Presidential elections they won between 1964 and 2008 one was by Jimmy Carter (nuff said), and the other was by the guy I characterized as the most successful Dem in the White House since FDR who made a major effort to reform the party away from it's "progressive" dead-end. Obama may ultimately outdo Clinton, but the jury's way out on that proposition. So, in terms of historical fact there was what can only fairly be described as a melt-down. I think it makes sense to look at why Clinton was an exception, and why the process Ray Ward describes bodes well for the future if Dems are open to a little objective self-criticism.
- Robert Powell
January 15, 2012 at 11:31am
OMG! The Reds have taken over the site!
- magboy47.
January 15, 2012 at 12:00pm
I admired Bill Clinton for being Adamant about creating jobs. During his time he created 6 million new jobs. I have been disappointed with Obama and his lack of interest in creating jobs. Specially that young blacks have 40% unemployment. But getting republicans like Boehner, Cantor ,Mitch McConell, Romney , true enemies of the Middle Class, enemies of the working class, enemies of the unemployed class, would be a disaster. So four more years of Obama is the best of the worst. Why is Obama anti job creation? I guess is lack of sensitivity. Anyhow he has the Black vote all tied up, shame on him. The Jewish vote he is pursuing . Ed Koch says will vote for Obama, it is in his nature, liberal democrat. Besides Ehud Barak Israel's defense minister says Obama has been the friendliest American president Israel ever had. Confusing, what you read is not what it is. Undercover there is another reality. International achievements have been plenty by Obama. Ben Laden kaput, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya W/o dictators , maybe Islamists, out of Iraq, harassing Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan OK, Syria under quasi civil war. The Palestinians under their usual mess. Great friend with Erdogan from Turkey, but now Erdogan has colon cancer. Why is it that Erdogan and Venezuelan Chavez have cancer? Some non-friends of Israel blame the Mossad. Or for TNR idiom the neo-cons. I better watch it some smart kookie will say that I am posting the next Martin Peretz blog.
- JAIMECHUCH
January 15, 2012 at 12:27pm
Just to answer magboy47. New business of the big banks. Foreclosed homes are now being used for rentals. Foreclosed homes are going into auctions, you can buy them for half of their mortgage value. If magboy47 calls these red, it is really fascist. But again magboy47 is probably retired on social security, Medicare and even pension. the unemployed and the foreclosed are part of the Red. The big banks and the super rich are part of "Free Capitalism." Oh boy this sounds like the 1930's, although the short shouting guy is Ron whistle voice Paul. The bad guys are petrodollars. Jimmy Carter a big beneficiary of the petro dollars donations says that the Muslim Brotherhood are nice guys. This is 2012 . Elections.
- JAIMECHUCH
January 15, 2012 at 12:46pm
On chief executive impact on jobs: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-12/economists-scoff-at-obama-romney-job-creation-commentary-by-ezra-klein.html Inquiring minds want to know, no?
- Robert Powell
January 15, 2012 at 1:11pm
JAIMECHUCH, I was joking about the print color, when I said the Reds had taken over the site. I didn't think of anything in terms of the different opinions here, just the different print color. That joke fell flatter than Romney's personality. Sorry.
- magboy47.
January 15, 2012 at 1:39pm
- arnon
January 15, 2012 at 2:08pm
- arnon
January 15, 2012 at 2:12pm
"In any case, I agree that the game of investments has become too concerned with short term gains (making profits) at the expense of long term investment in producing material goods for the society at large." arnon, You said what I was trying to say. That's what the housing market became before the crash--short-term gains at the expense of long-term investments. When I was young, a local bank gave you your home loan and stayed with you until you sold your house or paid off your mortgage. Your bank wanted to see you thrive financially, so you could pay off the loan. Now somebody in Iceland or China could own your loan, and they don't care if you you die of starvation in the street. This all started when the average American saw a house as something to profit from, instead of something to live in. And now some banks can't find the original mortgage documents for their home loans, and they're forging them, in order to foreclose. This is what happens when the average person gets in on the short-term gain game. Health care and housing are necessities of life. They shouldn't be about huge, short-term profits. That's a flaw in much of American business today and is one of the things that has led to high unemployment--firing people for short-term profits. I agree with you about the military. When I was in the Air Force, I knew some wonderful people whom I will never forget. But there are a few sociopaths in every cross-section of society, and I can remember the names and faces of those people in my squadron, even though I knew them decades ago. Military personnel (military term!) are not all heroes. Some of them are stinkers.
- magboy47.
January 15, 2012 at 2:40pm
I believe social security and medicare are good for our consumption based economy (and for savings). If we took away medicare, each individual would have to save for themselves anticipating the worst of times. Some will die young or will otherwise not need the funds they saved. Without such programs, you should see wage inflation and lowered consumption. Medicare and social security socialize that risk, which frees up spending to some degree.
- Nusholtz
January 15, 2012 at 2:42pm
@ Robert Powell: Thanks for the link, it reiterates some points that have been known about the economy by at least some since forever, but which continue to be obscured by campaign rhetoric & political bs. I have often thought that a good metaphor for the political life is, at least to some degree, surfing. Successful politicians know when a good wave is coming, & they know how to shove off, paddle hard, get up on the board, wave to the admiring crowd on the beach, & take credit for creating the wave that carries them along. This applies to trends in the economoy, but also to other social trends, such as crime rates, for instance. (Sometinms they wipe out too, & not necessarily because they were incompetent surfers, but because the wave was just unrideable. Think of Jimmy Carter, & what drove inflation during the last part of his term - oil prices, mainly, over which he had no real control.)
- Haole45
January 15, 2012 at 2:58pm
We had the "italic" bug at TNR. If one used tags to italicize a phrase for emphasis or to indicate a book, the italic would not turn off and run into all subsequent comments. The bug seemed to have been corrected. All of a sudden, like a Taliban suicide bomber, we seem to have a "bold" bug. Bold type was turned on, perhaps by JAIME CHURCH (who is probably a perfectly fine person) and now apparently can not be turned off. So I will try bold italic type and tell you it is all Ron Paul's fault and at the least Homeland Security should be notified and the United States placed on alert. (What system of alerts are we using these days?) Haole45, I used to court my wife on Venice Beach and Santa Monica Beach in my youth, but I never learned how to surf one tiny bit. Are you a surfer? Should we control oil prices by pipelining oil down from Canada to Texas? To everyone: if you write a sensible, informed, and intelligent comment, I will try to read it with care, appreciation, and comprehension. [Reminds me of a joke.]
- skahn
January 15, 2012 at 5:48pm
Now italic doesn't work at all. What is the world coming to?
- skahn
January 15, 2012 at 5:49pm
Now that I have broken the formatting entirely -- a major environmental disaster -- someone notify the Environmental Protection Agency -- I am going to go for a walk in the woods. Any future damage is probably your fault.
- skahn
January 15, 2012 at 5:53pm
After painful experience, I believe that if any html coding is active at the point where the text breaks off when you read it in the Preview pane, then after posting that coding will escape from its cage and affect everything thereafter. So if you make sure that any coding sequence either concludes before, or begins after, the point where the text in Preview breaks off, everything should be OK. To put it another way, warning lights should flash (metaphorically) if you notice that your text in Preview breaks off in the middle of an html coding sequence. FWIW I don't understand why they can't fix this. It's as if the guys who did the site got out of Dodge and didn't bother leaving any contact info.
- ironyroad
January 15, 2012 at 10:10pm
Along the line yes. If the stock market is a measure of real economics via investment, it is mainly short term. If the news of the day is poor Greece economy the SM goes down 3 to 4%. the next day Germany declares support for Greece, the SM goes up 3to 4%. during the day Apple, a very solid company, the news say can not fill out the orders for iPhone, the stock goes down 5%. the next day it is declared not true the news. Apple stock goes back up 5 or 6%. as you notice millions of dollars get exchanged in the Stock Market during the day and even extra hours. Some "smart or lucky" investors make or loose lots of money. But our economy is sensitive to instantaneous news. There is no longer timing on investment. Unless you invest in reliable long term companies. What portion of our economy is the stock market? Nowadays the average Joe went out with the technology bubble. Then went the same way with the housing bubble. Who makes money nowadays with the Stock Market? The big investors. Anyhow, all of this is short term. Where does it fit the average Joe? If employed fine. If unemployed .......... Next door neighbor he and she recent graduates as engineers. Had good jobs, bought the renovated town house with big mortgage, $249,000.00. After one year he lost his job. She has hers. He now does odd jobs. When I first met them I mentioned my concern about unemployment, they were insensitive then. Today of course it is a matter of survival. I live in South Philadelphia. Has attracted young professionals. And we are a mix of old retired and this young ones. And if we cross Broad Street we have the neighborhood of the unemployed African Americans and all the troubles they have. The young walk by my town home everyday on their way to the high school nearby run by the Catholic Church. It is reassuring to discuss what could be ideal. But to quote Yogi Berra it ain't over until it is over. It is so true.
- JAIMECHUCH
January 15, 2012 at 10:24pm
Getting back to libertarianism, I think magboy is right about the greed/short-term gain issue, but can we accept that a big part of the problem was decades of government incentives that distorted the true market value of housing? This worked by commission and omission-- interest deductions, Fannie and Freddie, low-income programs, etc combined with shoddy or non-existent regulation on the banking and financial services industry. Advocates of the free market assert that fine-tuning is something The State has a very hard time doing. Everyone recognizes that home ownership is a Good Thing, but pushing it too far was a big part of creating the bubble. Likewise, most people recognize the value of keeping regulation from destroying creativity but letting banks, "non-bank lenders", and Wall Street run wild without any supervision or accountability didn't work out either.
- Robert Powell
January 16, 2012 at 3:43am
As an aging baby boomer and Vietnam vet, Alec, it makes perfect sense to me why Ron Paul has drawn so many younger voters with his anti-militarism. It is one thing to have a heated debate in the comment section about the issue of America continuing its role as policeman to the world, and it is totally another thing to have been one of the vets who actually experienced how horribly wrong these wars have gone for the country. And let's be honest, even with the all volunteer armed forces, who actually fights these wars? I just don't think there are too many policy wonks who read TNR who are actively serving in the armed forces at this time. I think that explains why Ron Paul's largest group of contributors to his campaign have been young vets of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Timothy Egan recently devoted one of his Opinionator columns in The New York Times to this development, the appeal of Ron Paul among younger war vets. Of course for me Ron Paul would cut the safety net programs I rely upon in my retirement - Social Security and the disability compensation I receive for having been exposed to Agent Orange. But his campaign platform of avoiding needless wars makes perfect sense to me as a Vietnam vet. Unfortunately, even though America is a military empire, I live in a nation of clueless civilians who have now idea what happens to the soldiers fighting these wars. Just look at the inane and ignorant debate over that viral video of those four Marines who pissed on corpses. This incident really has nothing to do whether you are a conservative or a liberal. It's just what happened in war. All wars including the last "good" war in WW I where soldiers fighting in the South Pacific sent back whitewashed skulls taken from the corpses of dead Japanese soldiers. Just a bunch of clueless civilians who have no idea how horrific war, any war, is. I think that accounts a lot for Ron Paul's appeal to younger voters. They just see how bankrupt these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq really are.
- rewiredhogdog
January 16, 2012 at 8:25am
rewiredhog "As an aging baby boomer and Vietnam vet, Alec, it makes perfect sense to me why Ron Paul has drawn so many younger voters with his anti-militarism." What "anti-militarism?" Ron Paul is against US intervention in the word, that is to say against sending the military on missions that are not in our interest. That doesn't mean he is a pacifist or even "anti-Militaristic." Also the fact that we have a volunteer army means that young people are not voting for him on those issues, not unless they are leftists pacifists which I doubt is true for most of them.
- arnon
January 16, 2012 at 11:29am
Maybe you haven't noticed arnon, but Paul has tremendous support among active duty military personnel, who are also a big source in his fundraising efforts. Military interventions that are not in our interest ("vital interest" per the Powell doctrine) should be taboo under just about any circumstances. No one is more aware of this than the military. @'hog--right you are. My take on the Marines' pissing fiasco was "So what?". Presumably they killed these guys. I'm quite sure the bodies were beyond caring about getting pissed on compared to getting killed in the first place. This is war. If you are appalled by this kind of thing and often much worse, don't get us into wars in the first place. Ron Paul has not proposed cutting anything for us Boomers. All serious entitlements reform includes a generous grace period so that old farts like us can continue to collect, but people in their 30's are on notice to start saving and/or investing on their own. It' not the end of the gravy train, or even the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning.
- Robert Powell
January 16, 2012 at 3:01pm
Robert Powell "Maybe you haven't noticed arnon, but Paul has tremendous support among active duty military personnel,..." What does "tremendous mean?" And why is he being supported by some people in the military? Is it because they are "anti-Militarists," or are there other more mundane reasons? How many people in the military support other candidates, btw?
- arnon
January 16, 2012 at 5:32pm
Very simple answer why they vote for Paul. As the late, great Gene Wilder said in "Blazing Saddles" when explaining to Cleavon Little, "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
- scrabbie
January 16, 2012 at 11:03pm
Fair question arnon. According to Timothy Egan of the NYT's Paul's support in the active duty military is "overwhelming". He's gotten ten times the individual contributions from them as Romney, and a hundred times those of Gingrich. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/ scrabbie--You obviously don't know much about the military. Most of them signed up to defend the country, not be the world's policemen or guardians of a world empire. Ron Paul speaks directly to the concerns of a 1% slice of the public that's been used as props for politicians and who have sacrificed enormously so folks like you can continue to support the country by going shopping.
- Robert Powell
January 17, 2012 at 4:45am