Guns and Butter, for December 28, 2011 - 1:00pm
Click to Play:
Download this clip (mp3, 10.28 megabytes)
Play this clip in your Computer's media player
Guns and ButterDownload this clip (mp3, 10.28 megabytes)
Play this clip in your Computer's media player
"Critique of Ron Paul's Austerity Plan" with Webster Griffin Tarpley. Ron Paul's "Plan to Restore America" includes $1 trillion in cuts to the federal budget in one year. We take a look at what this would mean for the American people. Ron Paul is the republican front runner to win the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, 2012.
More from this show: About the Show | Archives of this Show | Playlists from this Show
Comments
1% elite HATE PAUL
DR. Paul has been cut out of the debates, equal corporate mega rich controlled mega media such as tv networks and cut out of the primaries largely and often by voter election fraud.
This is a real hack job by Tarpley. Dr. Paul does NOT COME CLOSE TO THIS mud-slinging interview -- what distortions of his record.
Dr. Paul has said he earmarked because it was his responsibility to represent his constituency as ALL OTHER POLITICIANS DO -- and he votes against the bill for it NOT to pass. If more Reps did that the bill would not pass.
Dr. Paul would as President provide protection against slave labor and goods made from illegal labor, illegal to market. He is a US Constitutionalist against foreign wars, foreign political intervention and foreign dumping in US markets.
On principal Dr, Paul does not want to use taxes as a form of legislation. There are other means already available.
Dr. Paul is not in favor of paying off debt generated by Banker fraud (like Greece, iceland and elsewhere).
Dr. Paul is not a 1% er. See the opposition to Dr. Paul by the Israeli lobby (AIPAC, the South Poverty Law Center, George Soros, The Rothschild, Wall Street...
all "divisions" of the same mega entity really.
SHAM ON TARPLEY!
as a man who KNOWS BETTER! Webster failed to mention all about the REAL 1% international GLOBALIST SOCIALIST PLAN AKA "NEW WORLD ORDER" ONE WORLD SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT to take total control over everyone included World POPULATION REDUCTION
Webster Tarpley has spoken MANY TIMES about this on THE ALEX JONES SHOW and has appeared in this film found on youtube.
The Elite's Plan for Global Extermination Exposed, By: Dr. Webster Tarpley (Full Length)
GO TO youtube.com/watch?v=nStpXy5GIns
LISTEN TO TARPLEY HERE -- QUITE DIFFERENT!!
Tarpley believes that the Big Government still can do good. That is quite possibly true, but now it is VERY CORRUPT and needs to be excised before it can be carefully rebuilt.
END THE FED END BIG GOVERNMENT
Elin Hansen
Sorry, but that is completely 100% wrong. There are many things wrong with this "critique" -- it is little more than a brazen one-sided attack of Dr. Paul who e.g repeatedly called for ENDING THE FED (as a book written by Dr. Paul is entitled), not to mention sponsoring the audit the fed bill in the House and was killed by the Senate's competing bill.
Dr. Paul is not for the 1%. He is OPPOSED TO THE GLOBAL ELITE PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE UN, THE DOE, AGENDA21
Dr. PAUL HAS EXPOSED THE FEDERAL GOVT IN CIA DRUG AND GUN RUNNING
DR. PAUL WANTS TO CLOSE FOREIGN BASES. SHUT DONT CORRUPT AGENTIES LIKE THE FDA.
Please dont listen to Webster Tarpley NEW DEAL (socialism to replace the "old deal" the US Constitution) Franklin Delano (de la Noya family) Roosevelt is from the wealthiest old banking families -- look it all up.
The elite 1% sell One World Socialism (they are in charge) as the solution
you Americans are historically stupid, if Ron Paul is not elected you will have a nuc war.
Have you ever looked at www.moneymyths.org.uk
you could have a dividend of around $500 a week each, and still balance your debt.
or you could just die with the current shower of paid off rubbish that you keep voting for.
also take a look at corp of london and you will see what happened to the hole world.
Have you even listened to this critique? To want Ron Paul you are in the top 1% group of the wealthiest in this nation, otherwise I can't understand where you are coming from.
Webster Tarpley is infinitely informative. He knows how to speak in a compelling fashion. This is the first time I've heard Ron Psul's ideas debunked in a wholesale manner. It is a shame this audio program doesn't reach all Americans.
Ron Paul wants to do away of with the corprate gains tax. well no no. The us government had a corparte gainsi tax, which funded the federal government from the beginings of our constitution untili 1920's, which no federal; tax had to be payed by the indivitual american..this is how they funded the federal government. Well since the 1920's until now we American citizens have ben made to pay a federal income tax and the federal government still collets a corprate gains tax. I feel we should go back to the way they funded the federal government where the federal government is funded by corprate gains tax and us Americans do not pay a federal income tax. I feel that state, county and city taxes are good and our responsability to fund because we live there. The federal taxes Americas have to pay should be done away with and the funding for the federal government should soley be funded by corprate gains tax like it has ben from the begining of our constitution until the 1920's and us Americans did not pay a federal income tax. They get double the money now, cause they still collect corprate gains tax and also collect federal income taxes from americans. That is double or tripple what they got prior to the 1920'S Corprate gains tax works and americans do not get federaly taxed that is what origionaly worked and still will work without us americans having to pay a dime in federal incomtaxes. The federal gains income tax and no federal taxes to the americans to soley fund the federal government worked in the past and still wiill work today. There is no federal law written that says us americans have to pay a federal income tax and when you ask the federal government to show the americans where the federal law is written they come up with excuses as to why they need not show us the law. There is no law written that requires americans to pay federal income taxes. So why are us americans paying one?
I dare anyone who reads this to research and find where the written law says americans are rquired to pay federal income tax. I can gaurntee you will not find any law of that sort, cause their is no law of that sort written.
Oh, and this issue of Health care.problem, and us americans getting the health care we desirve, why doesn't the united states do it the way the Canadians do it, without all the long waitting times for an mri or seeing the Docto ?
bonnie- thanks again for yet another wonderful piece of reporting--i hope that you will send this show to brass check tv-they are really pushing ron paul- and they highlight the problems with the other candidates- but they do not provide the balance this show provided-- this is important information!--i think you add much more context with your show and in order for brasscheck to be fair i think they need to hear this side and report on it as well- so many people are subscribing and forwarding around brass check shows these days!
Ron Paul, at least his words, are right on point about international policy and condemning our wars and covert ops abroad. But he is absolutely wrong about domestic policy. He is a tunnel visioned, hypnotized, brainwashed by the philosophy of 20th century pseudo intellectual and hypocrite Ayn Rand. Hence his son/senator first name Rand is after Ayn Rand and her twisted take on libertarianism.
Tarpley does it again, brilliant!!!
A question on another topic- what's up with the recall of the KPFA board member??
Vote YES on the recall. Please see the facts about the recall at:
http://www.savekpfa.org/faqrecall
Vote NO on the recall. Tracy Rosenberg is doing a terrific job. This is very important. Please vote.
Bonnie- thanks so much for having Webster Tarpley on again- a great and thorough researcher- there is so much ..... about Paul on the internet- it's good to get some facts- there was a bit more info on Mitch's show today-tues- Jan3rd- If anyone knows about any other shows on Paul, please post the info!- thanks
- Tom Hartman had an interesting interview tonight with one of the Dems at the Iowa caucas= and they are discussing the best way to force Obama into more progressive positions- hard to imagine Obama doing anything --
et tu Tarpley!!!!!!
JP Morgan is responsible for people losing their jobs,
then they profit from the Food Stamp business!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_W4wUhz9A
JP Morgan- Profits from Food Stamps and the Growth of Poverty and Suffering in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgokq_nCmow
actually it's FOOD DEBT CARDS
Research why Ron Paul voted for Galveston Port - BECAUSE HIS CONSTITUENTS ASKED HIM TO VOTE FOR IT.
interview with Tim Russet
If not Ron Paul than who? WHO? WHO?!!!!!
A program, that's "who". Make demands and let the candidate step forward. Thanks Tarpley for revealing Ron Paul for who he is - an elitist working for the most elite of the nation to kill as many poor, elderly, and infant Americans in order to destroy the New Deal forever.
LOL! I guess Webster Tarpley is not too clued in on the economy! Let's look at some empirical examples of crashes that you seem oblivious of. The most immediate examples are Iceland 2008. The most recent example in the US is in 1921. What Webster doesn't seem to grasp is that when you allow for the crash to liquidate the malinvestment as Harding did in 1921, the economy can restart itself alot faster (i.e. 18 months later in 1922 for the US, and 12 months later in the case of Iceland).
Another example of which you don't seem to clued in about in relation to the economy is what happens when government cuts it's spending as when Americans returned home after WWII (where the US government cut it's spending by 2/3). You don't seem to grasp that when government is not spending our money, WE get to spend our money. And our expenditures are far more useful than the government expenditures. The other aspect which is important in getting the economy going is regulatory infrastructure and uncertainty. For proof of the benefit that it was this that led to the boom in the economy look at the jump in GDP in the later part of the 1940s. First you get a drop due to the retooling of manufacturing machinery for war activity then you get a boom as goods that are manufactured that would be useful for consumers.
Finally the major problems with your critique is that you fail to understand that you can only retain programs that can provide a service in a sustainable way. Your whole discourse is connected with how these things for are paid for, as well you seem to think that entrepreneurship is something to be discouraged. But worse of all is that you seem to think that the majority of wall street likes Ron Paul!?! Here something you need to learn, companies and banks HATE COMPETITION!!! The reason why is because the only way that they can make a profit in that environment is to serve customers with quality products and services at low prices. In your delusion, you seem to think it's government regulation and intervention that does that!?! As well you seem to think that Ron Paul who wants to eliminate the federal reserve which would mean that banks would have real competition and free market and not be propped up when they are insolvent (which is all the time since the assets never line up with the liabilities) by the federal reserve, is a bad thing!?! As for food aid, it's a joke. We providing GMO laced food to dying populations!?! Why because the government protects and subsidizes agricultural who provide agricultural products that people don't want to eat and is only part of the food chain because they allow these companies to hide the GMO nature of their products. WAKE UP DUDE!!!
Bravo...excellent reply
There is a reason why Ron Paul's backers promote survivalist rations - because your going to need it if he takes power! You must be a billionaire, otherwise you might be concerned about Ron Paul's budget which immediately takes away poor white (majority food stamp recipients) rations, sends gram-ma to live in your basement, and ensures that all poor newborns are protein deficient (like in a cult). Newsflash, if the ruling class wanted the rest of us dead, we would be dead! The reason elitists like Paul & the Koch bros hate advances in food and medicine is because they allow us regular folks to have kids & thrive. Instead Paul want to immediately kill thousands of Americans by gutting the budget - not very subtle.
Fear this whole situation with our economy reminds me of an abused person that wants to leave their abusive relationship but either end up with same person or another abusive person.Republican Democrats same thing no difference we vote for a rotating dictator with the same policy and agenda,So we want change but are addicted to lies and promises that never seen daylight because we fear losing the American dream or way of life truth is we lose the American dream 40 years ago.ceo ,profiters,slaver owner are a group that control everything.ron Paul in the eyes of youngpeople is the only difference right now.Obama say one thing and so something else or give us water down version of what he promise and all the republican have the same platform destroy the environment,destroy the middle class and more war in the name of greed.
These numbers = 63% cut for food stamps. Enough said.
When criticizing Paul's welfare cuts, Tarpley grossly overlooks the fact that the states would pick up the slack since it's not a Constitutional function of the Federal gov't. The cuts don't mean they would do without, just that the distribution would be more localized.
Tarpley said, "Where are the empirical examples historically of letting a depression burn itself out?"
Perhaps he should study the Depression of 1920?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
Not exactly,
The amount of federal aid to the state would still be drastically reduced. I really don't understand Paul going after welfare programs which represent a tiny 5-10% of the budget. I don't agree with social/welfare programs as they create non productive, lazy, depressed, dependent people but it's such a small part of the problem.. why start there?
they would be alot more depressed if they had nothing to eat, no place to work, and no place to sleep.....
Hmm, that video implies that the 1920's events are hidden away by conspiracy, yet I learned about the "1920's depression" in grade 9 in a surprisingly open lesson(due to a hippy-ish teacher) discussing how the 1920's events were in fact the beginning of the 'Great Depression' and not a separate event. But the 1920's events were in the not-so-open text book, hardly hidden.
It was the 'let it burn itself out' philosophy that caused the 1920's depression to explode into the 'Great Depression'.
All those private corporations cracked down and reduced pay for much of their employees in order for the corporations to deal with the economic troubles and then proclaimed that by doing so since the corporations had 'bounced back' and were turning profits again that the 'depression' of the 20's was over.
Then the reality of the economics for the '99%' of the time exploded like a nuclear bomb in the 1930's destroying the 1920's corporate economics perception that disaster had been avoided.
That is set to happen again now despite the differences in approach since the corporations are still stealing away the money for themselves the same way in order to maintain their 'profit margins' of the corporations and their executive's personal bank accounts.
Some say it was done on purpose, though I'm not convinced of that as they hurt themselves too in the process of trying to create their own alternate economic reality.
In case you didn't know or have forgotten the solution in the 30's was "government stimulation" and incentives and employment programs at the tax payer's expense, LOBBIED FOR by some of the largest private corporations of the time because they didn't want to have to pay from their own pocket to deal with the economic messes they were mostly responsible for creating by the actions in the 20's and earlier.
Once upon a time the American system as outlined by the 'Founding Fathers' of America was imperfect and allowed the corporations and foreign interests to corrupt it and take over it to make it work for them and not the majority of people.
It's not news really since even the 'Founding Fathers' saw it coming and warned about it back then, the system is just too easily corruptible to not be subverted by powerful interests.
Some of the most insightful books about what is happening right now come from the late 1800's when apparently it was mostly the same way just to a lesser extent.
So going back to that more "pure" system before the private interests corrupted it while NOT cutting down on those private interests extreme power will not solve anything.
As has already happened a number of times those powerful interests will find a way to corrupt and take control of that imperfectly designed system once again.
And instead of trying to cut their power Ron Paul wants to cut their taxes and provide with total deregulation, the one group of people that deserve to be taxed and regulated the most.
I agree that Webster sensationalized some of the stuff and made biased statements against Ron Paul due to his opposing personal ideology, but over all he is very correct in pointing out that for the majority of the people Ron Paul's policies will have no positive effect on them.
It's austerity for the people and freedom for the corporations and "elites".
"Purifying" a system or going 'back to it's roots' when it has proven repeatedly to be easily corruptible and prone to subversion is illogical in my view.
It's like having a 50 year old air mattress that springs leaks every 10 minutes and just constantly patching it up even though it would be far more intelligent and less costly to just buy a new one, all because "it's served me well in the past".
There may have been a time when it functioned well enough but those days are long gone.
Without serious measures to cut the power of the private interests that are the whole problem the American republican form of government will never truly function for the People as it was (supposedly) meant to do.
Hence why the 'Founding Fathers' noted that constant revolution was needed with the system in order to stop corruption from taking complete control of it.
It has not been a good system from day one, surely after a couple hundred years people can come up with something better, no?
I know I'm getting lengthy in my posts and I apologize for that but I just wanted to expand slightly on points I made above -
The 30's economic implosion was caused by the corporate 'let it burn' policies of the 20's that hurt the average American while helping the corporations and "elites" that controlled them to balance their books and maintain profits for a corporate 'recovery'.
Eventually the fact more and more of the average people had less and less money eventually caught up though and the profits of the corporations and majority of employed people couldn't offset the debts and lack of spending from the growing minority of unemployed and indebted people.
Bearing in mind large numbers of people back then were able to go back to a family farm and be mostly self-sufficient and thus that delayed the economic implosion for a little while too compared to what is happening today(where self-sufficiency is being made illegal in many ways now).
Since the mid 1800's or so the "official" economic outlook of American governments has always been heavily biased to favor massive corporate profits and use them to offset negative trends and losses for the general public to create false perceptions of economic boom.
It's actually far worse for Americans today compared to the 20's and 30's as corporate lobbied policies of free-trade and outsourcing of jobs to cheaper workers in other nations means that the corporations and a small minority of "elites" maintain good business and ridiculous profits that it will take longer for the negative economics to offset it all and actually show up in "official" economic statistics and outlooks.
Remember that the government and corporations and media give their view from a corporate economic perspective, so when they say it's "bad" for them that means for the average American citizen's personal economic perspective it is downright disastrous and 'doom and gloom' is the optimistic outlook.
It should be pointed out also that today America's two biggest industries are financial services and the Military Industrial Complex.
If you want to fix the system and maintain the existing social, financial and political paradigm in America then destroying the money industry and ending wars is a very bad idea unless you actually want total collapse and ruin that despite much optimism it may not be possible to rebuild from.
The whole situation is not 'black and white' at all, nowhere near as simple as many people I've heard from seem to consider it to be.
Personally I favor a system of nationalized major industries dealing with national and natural resources and an almost completely deregulated privatized market for everything else under a direct participatory democratic system similar to Libya's former 'Jamahiriya'(state of the masses) system.
Technically a 'Jamahiriya' system is 'big government', although since it's the general public of legal age/competency that makes the decisions the government that carries it out is actually fairly limited considering the scope of it, and has virtually no real power except to do what they are told.
But there are many options other than the current republican system that could be considered or new systems or hybrids of mutliple systems that don't involve so few people holding so much power and thus are inherently less corrupt.
I really don't think people understand the truth about our society these days since the entire issue has been so clouded by stupidity.
The corporations and their owners/operators own the government and use it to protect and serve their interests while frequently ignoring or going against the interests of the general public.
The only solution is a stronger government, a change from the current Republican system to a direct participatory democracy, basically a 'town hall' democracy, and the nationalization of the major national industries involving natural/national resources.
Ron Paul is offering the "elites" perfect alternative to the current system whereby the government won't be working for them but will completely stay out of their business and not work against them and give them nice tax breaks to give them even more money to use to increase their power.
The #1 problem is the multinational corporations that are literally more powerful than most world government's today, letting them go completely unregulated given their track-record is retarded - the things they do when they know people are watching and they could face penalties are downright monstrous at times what do you think they'd do with nobody holding them accountable?
It's insane that people have such a retarded black and white view on this matter - either we need government or we don't need government - apparently nobody has ever considered that there literally are hundreds of possible types of governments and 'hybrid' mixtures of systems that could offer a viable solution.
You bet your ass the "elites" prefer this system but Ron Paul offers the perfect alternative to it that will maintain their power in a completely unregulated system.
The only way the "elites" can be removed from the picture is by nationalizing the major natural/national resource industries that account for like 90% of all the wealth the "elites" possess and gives them most of their power. In combination with removing their control of the monetary system of course, neither path on it's own will achieve much. (ps - even with 90% of their wealth removed they would remain as some of the wealthiest people on the planet)
Not to mention those industries would bring in billions of dollars that could be used to pay down the debt and eventually maybe even cover many of the people's support/welfare programs that the majority of compassionate human beings desire, along with infrastructure and even military expenses and such.
Ron Paul is not the solution.
And please for the love of all that is holy can his supporters stop the stupidity of using the term "revolution"?
A revolution is a revolt directed against the system and does not involve taking part in the system.
If you want a perfect example of "co-opting" look no further than RP's cashing in on the "pre-revolutionary atmosphere" in America and the world today.
I plan to vote for Paul in the CA primary, if he makes it this far, mostly because I would like to see him as the main opposition to Obama. While I disagree strongly with most of Paul's positions on Federal spending (I say "most", because I do believe some Federal programs are frequently misdirected, such as education testing programs, handouts to medical insurance corporations, and foreign aid to dictators, corporations and arms merchants; so it's a mixed bag, to say the least), I strongly support his positions on the American Empire (against), bank bailouts (against), the Federal Reserve (against), and the war on drugs (against). His positions on these, by the way, are very similar to those of Kucinich (except for drugs, which I don't know).
Since Obama is opposed to Paul on these issues, Paul would be the perfect candidate to debate and otherwise contest with Obama, whereas all the other possible Republican candidates agree with Obama on these issues.
Furthermore, if Paul were the Republican candidate, I might even vote for him for President, because in my mind the issues that trump all others is "American Empire" and "War and Peace," and it seems a bit self indulgent for we Americans to want to build our Medicare, Social Security, abortion rights, education and infrastructure spending on the backs of ther rest of the world. Because that's the choice you make when you vote for Obama -- at least that's what you're hoping for, although he doesn't seem to be delivering too well on it, despite some of the "Yes, We Did'" bumper stickers.
The issue that would trump all the above for me would be a solution to environmental destruction of the planet, but, although I think a strong Federal government potentially could take us in the right direction, I don't see Obama making any moves to disrupt the corporate apple cart.
Kucinich and Paul also share a dislike for the Federal Reserve System and have a very similar analysis of it. Kucinich called the Fed "as federal as Federal Express." Kucinich has actually submitted a bill to get rid of the Fed.
On a defferent topic, I really wish Tarpley were in Homs, Syria this week instead of several weeks ago, because the portrayal he gave on G&B last week was completely at odds with what Democracy Now and other KPFA news programs are presenting. What's the truth? If Tarpley is accurate, what in the world is going on with Amy Goodman, et al? And why did she support the NATO bombing of Libya, not in so many words, but practically by the way she presented it? I lay awake nights trying to understand this.
To reply to the Amy Goodman Question: What happened to her? Get some rest, man. Check out the backers, the corporate backers of DNow, and you will get some answers. There is a chart circulating on the internet, and while that did not stop me from getting my daily DNow dose of news, what did stop me, was the type of reporting has changed dramatically since 911. And there are some topics she won't touch with a ten foot pole, i.e., Chentrails, UFO's, Black Ops, and 911, what really happened?? Also, she keeps the hype about "climate change" going though it has been reported to be a hoax, the whole solar system is heating up. The devastation comes from what big corporations are doing to the planet which hardly if ever gets discussed.
What happened? Well. we can only surmise from the evidence that she and DNow have been compromised. I gave up watching it so often after this past election. Ironically, it was her reporting and the guests she brought in early in the campaign that brought any sobriety to the Obamamania that was going on. But after that, downhill. DNow sounds more like Al Jazeera, supposedly telling the truth but with an insidious spin, that if you don't catch it you will be sucked up into it and believing it. You actually have to look around nowadays for some real alternative news. To me, though I may not agree with all I hear on G&B, it is one of the last vestiges left for a truth seeker like myself.
Blessings, Nana Baakan
It seems that much of mainstream left is letting itself be fooled by (so-called) NGO's which are actually being sponsored and coordinated by the US state department. Another possibility is that left-wing non-profit news outlets are massively being bribed to report favourably on some essential foreign policy issues such as the color revolutions. But thank God we have people like Bonnie Faulkner, Webster Tarpley, Pepe Escobar and Thierry Meyssan.
This is a good topic but puts a lot of us in stasis on the vote. We have a feckless Democratic party offering no antiwar challenge to Obama and ron Paul is the only one on stage talking about ending the 'useless Wars' and 'occupation' bases. Ironically kucinich and paul share a common international policy. I'm hesitant to discredit ron Paul's antiwar stance because he only cuts 15% from the Pentagon... maybe this is because this is the first year and we're in deep... but remember paul is the ONLY one denying Iran is nuclear ... Obama will join in the race to wwiii with the neocons. The other truth is that Tarpley has shown how Obama is destroying social security with his payroll tax cut and I think it's safe to say austerity comes inevitably ... just slower with the dems. This being the case and speaking from being 30 and never seen a perceived benefit from all the tax I've paid I say chop up the corrupt wasteful machine. The question gleaming to Tarpley is who the hell do we vote for? Judging from what I know about paul and his embracing of the grassroots like Alex Jones from the beginning and his intrinsic 'can't stump the guy because he's honest' I'd rather see him in office or at the bare minimum in a debate with Obama to voice diplomacy.