Will you vote for Ron Paul?

[Queen]

No, I won't vote for Ron Paul. I actually like the Dept of Education, the FDA, the EPA. Republicans always say the government doesn't work and then they take office and proceed to break it.

Democrats on the other hand keep trying to fix what the Republicans break.

By continuing to spend more than the government takes in?

What do you think the Repubs are trying to fix?

Who does the Dept of Education Educate? The FDA over regulates, the EPA can suck it.

Destroying the govt doesn't have to be the solution to the national debt. There was no deficit at the end of Clinton's presidency, and the govt was working fine. He had a balanced budget. End the wars, end medicare part d, end the tax cuts for the rich = balanced budget. These are the things Bush did to double the national debt. And they are still not paid for, still ongoing.

The Dept of Education educates American kids. (apparently not well). Give me an example of the FDA over regulating. You think salmonella in our food isn't something anyone should worry about? Until no one dies of food poisoning, I'm pretty sure we still need regulation. Give me an example of why the EPA can suck it? You hate clean air and clean water?

 

[Queen]

Let's make it simple. Anyone who will not:

End the Fed
Close all foreign military bases and bring all troops home
End all foreign aid
Cancel NAFTA

Will not get my vote or support.

You'll be in the majority of Americans who don't bother to vote.

 

[BenNatuf]

apparently someone needs to school the hack 0/P as to the definition of Marxist.

dumbass

Really? Tell us, what is it progressives are progressing toward? At a minimum Obama is a euro-trash style socialist, which of course is just a way station on the way to marxian utopia. This canard from progressives that a politician can't be a socialist simply because they don't claim to be is stupid. It is not the claim that makes a policy more socialist than other policies... it's the policy. Current progressives do not adhere to doctrinaire marxist dogma, the intermix fascist policy, oligarchic authority, and euro-trash style socialism. All stops on the road to what it is they wish to "progress" to. The sad thing is many liberals and self proclaimed progressives don't even realize what it is they support.

 

[BenNatuf]

*****

like i said, hack.

I see one blind partisan hack in the thread so far... and it's you.

 

[BenNatuf]

Obama packs the pockets of his rich friends with our tax money.

How is that Marxist?

People who can afford socialism love it. I agree however that Obama is more of an evolutionary progressive than a revolutionary one. Like other's of his ilk he will use whatever authoritarian policy serves the cause, be it fascist policy, socialist policy, or straight up oligarchic authoritarianism.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ron Paul is one of the very few in Congress who consistently votes true to his principles, regardless of what's politically expedient at the time. Remember him getting booed in a 2008 primary regarding blowback on 9/11? I think he knows that many of his views, especially on national security issues and social issues, don't jibe with the base. But he speaks it anyways. That's a big reason why he doesn't make it out of the primaries even though he's one of the few actual conservatives. They're a dying breed I think.

I probably wouldn't vote for him because of his economic policies, but I respect the hell out of him.

ron paul runs around whining about earmarks but never met an earmark he didn't like.

ron paul talks about term limits while making his entire career (and now his sonny boy's) collecting a government paycheck...

all the while not knowing anything about the constitution and being naive about foreign policy.

yeah, hes a keeper. *shakes head*

Ron Paul is a hypocrate about earmark pork

Ron Paul is a naive idiot with regard to foreign policy (kinda like Obama)

Ron Paul has not gotten a government paycheck for his entire career, he's a fucking doctor who worked in private practice his whole life befor entering politics. In typical libroidal fassion bad isn't bad enough, you have to lie to make it worse.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ron Paul understands earmarks better than the average bear. He knows that they don't increase spending, but when included in appropriations bills that are already authorized by Congress, they direct the already budgeted funds to specific projects. As a Congressman, if he does not do his part to be certain his constituents get their fair share of money they are going to pay in taxes anyway, he wouldn't be doing his job.

However, given opportunity to do so, I'm pretty sure he would sign legislation that would prevent anybody from being able to use the people's money to buy their votes along with not collecting that money as taxes in the first place.

spin. That's all this excuse is... spin. Room is left in appropriations for congressionally directed pork. Without it there would be no need for the extra budget authority. There is simply no way around the FACT the pauls stand on pork barrell spending directly contradicts his actions in seeking it.

 

[BenNatuf]

Now to answer the OP.

I will not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, I will support either Newt or Cain and as a last resort Daniels. If Ron Paul ended up being the GOP nominee I will vote for him over the current catastrophe without blinking an eye. I believe he has a lot of good ideas, but he laso has a lot which are rather far fetched.

I agree we should reduce our military footprint overseas, we however must maintain a presence where it remains in our interest to do so. Withdrawing from the middle east is just stupid and counter productive to our interests. We should begin in earnest to lessen our interest in the area by expanding greatly our own production of oil, only when we do that can we divorce ourselves from middle eastern entanglements. We will still have an interest there, but it will be greatly diminished. We do need to maintain a presence in the far east (pacific theatre) or China will fill the vaccuum if we don't. Chinas is not our freind and allowing them to expand their sphere of influence unchallenged is naive and dangerous.

I agree we need to get the federal government under control, we do need to vastly shrink it in size and scope. Leave to the states those things which the states can do. The gold standard idea is dumb, doing away with the fed is dumb, as much as these ideas might seem appealing, they are just dumb. The idea that otherwize reasonable people who believe in limmitted government would want to leave the value of money (and how much is printed for distribution) up to politicians in a system where the states have been stripped of any voice in the federal government is wierd. The fed is a private entity whose main concern is the value of money, not seeding voting blocks with it.

 

[American Cowboy]

No, I won't vote for Ron Paul. I actually like the Dept of Education, the FDA, the EPA. Republicans always say the government doesn't work and then they take office and proceed to break it.

Democrats on the other hand keep trying to fix what the Republicans break.

By continuing to spend more than the government takes in?

What do you think the Repubs are trying to fix?

Who does the Dept of Education Educate? The FDA over regulates, the EPA can suck it.

Destroying the govt doesn't have to be the solution to the national debt. There was no deficit at the end of Clinton's presidency, and the govt was working fine. He had a balanced budget. End the wars, end medicare part d, end the tax cuts for the rich = balanced budget. These are the things Bush did to double the national debt. And they are still not paid for, still ongoing.

The Dept of Education educates American kids. (apparently not well). Give me an example of the FDA over regulating. You think salmonella in our food isn't something anyone should worry about? Until no one dies of food poisoning, I'm pretty sure we still need regulation. Give me an example of why the EPA can suck it? You hate clean air and clean water?

The Dept of Education educates American kids

No they don't, schools educate. The Dept of Education has 5000 employees and suck up $70 Billion per year. They do help with grants, but this should be done be charites.

FDA slows the release and even blocks many useful drugs they use seccessfully in other countries. They increase drug costs in the U.S. They over regulate small organic farmers. Even the FDA own scientist want to restructure the FDA and have asked Obama to do so. The FDA is too large and too powerful. We need smaller government.

The EPA has 20,000 employees and sucks up around $9 Billion per year. The states all have their own version of the EPA and we don't need it at the Federal level.

 

[theHawk]

No, I won't vote for Ron Paul. I actually like the Dept of Education, the FDA, the EPA. Republicans always say the government doesn't work and then they take office and proceed to break it.

Democrats on the other hand keep trying to fix what the Republicans break.

By continuing to spend more than the government takes in?

What do you think the Repubs are trying to fix?

Who does the Dept of Education Educate? The FDA over regulates, the EPA can suck it.

Destroying the govt doesn't have to be the solution to the national debt. There was no deficit at the end of Clinton's presidency, and the govt was working fine. He had a balanced budget. End the wars, end medicare part d, end the tax cuts for the rich = balanced budget. These are the things Bush did to double the national debt. And they are still not paid for, still ongoing.

The Dept of Education educates American kids. (apparently not well). Give me an example of the FDA over regulating. You think salmonella in our food isn't something anyone should worry about? Until no one dies of food poisoning, I'm pretty sure we still need regulation. Give me an example of why the EPA can suck it? You hate clean air and clean water?

We had a balanced budget during Clinton years because of a very conservative Congress. They write spending budgets not a President.

We got huge deficits with the Dem Congress at the tail end of Bush's reign. What have Obama and the Dem Congress done? Oh yea they tripled the deficit, so the whole "republicans fucked it all up and dems will fix it" mantra is old and a complete lie. Dems had their chance to balance a budget and didn't, they made it worse.

Schools can be and should be funded by local property taxes and state taxes, there is no reason to have a Department of Education. Government envolvement in anything makes it more expensive and less effective. A government should only be enforcing laws, not micromanaging education of its citizens. What does a department of education have to do with governing people? Nothing, so it should be abolished.

 

[007]

Ron Paul hasn't sold me yet and right now I'm hoping he is not the nominee. But if the choice is between him and Barack Obama, I will vote for Paul in a heartbeat.

I very much like some of what Ron Paul says, and then there's other things he says I totally disagree with.

I voted "no" I wouldn't vote for Paul, but if it came down to him or the kenyan, I WILL vote for him. I'd vote for BUBBA THE DOG CATCHER before I'd vote for that complete failure and socialist piece of SHIT obama.

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul says good stuff about the taxing and spending policies of liberals, but he is stupid when it comes to foreign policy.

He said it was a mistake to kill UBL....enough said about him.

HUH?

I thought you were going to mend your ways now that I 've shown you the light!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[candycorn]

Would you vote for Ron Paul?

No way in hell. Libertarians have 1/2 a brain.

 

[Contumacious]

Would you vote for Ron Paul?

No way in hell. Libertarians have 1/2 a brain.

Isn't 1/2 brain better that the "0" brain that the demopublicans have?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I really wouldn't be all that afraid of a Ron Paul Presidency so far as domestic policy is concerned and I do support many of his ideas. I'll need more education and convincing before I will be comfortable that abolishing the Federal Reserve is a good idea. And I need more convincing that we should withdraw all our overseas troops from everywhere and bring them home too.

In other words, I think there are better choices than Ron Paul to lead the nation. But I think he is far less dangerous than Barack Obama backed up by a Congress that will do whatever he says. As long as we have a conservative Congress, a rogue president can be held in check. We might not get much accomplished if that president vetoes all the good legislation, but a President can't unilaterally do a whole lot of damage as long as the Congress has to ratify and/or fund what the President decrees.

 

[Contumacious]

....... I'll need more education and convincing before I will be comfortable that abolishing the Federal Reserve is a good idea. .

The Panic of 2008 parallels the Panic of 1873* in important ways. It differs in others. The comparison is instructive.

Considering the resemblance of 2008 to 1873, we may experience a serious depression of 3—5 years. The most important difference is the response of government. President Grant vetoed a Congressional bill calling for a large issue of greenbacks (non-interest bearing government notes), whereas the Panic of 2008 involves the socialization of American finance. This is occurring now via the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Secretary Paulson has already made 9 major banks sign on the dotted line. The Federal Reserve is emerging from this episode in weakened condition as an appendage of the Treasury.

Let's look at the Panics of 1873 and 2008. Preceding the Panic of 1873 was a boom in railroad building. Preceding the Panic of 2008 was a boom in housing. The Federal government had subsidized construction of such major railroads as the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Northern Pacific through land grants and low-interest loans, starting in 1862 and ending in 1869. In the recent housing boom, banks were urged to use their ample reserves to finance home purchases by subpar borrowers.

In both these cases, the government established a framework, regulatory and monetary, for intensive expansion in an industry. Private industry then rose to the occasion and responded vigorously.

_____________________________
* Prior to 1913 the US Treasury would act as a central bank

.

 

[Foxfyre]

....... I'll need more education and convincing before I will be comfortable that abolishing the Federal Reserve is a good idea. .

The Panic of 2008 parallels the Panic of 1873* in important ways. It differs in others. The comparison is instructive.

Considering the resemblance of 2008 to 1873, we may experience a serious depression of 3—5 years. The most important difference is the response of government. President Grant vetoed a Congressional bill calling for a large issue of greenbacks (non-interest bearing government notes), whereas the Panic of 2008 involves the socialization of American finance. This is occurring now via the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Secretary Paulson has already made 9 major banks sign on the dotted line. The Federal Reserve is emerging from this episode in weakened condition as an appendage of the Treasury.

Let's look at the Panics of 1873 and 2008. Preceding the Panic of 1873 was a boom in railroad building. Preceding the Panic of 2008 was a boom in housing. The Federal government had subsidized construction of such major railroads as the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Northern Pacific through land grants and low-interest loans, starting in 1862 and ending in 1869. In the recent housing boom, banks were urged to use their ample reserves to finance home purchases by subpar borrowers.

In both these cases, the government established a framework, regulatory and monetary, for intensive expansion in an industry. Private industry then rose to the occasion and responded vigorously.

_____________________________
* Prior to 1913 the US Treasury would act as a central bank

.

I don't see all that much similarity in the two, however. The housing bubble crash of 2008 was created by government enacting policy allowing and then pushing mostly signature mortgage loans to people who had no capability or ethic to repay them and then Freddie and Fannie unethically bundled those bad loans and sold them to financial institutions who, unaware of the high risk involved or unwilling to worry about it, eagerly accepted those investments. And when that huge number of people started defaulting on those loans, the whole house of cards collapsed and, coupled with a general worldwide recession that happens now and then, was financially disastrous for the USA.

The crash of 1873 was also a general worldwide recession and was exacerbated by the setback of the railroad industry that had over speculated and overbuilt to the extent they could not recoup their investment even in a good economy. And in a bad economy it was disastrous as then the railroads I believe were the nation's largest employer.

Admittedly both were encouraged by the government so I suppose they did have that in common.

Ron Paul is on the right track in his conviction that government should not be promoting bad loans or over speculation in anything.

But I don't see what that has to do directly with the Federal Reserve.

 

[The T]

By continuing to spend more than the government takes in?

What do you think the Repubs are trying to fix?

Who does the Dept of Education Educate? The FDA over regulates, the EPA can suck it.

Destroying the govt doesn't have to be the solution to the national debt. There was no deficit at the end of Clinton's presidency, and the govt was working fine. He had a balanced budget. End the wars, end medicare part d, end the tax cuts for the rich = balanced budget. These are the things Bush did to double the national debt. And they are still not paid for, still ongoing.

The Dept of Education educates American kids. (apparently not well). Give me an example of the FDA over regulating. You think salmonella in our food isn't something anyone should worry about? Until no one dies of food poisoning, I'm pretty sure we still need regulation. Give me an example of why the EPA can suck it? You hate clean air and clean water?

The Dept of Education educates American kids

No they don't, schools educate. The Dept of Education has 5000 employees and suck up $70 Billion per year. They do help with grants, but this should be done be charites.

FDA slows the release and even blocks many useful drugs they use seccessfully in other countries. They increase drug costs in the U.S. They over regulate small organic farmers. Even the FDA own scientist want to restructure the FDA and have asked Obama to do so. The FDA is too large and too powerful. We need smaller government.

The EPA has 20,000 employees and sucks up around $9 Billion per year. The states all have their own version of the EPA and we don't need it at the Federal level.

And the EPA is about to be granted powers that circumvent the Congress and the people with Cap and Trade. The EPA should be defunded to a level commensurate with their original intent if not all together.

 

[Paulie]

....... I'll need more education and convincing before I will be comfortable that abolishing the Federal Reserve is a good idea. .

The Panic of 2008 parallels the Panic of 1873* in important ways. It differs in others. The comparison is instructive.

Considering the resemblance of 2008 to 1873, we may experience a serious depression of 3—5 years. The most important difference is the response of government. President Grant vetoed a Congressional bill calling for a large issue of greenbacks (non-interest bearing government notes), whereas the Panic of 2008 involves the socialization of American finance. This is occurring now via the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Secretary Paulson has already made 9 major banks sign on the dotted line. The Federal Reserve is emerging from this episode in weakened condition as an appendage of the Treasury.

Let's look at the Panics of 1873 and 2008. Preceding the Panic of 1873 was a boom in railroad building. Preceding the Panic of 2008 was a boom in housing. The Federal government had subsidized construction of such major railroads as the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Northern Pacific through land grants and low-interest loans, starting in 1862 and ending in 1869. In the recent housing boom, banks were urged to use their ample reserves to finance home purchases by subpar borrowers.

In both these cases, the government established a framework, regulatory and monetary, for intensive expansion in an industry. Private industry then rose to the occasion and responded vigorously.

_____________________________
* Prior to 1913 the US Treasury would act as a central bank

.

I don't see all that much similarity in the two, however. The housing bubble crash of 2008 was created by government enacting policy allowing and then pushing mostly signature mortgage loans to people who had no capability or ethic to repay them and then Freddie and Fannie unethically bundled those bad loans and sold them to financial institutions who, unaware of the high risk involved or unwilling to worry about it, eagerly accepted those investments. And when that huge number of people started defaulting on those loans, the whole house of cards collapsed and, coupled with a general worldwide recession that happens now and then, was financially disastrous for the USA.

The crash of 1873 was also a general worldwide recession and was exacerbated by the setback of the railroad industry that had over speculated and overbuilt to the extent they could not recoup their investment even in a good economy. And in a bad economy it was disastrous as then the railroads I believe were the nation's largest employer.

Admittedly both were encouraged by the government so I suppose they did have that in common.

Ron Paul is on the right track in his conviction that government should not be promoting bad loans or over speculation in anything.

But I don't see what that has to do directly with the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for increasing the money supply and lowering interest rates which induces so much malinvestment.

The Fed injects tons of new money into the system, people look for the hottest places to put that money to work because it's going to lose value from inflation, and then a bubble forms and grows.

Then the Fed tightens up the flow of money by raising rates, the bubble bursts, the money supply deflates, and the Fed reinflates again by creating more new money and lowering rates again, wash/rinse/repeat.

The Fed causes the business cycle. I don't see how people don't realize it.

 

[Contumacious]

But I don't see what that has to do directly with the Federal Reserve.

The Business Cycle

The first phase was a period of boom and bust, like the business cycles that had plagued the American economy in 1819—1820, 1839—1843, 1857—1860, 1873—1878, 1893—1897, and 1920—1921. In each case, government had generated a boom through easy money and credit, which was soon followed by the inevitable bust.

The spectacular crash of 1929 followed five years of reckless credit expansion by the Federal Reserve System under the Coolidge administration. In 1924, after a sharp decline in business, the Reserve banks suddenly created some $500 million in new credit, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. While the immediate effects of this new powerful expansion of the nation's money and credit were seemingly beneficial, initiating a new economic boom and effacing the 1924 decline, the ultimate outcome was most disastrous. It was the beginning of a monetary policy that led to the stock-market crash in 1929 and the following depression. In fact, the expansion of Federal Reserve credit in 1924 constituted what Benjamin Anderson in his great treatise on recent economic history (Economics and the Public Welfare, D. Van Nostrand, 1949) called "the beginning of the New Deal."


.