Dynamo Rand Paul has picked up another business endorsement, this time the National Federation of Independent Business, a week after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced they were supporting Paul, and were going to launch a $500,000 advertising campaign in Kentucky.
The U.S Chamber of Commerce ad campaign notes that Paul's Obama Democrat opponent, Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway, supported cutting Medicare through his backing of Obamacare.
Kentucky state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, Tom Underwood, said they won't be launching a TV ad campaign, but will be sending out mailings to about 7,000 members of the business organization residing in Kentucky.
Conway is attempting to lose the Obamacare label attempting to use the extremist Democrat tactic they've used for many years by saying Paul wants to "force seniors to pay more for basic health care." He adds that makes Paul "out of step with Kentucky values."
That's only because Paul has the courage to address the issue, and admits there will ultimately be a shortfall, and that could push the costs of Medicare up in order to combat it. Anyone that says something different is either a liar or clueless.
Conway is the extremist who doesn't represent Kentucky values, as the majority of the state opposed Obamacare and Obama's radical agenda. We don't need another politician in that mold being voted into office.
It's good to see business-friendly and limited government candidates being in place to vote for.
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Rand Paul, Economics, and Why They Fear Him
An article from a Keynesian attempted to make Rand Paul look like a clueless idiot when it comes to his style of economics, which the writer hates.
Here's one thing David Weidner said about Paul in what he believes Paul's economic vision is for America:
"It's easier to imagine than you might think. Until 1933, there was no Securities and Exchange Commission, no Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Reserve was a nascent, inactive and poor regulator. It's different now in that the Fed is no longer new.
"The decade that preceded the creation of the SEC and FDIC was not too far from the vision Paul and his kind want to see again: markets full of speculation, manipulation and unprecedented leverage through investment trusts -- a kind of mutual fund on steroids that promised to give investors access to an ever-inflating stocks market. We were on the gold standard. The U.S. had a balanced budget policy. It was Paul's kind of market."
I just want to mention one quick thing about the above before getting into the reason behind Weidner's tortured fear of Rand Paul.
In the first paragraph quoted, it's obvious Weidner expects no one to understand the ineptness and idiocy of the Federal Reserve and how it reacted to the housing market, and what is has evolved to today. For him to say the Federal Reserve of old "was a nascent, inactive and poor regulator. It's different now in that the Fed is no longer new," is almost beyond believe.
The Federal Reserve is no different now than it was back when it started, except it prints even more money than ever before in history, and is even more crooked, ineffective and dangerous. That doesn't include the secrecy surrounded it that is protected by politicians.
He even says the poor performance of the Fed in the crisis (which he now evidently admits to) doesn't "explain the behavior of big banks which, without regulation, loaned billions to investors to speculate in the market."
It doesn't explain the failure of the Fed? Who does he think supplied the banks with the billions?
Anyway, as far as Rand Paul, it shows the underlying panic and fear about a candidate like him? Why? Because he's the first to emerge with a real chance to win the Senate seat. He was leading his Democratic opponent by almost the same margin he won over his primary opponent, by about 59 percent to 35 percent.
This of course has driven the liberals and Democrats crazy (and some Republicans), because he could be the first of many, and his primary victory gave others hope, and that could lead to some key victories for some that could change the course of American politics for years to come, and America itself. That's what Rand Paul represents, and why on a national level the attacks are seemingly out of proportion for someone running for a Senate seat.
In other words, it's an attempt to kill what the tea party represents at its birth, as if they can get rid of Paul by presenting him as a nut and out of tune with average Americans, they can then use those same tactics to go after those that follow him.
Imagine a solid group of lawmakers like Rand Paul inhabiting Washington, and the past practices of Politicians would be over. There would be no backroom deals which they didn't believe in to allow dubious legislation to go forth. There could be the strong possibilities of repealing legislation like Obamacare, which Americans by a majority didn't want, but was forced upon them.
Bottom line is Rand Paul represents what the Tea Party stands for, and that is a threat to those whose only faith seems to be in government, and the idea of someone coming in to limit their daddy is just too much for many to take.
The attacks on Paul will continue, but others are starting to rise up after his primary victory, and that could deflect some of the focus that is on Paul.
Rand Paul is more connected to what most Americans want and stand for than the vast majority of politicians, and to see him gain victory as a Senator would be great for America, and hopefully a significant number will follow him and win in their races; if not this election, in many elections to come.
Again, that's what people fear in Rand Paul, and why many will do almost anything to attempt to defeat him in November.
For the sake of our economic future and freedoms, I hope he wildly succeeds.
Here's one thing David Weidner said about Paul in what he believes Paul's economic vision is for America:
"It's easier to imagine than you might think. Until 1933, there was no Securities and Exchange Commission, no Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Reserve was a nascent, inactive and poor regulator. It's different now in that the Fed is no longer new.
"The decade that preceded the creation of the SEC and FDIC was not too far from the vision Paul and his kind want to see again: markets full of speculation, manipulation and unprecedented leverage through investment trusts -- a kind of mutual fund on steroids that promised to give investors access to an ever-inflating stocks market. We were on the gold standard. The U.S. had a balanced budget policy. It was Paul's kind of market."
I just want to mention one quick thing about the above before getting into the reason behind Weidner's tortured fear of Rand Paul.
In the first paragraph quoted, it's obvious Weidner expects no one to understand the ineptness and idiocy of the Federal Reserve and how it reacted to the housing market, and what is has evolved to today. For him to say the Federal Reserve of old "was a nascent, inactive and poor regulator. It's different now in that the Fed is no longer new," is almost beyond believe.
The Federal Reserve is no different now than it was back when it started, except it prints even more money than ever before in history, and is even more crooked, ineffective and dangerous. That doesn't include the secrecy surrounded it that is protected by politicians.
He even says the poor performance of the Fed in the crisis (which he now evidently admits to) doesn't "explain the behavior of big banks which, without regulation, loaned billions to investors to speculate in the market."
It doesn't explain the failure of the Fed? Who does he think supplied the banks with the billions?
Anyway, as far as Rand Paul, it shows the underlying panic and fear about a candidate like him? Why? Because he's the first to emerge with a real chance to win the Senate seat. He was leading his Democratic opponent by almost the same margin he won over his primary opponent, by about 59 percent to 35 percent.
This of course has driven the liberals and Democrats crazy (and some Republicans), because he could be the first of many, and his primary victory gave others hope, and that could lead to some key victories for some that could change the course of American politics for years to come, and America itself. That's what Rand Paul represents, and why on a national level the attacks are seemingly out of proportion for someone running for a Senate seat.
In other words, it's an attempt to kill what the tea party represents at its birth, as if they can get rid of Paul by presenting him as a nut and out of tune with average Americans, they can then use those same tactics to go after those that follow him.
Imagine a solid group of lawmakers like Rand Paul inhabiting Washington, and the past practices of Politicians would be over. There would be no backroom deals which they didn't believe in to allow dubious legislation to go forth. There could be the strong possibilities of repealing legislation like Obamacare, which Americans by a majority didn't want, but was forced upon them.
Bottom line is Rand Paul represents what the Tea Party stands for, and that is a threat to those whose only faith seems to be in government, and the idea of someone coming in to limit their daddy is just too much for many to take.
The attacks on Paul will continue, but others are starting to rise up after his primary victory, and that could deflect some of the focus that is on Paul.
Rand Paul is more connected to what most Americans want and stand for than the vast majority of politicians, and to see him gain victory as a Senator would be great for America, and hopefully a significant number will follow him and win in their races; if not this election, in many elections to come.
Again, that's what people fear in Rand Paul, and why many will do almost anything to attempt to defeat him in November.
For the sake of our economic future and freedoms, I hope he wildly succeeds.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Rand Paul on Kentucky Coal
Rand Paul on Coal
Responding to a smear campaign from his fading political opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, Rand Paul defended himself against accusations from Grayson that he was not a friend of the coal mining industry, which is a strong part of the economy of eastern Kentucky.
In a TV interview, Paul responded to the Grayson ads saying, "I'm against Cap and Trade. I'm for reigning in the EPA because I think they're limiting the permit process. I'm for allowing mountain top removal of coal. That doesn't sound like I'm very anti-coal, and yet he takes a quote out of context from two years before, where I say that there are cleaner forms of energy that we will eventually evolve to. That doesn't mean I'm against coal."
Paul also went on the offensive, showing a video of Grayson supporting bringing in nuclear powered plants after the coal-fired plants are taken out of the picture.
Rand Paul on Coal
Responding to a smear campaign from his fading political opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, Rand Paul defended himself against accusations from Grayson that he was not a friend of the coal mining industry, which is a strong part of the economy of eastern Kentucky.
In a TV interview, Paul responded to the Grayson ads saying, "I'm against Cap and Trade. I'm for reigning in the EPA because I think they're limiting the permit process. I'm for allowing mountain top removal of coal. That doesn't sound like I'm very anti-coal, and yet he takes a quote out of context from two years before, where I say that there are cleaner forms of energy that we will eventually evolve to. That doesn't mean I'm against coal."
Paul also went on the offensive, showing a video of Grayson supporting bringing in nuclear powered plants after the coal-fired plants are taken out of the picture.
Rand Paul on Coal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)