ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)



The Tom Woods App


‘I Support Cain’ Means ‘The Country’s Fine Just As It Is’

2nd November 2011      by: Tom Woods     

A Suffolk University poll of Florida Republicans finds 25% in support of Mitt Romney and 24% supporting Herman Cain. In other words, these voters believe the country is about 4 percent off track but basically all right. For all their talk about how bad Obama is, apparently things aren’t that bad if they want to replace him with a safe establishment man like Romney or Cain (former head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve).

Under Romney it’s obvious nothing will change. Anyone can see that.

Under Cain it’s only slightly less obvious. His big proposal is a revenue-neutral tax shifting. He has no plans to cut anything (and please, spare me the he’ll-cut-the-rate-of-growth-of-spending stuff). He supported Romney in 2008. He supported TARP — he had no idea it would be used to “pick winners and losers”! — which means on the key economic issue of our time, which Reagan budget director David Stockman calls “the single greatest economic-policy abomination since the 1930s, or perhaps ever,” Cain chose the Establishment over the people. He lectured “free-market purists” for opposing it.

You can imagine how much “change” we can expect from a guy like that — the whole establishment lines up on one side (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the cable news commentators, John McCain, Barack Obama) and the American people on the other, and Cain goes with the establishment. But he’ll be a big maverick next time that happens, right? Sure.

Not to mention he thought there was nothing wrong with the economy on September 1, 2008. How can he fix something he couldn’t perceive — and actually ridiculed other people for pointing out? How is this in any way defensible?

He is such a lightweight on the economy that he calls his economic adviser onto the stage to answer even simple questions.

His foreign policy is indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s. Both subscribe to the entirely conventional bipartisan foreign-policy consensus, which has yielded Americans one budget-busting boondoggle after another. (Turns out the people in Washington the Tea Party rails against do not suddenly become infallible and super-effective when they turn to foreign policy — though why this should be surprising or unexpected I have never been able to understand.)

So Florida voters are telling us this: we don’t want a truth-teller who in 2001 explained precisely what was happening to the economy. We don’t want any deviation from the trillion-dollar bipartisan foreign policy (even though we don’t support any other bipartisan program). We want someone totally clueless who will more or less keep things the way they are and not lay out any serious plan for cutting spending or the deficit.

Well, that’s just super.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Anonymous

    Donna -

    What you basically say by supporting “Cainsianism” is this: leave the current system intact, which means a de facto defence of financial FEDishism, state sponsored corporatism and elitist progressivism.

    Meanwhile, some tax reshuffling and last-minute budget acrobatics must do the trick and then you proceed to produce the quite astonishing statement about us, the people, being “in control of government” by means of this FEDist proxy?

    Well, that’s ehm.. rich!
    ;-)

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Richard

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Where does Cain propose to balance the budget in one year? He has called Ron Paul extreme for proposing to balance it in three!

    If you think “government control” will be shifted “back to the people” by shuffling taxes around, I don’t know what I can say to you.  I’d say we’d see a lot more power shifted back to the people if we started repealing taxes, instead of engaging in these “tax reform” shell games. Come on.

    So you don’t dispute any of my facts, though, right? Your claim is simply that I neglected to point out how super Cain’s revenue-neutral tax-shifting scheme is. I did mention his revenue-neutral tax-shifting scheme, though.

    You think his revenue-neutral tax-shifting scheme compensates for all the other stuff?  Wow.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Where does Cain propose to balance the budget in one year? He has called Ron Paul extreme for proposing to balance it in three!

    If you think “government control” will be shifted “back to the people” by shuffling taxes around, I don’t know what I can say to you.  I’d say we’d see a lot more power shifted back to the people if we started repealing taxes, instead of engaging in these “tax reform” shell games. Come on.

    So you don’t dispute any of my facts, though, right? Your claim is simply that I neglected to point out how super Cain’s revenue-neutral tax-shifting scheme is. I did mention his revenue-neutral tax-shifting scheme, though.

    You think his revenue-neutral tax-shifting scheme compensates for all the other stuff?  Wow.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Bruno -

    I tended to agree with your general point:

    “Instead of framing it in the worst possible way  ( “we’re terrible, we are occupiers, we kill civilians”, “we are an empire”,  “Bush lied”)  it could have been handled much more tactfully.”

    Well, I don’t know about “tactful” when I read your remarkable follow-up:

    “One of the best ways to turn a warlike aggressive nation into pacifists for the next century or so  is to invade and leave their nation in ruins [..]“

    Invade tactfully, I guess?

    But anyway, apart from the very remote chance that RP would ever think of uttering such neo-progressive jingo-lingo, I’d say that instead of being tactful, the good doctor might consider to emphasize the point made by Murray Rothbard considering unconstitutional wars. That would mean to pay attention to the way such foreign wars are financed, i.e. by means of domestic agression against American civilians, by seizing their private property (money). The welfare state is the warfare state, warring on its own supposedly free subjects. That might be the wiser tactic in schooling voters about the aggression of the managerial state.

    Still agree though with your general point about the wise thing to say to make brainwashed yet freedom loving voters proud and support RP. There’s no need to school all of them in one go, just draw them into the first class, or even pre-school. That would be more than enough.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Richard

  • Anonymous

    Hi David -

    Perhaps you’d agree with me that freedom loving people should shun (or challenge) the use of this deceptive label “social conservative” at all cost.

    As I’ve often witnessed in debates, this “social conservatism” is merely used as a rhetorical device to sell progressivism of the right-wing variety.

    Why does it sell progressivism? Because more often than not, it allows
    people to separate economics from cultural or moral matters. They are
    “socially conservative” while at the same time, they support the
    financial system underpinning welfare state progressivism.

    We know that one can’t possibly separate economic freedom – or the lack thereof – from other spheres of society. We also know that people who laid the
    philosophical foundations for the progressivist managerial state, like
    proto-communist John S. Mill, began their nefarious work by separating
    economic matters from the rest of society. Freedom in general and
    economic freedom are both sides of the very same coin, wouldn’t you
    agree?

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,

    Richard

  • Brian Blackman

    Why would the country accept Mr. Cain as President when republicans of Georgia in 2004 didn’t even accept him as their candidate for the Senate?   Mr. Cain is not qualified for the job.  It’s sad that sexual harassment allegations will be noted as his downfall instead of the truth, that being his ineptitude in understanding and resolving our debt crisis, failed foreign policy, and Keynesian economic failures.    The Republicans will fail without Ron Paul as their candidate for President in 2012.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Jaffe/648909551 Bryan Jaffe

    Only problem is that there are more Rombeybots than Paulbots. Being a Romneybot mean no independent thought necessary and believers in individual liberty over collectivism need not apply.

    Maybe if more people truly understood liberty, guys like Romney would be an afterthought…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Jaffe/648909551 Bryan Jaffe

    Just like Barack Obama – whose only profession seems to have been “politician” ran as the so-called “outsider.” Never mind that he did this as a sitting U.S. Senator in the majority party…

    Seems that a lot of people will believe anything.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Jaffe/648909551 Bryan Jaffe

    Tobe entirely fair though, it’s not that he would cut aid to Israel. He would cut ALL foreign aid to ALL countries. Which kind of makes sense when the government only confiscates fro the citizenry 60 cents out of every dollar it spends.

  • Wmpeterseim

    Well, I provided an excellent historic piece on Reagan’s spending and The Grace Commission but I guess you aren’t interested. You didn’t choose to approve so won’t be following your site anymore.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    What the heck are you talking about? I didn’t “choose to approve”? I don’t even know what that means. All blog comments are posted here without an approval process. And you don’t think it sounds a teensy bit juvenile to say you won’t follow my site anymore because an extremely busy guy with four children hasn’t made you the center of attention?

  • rainer

    I follow Dr. Woods blogs/articles and read his extensive prose so that I may BECOME MORE KNOWLEDGABLE about the issues that are important to me and the rest of this country. NOT to get his comment approval or attention.

  • http://twitter.com/AnonymousHench Bruno Tata

    I thought we never should have been involved in the middle east, period.  But you work with the status quo you’re given as President.    The system is much more complex than one issue.  You can’t have a welfare state, massive immigration, open borders, a stupid visa system,  a ponzi-style system of “growth”, legalized bribery in the form of “campaign contributions” and “lobbying”  and engage in energy sucking global trade paid for with printed money and a “consumption economy”  and not be dependent on foreign oil.    The system grew around the rules, and the system left politicians forced to pander to these interests.  

    So, within the choices available, had we gone into Iraq and pulled out within a month of the “mission accomplished” moment and let them sort themselves out we’d have saved thousands of American and Allied lives and nearly $1T in costs.  We’d also have what matters most, fear and respect, which can go a long way towards ensuring terrorists leave you alone while you try to disengage from around the world.       Instead, Bush came off like the nerdy kid in school who tries to win friends by handing out candy and money but still gets beat up anyway.  History proves destroying those who openly and repeatedly threaten you is a vaild strategy, and that pulling knocking things down only to put it back up isn’t as effective.

    None of this war would be necessary if we minded our own business.   But since we want all the above things I mentioned, it’s childish wishful thinking to want them all without wars.

    Our Wars:
    Revolution
    1812
    Various small conflicts with Britain and France in 1800′s
    Mexican American War
    Civil War
    Spanish American War
    WWI
    WWII
    Korea
    Vietnam
    Gulf 1
    Gulf 2
    Afghanistan

    Now, how many of these do NOT have some roots in either trade,  the desire to project a “sphere of influence” to protect foreign allies/trading partners, or immigration?  A nation composed of a homogenous population, abundant resourses, and two oceans of protection from foreign invasion was foolish to “go global” to the extent it can’t function w/o doing so.   I hope the cheap consumer goods were worth it.  Just because one personally profits from it doesn’t make it a good idea for the aggregate. 

     
    Finally, labeling stuff you disagree with is why these ideas will never gain traction, at least until the world is destroyed and there is no other choice.   (“neo-progressive jingo lingo”)   .

    PS.  The tact is applied to ONE’s OWN FELLOW COUNRYMEN, not hateful savages who wish you and yours dead openly. 

    Feel free to explain how Europe, India, Indonesia,  and parts of Africa “had it coming” when the Muslims invaded hundreds of years ago. 

  • Anonymous

    You ended with:

    “Feel free to explain how Europe, India, Indonesia,  and parts of Africa
    “had it coming” when the Muslims invaded hundreds of years ago.”

    Thanks for the opportunity ;-)

    The explanation for Muslim invasions throughout history is in their “religion”, which consists at its core of an elaborate doctrine that demands the subjugation of “unbelievers” under Islamic law, the sharia Allah. Islam has always been an inherently violent, intolerant and parasitical doctrine of conquest and plunder, regardless of what leaders of the conquered lands were doing. Islam works like a parasitical disease and without a suitable host to bleed dry, it will self-destruct.

    Probably not the answer you expected?

    Take care and all the best from Amsterdam,
    Richard

    P.s.: I agree that using provocative language to express one’s disgust about certain policy recommendations isn’t going to do the trick. But I’m not RP and I’m not addressing the average GOP voter. I spoke my mind about your neo-con, progressivist take on tactfulness on the international stage.

  • whatever5678

    Good stuff Tom

  • Chuck

    Then tell them the truth!!!!!

  • Chuck

    “Maybe if more people truly understood liberty, guys like Romney would be an afterthought…”
    Start educating them! 

    My dad once told me that one man, using his brain can beat 10 who don’t.  I think he was

    pessimistic.  CHARGE!!!

  • Chuck

    It is not that Georgia voters rejected him that makes him unqualified as a ELECTABLE CANDIDATE, it is that they did it when he is so supported by the MSM.  Of course being supported by the MSM means that he is unqualified to do anything right or good, because he will work against Liberty.

  • William Leggett

    The other question that should be asked is why is
    revenue-neutral a good thing? Sure, government, ideally, shouldn’t spend more
    than it takes in, but this doesn’t answer the obvious, who would want a
    government we have now revenue-neutral? This assumes that the level of spending
    is ideal; we just need the taxes to adjust to that level. I think it was Walter
    Williams, in a reductio, point out that if the government were to spend the dollar
    amount of the national GDP and, at the same time, tax the citizenry to that
    amount, it would be revenue-neutral, but we’d all be slaves! The problem, as
    Tom points out, is not tinkering with the tax system per se, but overall
    spending. The fact that government spends huge sums of money is the danger.
    Now, of course, I would love to see the IRS abolished, but that’s it; there is
    no need to then replace it with another tool with which the government can
    extract more money from us. But, as Ron Paul says, for the IRS to be abolished
    spending would likewise need to be cut, which means departments and programs
    need to vanish.

     

    It makes one wonder why the T.E.A. in T.E.A .Party stands
    for Taxed Enough Already; if that be the case, why in earth would tea partiers’
    want to then add a new tax!

     

    Lava is flowing on the ground and all these so-called
    conservatives want is a blanket over it!

  • rainer

    Does anyone here know of any country that is or has historically been culturally wedded to the principle of personal liberty and economic freedom? There has got to be some country that, at least for now and into the foreseeable future, has more personal and economic freedom than the US. In other words, in case the worst happens here, what’s a good ‘back-up’ country to relocate to?

  • Anonymous

    Maryland?

  • Hrt4kidz

    Average hard working, middle class, Americans are desperate for anyone other than Obama.  Obama and his Marxist Administration are destroying our Republic.

  • Hrt4kidz

    Rainer,

    That country doesn’t exist. It is our responsibility as Americans to fight for the continuation of freedom in America.  Yes, you have to get off the couch and participate.  Yes, you have to teach your children, if you have any, to do the same.  There is no where to run to.  Remember what the Statue of Liberty stands for.  Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses………That’s why we have so many illegals here.  They are running from oppression.  

    It is our duty to end the tyranny of our current government.  Benjamin Franklin said, “We’ve given you a Republic if you can keep it.”  Our founders knew the corruption of man’s heart would lead us to the position we are in today.  

    The good news is that it’s not too late to turn back to a strong Constitutional Republic as long as we, as Americans, still believe, “In God We Trust”.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    And that’s the attitude that will wreck our country. “Anybody but Obama” is not a set of principles.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly.  That attitude got us Obama in the first place.

  • RFN

    No, it’s the anti-semites he seems to draw to him.  And no, I don’t blame Paul for that, nor do I think he is anything nearing anti-semitic.  He’s a genuine man, who truly wants freedom and liberty for all.  But, you have to admit, there are a lot of honest to goodness anti-semites that are drawn to Paul’s message for all the wrong reasons.   And the biggest, and maybe aid to Israel is part of this, reason he doesn’t have more conservative, I mean republican support, is he doesn’t think the empire should exist.  My biggest problem with some republicans is their stark aversion to domestic welfare, while at the same time, promoting international welfare.  Consistent much?

  • RFN

    Should have read down further.  Well said, David.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-MacMillan/683031628 Ken MacMillan

    The link to the poll is broken.

  • Cannedheat

    America IS the land of the free and the home of the brave. it IS. If we lose America, we lose freedom. Thats why spreading Dr. Paul’s message and breaking through to the undecided and undereducated is more important today than ever.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JCalhounFan321 Peter Taylor

    The old Republican Guard is down here and they are just like the zombies that you portray! They have the Truth staring them in the face, just like Pilot did, and they still cannot recognize it. God help us all!

  • Anonymous

    Who is this Wmpeterseim guy – everyone is talking about him lately.  I heard from someone he once wrote an excellent piece on the Grace Commission that is all the buzz.

  • Chip90292

    People are fucking stupid

  • David Cummins

    Tom—4% off track….Where did you come up with that # ? Please tell!



Find me on Google