Ron Paul

[JiveTurkey]

I just wanted to start a thread about Ron Paul. I think he is a very interesting man with a very impressive resume. Seems like it would make a good discussion...

[PhoenixOrion]

I've noticed him and agree with a lot of his views but I'm unsure of how I feel about putting a timeframe on withdrawing the troops.

[HolyCannoli]

I've noticed him and agree with a lot of his views but I'm unsure of how I feel about putting a timeframe on withdrawing the troops.

I also felt the same way about pulling out the troops until I started to really read about our foreign policy in the Middle East for the past 50 years. I find it funny that we are "over there" so they will not "fight us here", yet we have 10,000 people per day flooding across the southern boarder. How concerned with our security could the government really be?
It doesn't really make much sense.

After world war two we decided that we needed to secure the borders of Germany, Japan, Korea and over 150 other countries but the politicians don't seem to care about ours. We are experiencing the anger and backlash of 54 years of meddling in Middle Eastern policy and politics. I was a die-hard republican until several years ago when I started to educate myself about the United States foreign policy post WW2 and I have never felt the same.

I am MUCH, MUCH more concerned about the Fiat money system in this country (the FED and IRS) than some middle easterner running around with no shoes, $2.00 and an AK-47.

RON PAUL ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=styYIG-fiEc

RON PAUL TALKING TO BEN BERNANKE-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

[Nanuk]

Personally, I've always found him naive on foreign policy and unrealistic with his complaints about the monetary system. He doesn't have any real answers as far as I've heard and he can't articulate how he'll ever impose the ones that he does have. All I see is a guy who has been in Congress for a long time without ever accomplishing anything. He doesn't get bills passed and he basically just sits there and sends out press releases bragging about how he's not cooperating with anyone else. I commend him for voting against most of the spending schemes that don't comport with the actual limited role of the federal government but he lacks the substance to actually lead the country IMHO.

My other complaint is that it seems that he seems to be the candidate of choice for the government-hating militia types on the internet and I no more want to thorw in my lot with that sort than I wanted to be associated with the average Libertarian supporters in past years. I want someone who represents normal people.

[HolyCannoli]

Hello Nanuk. So the gold standard is unrealistic? The Fiat monetary system has been proven faulty time and time again. If a group of private bankers can control the rates as well as the supply than they can inflate or deflate the currency at will. The “business cycle” didn’t exist before 1913. You may be comfortable having a private corporation that has NEVER be audited by congress control the value of OUR dollar but I certainly am not. The problem is that most people have zero idea how the monetary system works so they brush off fact as “unrealistic”. Just remember, the economy is doin just fine......but gold is up almost $200 per ounce this quarter. Research what historically happens to gold the quarter before a major recession.

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." ~ Thomas Jefferson

If you google Dr. Paul’s speech entitled “Educating Rudy” I think that you may find that he is far from naïve. You may disagree but he is very, very well read.

Here are some works that Dr. Paul has authored on the subject.
Paul, Ron (1981). Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Economy (http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf) (PDF), Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-07-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_30).
Paul, Ron, and Lehrman, Lewis (1982). The Case for Gold: a Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission (http://www.mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf) (PDF), Washington, DC: Cato Institute, September 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1982); Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. ISBN 0932790313 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0932790313). Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-07-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_30).
Paul, Ron (1983). Ten Myths About Paper Money. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. ISBN 11765863.
Paul, Ron (1984). Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf) (PDF), Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute). Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-07-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_30).
Paul, Ron (1987). Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years (http://www.dailypaul.com/freedom-under-siege/Freedom-Under-Siege-complete.pdf) (PDF), Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education; Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-07-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_30).
Paul, Ron (1991). The Ron Paul Money Book. Plantation Publishing.
Paul, Ron (2000). A Republic, If You Can Keep It (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm). House of Representatives.
Paul, Ron (2007). A Foreign Policy of Freedom. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. ISBN 0912453001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0912453001).
Paul, Ron (2007). Pillars of Prosperity. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

[Kensey]

The “business cycle” didn’t exist before 1913.

So the approximately 8 recessions, depressions, and/or panics prior to 1913 are complete fabrications of biased historians?


"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." ~ Thomas Jefferson

I like Mr. Jefferson, but consider the source: the major feud Jefferson's Democrat-Republican Party had with Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist party was the idea of central banking. Accepting a Jefferson quote on central banking as an expert opinion is like accepting, say, a quote from Nixon on executive privilege -- there's another side there that can't just be ignored.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Ron Paul is VERY electable. He posesses the 2 qualifications needed in this country to date.

He's white, and he's a male. That puts him up there with every president we've had so far.

The problem is that Americans are very into the drama. How can the morals voters be shocked into direction with the fact that he's still on his first wife? No fun there.

A friend once told me this: Federal politics is nothing more than a craps game. The Democrats *AND* the Republicans are BOTH playing the game, on opposing sides, fighting against each other. But when someone like Ron Paul comes along and threatens the entire craps game, both sides band together to protect the table, and the game.

That best describes what is happening with Ron Paul. He's the best bet the Republicans have as far as winning the White House. But they'd rather ignore him and lose it because his ideas will reshape politics for many decades, and for some reason, modern politicians would rather hang onto the past than to look forward toward the future...

[Starbuck]

Despite having the two most important qualifications to be president (Male and White), I don't think Ron Paul is that electable. While on the surface his viewpoints might sound good -- and they do -- in reality they are the quickest path to a very delineated caste system in this county.

Ron Paul would like to abolish most federal aid. And on the surface, that sounds like a good idea. And indeed, if all the "haves" acted like Ron Paul did in his medical practice (the man wouldn't accept Medicaid/Medicare, and instead worked out a payment system with his less fortunate patients, or "just took care of them" if they absolutely couldn't afford his services), this would be wonderful. But unfortunately I don't hold that much faith in humankind...without a safety net, the "have nots" would be begging in the street. And I know some of you would shrug your shoulders at the idea, until it was you, your mother, your father, your sister, or your close friend.

But my inner conservative really does love his views on the gun control, the war on drugs, and the Patriot Act.

Now I ask this question of all of you as a general one: do you really think it's a good idea to vote in someone who is so blatantly partisan? No one, save for a few, would actually work with this man were he elected. The same can be said of a number of current presidential contenders on both sides of the aisle. Don't you think this country would be better off with a less partisan president...one who would work for the betterment of the country, and not his/her political party?

[austrianalps]

But my inner conservative really does love his views on the gun control, the war on drugs, and the Patriot Act.

Trust your instinct. He has a lot in store! I don't know everything either, but he could really turn this country back to its foundation.
Because he wants to leave from all the other countries... he will have a lot more resources here. He understands US, the regular working people. He is a man that stays in Motels for $49 a night while campaigning-unlike the other candidates.
I think he does not run for president because of his political party. I think he runs to better the country. It shows in the fact that he opted out of the congressional pension fund! He was the only one ever to do that.

[HolyCannoli]

So the approximately 8 recessions, depressions, and/or panics prior to 1913 are complete fabrications of biased historians?

I like Mr. Jefferson, but consider the source: the major feud Jefferson's Democrat-Republican Party had with Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist party was the idea of central banking. Accepting a Jefferson quote on central banking as an expert opinion is like accepting, say, a quote from Nixon on executive privilege -- there's another side there that can't just be ignored.


Hi Kensey, As I'm sure you know the monetary rollercoaster ride of the 19th century had very little to do with the formulated business cycles we have seen for the past 90 years. The rocky financial policy of the 1800's had much more to do with the power of issuance changing hands. As far as Mr. Jefferson's quote is concerned, I find your statement a bit unfair. All of the Founding Fathers changed their minds through out the course of the formation of the United States. TJ felt that the "Bank Bill" was unconstitutional. The Bank of the United States was a private business (Hamilton Himself referred to it as a private business).
I feel that the money belongs to the people, not the plutocrats. I would love to finish this conversation over a cup of coffee some time.
Eric

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The money belongs to the people... What a joke.

The money belongs to privately held corporations! In fact, a privately held corporation has all my money, and they gave me this awesome little plastic card that I can use that works just like money, but without all that inconvenient paper and stuff. Besides, who can count past 15?

People get all "up in arms" over the devaluation of money. :rolleyes: What does it matter if your dollar is only worth 50 cents tomorrow? It's very unpatriotic to chip away at the reputation of the almighty US dollar! Why do you hate America?

[Nanuk]

He's white, and he's a male. That puts him up there with every president we've had so far..

Well white males did found and settle this country and build it up into a premier world power so it only makes sense that they continue to run it.

And as long as the women continue doing the cooking and cleaning, the males will stay happy and America will continue to prosper. :D


That said, Ron Paul still lacks the ability to work with others. He's always been a loner in Congress which is why he's never actually accomplished anything except earning an attendance award and his dream of making America an isolationist enclave in the world community will bring a similar result on a macro scale.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Well white males did found and settle this country and build it up into a premier world power so it only makes sense that they continue to run it.

Oh, right, I forgot to yield to your white of way...

[austrianalps]

That said, Ron Paul still lacks the ability to work with others. He's always been a loner in Congress which is why he's never actually accomplished anything except earning an attendance award and his dream of making America an isolationist enclave in the world community will bring a similar result on a macro scale.

Was'nt this the idea about this country? To split off the big government of Britain and be independent? Liberty?
I am just getting started with educating myself about this country and it is fascinating! I am up to the 18th century for intensive history lessons now! I used to just skim over political stuff.

[Starbuck]

Well white males did found and settle this country and build it up into a premier world power so it only makes sense that they continue to run it.

And as long as the women continue doing the cooking and cleaning, the males will stay happy and America will continue to prosper. :D

I just threw up in my mouth a little.


That said, Ron Paul still lacks the ability to work with others. He's always been a loner in Congress which is why he's never actually accomplished anything except earning an attendance award and his dream of making America an isolationist enclave in the world community will bring a similar result on a macro scale.

That was exactly what I was trying to convey in my earlier post re: his inability to work across the aisle. What the h--- is going on that I'm agreeing with Nanuk? :cool:

[HolyCannoli]

Now I ask this question of all of you as a general one: do you really think it's a good idea to vote in someone who is so blatantly partisan? No one, save for a few, would actually work with this man were he elected. The same can be said of a number of current presidential contenders on both sides of the aisle. Don't you think this country would be better off with a less partisan president...one who would work for the betterment of the country, and not his/her political party?

Ron Paul would like to abolish most federal aid. And on the surface, that sounds like a good idea. And indeed, if all the "haves" acted like Ron Paul did in his medical practice (the man wouldn't accept Medicaid/Medicare, and instead worked out a payment system with his less fortunate patients, or "just took care of them" if they absolutely couldn't afford his services), this would be wonderful. But unfortunately I don't hold that much faith in humankind...without a safety net, the "have nots" would be begging in the street. And I know some of you would shrug your shoulders at the idea, until it was you, your mother, your father, your sister, or your close friend.




The problem is the aisle......What do they really get done and how much stolen money do they spend to do it? You may be ok with having your money stolen and wasted or redistributed but I am not.

If I was able to keep the money I will have to pay to the IRS this year, I would be able to hire 2 more people and pay them enough money to buy two houses in Shannondale. These two people would use the money to purchase goods and services creating more jobs... Less people would need public assistance. There should be a safety net if you are absolutely incapable of working, but in this world you are responsible for your own actions and the government doesn't have the right to choose what should be taken from you and given to your neighbor.

[HolyCannoli]

That said, Ron Paul still lacks the ability to work with others. He's always been a loner in Congress which is why he's never actually accomplished anything except earning an attendance award and his dream of making America an isolationist enclave in the world community will bring a similar result on a macro scale.

Hi Nanuk, You are absolutely correct, he is a loner in congress.
He doesn't fit in with the other politicians who play with lobbyists and special interest groups. He rarely votes for any bill that has wasteful government spending (pork) attached to it, a game of bribery that is used to get politicians to vote for a bill because they get something out of it. He is one of the only congressmen to opt out of the congressional pension (FERS) fund as he feels it is "immoral" for him to take taxpayers money. Whether or not you like his views, there is no way to attack his character. He really is a man of principal.

[Nanuk]

I never said that I didn't like his views. I like many of his views. But that doesn't mean that I think that he's qualified for the job of President or able to effectively carry it out.

But be careful when you start talking about us paying too much in taxes to support programs for lazy people who don't want jobs. "You-know-who" will get all tithered. Lazy people have a right to the earnings of us workers because they still have to survive and have cable TV even if they don't feel like working. ;)

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Well, I just talked to "you know who", and he told me to tell you to F off.

Hey, I'm all for placing further restrictions on welfare. The problem is that it needs to be coupled with REAL and ACTUAL tax savings, which means Corporate Welfare needs to have drastic cuts as well, as it most likely costs taxpayers more than Social Services welfare.

The problem is that they'll just cut off the poor, and not reduce the amount that they are taking from you or I. So, again, as long as they're heisting the money from me, AND THEY *ARE*, I'd like to see some go "back" toward helping the poor, and less going towards bombs, special bridges, and Women of the White House libraries in Canton, OH.

Until they lower what they TAKE from me, this conversation is really moot. Because until then, I'm not willing to cut off the poor just so Northrup Grumman can get that money.

[derricksonb]

Until they lower what they TAKE from me, this conversation is really moot. Because until then, I'm not willing to cut off the poor just so Northrup Grumman can get that money.

Funny, because by cutting off spending to welfare programs and giving more to Northrup Grumman (and the rest of the DOD and it's support contractors) it creates more jobs to actually employ the former welfare recips. I know that your party has a hard time wrapping your collective heads around this concept, but it is better for those individuals, the economy and the country as a whole to eliminate ALL social programs for those who are able to work but choose not to do so.

[Starbuck]

I don't want to sidetrack this Ron Paul discussion with a welfare discussion, BUT...I want the supporters of removing all federal funding programs to discuss some things with me.

Let's say Ron Paul gets elected and on January 21, 2009, he stops all funding for social programs. No medicaid, no welfare, no CHIP, nothing. Where are all current welfare recipients supposed to get their rent money for Feb. 1? All the "new" jobs created by NGIT...well, let's just say a good portion of welfare recipients are not college-educated in IT and other defense-industry related fields, so how, exactly, are they supposed to get these jobs? How, exactly, are they supposed to afford the college education necessary to get these jobs. How, exactly, are they supposed to afford the move to urban areas to accept the jobs you think will magically appear out of nowhere?

And so when none of this happens and we see the resultant upswing in the homeless (I, for one, don't like the idea of seeing beggar children on the streets. If I did, I'd move to India) population, how, exactly, would you deal with it? Since there are no federal programs to deal with them either.

I'm a bit disturbed that Mr. Paul doesn't present solutions to these and many other problems on his web site. He says a lot of "we must do X, Y, and Z," but he doesn't detail how X, Y, or Z would be done.

[derricksonb]

It really wouldn't be Mr Pauls job to outline the details for X, Y or Z anymore than it would be the responsibility of the CEO of a company that laid off 10% of their workforce to detail their next move. Basically we'd be firing them from the "federal" payroll and it would be up to them to find "gainful" employment elsewhere.

Currently there are many people I know with Masters Degrees who are working as waiters and waitresses or in other service related industries because there aren't enough openings in their field or they are over qualified for the positions. In theory what should happen is that many jobs would open up which require degrees and these people would become eligible for decent careers if they applied. This would leave many service jobs open for the bottomfeeders to fill. In addition many of those newly opened defense jobs would require support employees with lower education requirements.

[Starbuck]

Obviously you've never known anyone to fall into hard times, because they can tell you it's just not as easy and rosy as you paint it.

Anyway, it is very much Mr. Paul's responsibility to outline the next move of the people he just kicked off the payroll, because by leaving them in the cold for me to have to look at would most certainly interfere with my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which are all things Mr. Paul is very big on promoting.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

SB, please, his use of the term "bottomfeeder" should be all you need to hear.

It's like it was when I tried to make a call on my cell phone on 9/11 - you simply aren't going to get thru.

[Nanuk]

Let's say Ron Paul gets elected and on January 21, 2009, he stops all funding for social programs. No medicaid, no welfare, no CHIP, nothing. Where are all current welfare recipients supposed to get their rent money for Feb. 1? All the "new" jobs created by NGIT...well, let's just say a good portion of welfare recipients are not college-educated in IT and other defense-industry related fields, so how, exactly, are they supposed to get these jobs? How, exactly, are they supposed to afford the college education necessary to get these jobs. How, exactly, are they supposed to afford the move to urban areas to accept the jobs you think will magically appear out of nowhere?...


They can move in with family or friends, take multiple lower-wage jobs, seek help from the numerous charities out there, or apply for aid programs administwered by the respective states. (Social programs really are a state function, not a federal one.)
In any case, I doubt that you'd see all these people homeless and on the streets. History has shown us in cases where states have put able-bodied welfare recipients off of the dole that when push comes to shove, such people usually will find jobs and support themselves.

yes, there are those who are truly unable to provide for themselves, but that responsibility should rightfully go to the states, private charities, and the person's own family. The federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Oh, if this is strictly about what the Federal Gov't should NOT be involved in, let's discuss:

School Accountability

Major League Baseball

End-Of-Life decisions

Abortion

Vaccine manufacturing

The Economy

Bailing out ANY failed Company

Media "Decency"

Gay Marriage

Funding Failing Pensions

The Internet

The "Mortgage Meltdown"

Airport Security

"Controlled Substances"

Oh, there are surely many, many more things that the federal Government has no business dabbling in. But they do. And guess what? Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and the rest - will only expand the Federal Government's role over our lives, liberty, and happiness. So you go ahead and vote for one of them, hypocrite.

[Nanuk]

Oh, if this is strictly about what the Federal Gov't should NOT be involved in, let's discuss:

School Accountability

Major League Baseball

End-Of-Life decisions

Abortion

Vaccine manufacturing

The Economy

Bailing out ANY failed Company

Media "Decency"

Gay Marriage

Funding Failing Pensions

The Internet

The "Mortgage Meltdown"

Airport Security

"Controlled Substances"

Oh, there are surely many, many more things that the federal Government has no business dabbling in. But they do. And guess what? Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and the rest - will only expand the Federal Government's role over our lives, liberty, and happiness. So you go ahead and vote for one of them, hypocrite.

Truth in advertising requires that you identify yourself as a rabid supporter of big government taxing some for the benefit of others and controlling and restricting people out of "fairness". And we both know that if ANY President suggested that the federal government get out of everything except national security and federal courts, you and the rest of the left would melt down immediately. But the fact that the GOP candidates support a smaller big government than your Dem/socialists do doesn't make them worse than your heroes, it just makes them the lesser of the wrongs. Your Dems still win the prize for worst of the worst.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Um, No. Just because you say things about me, over and over, doesn't make them true. Truth via repetition is soooooo Adolf. And no, you can't shove me into an oven. Sorry.

Truth is, as you know, that as long as the government is ganking what they're ganking from us - some of it needs to be "redistributed" in somewhat humanitarian ways.

However, if they scaled back, cut our taxes in HALF, then I'd feel much differently about where that money goes and why. Additionally, if they stopped taking so much from us, many of us would no longer NEED assistance. Seriously, they take over 35% of my money. Imagine the "economy stimulation" I could do with that.

But, again, I've said this to you at l;east a hundred times, until they couple reform with REAL AND ACTUAL tax savings, for people like US, I'm not into cutting off the poor just so some Corporation can get that money.

But as long as they're getting as much as they're getting from US - People shouldn't be starving nor should they be blocked from the Doctor's office.