I really don't get why Ron Paul is labeled an idiot. Most people that say this either give no reason or if they try to give "facts" to back the argument. It is usually taken out of context or completely false assumptions.
At first, I thought raising taxes on everyone would help. After doing a lot of reading. I believe lowering taxes would benefit a lot more. By lowering taxes on everyone. You provide business America a reason to create jobs and feel safe about doing so. Creating more jobs will create more revenue from income tax since more people are working. More people will spend money creating more tax revenue from profits of companies. It's a win win for everyone.
By raising taxes. Companies will spend less on creating jobs. People will spend less. This scenario only hurts the economy, but you get some more revenue. I don't think doing anything to hurt the economy at this moment is a great idea.
Now back to Ron Paul.
Seriously, what is wrong with ending the policing of the world, lowering taxes, and regaining civil liberties? I do not see how this makes someone an idiot. Even the legalization of drugs isn't stupid. This is another war we pay for that has completely failed and has hindered our civil liberties in the process. At first when I discovered Ron Paul 6 years ago. Yes, I was all for him because of pot. Now I'm 25, and might take 4 puffs a week if that. I don't drink and I do not use any other hard drugs. I do not condone the use of hard drugs either.
Give me one logical argument against Ron Paul, because the only argument I ever see is that he is an idiot, which is followed by some absurd assumption. + Show Spoiler +
I voted for ralph Nader in 04, voted for Obama in 08. Was a registered independent up until this summer where I switched to republican to vote for Paul. I fear that the election will be Obama vs Romney which scares the he'll out of me. They are basically the same person. Kind of like bush vs Kerry, which Kerry is now on this super debt panel and scares me as well.
Any republican that votes for Romney needs to look into what this guy actually did as governor. Which was Romney care (used by Obama for obamacare) and his state finished 3rd to last in job creation every year. He couldn't even run his own state, but he's leading the GOP race? Wake up America!
I won't agree with idiot part. I don't believe the idiots are in congress, it is the people that vote them in. It is the same here in Oz.
Anyway, my issue with Mr Paul is his "solution" to the medicare problem. I can't reconcile expecting seniors to use coupons to purchase services, when the inflation rate of medical services is far and beyond what the indexing of the vouchers would be. In effect defunding the system through lowered purchasing power. It doesn't work plain and simple. The "savings" come straight out of the pensioners pocket.
Not fair in my mind.
Ron Paul did not agree with the shitty Paul Ryan medicare plan which would have run off a voucher (coupon) system.
From an Ideological perspective, Ron Paul wouldn't condone a federal healthcare plan at all. He believes in states rights, and believes the states can individually handle medicare on their own (the way the forefathers and the constitution intended), and on their own terms. Similar to the plan Massachusetts that Mitt Romney is taking heat for..
But the good news, for people who don't want to touch medicare, like you, is that only congress can do away with medicare. And I can't imagine, they'll ever touch medicare.
What people don't understand is that at our current rate medicare is unsustainable, unfortunately..
On August 11 2011 10:02 Rassy wrote: Dont think the usa debt is a problem, definatly not on a global scale On a global scale (and why shouldnt we look at a global scale) debt is not a problem since every debt is also owned by someone, They just managing who can spend how much The FED,s monney creation,global economy and financial system are extremely complicated though and even after years of study i still cant say i fully understand how it all works
Ben bernanke once said:
the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost
And this is the border line, with the dollar beeing the world reserve currency and also the currency needed to buy oil the usa can indeed print monney without to manny repercussions (unlike 3rd world countrys) Off course they cant go to far with this but my guess is that there is still alot of room Also it wont be difficult for the usa to get a surplus for the government,the tax is still so low there... i remember in the years clinton was president ( a democrat...) the usa had an surplus on its anual budget for several years in a row The whole usa monetary system is based on debt, every dollar is debt and the fed and its owners live on it basicly but this is rather complicated
Oh it is ... and it is not hard to understand when you think about interest and realize that in our interest based system where money exponentially growth through interest on that interest. Someone hast to make loans to pay interest, so we also need an exponentially growing economy with people/companys to make loans and pay interest. Works good first because there are enough loans to grow an economy. But everbody who knows the exponential function can easily realize that in an infinte world there is a point where the economy won't be able to grow as fast as our money does. And the interest on all our gathered debt eats us alive.
I guess we have 1-15 years until the breaking point is reached and we have to reset the System
to the FED...
they can go so far with printing money until the goverments in the world doesnt want the dollar for their resources anymore... and don't want to buy us Bonds with their earned Dollars.
and this is also the reason why saddam had to be thrown out ... he dared to sell his oil in Euro... if other would have followed ... this incredible privilege would be lost.
edit: But not only that our whole western System depends on the Dollar. Of the trust that anybody in this world accepts the dollar as payment and that oil exporters and china will buy new american dept that they can spend. Cutting this circle would let the dollar crash and with it would vanish the trust of people of the dollar as payment. And the Fed can print as much as they want then ... it wouldnt help... in contrary make it worse.
btw. China holds a true economic atom bomb in it's hand because of this ... all they need to say is "We don't buy American T Bonds anymore"
On August 09 2011 05:12 Jonas wrote: The entire debate about raising the debt ceiling is childish and silly. I would consider myself a republican by ideologies alone, but what the republican controlled house did was nothing short of blackmail.
To demonstrate how ludicrous it is, I'll make an analogy. Imagine that you need to buy a car but you don't have the money to do so. So naturally you burrow money to buy that car, and now you have to pay back that loan over time. However, the loan for the car that you bought costs more than your current income, so you are going more and more into debt with each month's bill. But you have to still pay for the car, right?
The republicans are saying "why do we have a nicer car than we can afford?" which is a very valid point. But by refusing to raise the debt ceiling the republicans are basically saying "we don't need to pay for this car that we already own" which is fucking stupid. Of course we have to pay for the stuff that we already bought otherwise our credit rating gets fucked (which it did anyways). Neither side wanted the US to go into default, but the republicans were using it as a weapon to leverage their other agendas.
Regardless of if you are a democrat or a republican this behavior should disgust you
Your analogy is flawed. You need to adjust for the fact that you have the ability to exchange the car for a more reasonably priced one, can increase your income to be more able to afford the car, etc. Your statement that we have to pay for stuff that we already bought is flawed because Congress can undo such purchases and not incur the debt. Also left out of the analogy is the requirement imposed by the President that the deal extends past the election, instead of being able to apply short-term compromises to extend the time they have to negotiate a workable deal. You left that out of your accusation that it's the Republicans' fault entirely for pushing us to the brink of default.
On August 12 2011 06:51 Signet wrote: That rant was great, bravo.
Then the two female commentators totally whiff on the point, arguing which party they can blame. Yep, we're screwed...
Punditry at its finest. They weren't listening to him, just waiting for their turn to speak - and twist something to score political points.
I love Dylan Ratigan and rants like this are the reason why. It's not about democrats or republicans, it's about the fact that our politicians are bought. Until we take the money out of politics we will never have a government that works for us. In 2008 Dylan was the guy railing against corporate welfare, and he actually throws out specific and tangible ideas on how to fix problems. I don't know if they would work, but that's a hell of a lot more than we get out of Washington from either party. Remember the 3 page budget bill that had no numbers in it!?
Dylan Ratigan could be a formidable presidential candidate with speeches like this. Of course, the media would ignore and marginalized him just like they do to Ron Paul. Did anyone watch the debate yesterday? Ron was completely and blatantly ignored the whole time. I'm curious if anyone tracked this kind of thing, but it seemed to me that Bachmann and Pawlenty got about ten times the attention Ron got. I expect more integrity out of any "news" network, even Fox. The stream was full of people clamoring for Ron Paul to get asked a question about...anything and everything.
On August 13 2011 03:32 Senorcuidado wrote: Did anyone watch the debate yesterday? Ron was completely and blatantly ignored the whole time. I'm curious if anyone tracked this kind of thing, but it seemed to me that Bachmann and Pawlenty got about ten times the attention Ron got. I expect more integrity out of any "news" network, even Fox. The stream was full of people clamoring for Ron Paul to get asked a question about...anything and everything.
Yes. Here's a basic summary:
Romney: Came out ahead and even stronger than before. I can't believe how few shots were taken at him by the other candidates.
Pawlenty: Went down in flames. He was incredibly unprepared. He came off as being smug and petty. His campaign is over.
Bachmann: Weathered attacks fairly well and should be well-positioned going forward.
Gingrich: Surprisingly had the best showing at the debate. He's definitely the smartest guy in the room, but I don't think that he's going to be able to translate it into any kind of political success.
Cain: Was himself again. Good showing, some solid answers, but I doubt he's going anywhere.
Santorum: Doctors who give abortions in accordance with the law should be imprisoned? Really?
Paul: I want to like the guy, but what he said about Iran was sheer lunacy. Paul's biggest problem is that he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. His answers are always rambling and tended to drift to a couple off-topic points.
Huntsman: "I have no economic plan." lol
As for my opinion, all of the candidates are flawed in one way or another. Realistically, only Romney and Perry have a shot at winning, with Bachmann having an outside chance at winning. I'd vote for any of the candidates over Obama in a heartbeat.
In all honesty i like Ron Paul the most because he is the only one who even remotely wants to go for root causes of Problems and not some picking at the surface.
On August 13 2011 04:21 xDaunt wrote:As for my opinion, all of the candidates are flawed in one way or another. Realistically, only Romney and Perry have a shot at winning, with Bachmann having an outside chance at winning. I'd vote for any of the candidates over Obama in a heartbeat.
You'd vote for Bachmann over Obama? Lets hear your reasons for this. I understand Romney and Perry, but voting for Bachmann seems a bit of a stretch even for you.
On August 13 2011 04:21 xDaunt wrote:As for my opinion, all of the candidates are flawed in one way or another. Realistically, only Romney and Perry have a shot at winning, with Bachmann having an outside chance at winning. I'd vote for any of the candidates over Obama in a heartbeat.
You'd vote for Bachmann over Obama? Lets hear your reasons for this. I understand Romney and Perry, but voting for Bachmann seems a bit of a stretch even for you.
Yep, and it's not even a contest. I'd vote for a plywood board over Obama. There are basically no Obama policies that I agree with. His stimulus policies have failed spectacularly. Obamacare is a disaster. His foreign policy is dangerously inept (why does he feel the need to shit on our allies like the UK?). Worst of all, the guy simply doesn't lead. There is plenty about Bush that a lot of people didn't like (including me), but no one ever doubted his leadership abilities. Bush knew what he wanted to do and led people toward accomplishing those objectives. In contrast, Obama takes a back seat on everything. The only things that he knows how to do are 1) speak in broad platitudes and useless generalities (as long as he is on his teleprompter), and 2) blame everyone except himself for what ails the country. In fact, even Obama's liberal base is finally catching on to his leadership deficit.
As for Bachmann, I basically agree with most of her core principles and have no doubt that she means to do what she says, which is refreshing. However, I have two concerns with her. First, she is generally inexperienced, and has no executive experience whatsoever. I don't really like the idea of handing the White House to yet another inexperienced and, potentially, completely unprepared president. Second, I'm not sure that Bachmann is capable of forging political alliances to advance greater causes. I like the fact that she is principled, but I wonder whether she'll bend at all, which she'll necessarily have to do at some point.
However, neither of these concerns is enough for me to vote for Obama over Bachmann. Quite frankly, I simply cannot vote for any democrat right now. As far as I am concerned, the democrats are dangerously wrong on the two most important issues: the economy and foreign policy. I don't really want to get into the details here (it would drag the thread way off topic and take too long to fully explain anyway), but, from my point of view, democrat/liberal policies in general are weakening the US and anathema to the core principles upon which this country was founded.
She somehow thought that the S&P was agreeing with her in their statement about the credit downgrade, when in reality she personifies the problem better than any of the other candidates. The unyielding fanaticism that makes her so popular with the base is the reason that Congress doesn't function anymore. Oh yeah, she's also batshit crazy. Here's a (very) short video of some of her gems:
Come on. Mitt Romney, John Huntsman, Rick Perry, in my opinion they have a chance. Michele does not, especially in the general election when she has to appeal to moderates. She did pretty well facing off against Pawlenty last night, but that sideshow looked petty and irrelevant, Mitt Romney was probably ecstatic about it. Pawlenty's criticisms of her were goofy and flimsy, but her response was "I passed a bill about light bulbs!" and that doesn't make her sound presidential. Honestly I'm pretty angry that Ron Paul was so ignored while that idiotic back and forth was center stage. He's the real fiscal conservative with the record to prove it, yet the media won't take him seriously.
As far as Obama, I don't think we've had the chance to see what "liberal" policies look like. We have seen what half-assed policies, watered down by an obstructionist minority, look like and they haven't been working very well. The filibuster is terrible for our country, and I want to see it eliminated tomorrow, no matter who is in charge of Congress. The stimulus wasn't big enough to do anything meaningful, health care reform didn't really reform anything because it was negotiated down to a few new rules and a mandate, and Obama might as well be a neo-con with his foreign policy. I'm much more on Ron Paul's side of interventionism. He has spent his presidency letting the opposition party shut down government and blame him for government not working. He hasn't really been a leader on any of these issues, and that's why liberals are justifiably upset with him. He doesn't look like much of a liberal these days. Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would probably be better candidates for 2012.
Yeah Dylan Ratigan is awesome. It's odd seeing this kind of thing on the mainstream news stations so make sure you support Ratigan or whatever it is you do.
Here's another really good Ratigan youtube video where he visually explains the federal reserve for all you slow pokes out there.
You can soundbite any politician and find a bunch of stupid quotes. Anyone who has to talk publicly as much as Bachmann or any other politician does will inevitably say something stupid.
As for Bachmann's fanaticism in Congress, I think it's a good thing. It, along with the tea party in general, is fostering a debate in this country that has been a long time coming concerning the role of the federal government in the country. Krauthammer released a great op-ed on this point today:
(here's an excerpt)
The people spoke; the process worked. Yes, it was raucous and divisive, but change this fundamental should not be enacted quietly. This is not midnight basketball or school uniforms. This is the future of government-worker power and the solvency of the states. It deserves big, serious, animated public debate.
Precisely of the kind Washington (exhibit B) just witnessed over its debt problem. You know: The debt-ceiling debate universally denounced as dysfunctional, if not disgraceful, hostage-taking, terrorism, gun-to-the-head blackmail.
Spare me the hysteria. What happened was that the 2010 electorate, as represented in Congress, forced Washington to finally confront the national debt. It was a triumph of democratic politics — a powerful shift in popular will finding concrete political expression.
But only partial expression. Debt hawks are upset that the final compromise doesn’t do much. But it shouldn’t do much. They won only one election. They were entrusted, as of yet, with only one-half of one branch of government.
But they did begin to turn the aircraft carrier around. The process did bequeath a congressional super-committee with extraordinary powers to reduce debt. And if that fails, the question — how much government, how much debt — will go to the nation in November 2012. Which is also how it should be.
The conventional complaint is that the process was ugly. Big deal. You want beauty? Go to a museum. Democratic politics was never meant to be an exercise in aesthetics.
Not just ugly, moan the critics, but oh so slow. True, again. It took months. And will take more. The super-committee doesn’t report until Thanksgiving. The next election is more than a year away. But the American system was designed to make a full turn of the carrier difficult and deliberate.
Moreover, without this long ugly process, the debt issue wouldn’t even be on the table. We’d still be whistling our way to Greece. Instead, a nation staring at insolvency is finally stirring itself to action, and not without spirited opposition. Great issues are being decided as constitutionally designed. The process is working.
Notice how the loudest complaints about “broken politics” come from those who lost the debate. It’s understandable for sore losers to rage against the machine. But there’s no need for the rest of us to parrot their petulance.
Again, this fanaticism may not translate as well to the presidency. Then again, Ronald Reagan was a one-man conservative wrecking crew when he entered the White House. However, I doubt that Bachmann is half as capable as he was.
Huntsman does not have a prayer of winning the nomination and is basically DoA. Either Romney or Perry will beat Obama handily unless there's a dramatic reversal of Obama's performance and the economy. Even if the economy improves moderately, I believe that Obamacare will still ultimately cost Obama his job.
I don't see how you can say that Obama's policies aren't liberal. Sure, Obama hasn't been able to pass card check, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal aliens, and host of other liberal items, but he's done plenty over the past few years. Obamacare, though it may seem "watered down," will result in a singlepayer system if left alone because it will destroy the private insurance industry by making it too expensive. This is by design, and can you already see it happening now with all of these major companies seeking (and receiving) waivers from Obamacare. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why they want out....
The stimulus package is "liberal" only in the amount of money that was spent: $1 trillion. I don't really see how you can say that this amount was too small to accomplish anything. That's an astronomical sum, and it doesn't even include all of the quantitative easing that came with it. However, the problem is that too much of the stimulus package was spent on pork projects as opposed to being targetted on projects and industries that might have more significantly jumpstarted the economy. Nonetheless, I get the sense that economists are going to look back at the stimulus package and start asking some serious questions about the benefit and wisdom of Keynsian economic policies.
In terms of handling the wars abroad, I agree that Obama has basically been a neo-con. However, I'll add the caveat that he's clearly disinterested in these wars beyond what is politically expedient for him. This is why he left Bush's team in place when he came in, and also why he chose that stupid deadline next summer for getting out of Afghanistan.
I guarantee you that Obama wants to be more liberal than he has been. The problem is that there simply isn't enough support for those policies.
I was able to watch the second half of the debate, and Ron Paul got more face time while dismantling Santorum so I am less upset. I think the clear losers were Pawlenty, Santorum, and Huntsman(unfortunately), while Mitt Romney came out very unscathed and definitely still ahead. There's obviously still the discrepancy between his position that states (not federal government) should handle health care on their own - which I don't necessarily disagree with - but the federal government should impose its will on the people with a Federal Marriage Amendment. Once again I agreed with almost every single thing that Ron Paul said, about the FED, about the states' role, and foreign policy. He's the only one who's really serious about the debt and fixing the fundamental problems in government. The rest of them quibble about withdrawal schedules but support the same old interventionist status quo.
A health care debate may or may not belong in a thread about debt, but I can't support these guys that deny the industry is completely broken. As far as I'm concerned, anything that these companies are opposed to has to be good for the rest of us. Unfortunately their lobbyists were way too involved with the negotiations so I don't think what passed was that good for us anyway. A mandate to force us to participate in this ridiculous and abusive system isn't exactly change I can believe in. The whole industry needs to be reformed, and I would like a real single-payer system OR a real free market system. Right now we are nowhere close to either one and I haven't heard a serious plan to fix it. In other countries you get tangible benefits and services for the taxes you pay. Why can't we do it too? I'm actually fine with the libertarian vision of Ron Paul and the socialist (NOT an insult) vision of Bernie Sanders. I don't think either system of government is inherently wrong, and obviously we wouldn't take it to the far extreme, but our political system is so dysfunctional that nothing substantial will ever happen. Instead, we get a government run by corporations and every exaggerated gesture is just another distraction from the highway robbery.
On August 13 2011 11:32 LaLLsc2 wrote: Yeah Dylan Ratigan is awesome. It's odd seeing this kind of thing on the mainstream news stations so make sure you support Ratigan or whatever it is you do.
Here's another really good Ratigan youtube video where he visually explains the federal reserve for all you slow pokes out there.
The last 2 1/2 minutes are incredibly important. Ponzi Scheme is a perfect description of what's been going on. I wanted to mention this about the FED a few days ago but I haven't had a chance to. Why the hell don't we audit the FED inside and out?? This is the first time we've ever done it, it was only a partial audit and it was fought tooth and nail. How the hell is it even a discussion!? That is our money and it's being embezzled right in front of our eyes. I recognize the importance of a central bank, and I've read in the history books about why it was created and all the controversy surrounding it back then, but this is not what anybody had in mind. It's supposed to promote stability and confidence and instead it's stealing money from taxpayers to give it to bankers.
On August 13 2011 03:32 Senorcuidado wrote: Did anyone watch the debate yesterday? Ron was completely and blatantly ignored the whole time. I'm curious if anyone tracked this kind of thing, but it seemed to me that Bachmann and Pawlenty got about ten times the attention Ron got. I expect more integrity out of any "news" network, even Fox. The stream was full of people clamoring for Ron Paul to get asked a question about...anything and everything.
Yes. Here's a basic summary:
Romney: Came out ahead and even stronger than before. I can't believe how few shots were taken at him by the other candidates.
Pawlenty: Went down in flames. He was incredibly unprepared. He came off as being smug and petty. His campaign is over.
Bachmann: Weathered attacks fairly well and should be well-positioned going forward.
Gingrich: Surprisingly had the best showing at the debate. He's definitely the smartest guy in the room, but I don't think that he's going to be able to translate it into any kind of political success.
Cain: Was himself again. Good showing, some solid answers, but I doubt he's going anywhere.
Santorum: Doctors who give abortions in accordance with the law should be imprisoned? Really?
Paul: I want to like the guy, but what he said about Iran was sheer lunacy. Paul's biggest problem is that he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. His answers are always rambling and tended to drift to a couple off-topic points.
Huntsman: "I have no economic plan." lol
As for my opinion, all of the candidates are flawed in one way or another. Realistically, only Romney and Perry have a shot at winning, with Bachmann having an outside chance at winning. I'd vote for any of the candidates over Obama in a heartbeat.
Ron Paul. He might be a bit eccentric but is the only one with the guts to talk about real issues. ie. ridiculous military spending, unjustified wars, FED being a pit of corruption.
It's disgusting to see the other candidates doing the same old shit of stirring people's fears about Iran. They would create yet another war that the economy isn't able to support, and that's going to make sure Iran will hate the US for generations to come.
Either Ron Paul wins, or it doesn't matter, because everyone else is the same. There will be no change in fiscal, domestic, personal liberty, war or international policies.
They are all Republicrats and Democins, all are politicians to the core that care more about politicizing than actually running a country or changing the systems that have already failed, continue to fail and will continue to fail. Party is truly irrelevant.
Personally, I will be voting for constitutionalists, regardless of party, in all aspects of the election.
EPT
wrote:
