|
The states are more politically uniform that the federal government. That is why there is only a few "swing states". That means that we actually get things done.The US congress was DESIGNED to not get anything done.
|
On August 18 2011 12:11 cfoy3 wrote:
The states are more politically uniform that the federal government. That is why there is only a few "swing states". That means that we actually get things done.The US congress was DESIGNED to not get anything done.
If you leave things up to the state, then you get fucked up shit like Arizona and California. I'd much rather take the Federal government, even if they get significantly less done.
|
On August 18 2011 11:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 11:34 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 10:57 yrba1 wrote:On August 18 2011 10:42 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 10:24 Derez wrote:On August 18 2011 09:11 Bibdy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:57 toadyy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost. 1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid. I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like; 1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!) Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself. Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want. Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering. It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity. Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole. It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101. That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit." Where exactly has anyone said something like this? Do you have a degree in economics?
It was a couple pages back in this thread and I believe in the US debt thread or one of the other threads where we were talking about Ron Paul. He gets around 
If you really look into him I think you will be surprised. Throw around vague dismissals all you want, like FOX and CNN try to do, but over the years I have slowly grown more comfortable with his ideas and have found him to be intellectually superior to his opponents by a large margin. I'm sick of hearing "he's crazy", bring real policies that you disagree with and what alternative would work better. I don't hate on Keynesian economics as much as some others around here, but I will say that we are obviously doing it wrong and we need something different. Ron Paul is the only candidate promoting a smart foreign policy, and he has shown his understanding of economics over the past 30 years by predicting many of the problems that plague us today. No other Republican will come close to offering us real change.
I'm not saying you have to vote for him in the general. I'm saying that he must won the Republican nomination so that our country can have this genuine conversation about the fundamental role of government and which direction to go. Otherwise we will be given a false choice between two guys that basically represent the same thing.
|
On August 18 2011 12:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:00 abominare wrote:On August 17 2011 05:19 Bibdy wrote:On August 17 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:On August 17 2011 03:45 GameTime wrote:
For me, Paul supports:
-Lowering taxes
-Actually cutting spending in entitlement programs
-Ending all our wars
-Dramatically reducing our military presence around the world/Not policing the world
-Putting America back on the gold standard/fighting inflation
-The constitution
He opposes:
-Bailouts
-Quantitative Easing
-The new health care bill
-Big government
He has a proven track record in congress and is the most consistent candidate in this whole race. I don't see how you don't vote for him, no one else even comes close. Because I wont go in to how ron paul is a disaster with economics. Heres some less cheery facts about him. Ron Paul Is For: Abolishing Public Education Allowing states to create fundamentalist governments and imposing mandatory religion Destroying America's ability to trade with foreign nations Ron Paul is Against: The 14th Amendment The 1st Amendment The 17th Amendment The man is a complete loon, for some one who talks about the constitution so much he has serious issues with it. Hes classified often as a libertarian, but the better classification is that hes a fundamental neo-confederate. He's a complete nut. He's against them because there's been many cases where the Federal government has intruded on private lives as a result of them. The man believes in States rights to decide things like freedom of religion, privacy, sexual behaviour and so on and so forth. He has reason for resisting them, not because he's just a 'loon'. The man is fiercely pro-life and anti-abortion, yet believes the States have the right to make those decisions. I have absolutely nothing but respect for a person that can sit in the political theatre and admit something like that. Just because you can deem a reason to your insanity doesn't make it a legitimate cause. The insanity here is he thinks its unconstitutional (rather we should ignore the constitution) that the federal government has a role in protecting the rights of its citizens and that state governments should be allowed to trample whatever rights they feel like. It's insanity because people clamoring to states rights lost the debate during the framing of the constitution and then 80 years later lost one of the bloodiest wars in American history over the same damn idea, that states have the right to limit and take away rights of citizens. States have proven time and time again that they're terrible stewards of rights just as the framers realized when they were writing the constitution, and this asshole has the audacity to evoke their names on his crusade to destroy the rights of americans. This. There is absolutely nothing about state government that makes them intrinsically better than the federal government.
It's a lot harder to rest easy at night as a tyrant when you're ruling within effective range of small arms fire. It's also a lot easier to move out of a state whose government you dislike rather than leave the US completely.
Tyranny is also possible at the state level, but it's less likely than at the federal level. Transferring power from the federal government to the state government is the first step in decentralizing power and shrinking government.
[edit]not that i believe most state governments are good, just that the federal government is so bad that the states look alright relative to the federal government
|
@KurtistheTurtle
The American dream is not about equality of wealth it is equality of oppurtunity.
|
@Stratos_speAr
Yes, but look at California now. They had a rough patch but they have recently completely revamped their politics. Putting redistricting in the hands of a truly independent body, instituting term limits, and limiting special interest funding. These are some changes that I would like to see implemented at the federal level, but it almost impossible to accomplish anything. If states are having problems looking to the federal level only delays actions.
|
Thanks cfoy3, I wasn't gonna bother posting again.
I'm not saying that voting Ron Paul in will save the US and return you guys to the glory days. My point is that no matter how radical his views are, at least they are grounded in some basic logic and actual economic theory. Everyone else is just spouting shit from his/her ass.
And Ron Paul isn't a liberal, he's a libertarian. Meaning he doesn't believe in gay marriage or abortion, but hey, if you want to do it in your state, it's fine by him.
On August 18 2011 12:06 kwizach wrote:
This. There is absolutely nothing about state government that makes them intrinsically better than the federal government.
The difference is that the state government is at a smaller scale than the Federal government, i.e. it represents a much smaller number of people. In general, smaller groups are better able to govern themselves.
|
On August 18 2011 12:19 cfoy3 wrote:
@Stratos_speAr
Yes, but look at California now. They had a rough patch but they have recently completely revamped their politics. Putting redistricting in the hands of a truly independent body, instituting term limits, and limiting special interest funding. These are some changes that I would like to see implemented at the federal level, but it almost impossible to accomplish anything. If states are having problems looking to the federal level only delays actions.
California also pays more in Federal taxes than in gets back in Federal aid/grants etc, so they in effect are bankrolling federal spending in other states. A smaller central government with smaller roles might actually help states like California.
|
On August 18 2011 11:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 11:34 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 10:57 yrba1 wrote:On August 18 2011 10:42 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 10:24 Derez wrote:On August 18 2011 09:11 Bibdy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:57 toadyy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost. 1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid. I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like; 1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!) Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself. Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want. Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering. It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity. Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole. It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101. That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit." Where exactly has anyone said something like this? Do you have a degree in economics?
I have a degree in economics, and Ron Paul's assessment of the economy is spot on. The federal reserve has instituted policies of artificially low interest rates and excessively expansive credit, which leads to mal- and over-investment, and clouds the signals of demand which businesses and average citizens use to make their purchases and decisions. For example, the decision to buy a house.
The housing crisis we faced can be traced directly to the actions of the federal reserve under Alan Greenspan, after they attempted to alleviate the 2001 recession with absurdly low interest rates. This led to artificially high demand in the housing market, which propped up housing prices beyond a sustainable level. Many will say that Greenspan simply kept rates too low for too long. In either case, the government has established policies of economic growth through debt and credit expansion, which will inevitably lead to corrections and an unstable market.
I understand how Keynesian economics is supposed to work in theory, but in practice it's extremely unlikely that we are going to voluntarily contract our economy in times of financial excess. It is also true that fiat currency leads to endless artificial inflation. By devaluing the currency you hold, in order to diminish their own debt, the government is effectively indirectly taxing you. It is a tax you have no control or say over.
Austrian economics is used as a dirty word today. In reality, the history and foundation of all economics was based upon the same principles and ideas which the Austrian's still use today. The primary difference between them is whether or not you accept the Keynesian model of the business cycle as a naturally occurring phenomenon in capitalism, or whether you see the business cycle as resulting from perversions of the market model, such as artificially low interest rates fermenting excessive demand and over-investment.
|
On August 18 2011 12:14 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 11:40 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 11:34 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 10:57 yrba1 wrote:On August 18 2011 10:42 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 10:24 Derez wrote:On August 18 2011 09:11 Bibdy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:57 toadyy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost. 1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid. I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like; 1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!) Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself. Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want. Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering. It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity. Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole. It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101. That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit." Where exactly has anyone said something like this? Do you have a degree in economics? It was a couple pages back in this thread and I believe in the US debt thread or one of the other threads where we were talking about Ron Paul. He gets around If you really look into him I think you will be surprised. Throw around vague dismissals all you want, like FOX and CNN try to do, but over the years I have slowly grown more comfortable with his ideas and have found him to be intellectually superior to his opponents by a large margin. I'm sick of hearing "he's crazy", bring real policies that you disagree with and what alternative would work better. I don't hate on Keynesian economics as much as some others around here, but I will say that we are obviously doing it wrong and we need something different. Ron Paul is the only candidate promoting a smart foreign policy, and he has shown his understanding of economics over the past 30 years by predicting many of the problems that plague us today. No other Republican will come close to offering us real change. I'm not saying you have to vote for him in the general. I'm saying that he must won the Republican nomination so that our country can have this genuine conversation about the fundamental role of government and which direction to go. Otherwise we will be given a false choice between two guys that basically represent the same thing.
I am in the process of completing a PhD in International Relations. Don't tell me Ron Paul is "promoting a smart foreign policy", that's just not true. Foreign policy is about a bit more than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia. Ron Paul wants the US to leave the UN, and anyone even a little bit knowledgeable in how international relations work realizes how ridiculous as hell that is. Ron Paul's "understanding" of economics comes from the Austrian school which is not mainstream for a reason, namely that the "laissez-faire" they advocate DOES NOT WORK.
cfoy3, you did not provide me with what I asked for, which is a post of someone dismissing someone else's degree. I don't see how that was relevant in the first place anyway since you replied to me and I never spoke about someone else's degree.
About the state governments, AGAIN, there is NOTHING that makes them intrinsically better than the federal government. In fact it's quite the _opposite_ because for a large number of policies/sectors you need to be able to make rules that apply for everybody, otherwise they just don't work.
jdseemoreglass, read what I wrote please. I did not ask cfoy3 whether there were people with degrees in economics who supported Ron Paul, I responded to his post saying people were discarding other people's degree. About the housing bubble, plenty of people predicted it would burst. Like someone said, predicting it has nothing to do with the soundness of the economic policies you advocate.
liepzig, we're not talking about "small groups", we're talking about millions of people anyway.
|
|
|
On August 18 2011 12:26 LaughingTulkas wrote:
California also pays more in Federal taxes than in gets back in Federal aid/grants etc, so they in effect are bankrolling federal spending in other states. A smaller central government with smaller roles might actually help states like California.
Exactly. http://infographicworld.com/demo/REDvsBLUE/index.html Red states bitch on and on about overbloated government spending, when in actual fact they receive more government funding than they pay in taxes! States like NY and CA are facing terrible deficits, yet pay more in taxes than they receive. New Yorkers and Californians are essentially sponsoring states like South Carolina and Utah.
Pay $1 in taxes, get back $1.50. Fuck yeah.
|
On August 18 2011 12:29 kwizach wrote:
I am in the process of completing a PhD in International Relations. Don't tell me Ron Paul is "promoting a smart foreign policy", that's just not true. Foreign policy is about a bit more than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia. Ron Paul wants the US to leave the UN, and anyone even a little bit knowledgeable in how international relations work realizes how ridiculous as hell that is. Ron Paul's "understanding" of economics comes from the Austrian school which is not mainstream for a reason, namely that the "laissez-faire" they advocate DOES NOT WORK.
cfoy3, you did not provide me with what I asked for, which is a post of someone dismissing someone else's degree. I don't see how that was relevant in the first place anyway since you replied to me and I never spoke about someone else's degree.
About the state governments, AGAIN, there is NOTHING that makes them intrinsically better than the federal government. In fact it's quite the _opposite_ because for a large number of policies/sectors you need to be able to make rules that apply for everybody, otherwise they just don't work.
jdseemoreglass, read what I wrote please. I did not ask cfoy3 whether there were people with degrees in economics who supported Ron Paul, I responded to his post saying people were discarding other people's degree. About the housing bubble, plenty of people predicted it would burst. Like someone said, predicting it has nothing to do with the soundness of the economic policies you advocate.
liepzig, we're not talking about "small groups", we're talking about millions of people anyway.
So 5 million people is not smaller than 300 million? Would you rather live in a family of 5 people or 300? Ron Paul's point is that people can vote with their feet. If you believe in abortion and gay marriage, you can just move to California. If you don't, then go to Minnesota or something. Same thing for taxes and welfare. Trying to get 300 million people to find a consensus on anything is incredibly difficult. It's relatively easier for the States to do so.
And your degree is in international relations, not economics. How the fuck does laissez-faire not work. Ever heard of Hong Kong or Singapore? The truth is no one in the world knows exactly how to solve the economy, even Nobel winners like Krugman and Stiglitz hold vastly differing opinions on how best to do things. What makes you think you know better? Cos you have a PhD? Please.
|
When did I dismiss someone's degree? I just said I do not think keynsian economics makes practical sense. I disagree with your assertion of state governments and you have said NOTHING in caps as if that was a self evident axiom. Several people in this thread and I have listed several reasons why states are better adjusted. If some states have less income then they should give out less services. They also have less people.
It is not smart foreign policy in todays modern foreign policy areana. However, being non interventionism would go a long way to getting us out of these pointless wars in the middle east.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 18 2011 12:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 11:40 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 11:34 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 10:57 yrba1 wrote:On August 18 2011 10:42 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 10:24 Derez wrote:On August 18 2011 09:11 Bibdy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:57 toadyy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost. 1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid. I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like; 1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!) Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself. Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want. Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering. It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity. Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole. It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101. That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit." Where exactly has anyone said something like this? Do you have a degree in economics? I have a degree in economics, and Ron Paul's assessment of the economy is spot on. The federal reserve has instituted policies of artificially low interest rates and excessively expansive credit, which leads to mal- and over-investment, and clouds the signals of demand which businesses and average citizens use to make their purchases and decisions. For example, the decision to buy a house. The housing crisis we faced can be traced directly to the actions of the federal reserve under Alan Greenspan, after they attempted to alleviate the 2001 recession with absurdly low interest rates. This led to artificially high demand in the housing market, which propped up housing prices beyond a sustainable level. Many will say that Greenspan simply kept rates too low for too long. In either case, the government has established policies of economic growth through debt and credit expansion, which will inevitably lead to corrections and an unstable market. I understand how Keynesian economics is supposed to work in theory, but in practice it's extremely unlikely that we are going to voluntarily contract our economy in times of financial excess. It is also true that fiat currency leads to endless artificial inflation. By devaluing the currency you hold, in order to diminish their own debt, the government is effectively indirectly taxing you. It is a tax you have no control or say over. Austrian economics is used as a dirty word today. In reality, the history and foundation of all economics was based upon the same principles and ideas which the Austrian's still use today. The primary difference between them is whether or not you accept the Keynesian model of the business cycle as a naturally occurring phenomenon in capitalism, or whether you see the business cycle as resulting from perversions of the market model, such as artificially low interest rates fermenting excessive demand and over-investment.
I too have a degree in economics, and I strongly dislike Keynesian economics for various reasons I wont get into now. Regardless of that, and the fact that Ron Paul's understanding of the current economic situation is at least adequate, his conclusions about what to do about it are awful and he doesn't seem to properly understand how various elements interact. Concern about inflation being too high right now is laughable, it's actually too low right now.
|
On August 18 2011 12:29 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 12:14 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 11:40 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 11:34 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2011 10:57 yrba1 wrote:On August 18 2011 10:42 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 18 2011 10:24 Derez wrote:On August 18 2011 09:11 Bibdy wrote:On August 18 2011 08:57 toadyy wrote:
[quote]
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution
2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid. I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like; 1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!) Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself. Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want. Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering. It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity. Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole. It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101. That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit." Where exactly has anyone said something like this? Do you have a degree in economics? It was a couple pages back in this thread and I believe in the US debt thread or one of the other threads where we were talking about Ron Paul. He gets around If you really look into him I think you will be surprised. Throw around vague dismissals all you want, like FOX and CNN try to do, but over the years I have slowly grown more comfortable with his ideas and have found him to be intellectually superior to his opponents by a large margin. I'm sick of hearing "he's crazy", bring real policies that you disagree with and what alternative would work better. I don't hate on Keynesian economics as much as some others around here, but I will say that we are obviously doing it wrong and we need something different. Ron Paul is the only candidate promoting a smart foreign policy, and he has shown his understanding of economics over the past 30 years by predicting many of the problems that plague us today. No other Republican will come close to offering us real change. I'm not saying you have to vote for him in the general. I'm saying that he must won the Republican nomination so that our country can have this genuine conversation about the fundamental role of government and which direction to go. Otherwise we will be given a false choice between two guys that basically represent the same thing. I am in the process of completing a PhD in International Relations. Don't tell me Ron Paul is "promoting a smart foreign policy", that's just not true. Foreign policy is about a bit more than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia. Ron Paul wants the US to leave the UN, and anyone even a little bit knowledgeable in how international relations work realizes how ridiculous as hell that is.
That's exactly what I'm telling you. I'm sorry that you disagree, but if you are pursuing a PhD in International Relations I am astounded that you would think any other candidate has a smarter position than Dr. Paul on foreign policy. Economically, diplomatically, morally, and pragmatically, we should be a non-interventionist country. Personally I do not advocate leaving the U.N. but as Ron Paul would agree, that would be an act of Congress, not the President. I do recognize that the U.N. has problems and I understand a Constitutionalist's concerns about national sovereignty. Regardless, this is something I am happy to disagree with him about without fearing for Armageddon and I think it's another red herring. It does nothing to dissuade me from proclaiming his foreign policy to be smarter than any of his opponents by leaps and bounds.
Again, you don't have to vote for him in the general election, I just think that he has to win the Republican nomination or we will never get to have this fundamental debate. A choice between Ron Paul and Barack Obama is a real choice on what kind of government we want to have.
|
Ron Paul is the only candidate that will change anything. He has a spotless record with respect to consistency in his voting record and his character. Every other candidate including Obama is just part of the status quo political machine.
|
Is he concerned about inflation right now? Or is he saying that it will happen in the future? His point is that NO one knows. They are just delluding themselves. It is best not to interfere at all then try and predict and improve capitalism.
|
I don't know exactly how anyone can claim that inflation isn't here. There are huge upward pressures on commodity prices right now. Just look at how high food and basic materials (like cotton) prices are. The only commodities that are lagging a bit are the ones where there the downturn in the economy has suppressed demand.
|
Can someone explain to me what these polls are divided by? Wouldn't one large poll make more sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
