| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 10:32 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: This is all I see with these kinds of comments ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bXcty.jpg) Agreed. I'm as atheist as they come, and in my atheism I embrace logic and reasoning over all else. Even with my hatred of religion, I support Ron Paul, because religious beliefs aside, he is right on all of the important issues. | ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
| ||
|
Fighter
Korea (South)1531 Posts
I'm no creationist, and I don't know if Ron Paul is serious about his creationism or not, but I DO know that regardless of his actual religious beliefs, his principles would prevent him from using any public office to promote anything remotely religious anyway. So if Ron Paul being a creationist helps him get the Republication nomination, then thank God. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/paul-krugman-fake-alien-invasion_n_926995.html He claims that deficits are not the problem of the current economy, when obviously what we are seeing in Europe is driven almost completely by debt problems. His strict adherence to Keynesianism is incredible, when we have seen so much stimulus in the past couple of years not work at all. As for Ron Paul, that little cartoon sums up how I feel. For so many people against creationism and religion being involved with the state, Ron Paul should be incredibly refreshing since his core beliefs are anything but for mixing religion and government. However, more importantly is the fact that what matters in our reality right now is what Ron Paul is suited to fix. Who cares if his views are against abortion? I think the economy is the largest concern for the US for a myriad of reasons, and $4+ trillion in debt later, Obama is still shooting in the dark. Ron Paul has a solution that works, even if the main stream would say otherwise. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:25 allecto wrote: This whole Paul Krugman debate should be going the other way. Just looking at his core economic beliefs shows him to be outdated on his "calls." Someone made a good point about his right calls being based on wrong reasoning. Although it may be over the top, this article (and CNN showing) shows why his views aren't correct in the current economy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/paul-krugman-fake-alien-invasion_n_926995.html He claims that deficits are not the problem of the current economy, when obviously what we are seeing in Europe is driven almost completely by debt problems. His strict adherence to Keynesianism is incredible, when we have seen so much stimulus in the past couple of years not work at all. As for Ron Paul, that little cartoon sums up how I feel. For so many people against creationism and religion being involved with the state, Ron Paul should be incredibly refreshing since his core beliefs are anything but for mixing religion and government. However, more importantly is the fact that what matters in our reality right now is what Ron Paul is suited to fix. Who cares if his views are against abortion? I think the economy is the largest concern for the US for a myriad of reasons, and $4+ trillion in debt later, Obama is still shooting in the dark. Ron Paul has a solution that works, even if the main stream would say otherwise. And even if we look at his economic views in a negative light (many people hate Austrian econ), he wants to drastically reduce the amount of money we are spending each year on frivolous, unwinnable wars. If he cut DoD budget in half (I've heard him say he'd like to do that, don't remember where though) that would be another $350bil that would be state-side, and quite frankly, it wouldn't matter where that money would go, it would be significantly more beneficial at home than away. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:48 ryanAnger wrote: And even if we look at his economic views in a negative light (many people hate Austrian econ), he wants to drastically reduce the amount of money we are spending each year on frivolous, unwinnable wars. If he cut DoD budget in half (I've heard him say he'd like to do that, don't remember where though) that would be another $350bil that would be state-side, and quite frankly, it wouldn't matter where that money would go, it would be significantly more beneficial at home than away. I was pretty neutral on Ron Paul, and I don't know enough to know what huge DoD cuts would do to world stability (but putting that all into say, medicine or education would be crazy-helpful for the US). But I saw one of Ron Paul's campaign ads that he would eliminate the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy. That's huge. Would the US actually be any better off without the Education department? Sure it has flaws, but shouldn't we at least be a little cautious? Have just a little evidence, maybe on a community or state-based level (or in other countries), before we drastically write all those departments off entirely? | ||
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:25 allecto wrote: He claims that deficits are not the problem of the current economy, when obviously what we are seeing in Europe is driven almost completely by debt problems. His strict adherence to Keynesianism is incredible, when we have seen so much stimulus in the past couple of years not work at all. If you account for reductions in state and local spending, the net change in government spending was almost 0. IE, the federal stimulus packages offset state budget cuts but never offered true stimulus. Krugman argued for a stimulus that was 2-3 times larger than what was passed, and explicitly said that a stimulus of the size we got wouldn't work. One could also argue that the European crisis was caused by austerity measures rather than the debt. That aside, I really hope Ron Paul is the Republican nominee. I don't think I would vote for him (unless he tones down the crazy on his economic fundamentalism), but in terms of health of our national discourse, it would be invaluable. It might finally get the media to focus on the things that really matter and drag the rest of the political spectrum with it. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:59 Sentient wrote: That aside, I really hope Ron Paul is the Republican nominee. I don't think I would vote for him (unless he tones down the crazy on his economic fundamentalism), but in terms of health of our national discourse, it would be invaluable. It might finally get the media to focus on the things that really matter and drag the rest of the political spectrum with it. I would really hope so! | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:57 SerpentFlame wrote: I was pretty neutral on Ron Paul, and I don't know enough to know what huge DoD cuts would do to world stability (but putting that all into say, medicine or education would be crazy-helpful for the US). But I saw one of Ron Paul's campaign ads that he would eliminate the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy. That's huge. Would the US actually be any better off without the Education department? Sure it has flaws, but shouldn't we at least be a little cautious? Have just a little evidence, maybe on a community or state-based level (or in other countries), before we drastically write all those departments off entirely? In regards to the Department of Education, he has stated that he wants to get rid of it at a Federal level, and allow the States to determine how to spend their money on Education, to suit the needs of their residents. The biggest problem I see with the current Dep of Ed is the fact that due to huge economic and social differences between each state, it is unrealistic and irresponsible to assign the same fiscal expectations to each state. It's not that he wants to rid the country of Governmentally regulated Education, he believes instead that it should be handled at a state level. In fact, almost all of his ideas go back to that main principle: Federal Gov't is too big, and the States don't have the power they should, according to the Constitution. To me, this concept makes sense, because the social, cultural, and economic differences between California and Mississippi are at least as large as those between France and England. Different places have different needs and that's not something the Federal government can realistically take care of. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if/when he gets elected, he will have a lot of resistance if he wishes to pursue his "crazy economic fundamentalism" from both sides. Checks and Balances, of course. But I'm inclined to believe that he would learn to tone it back a bit in the event that he receives the nomination. I think he should really focus on emphasizing his foreign policy to the American people, because that is where most people agree with him. According to a recent national poll, 78% of Americans would be in favor of a Non-Interventionist foreign policy, and that is what Ron has wanted for 40 years. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:59 Sentient wrote: If you account for reductions in state and local spending, the net change in government spending was almost 0. IE, the federal stimulus packages offset state budget cuts but never offered true stimulus. Krugman argued for a stimulus that was 2-3 times larger than what was passed, and explicitly said that a stimulus of the size we got wouldn't work. One could also argue that the European crisis was caused by austerity measures rather than the debt. That aside, I really hope Ron Paul is the Republican nominee. I don't think I would vote for him (unless he tones down the crazy on his economic fundamentalism), but in terms of health of our national discourse, it would be invaluable. It might finally get the media to focus on the things that really matter and drag the rest of the political spectrum with it. Saying that US stimulus was offset by the fact that states had to run balanced budgets is fine. However, I'm skeptical as to where you got the idea that austerity measures have caused the problems in Europe right now. Italy has run a 4% deficit to GDP in 2011 and it was 4.6% in 2010, and France, Belgium, and Spain's were all above 5%. That doesn't seem like working austerity to me. Financing existing debt alone in many of the peripheral EU countries is getting to be unsustainable--in Italy it is about 5% of their entire GDP used to pay down interest. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:57 SerpentFlame wrote: I was pretty neutral on Ron Paul, and I don't know enough to know what huge DoD cuts would do to world stability (but putting that all into say, medicine or education would be crazy-helpful for the US). But I saw one of Ron Paul's campaign ads that he would eliminate the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy. That's huge. Would the US actually be any better off without the Education department? Sure it has flaws, but shouldn't we at least be a little cautious? Have just a little evidence, maybe on a community or state-based level (or in other countries), before we drastically write all those departments off entirely? Department of Education I've seen the Department of Education popping up in conversation here more and more frequently, and it's come to my attention that a lot of people are woefully misinformed about what the DOE actually does. So here it is. **Here is what the Department of Education Actually Does** * The original system of land-grants to create colleges, more or less defunct. * Enforcing Civil Rights Legislation in our public schools * No Child Left Behind and related statistical gathering(some local school district funding is here or scattered to similar programs, but accounts for <=10%). A little more statistical gathering. Administers federal education funding like financial aide. Keep in mind that this funding would still exist without the DOE. **What the Department of Education Does NOT Do** * Provide funding to school districts(outside of NCLB) * Determine curriculum * Determine/recommend text books * Hire/fire teachers * Make administrative decisions regarding schools. * Provide the majority of funding to schools. Want Proof? Here's what was specified by Congress when creating the Department of Education. No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88) TLDR; The Department of Education is not our public school system. Our public school system is not the Department of Education. The connections between the 2 are not especially substantial. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On December 20 2011 14:23 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Department of Education I've seen the Department of Education popping up in conversation here more and more frequently, and it's come to my attention that a lot of people are woefully misinformed about what the DOE actually does. So here it is. **Here is what the Department of Education Actually Does** * The original system of land-grants to create colleges, more or less defunct. * Enforcing Civil Rights Legislation in our public schools * No Child Left Behind and related statistical gathering(some local school district funding is here or scattered to similar programs, but accounts for <=10%). A little more statistical gathering. Administers federal education funding like financial aide. Keep in mind that this funding would still exist without the DOE. **What the Department of Education Does NOT Do** * Provide funding to school districts(outside of NCLB) * Determine curriculum * Determine/recommend text books * Hire/fire teachers * Make administrative decisions regarding schools. * Provide the majority of funding to schools. Want Proof? Here's what was specified by Congress when creating the Department of Education. No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88) TLDR; The Department of Education is not our public school system. Our public school system is not the Department of Education. The connections between the 2 are not especially substantial. Thanks for the info, I did not know that. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On December 20 2011 14:23 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Department of Education I've seen the Department of Education popping up in conversation here more and more frequently, and it's come to my attention that a lot of people are woefully misinformed about what the DOE actually does. So here it is. **Here is what the Department of Education Actually Does** * The original system of land-grants to create colleges, more or less defunct. * Enforcing Civil Rights Legislation in our public schools * No Child Left Behind and related statistical gathering(some local school district funding is here or scattered to similar programs, but accounts for <=10%). A little more statistical gathering. Administers federal education funding like financial aide. Keep in mind that this funding would still exist without the DOE. **What the Department of Education Does NOT Do** * Provide funding to school districts(outside of NCLB) * Determine curriculum * Determine/recommend text books * Hire/fire teachers * Make administrative decisions regarding schools. * Provide the majority of funding to schools. Want Proof? Here's what was specified by Congress when creating the Department of Education. No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88) TLDR; The Department of Education is not our public school system. Our public school system is not the Department of Education. The connections between the 2 are not especially substantial. Thanks for the info, I did not know that. General Comment: With all the pro-Ron Paul comments here, keep in mind that Congress binds a president's hands. (For example, how would theoretical president Ron Paul close Guantanamo if Congress vetoes any resolution about what to do with the released inmates?) Voting the right people into Congress is just as essential. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
An interview of Professor Sargent by the Minneapolis Fed in August 2010 summed up some of his contributions succinctly: “Policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically ‘tricking’ people with policy surprises. Central banks, for example, can’t permanently lower unemployment by easing monetary policy, as Sargent demonstrated with Neil Wallace, because people will (rationally) anticipate higher future inflation and will (strategically) insist on higher wages for their labor and higher interest rates for their capital.” Source | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 11:23 ryanAnger wrote: Agreed. I'm as atheist as they come, and in my atheism I embrace logic and reasoning over all else. Even with my hatred of religion, I support Ron Paul, because religious beliefs aside, he is right on all of the important issues. He is not right on all the important issues, he's right on some of the important issues. You left out things like wanting to eliminate the department of education, bad economics (sorry, as an economist myself I can't agree with his positions on numerous things. Yes, he was right about the bubble, but for the wrong reasons, and anyone who knew what was going on would have seen that bubble break coming, there are serious issues with Austrian Economics) and various other host of problems. He isn't the worst candidate in the world, but he certainly isn't very good at all. And I don't even like Obama either. As for evolution? It's an excellent question to ask to determine whether the candidate is willing to trust actual experts and trust what science says about the world around us. It's a good way to find out whether the candidate is reasonable and rational, and actually understands the world. Someone who doesn't believe in it has no business running a country, despite his position on other policies. And civil liberties in schools is very important (what the dept. of education does). You take that away, and you'll soon find that Ron Paul's position of state schooling only with no federal guidance leads to a gross inequality of education across the country which brings with it a host of other problems, not to mention that many people won't even get to go to school. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 14:37 SerpentFlame wrote: Thanks for the info, I did not know that. General Comment: With all the pro-Ron Paul comments here, keep in mind that Congress binds a president's hands. (For example, how would theoretical president Ron Paul close Guantanamo if Congress vetoes any resolution about what to do with the released inmates?) Voting the right people into Congress is just as essential. This is completely true, and I feel like not enough people actually care or know who to vote into Congress, but the right President with the right policies is a good start. @Whitewing, refer to 2 posts above yours regarding the Dept of Education. It literally does nothing of value. Also, I understand you reservation about the economy, but Ron Paul as President wouldn't abuse his Executive powers like Obama has by creating legislation to manipulate the economy based on his own economic beliefs. According to the Constitution (remember, Ron Paul is the "champion of the Constitution") the Executive branch has NO say about what the economy does. That's basically all up to Congress, through their legislation, and the businesses, and the consumers. And again, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but it doesn't matter what Paul's economic beliefs are because he's not going to act on them as President. And 2 years ago I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you that being a creationist also meant you were irrational, and illogical, and most likely dull, but I've since overcome my prejudice and understand that you can have faith and still maintain a rational, logical way of thought. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 20 2011 12:48 ryanAnger wrote: And even if we look at his economic views in a negative light (many people hate Austrian econ), he wants to drastically reduce the amount of money we are spending each year on frivolous, unwinnable wars. If he cut DoD budget in half (I've heard him say he'd like to do that, don't remember where though) that would be another $350bil that would be state-side, and quite frankly, it wouldn't matter where that money would go, it would be significantly more beneficial at home than away. If you look at his budget on his website, he cuts military spending by about 15%, which is a level over what we were spending right before 9/11. In this context, he would actually be expanding military in the US, since those cuts would be inherent with unilateral troop withdrawal. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 20 2011 15:14 Whitewing wrote: He is not right on all the important issues, he's right on some of the important issues. You left out things like wanting to eliminate the department of education, bad economics (sorry, as an economist myself I can't agree with his positions on numerous things. Yes, he was right about the bubble, but for the wrong reasons, and anyone who knew what was going on would have seen that bubble break coming, there are serious issues with Austrian Economics) and various other host of problems. He isn't the worst candidate in the world, but he certainly isn't very good at all. And I don't even like Obama either. As for evolution? It's an excellent question to ask to determine whether the candidate is willing to trust actual experts and trust what science says about the world around us. It's a good way to find out whether the candidate is reasonable and rational, and actually understands the world. Someone who doesn't believe in it has no business running a country, despite his position on other policies. And civil liberties in schools is very important (what the dept. of education does). You take that away, and you'll soon find that Ron Paul's position of state schooling only with no federal guidance leads to a gross inequality of education across the country which brings with it a host of other problems, not to mention that many people won't even get to go to school. Did you even read my posts at the top on the DOE and his economic theories being ECHOED by this years Economic Prize winner. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.conservativecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/TheRoadToSerfdom.jpg) Just picked this up as my winter break book. Has anybody else read this? Word has it that even Keynes was deeply moved by the book and largely in agreement with its philosophical ideas. Austrianism FTW. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea Dota 2 47189Britney   42389Calm  14069Bisu 3269Hyuk 1255firebathero 754actioN 495Light 327Mini 327ZerO 189[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing1896 Liquid`RaSZi1169 B2W.Neo969 Gorgc398 Lowko214 DeMusliM176 crisheroes141 Mew2King76 ZerO(Twitch)16 Organizations Other Games Counter-Strike StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
Ultimate Battle
Light vs ZerO
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Classic vs Nicoract
herO vs YoungYakov
ByuN vs Gerald
Clem vs Krystianer
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
