I'm sorry that your of the mind 'Their Keynesian, can't beat em, should join em.'
I'd like you to point out if you care, how stimulus, especially deficit spending, is going to help short term. As soon as your done, my answer is Peter Schiff testifying before the Jobs committee. He'll explain how your right, then how your wrong. Maybe he's wrong. Don't feel bad, the video has a Keysnian in it as well.
Cut regulations, cease stimulus, raise interest rates, allow correction. Bring home the military, take military savings, funnel into social services, not the Fed picking corrupt institutions to prop up.
You chose to misunderstand me. I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, i'm stating the facts.
It's not realistic to run for president on the GOP ticket when only 29% of republican voters favor defense cuts (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf). This number may go up a bit when weighed against a tax increase but it will never reach the fifty-percent mark.
Without drastic cuts in the defense budget, you would have to cut so deep into social security and medicare&medicaid that no democratic congressman would vote to pass. Meanwhile the entire senior citizen voter base would be alienated.
I don't understand why the internet chooses to champion a guy with a legislative agenda that would achieve nothing in terms of actual legislation - every single bill would be blocked by congress.
On October 14 2011 08:39 Thrill wrote: You chose to misunderstand me. I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, i'm stating the facts.
It's not realistic to run for president on the GOP ticket when only 29% of republican voters favor defense cuts (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf). This number may go up a bit when weighed against a tax increase but it will never reach the fifty-percent mark.
Without drastic cuts in the defense budget, you would have to cut so deep into social security and medicare&medicaid that no democratic congressman would vote to pass. Meanwhile the entire senior citizen voter base would be alienated.
I don't understand why the internet chooses to champion a guy with a legislative agenda that would achieve nothing in terms of actual legislation - every single bill would be blocked by congress.
If the correlation were so easy to reach between the % of Rep voters who favor cuts, like you say , Mr Paul wouldn't get military support. He recieves more donations from military than any other candidate. That's also reality. Bad policy has almost assured pain for both sides of the coin.
The internet and Mr Paul. I choose the look at the legislation problem as a bonus to skeptical voters. At least you know he's shooting straight. I could trod on for a looong time shredding Bush, then Obama, on the subject of disenfranchised voters. The both betrayed their base , what they campaigned on, and what they were, are in both cases...fibbers
Ron Paul seems like the most honest, consistent, and intelligent man in American politics. Even people who consider him too extreme are now beginning to like him simply due to his integrity. The man always speaks his mind plainly and tells us the facts, whether or not they're pleasant to hear. Would be amazing to see him win the Republican nomination, but I won't get my hopes up.
^ Skip to 1:25... That about sums it up. Not a single bill of a Paul west wing would pass a house vote, most wouldn't even get past committee... "Approach it constitutionally, approach it on the principles of liberty." LOL. So a body of government that time and time again has granted Keynesian measures of enormous proportion to save the jobs and savings of its constituents would all of a sudden embrace a radical paradigm shift to laissez faire capitalism? With the promise of long term health for the economy at the expense of short term self-induced '7 years of famine'?
at least he could consistently veto retarded congress spending hikes for 4 years in a row, that's something
edit: and by something I mean something better than what pretty much all other candidates would get done
On October 12 2011 12:24 3clipse wrote: I used to be a big Ron Paul supporter. Over the years, my political stance has become much more moderate (fiscally, at least), and I would be uncomfortable with his extreme cuts to government departments and services (whether or not his reforms could actually be implemented even if he achieved the presidency is another story). I still like a lot of his ideas and I admire his dedication to his principles, even if he might not get my vote (were I American).
The real problem here is the blatant media bias. Even perennial or radical candidates deserve their fair coverage if they slay in the polls.
This. Except that I personally need to add that I fear Ron Paul. My undying support for him stopped when I sat back and realized the shitstorm that would occur if he achieved presidency.
please enlighten me on this, how so would this shitstorm occur, i feel as though he is the one person who could avoid the largest shitstorm in america's history...the one that makes me want to defect to ANYWHERE that isnt america
On October 12 2011 12:24 3clipse wrote: I used to be a big Ron Paul supporter. Over the years, my political stance has become much more moderate (fiscally, at least), and I would be uncomfortable with his extreme cuts to government departments and services (whether or not his reforms could actually be implemented even if he achieved the presidency is another story). I still like a lot of his ideas and I admire his dedication to his principles, even if he might not get my vote (were I American).
The real problem here is the blatant media bias. Even perennial or radical candidates deserve their fair coverage if they slay in the polls.
This. Except that I personally need to add that I fear Ron Paul. My undying support for him stopped when I sat back and realized the shitstorm that would occur if he achieved presidency.
please enlighten me on this, how so would this shitstorm occur, i feel as though he is the one person who could avoid the largest shitstorm in america's history...the one that makes me want to defect to ANYWHERE that isnt america
I know what he means by that. Ron Paul has integrity, he is startlingly stubborn, consistent, and bold. He will change the entire political landscape of America if he's voted into office. I mean his $1 trillion dollar budget plan alone is pretty radical, let's face it. It's going to involve complete military withdrawl from the world, it's going to cut out most foreign aid, and it may involve cutting out what many people believe to be crucial government institutions such as the department of commerce, the agricultural department and the department of education. He of course believes in Austrian economics, a school of thought that is also considered radical by mainstream economists since they have a penchant for throwing out mathematical and statistical modelling. He wants to transition out of medicare and medicaid (Continuing the program for those people who are too dependent on it to opt out, while offering younger healthier people alternatives) and plans on cutting out a lot of entitlement programs. He's not just rearranging the chairs in a room, he's demolishing the entire building and rebuilding from the ground up.
For better or for worse Ron Paul would change America because he sticks to his convictions.
Small problem though....Zero of his bills would pass in congress. Either Ron Paul's policies will have to get tweaked or Congress itself will have to get tweaked (But to be fair, the tea party has already had some impact on that)
I come from a pretty hardcore Democrat family, but I really like a lot of the things Ron Paul says. Maybe some of the things he says and thinks are pretty radical, but be honest, the country is already in a ton of trouble, and if big changes don't happen soon, then we are screwed. A few things I like about Paul is that he wants to take away our military presence in foreign lands. We should just defend our boarders, and stay out of other countries. I also don't think we should be aiding other countries. Sure, other places are really struggling, but we have our own problems that we need to fix. I don't want my tax dollars going outside of the U.S. I want that money to stay here and benefit myself and others here who need it. I also like his view on giving states more power, and the federal government less power. From my understanding, the federal government is supposed to give minimum requirements for certain laws, then the states can do as they please as long as it remains in the guidelines. Now, I think the federal government has all the say, and the states have very little. It is easier to influence state officials than federal officials. Another thing I like is his thoughts on the war on drugs. We shouldn't be spending all this money on telling people what they can and cannot do. I do not condone anyone using drugs, and don't myself, but let's face it, if people want to do something, they are going to do it. Whether it is legal or not, people can get drugs. So we may as well save all that money and use it elsewhere instead of spending it on something that really isn't helping.
Theres other points too, but those are the bigger ones. I really don't know a whole lot about how the government works, but I have some basic understanding, and I really think that if we continue on the path we are going on now, then I don't want to see what the next 5, 10, 20 years is going to bring. We need a drastic change, and quite frankly, Ron Paul is the only one with enough balls to do something like this.
Each time I hear new things about Ron Paul, I have to reread everything about him to find out what people don't like about him. One thing I noticed just walking around campus is that there are a number of college kids who are showing Ron Paul support.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is doing a great job of attracting the younger voters. Will I vote for him? Well I would need to look into his platform a little bit more, but I like what he says much more than any other candidate.
Is it telling of integrity to fill a bill with pork barrel spending, vote no on said bill, and still profit when it passes? If so, vote for Ron Paul! Seriously wake up people, the man is just as hypocritical as any. It's incredible driving through Ron Paul's district in and around Galveston, the lines of the 14th Texas district are quite distinct, as urban sprawl and low income housing turns magically into expensive civil upkeep, top of the line government buildings, and immaculate roads. Why the difference? Oh yeah, Ron Paul is a king of pork barrel spending. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html is a biased article no doubt, but it gives a good overview of why Ron Paul is just as bad if not worse than other politicians. Open your eyes people.
I just found this new ad that Ron Paul has. It is hilarious:
Edit: I'm also reading that blog that the poster above me recommended. It is not as convincing as I thought it would be. The things I don't like about Paul are the pro life stance and his strong religious views. I felt that the blog was trying too hard to make little faults appear to be big ones.
On December 10 2011 00:01 farvacola wrote: Is it telling of integrity to fill a bill with pork barrel spending, vote no on said bill, and still profit when it passes? If so, vote for Ron Paul! Seriously wake up people, the man is just as hypocritical as any. It's incredible driving through Ron Paul's district in and around Galveston, the lines of the 14th Texas district are quite distinct, as urban sprawl and low income housing turns magically into expensive civil upkeep, top of the line government buildings, and immaculate roads. Why the difference? Oh yeah, Ron Paul is a king of pork barrel spending. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html is a biased article no doubt, but it gives a good overview of why Ron Paul is just as bad if not worse than other politicians. Open your eyes people.
I dunno, he takes his job pretty seriously. He puts what his district wants in the bill because he is supposed to represent them. He votes no on it because he took an oath to follow the constitution. Can't put too much blame on him when if others voted like him, it wouldn't go through.
EPT
