View Full Version : Ron Paul's candidacy
Char. Limit
Sep3-11, 06:38 PM
So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?
Ivan Seeking
Sep3-11, 06:44 PM
So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?
The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected. He doesn't even have a chance of winning the Rep nomination.
No, I would never support him. His views range from interesting, to extreme, to nutty.
skippy1729
Sep3-11, 07:09 PM
In the Republican primary I think (and hope) he has less chance than Newt of Herman Caine. I would never vote for him in the primary. He is too isolationist. I would vote for him in the general election against Obama. If he ran against Hillary I would have to give her a second look.
Skippy
He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him. The Daily Show ran a great piece about how he came in third for the straw poll, and the media mentioned the 1st and 2nd place winners, then skipped 3rd (who was Paul) to talk about the 4th place It was hilarious (can't find a link to the piece though).
His chances of winning the republican primary alone are extremely small, given that his libertarian convictions are only semi-accepted by the majority of people. Being a fiscal conservative with socially liberal tendencies generally means neither traditionally liberal or conservative voters will be entirely apt to vote for him.
I live in Canada, but if I was an American and if he somehow managed to win the primaries, I would vote for him in the general election, as I am on similar ideological footing with the man
His chances of winning the republican primary alone are extremely small, given that his libertarian convictions are only semi-accepted by the majority of people. Being a fiscal conservative with socially liberal tendencies generally means neither traditionally liberal or conservative voters will be entirely apt to vote for him.
I live in Canada, but if I was an American and if he somehow managed to win the primaries, I would vote for him in the general election, as I am on similar ideological footing with the man
Uh, social liberalists are not liberal socialists or libertarians (I am getting tired of myself here too :rolleyes:.)
Social liberalism is what I am inclined to too (nice it exists in Canada), mostly because of lack of other progressive parties. Having said that, I agree also with about everything the guy wants, because his basic principle is maximizing freedom too. I differ a lot on economy, though.
Uh, social liberalists are not liberal socialists or libertarians (I am getting tired of myself here too :rolleyes:.)
Social liberalism is what I am inclined to too (nice it exists in Canada), mostly because of lack of other progressive parties. Having said that, I agree also with about everything the guy wants, because his basic principle is maximizing freedom too. I differ a lot on economy, though.
Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that Ron Paul was an actual social liberal per say. The point I was trying to make was simply that his views on social issues are generally more liberal than most conservative voters are willing to accept (such as drug legalisation, gay marriage, immigration, etc.), and that this tends to alienate many potential Paul supporters. Although please don't interpret that as me suggesting that he should compromise his views for accommodation's sake; that would merely destroy his integrity.
You are another excellent example of the semi-enthusiast I'm talking about. You agree with his social tendencies towards maximising freedom, but your economic ideologies don't align.
No need to excuse for anything. I didn't feel any offense anywhere.
He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him. The Daily Show ran a great piece about how he came in third for the straw poll, and the media mentioned the 1st and 2nd place winners, then skipped 3rd (who was Paul) to talk about the 4th place It was hilarious (can't find a link to the piece though).
Yeah, I think if it had been a 2-man race between, say Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul had won, then much of the media would have run headlines along the lines of "Romney takes strong second place, Ron Paul comes in next to last."
I give the man great kudos for consistency, unlike any other current politician I am aware of, and I think his heart is in the right place, but I have to agree w/ Ivan that he's just too extreme. I think a lot of his ideologically pure ideas would be a disaster in the real world.
The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected.
He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him.
The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?
Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.
The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?
Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.
I don't think the media has the power to change the fact that Paul is too radical for the American public to elect. You seem to want to not believe that the media marginalizes him because he is unelectable and to believe the reverse instead. I don't think that works.
The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?
Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.
This is an interesting idea, and probably somewhat true. After all, Fox News popularizes far right candidates, and MSNBC popularizes far left candidates. I doubt either of these extremes would be as popular if the media didn't cover them.
I don't think the media has the power to change the fact that Paul is too radical for the American public to elect.We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.
You seem to want to not believe that the media marginalizes him because he is unelectable and to believe the reverse instead. I don't think that works.I'm asking how it does work. Are they marginalizing him because he's unelectable, or because, for whatever reasons, they don't want him elected? How can they possibly know that he's unelectable? One thing seems certain, if they marginalize him, then he's unelectable.
I give the man great kudos for consistency, unlike any other current politician I am aware of, and I think his heart is in the right place, but I have to agree w/ Ivan that he's just too extreme. I think a lot of his ideologically pure ideas would be a disaster in the real world.
(bolding mine)
Yes, I think his views are interesting, but unworkable in the real world.
And interesting isn't even the same as desirable. It's something to give some thought to, but what comes after that can vary from person to person.
As such, interesting only lasts so long before it becomes old. And that's where Paul stands now. He's just not as interesting (and new) the second time around as he was the first time around.
If you're only 'out there' on a couple of issues, there's a chance you're ahead of your time and those issues won't be considered so 'out there' the next time you display them. If you're 'out there' on too many issues, then even having one or two them 'ripen' doesn't change the perception that you're a flake. You need to show some judgement and pick an issue or two where you really can make a difference if want to be taken seriously.
Ron Paul isn't considered a vaild candidate for many reasons. His band of followers make his support seem far greater than it really is, so he's largely ignored.
his band of followers having a well-earned reputation for flooding polls and forums like these.
What it portends for a possible 2012 presidential run is anyone's guess. Paul had a similar cult-like following during the 2008 election, only to garner a relatively small chunk of the actual vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html
Proton Soup
Sep7-11, 06:32 PM
The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected. He doesn't even have a chance of winning the Rep nomination.
No, I would never support him. His views range from interesting, to extreme, to nutty.
well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.
We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.
.
Well, I gotta give you that one. :smile:
Proton Soup
Sep8-11, 06:09 AM
ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
If you are fighting and broke, you will never accomplish a thing.
Ron Paul has been consistently right on the two biggest issues of our time - war and debt - and the others have all been off base.
I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.
Another valuable quality of Ron Paul is that he points out the many ways we are not following the Constitution. We should either follow it, amend it, or burn it up altogether. Take your choice and do something, because to say one thing in our highest document and do another in our actual practice is insane.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Ivan Seeking
Sep8-11, 11:32 AM
well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.
Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.
Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.
I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.
I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.
Even though he is anti-abortion, he's for allowing individual states, as opposed to the federal government, to decide their own rules on abortion.
Ron Paul isn't considered a vaild candidate for many reasons. His band of followers make his support seem far greater than it really is, so he's largely ignored.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html
ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
The results Proton linked to indicate to me that Evo is right. Paul's supporters are more likely to vote in these unscientific polls, but I don't think he actually "won" the debate.
ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-libraryLOL, an online poll. His army of online (followers) do this to every online poll, which is (as mentioned in an earlier article) why the media doesn't mention him. The votes are bogus.
Proton Soup
Sep8-11, 04:37 PM
Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.
Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.
I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.
eh, i think there is more to it. there is a bit of an intentional shut-out on Paul in the major media. like here, Washington Post won't even list Paul as a loser. what's up with that? even Newt is up there, and Newt is the guy who's entire campaign team ran out on him recently.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-reagan-library-republican-debate-winners-and-losers/2011/09/07/gIQA2XfpAK_blog.html
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.
The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.
Here’s a pretty safe bet: Ron Paul will win Saturday’s Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll. Or at least he will do better than many better-known and better-financed 2012 Republican presidential candidates.
Why? The Texas congressman and 2008 presidential candidate almost always does. While his ardent supporters aren’t numerous enough to win him actual primaries or caucuses, they’ve mastered the unofficial straw poll format and they’ve decided those informal polls send an important message.Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.
“In 2007, when the media was all but ignoring Ron Paul’s candidacy we realized that straw polls were something we could win, and they are really about the only way to get Ron Paul any media attention at all. So we just all start showing up,” said Brandon Yates, an activist who has been showing up to straw poll events on Paul’s behalf since 2007.:tongue2:
During the 2008 presidential election, Paul won small straw polls in at least 10 states. He rarely broke into double-digits in the real caucuses or primaries that year, but he would often win by a landslide in the straw polls — he took 4 percent in the Arizona primary, for example, but swept a Phoenix straw poll with 80 percent of the vote.This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage. :biggrin:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1XOzYsvrY
Chi Meson
Sep8-11, 05:32 PM
So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winning? Would you vote for him?
I already voted for Ron Paul, in 1988. It was the first presidential election I ever voted in, and I essentially cast my vote for "someone else."
Ron appears to be the most Libertarian person in the field, and if all the people who called themselves Libertarian actually were libertarian, he would be the front-runner.
Ron Paul has gained name recognition from and since the '08 campaign. He's doing even better this time around, not least because he's been so right on the war and debt issues, and all the others know it and are trying to co-opt elements of his message. It matters not to him or me if he's nominated or not. The important thing is that mainstream Republicans and thinking Democrats increasingly resemble Paul, jettison the neocons and neoliberals, and return a semblance of sanity to foreign and monetary policy. That's the hope, and that, folks, is the thin reed upon which our future viability depends. We will assuredly get the government we deserve.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Uhm, yeah.
Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution
In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.
"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
http://www.wctv.tv/wswg/headlines/Ron_Paul_I_Dont_Accept_the_Theory_of_Evolution_128 652403.html
Proton Soup
Sep8-11, 05:58 PM
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.
The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.
Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.
:tongue2:
This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage. :biggrin:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1XOzYsvrY
well, i see what you're saying, but i'd suggest to you that when media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.
it's going to be interesting to see how the future political landscape develops, as a new generation of americans more and more disconnected from traditional media.
Topher925
Sep8-11, 06:01 PM
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.
The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.
I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.
Whether you like him or not, he has been right about debt issues and all that which was already stated above. I also believe in (most) of his intentions and ideas for improving the economy. I wouldn't say he's my #1 choice for 2012 but I would gladly take him over ANY other Republican candidate right now except for maybe Buddy Roemer, jury's still out on that guy.
Uhm, yeah.
I'm glad you partly agree!
If we were electing the Scientist-in-Chief it would be another matter. But evolution, abortion and drugs pale in significance to war and debt. Remember, if you are fighting and broke, you are going nowhere fast.
Respectfully yours,
Steve
I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.Conspiracy theory? You know that's against the rules.
I'm glad you partly agree!Lol, I was being dismissive. :smile: But you know that.
... media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no moreso than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?
This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no moreso than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?
When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.
When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution
In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.
"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." see my previous post on this
And for more on Ron Paul's religious views
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Ron+Paul+religious+quotes
When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.That's how I thought about Paul for a while. But my opinion of Paul changed a bit when I went to a website that had all the candidates positions on various issues (from debates, speeches, interviews, etc.) going back a few years. It seems, from what I read, that his judgement is somewhat tainted by his theistic religious views, in line with what Evo posted in reply to you.
But I'm still curious as to the real reason why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul. Which one(s) of his positions is (are) the deal breaker(s)?
DoggerDan
Sep9-11, 06:48 PM
I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state. A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.
Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.
He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution see my previous post on this
Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.
Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.
well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.
Proton Soup
Sep9-11, 09:11 PM
Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.
looks like the source of a lot of this is articles at lewrockwell. and of the couple that i've perused, it's a little different from your characterization. they're more of the standard libertarian views of the federal government exceeding its constitutional mandate.
Proton Soup
Sep9-11, 09:12 PM
The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.
so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?
so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?How does Ron look in a short skirt?
Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?
Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.
Proton Soup is right; although he is clearly pro-christian, his point is that he wants the state to tolerate and accept religion, instead of being what he sees as "hostile" towards it. He may be a nut when it comes to religion, but he's a libertarian, and that means he's strongly against using the government to promote an agenda. So no, he would not "want to change the government to fulfil his religious beliefs."
Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?
:rofl:
ThomasT
Sep10-11, 04:09 AM
I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state.If we vote enough religious fundamentalists into public office, then maybe they won't be practicing what the constitution preaches, even though of course they'll say that they are.
A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.People have the right to base their beliefs and judgements on theistic religious doctrine, but not, imo, as public officials. Basing judgements regarding public policy on religious beliefs betrays the sort of willful ignorance that prompts me to screen out of consideration such candidates.
Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.How do we judge the success or failure of a president's term of office? Was Bush a good president? Can we point to at least of couple of considerations where his judgement was apparently based on his theistic religious orientation? How about various religious governors and state and national congress persons? We've got lots of silly laws and public practices based on New and Old Testament doctrines.
For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.
... For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.
Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts which is really saying something.
The one thing I like about Ron Paul (among other things) is consistency and specificity.
The consistency comes from the fact that he sticks to his principles. He does not change his stance to match the flavor of the month, and that gets a lot of respect for me. This character trait shows that he walks his talk: it takes a real person to take a stand and stand up for what the believe in especially in the midst of any kind of negative response which he was endured a lot.
The specificity is something that separates him from his contenders. When he states his view and responds to questions or ridicule whether it be in the form of a debate, or some other event like an interview on TV or radio, he actually gives specific information to support his argument. When he is either asked nicely or challenged, he delves in to various data to support his argument which spans topics from history to economics.
One other thing I like is the view he promotes of letting people have the right to say what they want and to practice lifestyles that do not hurt other people in the way that they want to. One important facet of free speech for example is to let anyone voice their views no matter how insane you may think they are. You can't make exceptions and remain unhypocritical. The fact that some groups want some things to be completely taboo, while having other things being acceptable is completely hypocritical, ignorant, and generally stupid: if you want what the constitutions regards as free speech, then you need to respect everyone's right for that no matter how inane or ridiculous that speech is. This demonstrates that he is really serious about his stance about being a constitutionalist and not changing his stance just to be politically correct.
With regard to him being covered and whether that implies anything about how good a candidate he is, make up your own damn mind. If you use the TV as a basis for making the majority of your life decisions, then IMO you need to broaden your sources for information and exercise more critical thinking.
ThomasT
Sep10-11, 04:59 PM
Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts ... Yes, from the poll data that I've seen this seems to be true.
... which is really saying something.It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.
This is understandable in that it's (from what I've read, and in my personal experience) more acceptable to say that you're Christian than that you believe in ghosts.
Everyone has the right to believe what they want, for whatever reasons. But that doesn't make what they believe right, especially if their beliefs are based on socialization and intellectual and emotional comfort (which is the basis of willful ignorance) rather than modern standards of rationality and critical thinking.
Ron Paul seems to be a man of integrity, and intelligent and knowledgeable in many areas. However, I don't want to vote for a candidate who I think might base an important public decision on his/her religious orientation, regardless of what most Americans say they believe.
DuncanM
Sep10-11, 06:21 PM
So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?
No, I don't think he'll win.
However, I do like the fact he is a libertarian, and he has proposed some drastic measures for dealing with the economy. Many of these drastic measures have gotten him the "zany" label but drastic measures are exactly what are necessary. The establishment needs a shake-up. (Isn't that how America was founded in the first place?)
Seriously, everybody else is pretty much same old same old. They are all afraid to state that drastic measures are required. And anybody who does is automatically disqualified as being "zany". This ensures that the right thing will never be done:
The right thing to do is "Policy A".
Focus all media attention on politicians who promote any policy except "Policy A".
Label anybody who promotes "Policy A" a nutty fruitcake.
Ensure that "Policy A" is never implemented and policies that created the mess in the first place continue like business as usual. Or until the country declares bankruptcy.
Let's be honest: even if Ron Paul is not the right person, things cannot go on in the same manner. Like Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different outcomes.
It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.
Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.
Proton Soup
Sep10-11, 11:03 PM
How does Ron look in a short skirt?
Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?
i expect he has chicken legs.
whatever happened to Ross Perot?
Galteeth
Sep11-11, 12:11 AM
Honestly, the hardest thing last time around was getting all the younger supporters to register in time for the primary. I think Ron Paul does have a constituency, however one that is definitely not in the majority. One thing is that Paul polls better in a general election against Obama then he does in the republican primary. A lot of the GOP primary voters are pretty authoritarian.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38
(The poll for the republican primaries had Perry at 29%, Romney at 17%, Paul at 13%, Bachmann at 10%)
There is a dedicated group of supporters, and this they are very motivated. The grass roots organizing is good. I think it is a mischaracterization to say it is meant to give the impression of larger numbers. Especially in 2007, it was impossible to get any media attention. Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."
Also, it really was all grassroots. I remember standing in times square on I think it was new year's. There were also groups of Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. One of the younger Obama guys came up and asked how much Ron Paul was paying us. I thought it was a joke, but apparently some of the guys in that group were getting payed for being there holding up signs.(This was in the background of a news broadcast.) I explained nobody here was getting payed and he was really shocked.
Ivan Seeking
Sep11-11, 12:11 AM
Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.
I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes. :biggrin:
Galteeth
Sep11-11, 12:26 AM
I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes. :biggrin:
Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.
EDIT: And to tie this back to Ron Paul, yes, there are a disproportionate amount of (illlogical) conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul.
Ivan Seeking
Sep11-11, 12:33 AM
Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.
Not to nitpick, but I wasn't the one who made the overly general reference to UFOs and ghosts. :smile:
If by ghost people mean the souls of the dead, then this is generally linked to religious or similar beliefs. If one believes in an afterlife, ghosts are just one step away.
Ivan Seeking
Sep11-11, 12:39 AM
Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."
Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.
This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.
Galteeth
Sep11-11, 12:58 AM
Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.
This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.
As far as impact, 1988 and 2007 were very different. Paul didn't spark a popular grassroots movement in 1988 or become a household name. Different time, different situation. Also different mediums of communication. The internet has made a huge difference in terms of how ideas are able to propagate without support from corporate media.
Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.
Actually, I don't think you are nitpicking at all, I think you have made a perfectly legitimate point and I WAS sloppy in my use of terminology. You DO, obviously, understand my intent correctly, but I thank you for pointing out my error. It's the belief in little green men that gets my hackles up.
ThomasT
Sep11-11, 07:19 AM
Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.
I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.
Sad to say, the evidence I see suggests you are right.
If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.
If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.
Ron Paul is not for banning abortion at the federal level, he has said on several occasions that he would leave the decision in the hands of individual states to decide.
ThomasT
Sep19-11, 02:00 AM
If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles.I'm not sure if he's the only one who realizes them, but he seems to be the only one advocating what I consider to be the obviously best courses of action wrt certain issues.
However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul.Ok, nice sarcasm. But there are a few of Paul's positions that I actually disagree with ... eg., his desire to eradicate all forms of government welfare, his position on a federal death penalty, and his advocacy of prayer in schools.
On the other hand, his positions on the war on drugs, protecting our borders, minimizing military engagements in other countries, immigration, gun possession by US citizens, etc. (what did I leave out?) seem most wise to me.
Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. Yeah, it makes no sense at all to not vote for someone simply because the 'polls' say he won't win, or to vote for someone simply because the polls say he's the likely winner.
Unfortunately, I think that's why a lot of people vote how they do. And in doing so, their vote really doesn't matter.
But, imho, if one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, then their vote doesn't matter anyway.
I look at it this way: can a US president, especially a Ron Paul sort of president, really direct the course of US governmental actions? I don't know, but I don't think so. Ultimately, it's the US congress that's responsible for the course of events, because it controls the purse strings. And the US congress is firmly aligned with the status quo. Which means that even if Paul got elected, there would be no abandonment of the disastrous War on Drugs, or any significant changes in any of the policies that the US congress has aligned itself with. It's going to be, for the most part, 'business as usual', because that's what the US congress has a vested interest in.
As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference.Imo, the only way for an individual voter to make a difference is to not vote for a Republican or a Democrat.
But of course, that's not going to happen. We're far to ignorant, collectively, to buck the status quo. Probably Mitt Romney, or some other more or less 'centrist' candidate, will get the GOP nomination, and then he'll lose, closely, to Obama. It's all so predictable.
Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.More nice sarcasm. Well, I share your frustration. Who knows, I might end up voting for Paul. Or maybe Nader if he runs ... just on principle, because I admire him and his message, and I don't think he's corrupted, or Paul either for that matter, yet.
More likely though, I probably just won't vote.
Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/
Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)
And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.
Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.
... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.
(what did I leave out?)
Sound money, obedience to the Constitution, paying off and staying out of debt. Sounds simple, but you seldom hear of it anymore.
Rand Paul, Ron's son, has been elected Senator from Kentucky. When politicians figure out most people want sound, sustainable public policy first and social engineering second, they will vote for more folks like the Pauls. Then the Congress will restore its own proper Constitutional functions, such as the sole power to declare war, abrogated to the Imperial Presidency so many decades ago.
Many otherwise very smart people are put off by Paul's Libertarian ideas on personal liberties, state's rights and personal views such as abortion, evolution, etc. To them I would suggest prioritizing massive life/death issues for our civilization such as War and Debt a little bit higher than whether you do or do not attend church, etc. If it helps, you can recall that Dr Paul is baby doctor with thousands of deliveries to his credit - how can such an individual be anything other than personally pro-life? I'm personally all in favor of a woman's right to choose, but if our nation is bankrupt, spending borrowed billions fighting penniless tribesmen all over the world, there are fewer resources to support whatever domestic interests may float your individual boat.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/
Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)
And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.
Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.
... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.
And, good scientists that we are, we should know not to put much trust into straw polls :biggrin:.
Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/
Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)
And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.
Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.
... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.
The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.
Okay, straw polls, etc. are fake. Maybe even national polls have an element of fraud. Is there a better way to determine who should be a candidate or an elected official?
Paul's campaign claims military donations lead the Republican pack at a whopping 71% for Paul the peacenik. Is this also a misleading or meaningless statistic?
http://www.dailypaul.com/179080/if-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Galteeth
Sep22-11, 01:54 PM
The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.
They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realised that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.
They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realised that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.
Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.
Definition -
Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue
DoggerDan
Sep23-11, 02:08 AM
Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.
Definition -
Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue
So it's "straw" only because it's unofficial?
ThomasT
Sep23-11, 02:41 AM
So it's "straw" only because it's unofficial?I think the assumption is that polls which can be 'stacked' with the supporters of one candidate or another don't reliably predict the outcomes of the real elections. In other words, most voters don't vote in straw polls, so if an inordinately high percentage of the supporters of a particular candidate participate in a straw poll, then this can result in an outcome that is not reflective of the true relative support of that candidate wrt the general electorate.
Thus, the results of such polls can be misleading. And in Ron Paul's case, they are.
But I think the main reason why Paul doesn't have much support is because he has been deliberately marginalized by the mainstream (corporate) media in the US. That is, if they wanted to, they could make Paul a leading contender, and perhaps make him the nominee, and perhaps make him the president. But it seems clear that they don't want to do that, and I'm not sure why. It can't be because he doesn't have enough support, because they can change that. So it has to be for some other reason(s). Maybe it's because Paul is likely to buck the status quo wrt some very significant issues, whereas Romney isn't.
Aside from the phony straw poll results, just do a search.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS339US339&q=ron+paul+crackpot
The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the 13th (appropriately enough) by declaring that if he were president he never would have authorized a lethal strike against Osama bin Laden. The firestorm over this remark distracted attention from previous controversial comments just eight days earlier, when he used the first debate of the 2012 race to stake out exclusive territory on the lunatic libertarian fringe.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/17/ron-paul-hookers-and-heroin-the-2012-presidential-candidates-addled-take-on-personal-liberty.html
@evo,
Thanks for explaining how to google for "Ron Paul' and 'Crackpot'. That is a far more scientific method of deciding whether I agree with Paul on the issues than my previous method of looking at his platform to see if it matches mine. I assume, of course, you've used that useful method for your candidate as well. Speaking of science, I notice the DailyBeast article you linked wisely replaces references to the clear correlation between prohibition of non-violent crime with violent crime in so many countries over the last 100 years (http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=2), with ubiquitous name calling. I now see the proper tone we are to use in physicsforum posts, and you are making me realize I was given a lot of misinformation on the scientific method and logical thinking during my school years.
In legendary tortoise and hare fashion, Ron Paul is miraculously overtaking the staggering Republican field, according to this new report from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1120/Ron-Paul-s-strength-in-Iowa-shows-it-s-too-soon-to-write-him-off
Consider these recent headlines:
“Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously.” (Washington Post)
“Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls” (New York Times)
“Ron Paul’s 19 percent in Iowa may indicate a path to the nomination” (Daily Caller)
“GOP outsider Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa” (Associated Press)
“Ron Paul And Libertarians Can't Be Discounted” (Forbes)
I'm 62, and I concede that the future belongs mainly to the youth, who are a large part of Ron Paul's following, along with presumably youthful military donors to the Paul campaign. Perhaps if the folks of the older generations don't vote, Paul will carry the day?
I understand how Paul frightens neo-cons and neo-liberals alike. I think I've passed through both these phases into some kind of libertarian.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
I was very impressed (and agree) with him last night in his remarks about the Patriot Act during the debate, though at times he seemed (to me) as if he knew he was tilting at windmills.
Proton Soup
Nov23-11, 03:43 PM
and by windmills, i assume you mean neocon thinktanks itching for another war.
No, by windmills, the audience applause and almost unanimous view from the other candidates that the PATRIOT Act needed to be strengthened.
pergradus
Nov28-11, 09:48 AM
Uhm, yeah.
http://www.wctv.tv/wswg/headlines/Ron_Paul_I_Dont_Accept_the_Theory_of_Evolution_128 652403.html
Evo, I think you're discrediting Ron Paul because of an emotional resentment to his stance on abortion. Am I right that you're vehemently pro-choice?
Evo, I think you're discrediting Ron Paul because of an emotional resentment to his stance on abortion. Am I right that you're vehemently pro-choice?I am pro choice, but all of the Republican candidates that I am aware of are anti-abortion, so your agument is nothing more than a red herring.
Proton Soup
Nov28-11, 12:46 PM
No, by windmills, the audience applause and almost unanimous view from the other candidates that the PATRIOT Act needed to be strengthened.
there certainly seemed to be a lot of fascists in attendance, yes.
pergradus
Nov28-11, 03:04 PM
I am pro choice, but all of the Republican candidates that I am aware of are anti-abortion, so your agument is nothing more than a red herring.
And all would deny the existence of evolution (they all want to appeal to the Christian conservative vote), so that quote you linked is also a red herring. See how this works?
So far all you've managed to come up with against Ron Paul is "Straw polls don't count!".
Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.
And all would deny the existence of evolution (they all want to appeal to the Christian conservative vote), so that quote you linked is also a red herring. See how this works?
So far all you've managed to come up with against Ron Paul is "Straw polls don't count!".
Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.I don't waste my time arguing against politicians I don't consider viable. I've given my reasons I agree with others that say he's not viable, and looney to boot, if you don't agree, I quite honestly don't care. :biggrin:
Astronuc
Nov28-11, 06:01 PM
I don't waste my time arguing against politicians I don't consider viable. I've given my reasons I agree with others that say he's not viable, and looney to boot, if you don't agree, I quite honestly don't care. :biggrin: At least he's consistent.
ThomasT
Nov29-11, 12:15 AM
Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.I think Paul is taking the right approach wrt some things and the wrong approach wrt others (which I detailed a bit more in a previous post in this thread).
It's hard to tell how deep his thinking is on some very important issues such as his position on government welfare for the poor. He would do away with programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the general economy; provide tens of thousands of government jobs; benefit tens of thousands of businesses, business owners and their employees; and provide food, shelter and temporary monetary assistance to millions. And he suggests that all that can be replaced by help from family, friends, and religious and other private sector organizations -- which is absurd, imo.
It's hard to tell how deep his thinking is on some very important issues such as his position on government welfare for the poor. He would do away with programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the general economy; provide tens of thousands of government jobs; benefit tens of thousands of businesses, business owners and their employees; and provide food, shelter and temporary monetary assistance to millions. And he suggests that all that can be replaced by help from family, friends, and religious and other private sector organizations -- which is absurd, imo.
I think the main reason Paul seems to some to not think through some of his positions is that they fail to realize that Paul is a strict Constitutionalist - that is, if it doesn't say the government can perform some function, then they are not allowed to do this, despite that he might feel the government should perform this function because it might be "the right thing to do".
mheslep
Nov29-11, 04:53 PM
...He would do away with programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the general economy; provide tens of thousands of government jobs; benefit tens of thousands of businesses, business owners and their employees; and provide food, shelter and temporary monetary assistance to millions. And he suggests that all that can be replaced by help from family, friends, and religious and other private sector organizations -- which is absurd, imo.Doesn't the logical extension of that argument give you any pause? If what you say were the case then the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally. That fallacy and current day examples like Greece aside, Paul's argument is that, regardless of the economic wisdom of these actions, the federal government has NO business doing any of them, that these functions were and are the domain of state and local governments. Whatever the modern legal interpretation, it is a fact that at least at the time of its creation the federal government was understood to have none of these powers.
ThomasT
Nov29-11, 06:42 PM
Doesn't the logical extension of that argument give you any pause? If what you say were the case then the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally.I don't get what you're saying here.
I get that Paul's arguing (as a strict constitutionalist of sorts) that the federal government shouldn't be doing welfare programs. I just disagree with his position for at least a couple of reasons. The federal domain can be interpreted to include anything that the constitution doesn't expressly prohibit as being part of that domain, and, imo, private sector forces and state and local governments can't and won't deal with the problem(s) as effectively as the federal government can.
mheslep
Nov29-11, 08:02 PM
I don't get what you're saying here.When you say, "[government] programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy", that money has to come from somewhere. It has to be first taken out of the economy (or its future by borrowing).
...The federal domain can be interpreted to include anything that the constitution doesn't expressly prohibit as being part of that domain,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.You will find at most a couple dozen 'delegated' powers in Article I (on Congress) of the constitution: coin money, "provide and maintain a Navy", run the post office, etc. You will not find anything specific on an armed fish and wildlife service raiding guitar manufacturers in Tennessee. I grant that the federal government has come to "reinterpret" those limits today, but doesn't mean a President Paul would not be within his rights to revert to the simple meaning of the text.
and, imo, private sector forces and state and local governments can't and won't deal with the problem(s) as effectively as the federal government can.Aside from the issue of dealing with foreign countries, why not? Consider the following the following ways to spend money:
[1]You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. [2]Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. [3]Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! [4]Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
An extension of the above is that in the case of local governments, one is at least closer to case [1] than [4] than in with the federal government.
When you say, "(government) programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy", that money has to come from somewhere. It has to be first taken out of the economy ...Insofar as that money is payroll and withholding taxes, then it's not contributing to the general economy unless the government in some way puts it into the general economy. Welfare programs are one way to do that, and the degree to which that benefits the general economy (ie., the desirability/necessity of federal welfare programs as opposed to no federal welfare programs) is an open question.
But you suggested that my assertion (that federal welfare programs benefit the general economy by infusing hundreds of billions of dollars into the general economy) implied that "the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally" -- and I still don't get how that is implied in a basic framework of private enterprise and private sector ownership of businesses (including publicly owned and traded companies).
In my view, state and local governments and private sector businesses, organizations, and people don't have the resources (or are unwilling to use their resources) to deal with the problems addressed by federal welfare programs, and that abolishing most/all federal welfare would have disastrous effects. Paul suggests otherwise. So, I disagree with him on that.
lpetrich
Dec9-11, 01:26 PM
I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?
I remember the 2008 primaries, and there was an interesting split in the vote for him between the various primary events. There are two kinds: primaries proper, where ordinary members vote, and caucuses, local party meetings.
Ron Paul had differing amounts of votes in the two types of events. In the caucuses, he often got percentages in the teens, while in the primaries proper, he often got low single digits.
What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.
What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.That level of support doesn't even begin to translate to the broader GOP primary electorate. Paul's support is not deep enough to get the Republicans worked up, in part (IMO) because some of his Libertarian views may seem too "liberal" to the base. He might have a better level of support if he changed his party affiliation to Dem.
KingNothing
Dec9-11, 02:54 PM
I don't know why I'm even chiming in so late, but...
I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. If not him, then Obama. Although I don't agree with him on everything, to me he is a symbol that a candidate can deviate from party lines and still be viable. I am tired of the status quo and I am tired of every candidate being a puppet in the hands of their party.
Aside from scaling back the US military, what or which of Ron Paul's view's could be considered liberal?
For one, Paul would scale back the War on Drugs, because he and most libertarians do not feel it is the role of government to say what a person can or cannot put into their body.
He is anti-authoritarian, and favors maximizing personal liberties. I think most liberals like the idea of personal freedoms and liberties, but are more ambivalent about authority.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?
The sense that the federal government is out of constitutional control, that it has run-a-muck in both its spending and action, especially abroad, find a lot of common ground. Paul has established integrity on the subject so many believe he'd do as he says given the chance. I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of old crackpot, I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years compared to the harm the current President could do by continuing to run trillion dollar deficits and continuing to gather power unto Washington, DC.
The sense that the federal government is out of constitutional control, that it has run-a-muck in both its spending and action, especially abroad, find a lot of common ground.Yes, I think this is Paul's essential message, and why he's attractive, at least initially, to lots of voters.
Paul has established integrity on the subject so many believe he'd do as he says given the chance.Yes, I think this is true.
I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of an old crackpot.We diverge here. I don't think Paul should be labeled a crackpot. His positions are consistent with what he says he believes. He's a strict constitutionalist, a libertarian, and a devout Christian. There's nothing crackpotty about any of that, imo.
But I do happen to very much disagree with Paul's stated positions wrt several issues.
Galteeth
Dec10-11, 01:01 PM
I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?
I remember the 2008 primaries, and there was an interesting split in the vote for him between the various primary events. There are two kinds: primaries proper, where ordinary members vote, and caucuses, local party meetings.
Ron Paul had differing amounts of votes in the two types of events. In the caucuses, he often got percentages in the teens, while in the primaries proper, he often got low single digits.
What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.
Caucuses depend on people "making deals". It is a format that favors prepared, committed activists. The casual voter who doesn't have strong convictions is unlikely to get far in a caucus meeting. Paul's people are passionate, well organized, and won't accept a compromise at a caucus that doesn't get them something. As far as the zeal, is it that hard to understand? There is a small but significant group of people who believe in the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression. When I first heard about Paul in 2007, although I didn't agree with everything he said, it was the first time a politician really spoke to me. The enthusiasm is also contagious once you engage with other activists.
How many people here have actually attended caucuses? They are exercises in horse-trading and arm-bending IMO. And they DON'T reflect the views of the majority in either party. They can be black-bloced by party activists to their own ends. If you live in a really small town where "everyone knows your name" caucuses can be an effective tool for trying to exert some local control. Live in a large town? Caucuses can be a very effective tool for ideologues to hijack your elections.
mheslep
Dec10-11, 05:01 PM
How many people here have actually attended caucuses? I have, a couple times.
They are exercises in horse-trading and arm-bending IMO. And they DON'T reflect the views of the majority in either party. They can be black-bloced by party activists to their own ends. If you live in a really small town where "everyone knows your name" caucuses can be an effective tool for trying to exert some local control. Live in a large town? Caucuses can be a very effective tool for ideologues to hijack your elections.Upfront we see the involvement of highly informed people, either on politics or on the issues or both. So we have a trade off between the small but informed group and the necessarily less informed electorate at large. It is the upfront period where the smaller informed group is the better choice, IMO. Keep in mind the smaller group is always placed in check by the knowledge that, to enable success, they must choose someone that has a chance to win their own general election. The process needs these groups to weed out the non-serious. For instance, it's not commonly known but there some 40 people running for US President.
PatrickPowers
Dec10-11, 11:47 PM
I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years
That reminds me of a post about W. "I thought, 'It's only four years. How much damage can he do?'"
That reminds me of a post about W. "I thought, 'It's only four years. How much damage can he do?'"That's a thought that many entertained. What happened? So much damage in so little time... He wanted to be a "war president", and what did that get us apart from a horrendous of loss human lives and a wrecked economy.
Galteeth
Dec11-11, 12:13 PM
I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of old crackpot, I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years compared to the harm the current President could do by continuing to run trillion dollar deficits and continuing to gather power unto Washington, DC.
You know, I commonly hear the argument against Paul that people agree with the spirit of his ideas but feel they're not pragmatic.
It seems to me that recently we've has too much short term pragmatism; in other words ignoring long term systemic problems because in the short term the shift would be difficult or impractical. But the country is in a position where the military is over-extended and the deficit and growth of government is out of control.
The label of Paul as in isolationist is not accurate; sure, he doesn't believe in the US maintaining a worldwide military presence, but he supports trade and diplomacy.
mheslep
Dec12-11, 11:07 AM
...
The label of Paul as in isolationist is not accurate; sure, he doesn't believe in the US maintaining a worldwide military presence, but he supports trade and diplomacy.Trade/economics is one aspect of isolationism. Another is the military, sanctions, and the like, and Paul completely deserves the term in that context. It is a fair reading of his statements to say that Paul would take no military or sanctions action for any reason except a direct physical attack on the US. The mid east could entirely explode, a dozen rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons and he would undertake no direct action. I defy anyone to present argument that a President Paul in 1941 would have declared war on Nazi Germany, much less supplied Britain with lend-lease material prior the fact.
Galteeth
Dec13-11, 12:52 PM
Trade/economics is one aspect of isolationism. Another is the military, sanctions, and the like, and Paul completely deserves the term in that context. It is a fair reading of his statements to say that Paul would take no military or sanctions action for any reason except a direct physical attack on the US. The mid east could entirely explode, a dozen rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons and he would undertake no direct action. I defy anyone to present argument that a President Paul in 1941 would have declared war on Nazi Germany, much less supplied Britain with lend-lease material prior the fact.
Supplied lend-lease material? Probably not.
Declared war on Nazi Germany? Well, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us.
But yes, I think your statements otherwise are fair, I would just disagree that this is "isolationism." It means using the military for the purpose of the defense of the united states, not for realpolitik purposes.
Mheslep: From your posts here you seem to lean "conservative." I am curious. Why do you think the US government should not manage the economy, but it should try to manage the world political situation?
mheslep
Dec13-11, 01:03 PM
Supplied lend-lease material? Probably not.
Declared war on Nazi Germany? Well, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us.
But yes, I think your statements otherwise are fair, I would just disagree that this is "isolationism." It means using the military for the purpose of the defense of the united states, not for realpolitik purposes.Refusing to do a lend lease equivalent is textbook isolationism: no action taken until another country attacks the US inside its borders, even at the consequence of condeming a close ally to certain destruction. Though one can certainly argue the US military is overused and overextended, that does not excuse a pretense that the defense of the US is not relevant until the Red Coats burn the White House, as I contend Paul does.
Mheslep: From your posts here you seem to lean "conservative."Yes, more libertarian than conservative.
I am curious. Why do you think the US government should not manage the economy,Not sure what you mean by 'manage' the economy. I don't think the federal government can, or should, manage the private economy as its not granted those powers in the Constitution. It does have the power to print money and thus manage interest rates.
but it should try to manage the world political situation?False dilemma. I don't want the US to police the world with its military (nor can it), but this does not always force the option of doing nothing. Example: support Iranian dissidents. Give speeches actively supporting them when they are in the streets. Send them communications gear. Iran tests a nuclear weapon, US cuts off their gasoline supply.
ThomasT
Dec13-11, 05:20 PM
Paul has stated many times, including in the most recent GOP 'debate', that the problems specific to various regions of the world should be left to the inhabitants of those regions to solve. This would be ok in a world where the US wasn't tied to oil. But it is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of the regions with great oil reserves.
Also, Paul's doctrine would be ok in a world where there wasn't a clear and present danger from Islamic countries. But there is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of Muslim-dominated regions. Specifically, whether one agrees with the moral correctness of establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and the furtherence of 'colonizing' settlements, or not, the survival (and dominance, of a sort) of Israel in the ME seems to me to be vital to US interests.
So, imo, in the most recent GOP debate, Paul's position seems weak compared to Gingrich's.
Gokul43201
Dec14-11, 12:21 AM
Those that have been saying that Paul has no hope of winning anything more than a straw poll might want to look at the latest numbers coming out of Iowa (and NH):
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11344135/1/ron-paul-leapfrogs-romney-in-iowa-polls.html
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-leads-but-paul-most-likely-to-beat-obama-in-latest-iowa-poll/
http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/romney-and-gingrich-lose-paul-gains-in.html
This may just be the fad of the month, but it's still a whole lot more than just a handful of determined activists swaying straw poll numbers.
skippy1729
Dec14-11, 12:46 AM
Ron Paul could be a big problem for the Republicans. He will win some delegates along the way. The nightmare scenario would be Romney 40% of the delegates, Newt 40% and Paul 10%. I don't think either Romney or Newt could toss him a bone bigger than say, agreeing to an audit of the Federal Reserve without poisoning their own campaign. His ego will demand more. A truly deadlocked convention could bring about a ticket of Republicans smart enough to have stayed out of the primaries; maybe some combination of Chris Christie, Condy Rice, Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal. The democrats would be back to square one in dirt digging. On the other hand, Paul might run as a third party and give the election back to the president. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Skippy
Galteeth
Dec14-11, 11:26 AM
Paul has stated many times, including in the most recent GOP 'debate', that the problems specific to various regions of the world should be left to the inhabitants of those regions to solve. This would be ok in a world where the US wasn't tied to oil. But it is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of the regions with great oil reserves.
Also, Paul's doctrine would be ok in a world where there wasn't a clear and present danger from Islamic countries. But there is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of Muslim-dominated regions. Specifically, whether one agrees with the moral correctness of establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and the furtherence of 'colonizing' settlements, or not, the survival (and dominance, of a sort) of Israel in the ME seems to me to be vital to US interests.
So, imo, in the most recent GOP debate, Paul's position seems weak compared to Gingrich's.
On the first point, isn't the real problem here America's oil dependence? Oil is not an infinite resource, and it is a major contributor to climate change. Also, America spends far too much to keep oil flowing. Perhaps if we didn't invest so much in keeping the oil supply stable, there would be more incentive to develop alternative energy sources, which would be better for America long term in so many ways.
Secondly, clear and present danger? With the possible exception of Pakistan, no islamic country has the capacity to launch a serious attack on American. As Paul points out, America was able to effectively deter war with the Soviet Union, which definitely constituted a clear and present danger. America has the capacity to annihilate any islamic country. The threats these countries pose is to the established order in the region. As Paul also points out, American intervention in the region to secure what was perceived as America's interest has lead to blowback and unintended consequences that have created some of the threats. Without America's intervention, the ability of Islamic radicals to paint America as the boogeyman worth fighting against would be severely diminished.
mheslep
Dec14-11, 12:57 PM
Those that have been saying that Paul has no hope of winning anything more than a straw poll might want to look at the latest numbers coming out of Iowa (and NH):
...I don't know who would say that or why, given Paul earned multiple 2nd and 3rd place primary finishes in 2008. What I do hear is that Paul has no hope of winning the nomination, and I agree, especially given his fickleness on questions of running as an independent while still under the GOP flag.
Just my opinion, but Ron Paul is too liberal for a GOP that has been driven far-right by the Tea Party. He is in the wrong party, and can't hope for enough primary support. If he runs as a third-party candidate, he will peel away votes from both Obama and the eventual GOP nominee, IMO. Democrats who have had enough of "foreign adventures" might pull the lever for him, as will Republicans who are actually conservative and hate the way that their party has been bought by corporate interests.
The GOP is being torn, IMO. On one hand, the party in DC seems hell-bent to shift money to the wealthy, and yet are driven to hard-right positions to appease the TP folks. It's hard to argue for austerity (TP-appeasers) while championing tax cuts for the wealthy and blocking reasonable regulation on the big banks. We are in interesting times. Old Chinese curse, BTW.
mheslep
Dec14-11, 01:14 PM
The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:
Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.
skippy1729
Dec14-11, 04:16 PM
The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:
Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.
Yes, this is precisely why if the Republicans were insane enough to nominate him I would vote for any rational third party candidate; lacking that alternative, I would vote for IMO the worst president in the history of the republic.
mheslep
Dec15-11, 05:52 PM
Yes, this is precisely why .....You've not given a 'why' here, precise or otherwise. Why?
skippy1729
Dec15-11, 11:44 PM
You've not given a 'why' here, precise or otherwise. Why?
This scenario presents the president with a difficult decision. While it is impossible to predict someones reaction, based on the whole of his foreign policy statements, I think Ron Paul would wash his hands and let the nuclear devastation proceed. I believe Newt would have tried stronger measures against Iran but would cooperate in a preemptive non-nuclear strike as a last resort.
Skippy
ThomasT
Dec16-11, 10:49 PM
The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:
Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.I don't think it's crackpottery, precisely because it follows logically from his stated ideals (which ideals are not, per se, crackpotty).
On the other hand, I very much agree with you that Gingrich's take on things is much more sophisticated than Paul's.
Obviously, Iran does represent a (potential) threat. And the US does, imo, need to be involved in dealing with that threat. Besides, they've got lots of oil, and, imo, it would be a great thing if the US could control a significant portion of it.
I see both Israeli and US (conventional) bombing of Iran in the future. Extensive bombing. And extensive economic sanctions. And anything else that can be done short of nuking them to get them to abandon their pursuit of nuclear military capability.
ThomasT
Dec16-11, 11:08 PM
On the first point, isn't the real problem here America's oil dependence? Oil is not an infinite resource, and it is a major contributor to climate change. Also, America spends far too much to keep oil flowing. Perhaps if we didn't invest so much in keeping the oil supply stable, there would be more incentive to develop alternative energy sources, which would be better for America long term in so many ways.Yes, I agree with you that the primary problem is America's oil dependence. But that dependence might well, unfortunately (and pardon the pun), be a fact for at least the next century. So, today Iraq and Iran. Tomorrow Venezuela and Canada, and wherever else there are proven oil reserves greater than America's.
Secondly, clear and present danger? With the possible exception of Pakistan, no islamic country has the capacity to launch a serious attack on American. As Paul points out, America was able to effectively deter war with the Soviet Union, which definitely constituted a clear and present danger. America has the capacity to annihilate any islamic country. The threats these countries pose is to the established order in the region. As Paul also points out, American intervention in the region to secure what was perceived as America's interest has lead to blowback and unintended consequences that have created some of the threats. Without America's intervention, the ability of Islamic radicals to paint America as the boogeyman worth fighting against would be severely diminished.These are good points, except for the fact that an Iran with military nuclear capability is an imminent threat to Israel, and that represents an imminent threat to America's interests in the region.
In effect, America is at war with the Islamic (theocratic) dominance of the Arabic ME.
I expect that conventional bombing of Iran will begin sometime within the next year or so.
CAC1001
Dec17-11, 11:40 AM
The GOP is being torn, IMO. On one hand, the party in DC seems hell-bent to shift money to the wealthy,
How is not raising taxes "shifting money" to anyone? :confused:
and yet are driven to hard-right positions to appease the TP folks. It's hard to argue for austerity (TP-appeasers) while championing tax cuts for the wealthy
I don't think anyone is championing cutting taxes for wealthy folks, just that raising taxes on them isn't going to generate the revenue needed to fix the problems, especially considering that too many times in recent years, the government has only increased spending further after raising tax revenues.
Char. Limit
Dec17-11, 02:18 PM
What about a mix of raising taxes (on everyone, just to be fair) and cutting spending? There's got to be some level of both that we can work with.
CAC1001
Dec17-11, 07:48 PM
What about a mix of raising taxes (on everyone, just to be fair) and cutting spending? There's got to be some level of both that we can work with.
IMO that would be fine, the problem is that when that is usually agreed to, it's in a "Raise-taxes-and-then-we'll-cut-spending" manner, which results in the taxes going up and spending continuing unabated. It needs to be done in the inverse, with spending being cut, then taxes increased (provided such increases won't hurt the economy right now).
Char. Limit
Dec17-11, 07:49 PM
IMO that would be fine, the problem is that when that is usually agreed to, it's in a "Raise-taxes-and-then-we'll-cut-spending" manner, which results in the taxes going up and spending continuing unabated. It needs to be done in the inverse, with spending being cut, then taxes increased (provided such increases won't hurt the economy right now).
Why don't we just do them concurrently? That seems like what would make the most sense to me.
feathermoon
Dec20-11, 09:25 PM
I just really want to know how this guy thinks that removing the EPA as a federal regulatory body is a 'good' idea. Does he really believe that each state will be responsible enough to even match the current protections afforded by the federal agency?
Ways I see it turning to disaster: some states (guess which) decide that the clean air and water acts, endangered species act are too restrictive. No explanation necessary here. They don't allow their state EPA to regulate based on these laws, and people suffer (but businesses get to save a few bucks) (contingent on the fact that under the federal laws states have full power to regulate to begin with or the federal laws are amended to allow this).
Some states decide they actually like healthy citizens and a clean environment. They keep old protections. Businesses realize they can save money in another state, jobs leave the state. I'd say Texas is already benefitting from such disparities with its jobs market and no corporate/income tax.
Doesn't Paul realize protections are only as strong as their weakest link? Or, is U.S. having a recession for 5 more years more important than possible habitat destruction or species extinction (which lasts for longer than 5 years, btw)? Gotta ask yourself.
mheslep
Dec20-11, 09:43 PM
Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?
Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?
Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
I just really want to know how this guy thinks that removing the EPA as a federal regulatory body is a 'good' idea. Does he really believe that each state will be responsible enough to even match the current protections afforded by the federal agency?That is a critical question. I live in Maine (if you didn't know) and we have rolling ozone alerts all summer, thanks to the big midwest coal plants. Children and women of child-bearing age are strongly advised not to eat wild-caught salmon and trout from our rivers and streams because of very high levels of mercury in their flesh. Everybody is under advisories recommending limited (or no) consumption of liver from deer and moose due to excessive cadmium levels, and we are watching some critical wild fisheries collapse due to acidification of our ponds and streams.
We all pay for this environmental damage, despite the fact that the biggest offenders are coal-fired plants in other states, who get to pollute freely with no cost to them. I don't think anybody around here thinks that this abuse of our environment would let up if the EPA was eliminated.
Proton Soup
Dec20-11, 10:29 PM
Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
i don't trust federal oversight.
FDA isn't doing its job, and Alabama is doing its own seafood testing.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40198123/ns/today-today_health/t/could-your-seafood-contain-toxic-chemicals/
I think the feds are doing a better job than if we made everything *optional*. Those states are doing testing in one area of major competition to discredit competitors to their fishing industry. I doubt they are as diligent in other areas that are less impacting to them.
Common sense. Don't think that because they are trying to protect one of their largest industries that they're doing anything else.
What that article shows me is that we need to give more support to the FDA.
feathermoon
Dec20-11, 11:15 PM
Exactly, and yet Paul's model of Libertarianism would have us moving the powers of the FDA to individual states. That would clearly be a disaster as well.
How about states that don't have equal environmental controls letting interstate business be conducted. Suddenly company A couldn't sell its product in state B, because state A in which it was located didn't have such strong protections that it needed to meet.
If anything, environmental protections clearly need strengthened, yet you see Republicans attacking the very protections they helped set up years ago (Reagen, Nixon). Why this weird, abrupt turn about in the past 10-20 years? Many states would think nothing of abandoning environmental protections under their current governorships. My own state could use regulation to increase the amount of jobs coal mining provides while reducing its impact on the environment, but you don't see that happening (sorry Maine!).
Just on Pauls anti EPA plan alone I can say I'd never support him. Maybe its because the environment happens to be #1 issue for me, but if his plan is so clearly flawed I wouldn't have much hope for unseen repercussions from his other ideas.
Another factor to consider: people come here to fish and hunt. If the fresh-water fisheries collapse, we lose a lot of jobs. Hunting, maybe not so much because a lot of out-of-state hunters are trophy-hunters, but still there is an impact. Fresh-water fishing (especially fly-fishing in traditionally fly-fishing waters) is still a big draw, though pollution is threatening that.
Before my brother-in-law died, he routinely guided one of the biggest names in cosmetics and her husband on western Maine waters where he was employed by a sporting lodge. He might not have made a ton of money in salary, but he was doing what he loved and sometimes got some killer tips. I think he'd much rather send home the tips than a pink caddy.
mheslep
Dec20-11, 11:34 PM
Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states?What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs?
Do you think the US federal government does a much better job of environmental protection than, say, Switzerland (7.6 million), or Norway (4.8 million), or New Zealand (4.4 million)? Those countries would rank between 11th and 25th by population among the US states. Is environmental oversight overrun by greed in those countries, simply because they are small? Not that I know of.
Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?Sure small ripoffs are usually easier to hide than larger ones. To my mind, the best way to avoid them regardless of scale is to have those paying the bill as close as possible to those spending it.
Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?pagewanted=all)In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes. ...
“A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo. ...
“frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”
You and I both could no doubt fill pages on federal scandals like the above, all of which would be comical in comparison to the really big ripoffs like Medicare's ~$60B/year in fraud.
I can think of a factor that does seem to correlate well with environmental protection: economic success. Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, doesn't manage its environment very well.
What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs?Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:24 AM
Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?I understand your point, but I think it's mostly a matter of which agencies have the resources (the power) to actually enforce regulations.
feathermoon
Dec21-11, 12:29 AM
I can think of factor that does seem to correlate well with environmental protection: economic success. Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, doesn't manage its environment very well.
In a big way, in fact. Economic losses due to pollution, environmental factors are huge. Coupled with high health care costs associated with both, and regulations pay for themselves MANY times over.
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:33 AM
Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.Does this mean you favor an EPA armed agent* led invasion of Canada due west and upwind of Maine that would righteously regulate coal plants in Montreal and Quebec?
I can see a case for state to state standards, but the EPA went far beyond that years ago.
*Yes the FBI's not good enough apparently, the EPA has a couple hundred of their own.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:35 AM
What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs?
Do you think the US federal government does a much better job of environmental protection than, say, Switzerland (7.6 million), or Norway (4.8 million), or New Zealand (4.4 million)? Those countries would rank between the 11th and the 25th largest US states. Is environmental oversight overrun by greed in those countries, simply because they are small? Not that I know of.The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments. Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.
Sure, the federal government is also to a certain extent corrupt, but I think that the bureacrats entrusted with enforcing federal directives are generally less corrupt than local and state officials.
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:37 AM
I understand your point, but I think it's mostly a matter of which agencies have the resources (the power) to actually enforce regulations.That's self-fulfilling if the federal government takes all the resources. It started out in 1913 taking ~2%.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:38 AM
I think the feds are doing a better job than if we made everything *optional*. Those states are doing testing in one area of major competition to discredit competitors to their fishing industry. I doubt they are as diligent in other areas that are less impacting to them.
Common sense. Don't think that because they are trying to protect one of their largest industries that they're doing anything else.
What that article shows me is that we need to give more support to the FDA.I generally agree with your statements in this and previous posts, but imho the FDA is pretty much a functionary of 'big pharma' etc.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:42 AM
That's self-fulfilling if the federal government takes all the resources. It started out in 1913 taking ~2%.It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:46 AM
Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.This makes sense to me, unless and until mheslep or someone else has a compelling argument to the contrary.
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:50 AM
The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments.Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.
Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.
Sure, the federal government is also to a certain extent corrupt, but I think that the bureacrats entrusted with enforcing federal directives are generally less corrupt than local and state officials. Yes I see you think this. Why?
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:51 AM
It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:55 AM
Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?This is an interesting point, imho. Wrt, "less educated states" I don't think that that necessarily applies to the people running the states. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me that the "abuses pushed by greed" would be "easier to commit on a smaller level" (or at least more prevalent, as evidenced by the greater incidence of detection and prosecution of abuses on the state and local levels).
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:58 AM
In a big way, in fact. Economic losses due to pollution, environmental factors are huge. Coupled with high health care costs associated with both, and regulations pay for themselves MANY times over.I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 12:59 AM
That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.It's not a circular argument, it's the argument that might makes right. Is there really any doubt about this?
I'm considering your other statements/replies and will respond shortly.
ThomasT
Dec21-11, 01:10 AM
Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.Good point. But we're talking about the enforcement of environmental protection laws.
Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.Another good point. But here's the thing. What the President of the US does in terms of advocacy of particular courses of action wrt things that will affect great numbers of people is immediately, more or less, evident to the mass populace.
Yes I see you think this. Why?Because they're subjected to greater scrutiny. Precisely because their decisions and actions affect more people.
feathermoon
Dec21-11, 01:18 AM
Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
Very true. Consider that if every state had to set its own environmental controls, some would be below current standard, some would maintain it, some would go beyond it (well maybe not this last one). Yet even if the split was even, the whole environmental quality would degrade faster because pollution isn't zero sum.
The reason the EPA should be a federal agency rather than only a state based agency is that what it regulates crosses state borders (i.e., water and air), and therefore disputes about these issues would overrun SCOTUS.
I don't think Ron Paul would abolish the activities of the EPA, only the agency itself. Because such environmental concerns involve interstate commerce, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and the responsibility for administering them would fall to the Commerce Department.
From Wikipedia comes this list of RP's stance on various environmental issues:
Environmental-related legislative activities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Paul is a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition.[233]
* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
The League of Conservation Voters gave Paul a lifetime voting-record score of 30%,[239] while Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him a score of 17.[240]
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
Holy Crap! From the titles/descriptions., those are issues which I would similarly vote (based upon no knowledge whatsoever of the particular issue, of course).
Office_Shredder
Dec21-11, 08:42 AM
* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
All of these positions are consistent with the position "The US government should stop doing things". Nothing suggests that he would maintain current regulatory powers
AlephZero
Dec21-11, 09:26 AM
I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment.
Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.
The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations. Try somewhere like Norway as a better example (e.g. the oil industry is 100% state controlled with profits taxed at more than 80%, but there's nothing much wrong with the standard of living or the quality of the environment).
Some of his *proposals*
Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Depeartment of Energy (DOE); Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?
Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he'd like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn't suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul's campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we've written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street.Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.
Regulation: He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he'd scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.No more corporate oversight to keep Big corps honest. Brilliant!!
End Foreigh Aidoh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paulonomics-ron-paul-plans-taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.html
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:14 PM
...
oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paulonomics-ron-paul-plans-taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.htmlMe, I find the idea of borrowing $1.2 trillion/year from other countries and then giving it out as 'aid' to still other* countries as nuts.
*Edit: Or giving back to the same ones. The US even gives even gives a little foreign aid to China.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/15/lawmakers-scrutinize-us-foreign-aid-china/
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:28 PM
Some of his *proposals*
he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?
Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.
Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.
OECD countries, combined corporate income tax rate. (http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3746,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html) US is second only to Japan:
Australia* 30.0
Austria 25.0
Belgium* 34.0
Canada 27.6
Chile* 20.0
Czech Republic 19.0
Denmark 25.0
Estonia* 21.0
Finland 26.0
France* 34.4
Germany* 30.2
Greece 20.0
Hungary* 19.0
Iceland 20.0
Ireland 12.5
Israel* 24.0
Italy* 27.5
Japan 39.5
Korea 24.2
Luxembourg* 28.8
Mexico 30.0
Netherlands* 25.0
New Zealand* 28.0
Norway 28.0
Poland* 19.0
Portugal* 26.5
Slovak Republic 19.0
Slovenia 20.0
Spain 30.0
Sweden 26.3
Switzerland* 21.2
Turkey 20.0
United Kingdom* 26.0
United States* 39.2
mheslep
Dec21-11, 12:44 PM
I watched Bill Buckley's 1988 Firing Line interview with Ron Paul the other night. Arg. Paul was just as rambling as a young man as he is today, 33 years later, so he's aged well. ;-)
The transcript is available here:
http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/displayTranscript.php?programID=1168
On the IRS:
Paul: ... If we don't keep the right records, can you imagine this tax simplification bill that just came out? If we don't learn those forms and do it right, we have a gun pointed at our head by the IRS and say, "You're going to be put in prison if you don't learn to fill out those forms".... We are guilty until proven innocent--
Buckley: No.
Paul: ... then we will go to jail they confiscate money from out banks --
Buckley: You got it a little bit wrong Dr Paul. Here is how it works. If the federal government --if the IRS --contests your tax, the presumption is theirs.
Paul: Right.
Buckley: But in any prosecution of you for a criminal trespass, the presumption is yours.
On Reagan, Tip O'neil's congress and spending:
Buckley: ... that's what Reagan wants, a constitutional amendment [to balance the budget].
Paul: ... that's a cop-out, because we have to ask, what were the number of vetoes that Ronald Reagan used in his term? You know, I did support Ronald Reagn in 1976, but, you know, I sincerely believe I owe Gerald Ford and apology. Because Gerald Ford vetoed more bills, percentage wise, than Ronald Reagn ever did. So Ronald Reagn did not really follow through.
Buckley: No, Dr Paul listen. You know and I know and everybody knows that you know and I know [laughter] that the techniques of handling presidential obstructionism were devised by Tip O'Neil during the past 15 years to make it easy to get around. What they simply do is amalgamate everything into one big bill. So there is the President of the US. he finds out he either vetoes this bill in which case the zoos close in Washington and the animals die or else he signs it. [laughter] Now, he is also been after the line item veto. When Ford was vetoing every other day of his life, he was getting bills for $50-100-200 million, $300 million. But that's not the kind of bills they have been giving the president of the US in the last congressional generation. They have been giving two-time bills, $500 billion, $400 billion, $200 billion.
Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation. But that's the tax rate before all of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.
FlexGunship
Dec21-11, 02:13 PM
Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).
I'm just saying...
Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).
I'm just saying...That's another good point, his entire campaign is based on nonsense and false promises. BUT, he can steal enough votes if he runs as an independant to cause the GOP choice to lose the bid for Presidency.
mheslep
Dec21-11, 03:00 PM
But that's the tax rate before al of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.Yep, about half of large corps pay less than half that rate effectively, while many of the small companies without the same access to tax avoidance pay the full freight. I expect the large companies like it that way, keeps out the little guy competition with their troublesome disruptive ideas. It's been posted already in this thread that Paul intends to do away with many of the loopholes, as does much of the current GOP (not all), and, even if he didn't, the loopholes don't pay as well at a lower marginal rate which levels the playing field.
mheslep
Dec21-11, 04:07 PM
Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.I doubt it. I certainly point to China as an example of economic success, but without political freedom. I also grant China has bad pollution problems. But I ask, as compared to what? The Chinese are no longer denuding their country side because, as in extremely poor countries, wood is their only fuel and building material and farming/ranching is the only way to make a living. Also, I'd suggest that Chinese pollution is a temporary phase, as once one rises out of subsistence living clean air and water can become a primary concern. If the Chinese get some political freedom I expect they'll do something about that.
That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations.Yes, I suggest the attempt to regulate everything can only lead to bad regulations and cronyism.
mheslep
Dec21-11, 04:42 PM
... Try somewhere like Norway as a better example (e.g. the oil industry is 100% state controlled with profits taxed at more than 80%, but there's nothing much wrong with the standard of living or the quality of the environment).Eh, Statoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil)is a company 2/3 owned by the government, not run by it, similar I suppose to the current General Motors - US ownership situation. And Statoil is far from the beginning and end of the Norwegian oil industry in the North Sea.
The more relevant point here for me is that a citizenry of only some four million has managed a government that oversees the environment reasonably. I doubt Norwegians would welcome Brussels stomping in, claiming the Norwegian government lacks resources, or small governments will be overrun by big companies, etc, so an ever more thoughtful EU EPA will now watch over things. I suspect my state of ~six million could manage as well.
Jimmy Snyder
Dec21-11, 04:43 PM
What's the difference between a regulation and a law? Do the good laws against murder and theft only lead to bad laws and cronyism? If they pass a regulation preventing my neighbor from poisoning my well does that put us on the slippery slope to chaos and mayhem? How about a law instead?
mheslep
Dec21-11, 04:50 PM
Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation.
...requires congressional approval of a major rule -- one that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more -- before it can take effect. ...
The bill says that if Congress doesn't approve the rule within a certain time period, the rule is deemed not to have been approved and it shall not take effect,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/645/require-congressional-approval-for-major-regulatio/
feathermoon
Dec21-11, 05:08 PM
I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.?
I'm not trying to argue against your point, for I've not fully thought it through so well that I can agree or disagree fully or just in part. But, I'll agree that currently the worst environmental damage is occurring in poorer countries.
Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).
I'm just saying...
Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills?
Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills?
One thing I have noticed is that with monolithic systems like government, it has become default to pass the buck and blame someone else.
Also due to the nature of such monolithic systems, it becomes harder and harder to assign absolute responsibility to any one person or group, and that unfortunately is a nice thing for politics.
It's not to say that people are not 'actually' responsible (because they are), but its just the unfortunate nature of the system.
Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/645/require-congressional-approval-for-major-regulatio/
While true, their authority is derived by Congress who delegates authority to the agency that does the regulating (well, at least in the case of the NRC and DOT). I imagine it's the same with other Departments as well (that they are established and derive their authority by an Act of Congress).
mheslep
Dec22-11, 10:27 AM
I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.? ...I can't see how the two compare; the Aral was the 4th largest lake in the world.
mheslep
Dec22-11, 11:04 AM
Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).I don't know. Of course the President can not unilaterally overturn the Federal Reserve Act. He requires positive action by the Congress, new legislation to do that. He does however have the power to appoint Fed Chairmen, so he could certainly appoint someone that will pursue only tight money policy, open the Fed books to auditing, etc, somebody like Jim Grant (http://statesmansentinel.com/2011/10/26/ron-paul-names-his-choice-for-fed-chairman/). The appointment is subject to Senate approval, but again for a newly elected P. he will get his way for awhile, and even if not, as the current President has demonstrated, he can do rolling recess appointments.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).A newly elected President might push that through the Senate, as there is already substantial agreement. The usual defense of catering to the rich won't stick to a President Paul.
Gokul43201
Dec22-11, 11:42 AM
Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.htmlHe's losing to Romney in the latest poll.
Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll
(AFP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has retaken the lead among Republican White House contenders in Iowa less than two weeks before it holds the first nominating contest, a poll said Thursday.
The former Massachusetts governor and on-again, off-again favorite had appeared to slip behind former House speaker Newt Gingrich in recent weeks, but the poll by Rasmussen Reports showed Romney regaining momentum.
The poll showed Romney with 25 percent support, followed by small-government champion Ron Paul at 20 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent, with the remainder of the candidates at 10 percent or less.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hjqSelHet5Ma3y2HPRXuGFn8nY7A?docId=CNG.e2eaa 3a1d5b6df35ac9841bb3a6ef85b.a1
John Creighto
Dec22-11, 01:10 PM
Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...
Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.
He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.
mheslep
Dec22-11, 06:23 PM
He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.
As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:
mheslep
Dec22-11, 07:38 PM
It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:Well that's why he's not going to be President. :tongue2:
mheslep
Dec22-11, 07:43 PM
Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Johnson/
Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_JohnsonThey're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?
There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?
This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 07:59 PM
Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_JohnsonJohnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.
He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?
mheslep
Dec22-11, 08:03 PM
They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?
There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?Well Johnson has been in from nearly the beginning, just didn't poll high enough to get in all of the debates. Anyway, yeah its too late now for brand new faces. A Santorum or a Huntsman could surge with a campaign already on the ground. A large chunk of the delegates get committed in the primaries to somebody in March, 3 months. I agree with Intrade: this is Romney's race now that Newt's bubble broke, 68% chance. Romney's serious, he has his pace, is not prone to mistakes. If he picks a strong VP*, and there are several very strong candidates, I think he beats the President if the economy stays flat.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757
What's Obama going to do on that score BTW, Biden being a heartbeat away an all that? President Biden?
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 08:04 PM
It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:I recall your caution against these threads on politicians degenerating into name-calling.
Paul's positions seem to me to be consistent with his political philosophy (libertarianism), which might in itself be viewed as extremist to a fault, but I don't think it should be characterized as crazy.
When considered wrt most of the GOP candidates, Paul doesn't seem all that crazy (or incompetent, or ill-prepared, or oportunistically slimey). But I suppose that that view isn't really saying much for Paul.
The question wrt the GOP nomination has been framed around which candidate the 'Christian right' will go for. They don't seem to be too happy with the candidates that had previously been supposed to be their obvious choices.
Romney's Mormon association is a big negative for him. Newt comes off as being too smart sometimes. Too few people are familiar with Huntsman. Paul has been around for a long time, but at the rate that he accrues new supporters he would have to be around until (I figure) the mid 2100's to actually get nominated for, much less elected to, the presidency. :smile:
Who do you think Romney would pick?
...he's not going to be President. :tongue2:
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.
They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?
There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?
This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.
Condy Rice, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush are all possibles. In the bad old days, conventions were brokered in smoke filled rooms. That's not supposed to happen these days. But if circumstances became dire enough, the party bosses and financial backers could conceivably subvert the process. All's fair in love and war.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
mheslep
Dec22-11, 08:09 PM
Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.Ok as of Nov 29. I missed that, though I'd heard him say he might earlier.
He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?Dunno, but I guess there's only room for one libertarian flag waiver inside the GOP. Right now that's Paul. I heard Johnson on air saying he visited Paul way back when, was warmly accepted until he told Paul he was going to run in the GOP upon which the "conversation quickly ended" and he was shown the door.
mheslep
Dec22-11, 08:11 PM
Who do you think Romney would pick?Rubio. Got to be.
mheslep
Dec22-11, 08:19 PM
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent...Yes, exactly. He can exert a great deal of influence IF he's reasonable. That is, if he agrees not to run independent in return for getting the nominee to accept some fraction of his policies, and I hope that would be to curtail military spending, then he'll get influence. On the other hand if starts the there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats routine (as he has before) I'm running independent, then he will have zero influence on the GOP, though he'll get Obama reelected.
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 08:21 PM
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.
Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.
Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:
Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:Don't forget Ross Perot.
Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:
Don't forget Ross Perot.
I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 08:41 PM
Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:Uh ... no. :smile: Not that it wouldn't be interesting. But I don't think that Nader drinks (though I don't know for sure). And I really don't want Paul to drink. Not even a little bit.
Also, I tend to smoke a few cigarettes when I'm drinking. I don't know about Paul, but I'm pretty sure that Nader doesn't smoke.
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 08:43 PM
I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the better.
Respectfully submitted,
SteveI voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.
I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.
I wish I didn't have to worry about politics, corruption and national decline. I have better things like physics to think about. But I'm forced to deal with the reality that current Republicans and Democrats have gone off the tracks of financial sanity as well as overboard on international regime changes and imposing neo-liberal democracy at the point of a gun.
Obviously, I'm a social liberal, a financial conservative and a non-interventionist. I must reject failed leadership, and threaten it with the only available 76 year old baby doctor.
Respectfully,
Steve
I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.
Respectfully submitted,
SteveNader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?
Irresponsible voting can have disastrous consequences.
On the positive side he lost the election for Gore.
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 09:26 PM
Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected.That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.
Was your goal to elect Bush?The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.
Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.
That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.
The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.
Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.
The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.
Exit polls showed New Hampshire staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[63] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choosing Gore over Bush by a large margin,[64] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, and while critics claim this shows Nader tipped the election to Bush
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader has tried to wriggle out of it, but the fact is, he caused it. No, he didn't intend to cause it, but there you go. Not thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
ThomasT
Dec22-11, 10:34 PM
The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.He 'stole' votes? What does that mean? He ran for a public office that he had the right, even the duty (in his supporters' as well as his own view), to run for. The fact of the matter is that nobody has any way of knowing how many votes he might have taken away from Bush and from Gore. But the all important point is that we shouldn't be thinking in those terms.
Nader has tried to wriggle out of it ...
YEQ5G_w324k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEQ5G_w324k&feature=related
hSJ-QtdD64M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSJ-QtdD64M
... but the fact is, he caused it.Or Bush caused it, or the SCOTUS caused it, or Gore caused it, or the Democratic Party caused it, or the Christian right caused it, or ... etc. The fact is that all of these factors had something to do with it -- but the most important factors, imo, were the incompetence of the Democratic party, and the complacency of US voters.
No, he didn't intend to cause it, but there you go. Not thinking.His thinking seems to me to be quite a bit deeper and much more passionate wrt improving America than that of those who would have had him not run.
About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.
ThomasT
Dec23-11, 07:14 AM
About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.Good points, imho. But we'd better get back to discussing Ron Paul. You might start a new thread regarding your statements/points. I think it would be an interesting discussion, and I'd probably learn something.
I've watched a bunch of Ron Paul videos on youtube, dating from 25 years ago to recent weeks. I've come to the conclusion that he would be great to have as a family member, but I don't want him to be the president of the US.
This thread could probably be closed, except that there seem to be some diehard Paul supporters here at PF, and also that the Republican race is currently so unpredictable.
lpetrich
Dec23-11, 07:31 AM
About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. ...
There's a name for that effect: Duverger's law - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)
There are several alternatives that are used by other nations, and even some that are used a little bit here in the US. But I think that such possibilities deserve a thread of their own.
mheslep
Dec23-11, 10:53 AM
Don't forget Ross Perot.
Dana Carvey version, in case anyone forgets.
9xT8jS3Y1aQ
ThomasT
Dec23-11, 11:00 AM
Dana Carvey version, in case anyone forgets.
9xT8jS3Y1aQ:smile: I enjoyed that. Were you making a point or just a funny?
mheslep
Dec23-11, 11:05 AM
Nader, in case any one forgot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4SOzjAG4M#t=1m13s
mheslep
Dec23-11, 11:07 AM
:smile: I enjoyed that. Were you making a point or just a funny?Little of both.
ThomasT
Dec23-11, 12:04 PM
Nader, in case any one forgot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4SOzjAG4M#t=1m13sI don't know what you mean "Nader, in case anyone forgot". Forgot what? Ok, the skit is amusing, but is there a point to it -- besides the obvious fact that Nader was unable to raise sufficient funds? Is that, in itself, something to parady or something that we should be ashamed of? Just a question.
I don't know what you mean "Nader, in case anyone forgot". Forgot what? Ok, the skit is amusing, but is there a point to it -- besides the obvious fact that Nader was unable to raise sufficient funds? Is that, in itself, something to parady or something that we should be ashamed of? Just a question.I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.
Galteeth
Dec23-11, 05:36 PM
Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?
Irresponsible voting can have disastrous consequences.
On the positive side he lost the election for Gore.
This is a seriously flawed argument. You are assuming that Gore was an acceptable alternative to Nader voters.
Let me illustrate with the following hypothetical example:
A public vote is to be taken on the subject of making birth control illegal. The options are:
A: Make birth control use punishable by death
B: Make birth control use punishable by life imprisonment
C: Keep birth control legal
You are a supporter of keeping birth control legal. Options A and B are popular positions, while your own position is in the extreme minority.
"You voted for C? Was your goal to make birth control use punishable by death?"
If both options are morally unacceptable to you and it's a matter of degree, many would feel, regardless of the "pragmatism" of voting for option B, that they are morally obligated to vote for C.
Galteeth
Dec23-11, 05:38 PM
I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.
By the way, Nader has thrown in with Ron Paul.
Keeping this discussion current, anyone want to talk about the fact that Paul is now polling in the lead in Iowa? The media attacks?
Ron Paul may be hurt by recent resurrections of his opinions in his newsletters. Racism, homophobia, etc, don't play as well these days, though it may not hurt him in Iowa.
This is a seriously flawed argument. You are assuming that Gore was an acceptable alternative to Nader voters. I guess you failed to read this. I'm not assuming anything, you are telling political analysts that they're wrong. :rolleyes: google any political anaylsis of Nader's negative impact on Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
By the way, Nader has thrown in with Ron Paul.:rofl:
Keeping this discussion current, anyone want to talk about the fact that Paul is now polling in the lead in Iowa? The media attacks?Paul is losing to Romney by 5 percentage points as of yesterday's Rasmussen poll. It's posted in this thread. Did you read it? If you have a new mainstream poll from today, please link to it. I don't see one.
Galteeth
Dec23-11, 06:24 PM
:rofl:
Paul is losing to Romney by 5 percentage points as of yesterday's Rasmussen poll. It's posted in this thread. Did you read it? If you have a new mainstream poll from today, please link to it. I don't see one.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/new-poll-shows-paul-ahead-in-iowa-but-not-by-much/
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/new-poll-shows-paul-ahead-in-iowa-but-not-by-much/Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hjqSelHet5Ma3y2HPRXuGFn8nY7A?docId=CNG.e2eaa 3a1d5b6df35ac9841bb3a6ef85b.a1
And overall, Paul is really trailing.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Astronuc
Dec23-11, 06:49 PM
I think it will be Romney vs Obama.
Paul and Gingrinch are adept at self-destruction.
I think it will be Romney vs Obama.
Paul and Gingrinch are adept at self-destruction.Their pasts and their past positions will come back to haunt them. IMO, the resurrection of Paul's past racist/homophobic remarks along with assertions that the introduction of colored US banknotes is designed to track the spending of US citizens will sink him. Gringrich will sink himself. He seems unable to stop spewing garbage. A couple of days ago, he was urging the House GOP to pass a two-month extension on tax cuts and unemployment, and today he was slamming the fact that it passed the House.
The GOP is self-destructing in the run-up to 2012. I'm not happy about this, because we need 2 viable parties if we have to be governed by a 2-party system. Paul can't realistically be nominated by the GOP, and if Gingrich is nominated, female Republicans will stay away from the general election in droves because of all the baggage.
Here is candid assessment of Paul and his chances, and near-total condemnation of Romney and Gingrich from Timothy Egan in the pages of the NY Times. You will all love it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Astronuc
Dec25-11, 10:06 AM
George H W Bush endorses Romney -
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/12/23/george_h_w_bush_endorses_mitt_romney_not_fellow_te xan_rick_perry_for_gop_nomination.html
mheslep
Dec25-11, 05:33 PM
Here is candid assessment of Paul and his chances, and near-total condemnation of Romney and Gingrich from Timothy Egan in the pages of the NY Times. You will all love it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp
Respectfully submitted,
SteveHow is that you see the author condemns Romney, and do you see support for his assertion?
ThomasT
Dec26-11, 12:00 AM
How is that you see the author condemns Romney, and do you see support for his assertion?I would guess this quote:
Romney claimed, in November, that President Obama’s decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented “an astonishing failure.” True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home. Perhaps he’s been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives and treasury.
Not much of a 'condemnation' given the 'elasticity' of most politicians. But negative, imo, wrt the way I suppose that most people might assess it, nonetheless.
My own opinion is that I like a person, especially somebody in a leadership position, to change their mind on stuff as they learn more. Unfortunately for Romney, he just seems like a slimey political opportunist to me -- ie., a person with no real vision or plan for America (ie., he seems to me to be the sort that will say pretty much anything just to get elected).
ThomasT
Dec26-11, 12:04 AM
By the way, Nader has thrown in with Ron Paul.Well, that's it for me then. :smile: Unfortunately, I vowed some time ago to never again vote for either a Republican or a Democrat candidate.
ThomasT
Dec26-11, 12:28 AM
I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.Just FYI, a lot of (maybe most) Americans, at least wrt my limited experience, have no idea who Ralph Nader is. And we can thank the corporate media for that, imo.
Yes, I agree with you that he's a 'character'. And, imho, a really admirable one. He's a person who has committed his entire life to civic responsibility, which is a concept/idea which seems to be totally foreign, indeed condemnable, to most Americans.
Somebody is going to get elected to the presidency of the US. And this will be, imo, a function of appealing soundbites, media exposure, and, ultimately, pandering to the status quo.
A really strong candidate whose message and goal is returning power to the people has virtually no chance of being elected.
The US is a functioning oligarchy. And as long as that's the status quo, then committed people like Nader (and yes, Paul) will be marginalized and riduculed by the mainstream press. And most Americans couldn't care less.
But, to be fair, I do think that Paul is too old to be president. We, not that long ago, elected a really old person to the presidency (Reagan), and he spent his entire second term eating jellybeans and letting somebody else run things, because he was, in fact, senile for most of that time.
mheslep
Dec26-11, 01:07 AM
I would guess this quote:
Not much of a 'condemnation' given the 'elasticity' of most politicians. But negative, imo, wrt the way I suppose that most people might assess it, nonetheless.
My own opinion is that I like a person, especially somebody in a leadership position, to change their mind on stuff as they learn more. Unfortunately for Romney, he just seems like a slimey political opportunist to me -- ie., a person with no real vision or plan for America (ie., he seems to me to be the sort that will say pretty much anything just to get elected).
I do not see where Romney has changed his position on this one..
ThomasT
Dec26-11, 01:47 AM
I do not see where Romney has changed his position on this one..Romney claimed, in November, that President Obama’s decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented “an astonishing failure.” True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home. Perhaps he’s been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives and treasury.I don't know for sure. Did he change his mind or not? Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, as I've noted. It might suggest that Romney's learning, and not afraid to publicly reveal his changing ideas based on that learning. Or, it might reveal that Romney's just changing his public statements based on polls.
Personally, I think that he's a slimey political opportunist whose primary goal is getting elected. That is, I don't think he has any particular message or vision wrt improving America. I think he wants to be president, and, basically, that's it.
In my view, he's one of the least desirable, but probably one of the most electable, of the GOP candidates. Because he represents the oligarchical status quo. The corporate media isn't likely to marginalize him no matter how silly or slimily opportunistic he might seem to a lot of people. Which means that his gaffs will be glossed over, and most potential voters, not caring to do any real research, will simply go with his obviously 'normal' look and statements -- and vote for him.
As you might surmise. Imho, he's much worse than Paul.
ThomasT
Dec30-11, 03:20 AM
Apparently Paul is leading in some polls now. But there might be a problem, at least down the road, with his old newsletters. My personal opinion on that is that he should just be honest about it. He's a WASP. No secret there, and it appeals to LOTS of Americans.
We're, all of us, predjudiced and racist to certain extents. If you deny it, then you're just lying to yourself. But now Paul is caught in an interestingly ironic dilemma. He's running for president in the most transparently racist and predjudiced party, and yet he's forced by currently politically correct dialogue to deny his biases.
Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things. I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent. But that's changing -- at least it was, perhaps also somewhat ironically, until the more strict enforcement of immigration by the Obama administration. If America goes back to the pre-Obama status quo wrt immigration, then projections indicate that the US will be a Spanish speaking country by about 2070 -- with the WASP population only about 25% to 30% of the total population of the US.
It appears that neither Paul nor Obama would let that happen.
mheslep
Dec30-11, 11:20 AM
...Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things.There's little evidence that Paul believes as you suggest, though his campaign staff does appear to have attracted a few who do. Paul categorically denies any association with the racist views written by another in his newsletter.
I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent. Remind me, how did the current guy get in the White House again? How did Herman Cain manage to lead in the GOP polls for weeks?
ThomasT
Dec30-11, 04:08 PM
There's little evidence that Paul believes as you suggest, though his campaign staff does appear to have attracted a few who do. Paul categorically denies any association with the racist views written by another in his newsletter.
Remind me, how did the current guy get in the White House again? How did Herman Cain manage to lead in the GOP polls for weeks?Apparently my idle conjectures are inconsistent with empirical reality. But maybe not. Regarding the newsletter, of course Paul denies the biased views printed in it. And I don't want to believe that he ever held those sorts of views. But the problem is that it was his newsletter. It went out to the public bearing his name ... supposedly following his perusal and consent. So it seems a bit lame for him to deny that he was aware of its contents.
Regarding the biases of WASP (and WASC) Americans in general, yes, Obama did get elected. Maybe the biases of those groups have been affected by a few generations of increasingly more egalitarian modes of thinking in contrast to what I experienced growing up.
AlephZero
Dec30-11, 04:32 PM
Remind me, how did the current guy get in the White House again? How did Herman Cain manage to lead in the GOP polls for weeks?
Most probably, the same way as other "successful" politicians: get your message across to the 50% of the electorate who are below average intelligence and you are most of the way there already.
Some people have a natural instinct about doing that, others work hard at it. I couldn't possibly comment about where Obama and Cain fit on that sliding scale.
The rise and fall of New Labour in the UK, from Michael Foot through Kinnock, Blair, Brown, and the "two Eds are better than one" (Balls and Millipede) would make an excellent case study.
..."successful" politicians: get your message across to the 50% of the electorate who are below average intelligence...
What would constitute success for Dr. Paul? Neither his most ardent supporters, we here at PF, the mainstream media, nor Paul himself actually anticipates a President Ron Paul, I'm sure. Yet here he is threatening to win the Iowa caucuses, now less than a week away.
If it comes pass that Paul does well enough to get the consideration of Austrian economics and other libertarian ideas into open, legitimate public discourse, then likely he will have already won.
"End the Fed" (central bank) is now well-accepted among the Republican candidates. So that is early evidence that Paul is making history.
Many of his most ardent supporters are the college kids and others who are internet savvy. So his movement can only grow. To be a survivor after New Hampshire will tell us a lot.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
"End the Fed" (central bank) is now well-accepted among the Republican candidates.
If that's true, that is yet another reason the Republicans may well get squashed 10 months from now.
We are often taught that George Washington was the first president of the United States. That depends on what you mean by President and what you mean by the United States. In a very real sense, Washington was the eighth president, preceded by John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, Nathan Gorman, Arthur St. Clair, and Cyrus Griffin. So why don't we here of Washington's predecessors? The answer is simple: The US under the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment. We're seeing a repeat of that failure right now in western Europe.
Repeating those failed experiments a third time (at least a third time) would be insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
That insanity is exactly the path along which Paul and the Tea Party want to lead us.
I should have said "audit the Fed".
mheslep
Dec31-11, 03:31 PM
If that's true, that is yet another reason the Republicans may well get squashed 10 months from now.It's not; they won't.
The US under the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment.Yes. However, there is no little evidence the USA has realized many of the objections raised by the anti federalists. They might argue that the USA is a failed experiment: over large and over extended military, over large and mounting debt, taxation grown far beyond anything announced or intended at the founding or even the 1916 income tax, federal programs run by an aristocracy of sorts, state police powers assumed by the federal government.
We're seeing a repeat of that failure right now in western Europe.The separate European nations did not fail prior to 1992 and Maastricht. The failure is now in the Union and in particular the adoption of a common currency across sovereign nations, which was predicted (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/keynote.pdf) to fail by many at its inception. They should have stopped at free trade among the several nations and left well enough alone.
...Repeating those failed experiments a third time (at least a third time) would be insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
That insanity is exactly the path along which Paul and the Tea Party want to lead us.Paul does not call for the end of the Union; one existed for some time prior to the creation of the Fed. The insanity here is to look abroad at the consequences of debt and overspending, see our own debt and overspending and continue business as usual. Paul has some nutty ideas about the Fed and currency. But his clearly announced spending cuts, or something like them, is the only sane path forward.
It's not; they won't.
Yes. However, there is no little evidence the USA has realized many of the objections raised by the anti federalists. They might argue that the USA is a failed experiment: over large and over extended military, over large and mounting debt, taxation grown far beyond anything announced or intended at the founding or even the 1916 income tax, federal programs run by an aristocracy of sorts, state police powers assumed by the federal government.
The separate European nations did not fail prior to 1992 and Maastricht. The failure is now in the Union and in particular the adoption of a common currency across sovereign nations, which was predicted (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/keynote.pdf) to fail by many at its inception. They should have stopped at free trade among the several nations and left well enough alone.
Paul does not call for the end of the Union; one existed for some time prior to the creation of the Fed. The insanity here is to look abroad at the consequences of debt and overspending, see our own debt and overspending and continue business as usual. Paul has some nutty ideas about the Fed and currency. But his clearly announced spending cuts, or something like them, is the only sane path forward.
No it is not the only sane path forward. His spending cuts are dramatic. In the current weak economy, the only thing that laying off 2M military personel would do is cause another recession. Almost any cut at all in government spending would effect real people. Real people getting laid off further weakens the economy.
By far the most important factor to reducing the deficit is to grow the economy. The projected future deficits are around 600B per year, meaning 900B of the current deficits are because of the weak economy. While I agree that cuts will have to be made, and we can start with them now, drastic cutting will only make our situation worse.
Vanadium 50
Dec31-11, 07:39 PM
By far the most important factor to reducing the deficit is to grow the economy.
Ah, but which part of the economy? Harry Reid, for example, has said that the private sector part is doing just fine, and that it's the public sector that needs the jobs. Clearly the two parties have two different viewpoints.
mheslep
Dec31-11, 07:51 PM
No it is not the only sane path forward. His spending cuts are dramatic. In the current weak economy, the only thing that laying off 2M military personel would do is cause another recession. Almost any cut at all in government spending would effect real people. Real people getting laid off further weakens the economy.
By far the most important factor to reducing the deficit is to grow the economy. The projected future deficits are around 600B per year, meaning 900B of the current deficits are because of the weak economy. While I agree that cuts will have to be made, and we can start with them now, drastic cutting will only make our situation worse.
It is the spending increases that have been dramatic. Returning spending to the levels of 3-5 years ago is not.
Ah, but which part of the economy? Harry Reid, for example, has said that the private sector part is doing just fine, and that it's the public sector that needs the jobs. Clearly the two parties have two different viewpoints.
Fine is obviously an overstatement. Its doing "ok", but not good. The private sector will probably finish the year adding around 300k jobs more then population growth, while the governments (federal, state and local) will probably shed around that same number. So from that perspective its doing ok. I think I read that normally the "governments" add around 12k jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. So the government is one of the weak sectors of the economy, but by no means is it the only problem plaguing us, as I think Reid was insinuating.
ron paul is awesome, that is all. He's such a lunatic that he wants to end a war that has been running on for 10 years, hell if Ron Paul was president in 2008 we would of been out of Iraq in 2008. He's so loony that he doesn't want to dictate people's personal behavior...oh yeah. He's so loony he wants to follow the document that gives very specific details to what the federal government can and cannot do. He wants to end a federal reserve that isn't even in the constitution, and get rid of agencies that aren't in the constitution. He's such a lunatic man.
It is the spending increases that have been dramatic. Returning spending to the levels of 3-5 years ago is not.
2008 federal budget was 2.9 trillion. 2012 is set to be around 3.7T. If you adjust 2008's budget for inflation and population growth at a fairly conservative method of 4% per year you end up in 2012 with 3.39T. So from your perspective, increased government spending is only about 300B of the problem, which doesn't differ too far from my previous post, when I said 900B was because of the recession. Which would leave about 300B to being the problem of taxatation.
2008 federal budget was 2.9 trillion. 2012 is set to be around 3.7T. If you adjust 2008's budget for inflation and population growth at a fairly conservative method of 4% per year you end up in 2012 with 3.39T. So from your perspective, increased government spending is only about 300B of the problem, which doesn't differ too far from my previous post, when I said 900B was because of the recession. Which would leave about 300B to being the problem of taxatation.In the latter part of 2008 the large jump in deficit spending had already begun. The inflation corrected 2007 spending of $2.73 trillion becomes $3.0 trillion in 2011, against the $3.6 trillion that was actually spent, an increase of $600B over inflation in a time reduced revenue, large debt loads, and entitlement obligations. I don't know why population growth must correlate with, say, defense spending. So as I said above it is the spending increase that is dramatic.
BTW:
laying off 2M military personel ...Nobody is talking about laying off 2m military personnel. The size of the active duty US military is ~1.5m, another 1.5 m in the reserves. Paul's proposed 2013 defense budget of $500B (http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/chart9-b.jpg) is still greater than Reagan's (in today's dollars) at the peak of his defense spending in the cold war. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1970_2011USk_12s1li111mcn_30f) Also note that the military downsized 12 million to 1.5 million in 1945 to 1947 without putting vast numbers in the soup lines.
The projected future deficits are around 600B per year...The 2012 deficit is forecast as $1.1 trillion per the White House's OMB (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2007_2016USb_XXs1li111mcn_G0f). Predictions further out are hand waving bets on the economy and reflect no spending reforms.
fashizzle
Jan2-12, 10:10 AM
If that's true, that is yet another reason the Republicans may well get squashed 10 months from now.
We are often taught that George Washington was the first president of the United States. That depends on what you mean by President and what you mean by the United States. In a very real sense, Washington was the eighth president, preceded by John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, Nathan Gorman, Arthur St. Clair, and Cyrus Griffin. So why don't we here of Washington's predecessors? The answer is simple: The US under the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment. We're seeing a repeat of that failure right now in western Europe.
Repeating those failed experiments a third time (at least a third time) would be insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
That insanity is exactly the path along which Paul and the Tea Party want to lead us.
Not sure how this is relevant to the "End the Fed" quote in your post. The U.S was doing just fine before the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. Ever heard of the depression of 1920, and how it was dealt with as opposed to the tactics pursued by the Fed with the Great Depression?
Galteeth
Jan2-12, 10:17 AM
Apparently Paul is leading in some polls now. But there might be a problem, at least down the road, with his old newsletters. My personal opinion on that is that he should just be honest about it. He's a WASP. No secret there, and it appeals to LOTS of Americans.
We're, all of us, predjudiced and racist to certain extents. If you deny it, then you're just lying to yourself. But now Paul is caught in an interestingly ironic dilemma. He's running for president in the most transparently racist and predjudiced party, and yet he's forced by currently politically correct dialogue to deny his biases.
Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things. I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent. But that's changing -- at least it was, perhaps also somewhat ironically, until the more strict enforcement of immigration by the Obama administration. If America goes back to the pre-Obama status quo wrt immigration, then projections indicate that the US will be a Spanish speaking country by about 2070 -- with the WASP population only about 25% to 30% of the total population of the US.
It appears that neither Paul nor Obama would let that happen.
As regards the newsletters, I researched this issue quite a bit the last time around. Here is the conclusion I came to. Ron Paul released a popular newsletter while he was a libertarian gadfly in congress In 1985, he quit congress, and in 1988 he ran for president under the libertarian ticket. After that was unsuccessful he retired from politics and went back to being an obgyn. The newsletter subscriptions dwindled. Sometime around 1990, a new editorial staff took over, renamed it the "ron paul surivival report" and changed the tone of the newsletter. A certain author was employed from 1992 to 1993, who wrote extremely inflammatory articles with racist rhetoric (to be fair the letters sound a little, but not much, better in context.) At this point, Ron Paul had stopped paying attention to the newsletter, he hadn't payed much attention since his failed presidential run. When he ran for congress again in 1996, the issue came up, and he basically ducked it.
The Paul campaign has handled the issue poorly. They have not given enough in the way of explanation. I certainly don't think Paul wrote the letters, as it sounds nothing like anything he has ever said at any other point. I don't think he read them either. I doubt he knows the name of the writer. What he might know is who was on the editorial staff that allowed it to go out in the first place. Many in libertarian circle suspect Lew Rockwell, although I see this as largely speculation.
The thing with Paul's campaign is that has always been about spreading the message rather then about the individual Ron Paul. I think Paul has no interest in personal mistakes and scandals (which he has avoided talking about in regards to other candidates). He wants to talk about political issues. I think if his campaign was in a serious position to make a run, he has to address the issue thoroughly, and probably ultimately throw somebody under the bus.
So how does Ron Paul invest his money?
...Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different [from other Congressmen]. It’s shockingly different.
Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.
The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks. ...
about which, an investment manager says:
At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.:rofl::biggrin::rofl:
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2011/12/21/the-ron-paul-portfolio/
As regards the newsletters, I researched this issue quite a bit the last time around. Here is the conclusion I came to. Ron Paul released a popular newsletter while he was a libertarian gadfly in congress In 1985, he quit congress, and in 1988 he ran for president under the libertarian ticket. After that was unsuccessful he retired from politics and went back to being an obgyn. The newsletter subscriptions dwindled. Sometime around 1990, a new editorial staff took over, renamed it the "ron paul surivival report" and changed the tone of the newsletter. A certain author was employed from 1992 to 1993, who wrote extremely inflammatory articles with racist rhetoric (to be fair the letters sound a little, but not much, better in context.) At this point, Ron Paul had stopped paying attention to the newsletter, he hadn't payed much attention since his failed presidential run. When he ran for congress again in 1996, the issue came up, and he basically ducked it.
The Paul campaign has handled the issue poorly. They have not given enough in the way of explanation. I certainly don't think Paul wrote the letters, as it sounds nothing like anything he has ever said at any other point. I don't think he read them either. I doubt he knows the name of the writer. What he might know is who was on the editorial staff that allowed it to go out in the first place. Many in libertarian circle suspect Lew Rockwell, although I see this as largely speculation.
The thing with Paul's campaign is that has always been about spreading the message rather then about the individual Ron Paul. I think Paul has no interest in personal mistakes and scandals (which he has avoided talking about in regards to other candidates). He wants to talk about political issues. I think if his campaign was in a serious position to make a run, he has to address the issue thoroughly, and probably ultimately throw somebody under the bus.Thanks for your research. and your assessment (which is, imo, reasonable, and which I adopt in lieu of supported info to the contrary). I do remember Paul saying, to his credit, that he was still "responsible" for the content of the newsletters during the period when he apparently wasn't paying attention to that content.
Personally, I don't think Paul is anywhere near being a racist. I think that, like most of us (I'm assuming), he has a natural affinity for his own culture and maybe has some sort of personal ethnic identity. But, like lots of us, but maybe not most (again, just assuming), I think that he's aware of how this could bias his judgements and therefore tries consiously to not let that happen.
So, for me, the newsletter thing isn't important (though, as you mention, if he does become a serious contender, then he's going to have to "address the issue thoroughly" -- probably on national tv). Imo, there are other, much more important issues wrt which Paul's positions, while consistent with libertarian values, are contrary to the well-being and improvement of America.
So how does Ron Paul invest his money?
( ... snip interesting stuff from post #242 ...)Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?
I like a lot of Ron Paul's idea, but my main beef with libertarianism is that it sometimes equals, and shouldn't equal, lack of taking responsibility.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 09:47 AM
I like a lot of Ron Paul's idea, but my main beef with libertarianism is that it sometimes equals, and shouldn't equal, lack of taking responsibility.
I think differently, I think libertarians are forced to embody the height of responsibility. Individuals become responsible for their actions. I think most people dislike libertarianism because it tends to take away the control they have over their neighbors. Everyone loves to control "the other guy."
I think differently, I think libertarians are forced to embody the height of responsibility. Individuals become responsible for their actions. I think most people dislike libertarianism because it tends to take away the control they have over their neighbors. Everyone loves to control "the other guy."
We probably agree. Nobody should meddle into the affairs of others when they have no right to do so. But that's the thing, libertarianism ends with the question: If your neighbors are starving what are you going to do?
I personally have the feeling that we are at a junction in global problems. Roughly described as A) either people shape up, and take some responsibility to solving things, or B) at some time in the future the military will shape up, and nuke all global existential problems out of existence.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 10:16 AM
We probably agree. Nobody should meddle into the affairs of others when they have no right to do so. But that's the thing, libertarianism ends with the question: If your neighbors are starving what are you going to do?
As someone who just donated time in a food shelter AND a soup kitchen over the holiday season, I often insulted by the question of "what would we do for our starving neighbors." Weirdly, the question is most often asked by people who are not involved in charity at all. The reason people ask that question is because they NEED TO BE FORCED to help people in need.
The answer is "feed them."
When someone says "without welfare, people would starve!" What I really hear is "if you don't take money from me at gunpoint, I refuse to help other people!"
I personally have the feeling that we are at a junction in global problems. Roughly described as A) either people shape up, and take some responsibility to solving things, or B) at some time in the future the military will shape up, and nuke all global existential problems out of existence.
It won't be "the military" it will be many militaries. The fact is that some unnamed religious groups will continue to exert their maximum influence for the maximum amount of time.
Either we (as a species) will continue to tolerate that behavior under the auspices of "religious and cultural diversity" or we (as a species) won't.
As someone who just donated time in a food shelter AND a soup kitchen over the holiday season, I often insulted by the question of "what would we do for our starving neighbors." Weirdly, the question is most often asked by people who are not involved in charity at all. The reason people ask that question is because they NEED TO BE FORCED to help people in need.
The answer is "feed them."
When someone says "without welfare, people would starve!" What I really hear is "if you don't take money from me at gunpoint, I refuse to help other people!"
Our grand neo-liberal leader, our prime minister, of our private soccer support group agrees with you. He's very well-known for a quote: "The government is not a good-fortune machine."
But that begs the question, if a government isn't a good-fortune machine [for the public], then what is it?
I expect my government to solve the problems I cannot. That's why I pay taxes. They should specialize in solving my neighbor's problems since I have no rights there, and for the rest they should have the determination to solve the problems of the next century, since I cannot.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 10:41 AM
But that begs the question, if a government isn't a good-fortune machine [for the public], then what is it?
I expect my government to solve the problems I cannot. That's why I pay taxes. They should specialize in solving my neighbor's problems since I have no rights there, and for the rest they should have the determination to solve the problems of the next century, since I cannot.
What is government? Its a group of officials elected to carry out tasks too large for individuals in society. Building interstates, for example, is a task too large to be organized by individuals; feeding your neighbor, as another example, is not.
I'm not actually explicitly against welfare and certainly not against public food programs. But I am against the compulsory charitable contributions. I'd feel better if I could choose how my money was spent.
This year you spent $1400 on welfare programs. How would you like those funds dispersed?
Directly as nutritious food
Directly as housing subsidies
Directly as heating subsidies
As a check
Guess what, I wouldn't choose "as a check."
Guess what, I wouldn't choose "as a check."
The reality probably is that it doesn't matter. People [with low income] will need to spend their income on food and housing. I personally would say it's irrelevant.
A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties
A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties
Which is my point. If the government doesn't work anymore for the welfare of the public, the public ends up starving. It's their role, weaseling out of it just shows lack of responsibility.
[ I personally think (extreme) libertarianism is a defeatist stance against: Hey, we tried to solve some problems the last decade, and failed. Lets stop solving, and see where that gets us. I personally would say: God, man, don't give up, just try again. ]
social darwinism man. When you say the government needs to spend money to fix my neighbor's problems, that just translates to me having to pay for my neighbor's woes. I'm a rugged individualist and do not believe in any form of aid and everyone can forge their own destinies. The lazy are the ones asking everyone else to fix their problems
social darwinism man. When you say the government needs to spend money to fix my neighbor's problems, that just translates to me having to pay for my neighbor's woes. I'm a rugged individualist and do not believe in any form of aid and everyone can forge their own destinies. The lazy are the ones asking everyone else to fix their problems
Social darwinism is a perversion of humane goals. You'll end up with fascism down that route. If your neighbor is starving, you either take care of it yourself, or you organize a public 'decent' endeavor to solve the problems in a professional, and just, manner. And the latter is preferred, since individuals have little to no rights intervening in the matters of other individuals, the collectivized public government, after pondering a lot about the ethics of intervening, on that other hand, does have that right. [ Since the public gave them that right after determining that individually, people just suck at ethics. ]
Btw. As I said before, I agree with a lot what Ron Paul says, certainly with civil rights. But not with economics, the role of the government, or international policy.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 11:21 AM
The reality probably is that it doesn't matter. People [with low income] will need to spend their income on food and housing. I personally would say it's irrelevant.
I watched a woman get into a fight with a cashier because she wasn't allowed to use food stamps to buy Red Bull.
That really happened. In real life. Real people were involved. What possible role could Red Bull (an expensive energy drink) play in a balanced tight-budget diet?
A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties
That's not necessarily true. That's like saying "a Republican would never raise taxes." Or "a Democrat would never cut entitlements." Practicality and ideology often clash. In the case of welfare, even a libertarian would be forced to provide something. It might look different, come in a different amount, or seek to accomplish a different goal... but it wouldn't just disappear.
That really happened. In real life. Real people were involved. What possible role could Red Bull (an expensive energy drink) play in a balanced tight-budget diet?
Well, she has some right to spend her 'money' in her own way. But, it's also somewhat irrelevant. It's not her response, but your response which matters. You won't always get kudos for doing the right thing. Take some pride in that you, and your government, did the right thing; despite some individuals.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 12:36 PM
Well, she has some right to spend her 'money' in her own way.
Hardly! It's not her money. It's money that was taken forcibly from the populous and given to her for the purpose of meeting baseline nutrition... so that she wouldn't starve to death. Welfare (and food stamps) are not supposed to be a luxury.
In my mind, if you don't have enough food to buy bread and milk, then you CERTAINLY don't have enough money to buy Red Bull. Take a second to really process those events:
Woman is hungry: "please, help me, I'm out of work and I'm starving!"
Government agrees to help: "Okay, fine, these people have some extra cash, we'll grab it from them so you don't die of starvation"
Government gives the money to the woman: "here you are ma'am, it took the threat of incarceration, but we took money from other people so that you could eat"
Woman gets food stamps: "Hmm, food stamps? So I can only buy food with these?" "Well, yeah, obviously... you said you were starving."
Woman is incredibly ungrateful for the help: "what do you mean I can't buy sugar lumps, chocolate lollipops, and energy drinks with my food stamps?"
I cannot possibly sympathize with your argument.
I cannot possibly sympathize with your argument.
Ah well, it's social-democrat versus libertarian, so I don't think we can possibly agree. I will give you and Paul the kudos for believing that you are doing the right thing. Looks decent to me.
If you can't afford milk and bread, you are not looking for a job. I refuse to believe that someone couldn't afford to eat in this country. I know a girl who came here from vietnam with virtually no money at age 19 (now is 24) and has had to forge her entire destiny without the help of the government, and is managing to get through school (as an electrical engineer no less) and is able to atleast feed herself, have a room that she can live in, and pay for her own education (which I should mention cost a lot more for an international student than a U.S. citizen). With that in mind, I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.
I should also mention my friend managed to find menial jobs even though she didn't even speak english hardly at all when coming here, she'd do any job no matter what it was no matter the pay, even going as far as to make $3/hr working at vietnamese restaurants as a dishwasher without knowing about minimum wage laws and being grateful to god for even having a wage of $3/hr.
Rugged individualism, man.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 12:57 PM
Ah well, it's social-democrat versus libertarian, so I don't think we can possibly agree. I will give you and Paul the kudos for believing that you are doing the right thing. Looks decent to me.
Well, I'm not voting for Ron Paul, anyway. I was just playing devil's advocate. Libertarianism is the CORRECT ideology, but it's not practical; the question is whether you should restart from a libertarian society and move away from it again (i.e. start at 1776 in the U.S. and head to the present).
I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming "it's her money, she can do what she wants with it." It's my money, and she may only use it to meet her base nutritional requirements so she doesn't die while trying to rejoin society.
I should also mention my friend managed to find menial jobs even though she didn't even speak english hardly at all when coming here, she'd do any job no matter what it was no matter the pay, even going as far as to make $3/hr working at vietnamese restaurants as a dishwasher without knowing about minimum wage laws and being grateful to god for even having a wage of $3/hr.
Rugged individualism, man.
Another strong argument for abolishing the minimum wage law. It basically amounts to discrimination against unskilled workers. My brother has Asperger's and would love to learn to work a cash register, or learn how to take inventory... but no one will hire him for minimum wage. When he offers to work for less... well... doesn't matter... it's illegal for him to take a job for less than minimum wage.
It's a law that discriminates against unskilled workers and it's grossly outdated.
EDIT: It's amazing to me that people who promote a higher minimum wage will not even take a breath before that go on to complain about the unemployment rate.
Char. Limit
Jan3-12, 01:39 PM
Another strong argument for abolishing the minimum wage law. It basically amounts to discrimination against unskilled workers. My brother has Asperger's and would love to learn to work a cash register, or learn how to take inventory... but no one will hire him for minimum wage. When he offers to work for less... well... doesn't matter... it's illegal for him to take a job for less than minimum wage.
I'd hardly call an argument based on two unprovable anecdotes a "strong" argument. Is there any data that indicates that unemployment would go down (and that poverty wouldn't rise sharply) from abolishing the minimum wage?
I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.
Ryan_m_b
Jan3-12, 01:54 PM
I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.
Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.
Not to mention the millions who have been made unemployed thanks to the current economic climate even though they are *highly* qualified. In the UK at the moment there are only several hundred thousand jobs (registered at jobcentreplus, the government employment organisation) yet millions of unemployed people. To assume that being poor or unemployed is the fault of the poor/unemployed individual is fallacious, to not think it was a virtue for society to take care of these people is callous.
Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.
Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 02:05 PM
I'd hardly call an argument based on two unprovable anecdotes a "strong" argument. Is there any data that indicates that unemployment would go down (and that poverty wouldn't rise sharply) from abolishing the minimum wage?
Uh. Illegal immigrants that have jobs exist? At least in the U.S. its a problem. When someone has a $3/hr job to fill (i.e. sweeping floors) it's illegal to hire a U.S. citizen to do it so they're forced to (a) hire someone illegally, (b) lose money, or (c) just leave the position empty.
Generally goods and services are priced based on value. The only exception is price-fixing (when the price of a good or service is artificially raised or lowered). What's the point of hiring someone at $7/hr to do a job that is only valued at $3/hr?
I'm always surprised when I see someone who has not made the connection between sub-minimum wage jobs and illegals working in the U.S. There is a 1:1 correlation.
EDIT: My housekeeper is grateful for the $5/hr I pay her. VERY grateful. I told her that's how much I would pay her to clean, and she was happy to accept it. It's totally mind-blitheringly illegal... but we both agreed to the terms. Both of us. She wanted work. I was hiring. I told her ahead of time. She knew ahead of time. There was no lying. I didn't deceive her. She's happy for the extra money. She likes having the extra money. She uses it to buy food and clothes and to participate in the economy.
But, yes, it's illegal.
DOUBLE EDIT: To be clear, I would not have hired ANYONE at minimum wage. The job wouldn't exist. This is a real-life example of job creation by avoiding the minimum wage. I have personally created a job. I'm a job creator. If I was forced to pay her $8/hr, I would have to fire her and should wouldn't get any money from me at all.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 02:06 PM
Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.
::FACEPALM::
Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.
Ryan_m_b
Jan3-12, 02:12 PM
Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.
Clearly you have no understanding of evolution, especially the significance of social cooperation in the success of species survival. This is becoming off topic, I suggest the topic returns to a discussion of Ron Paul's candidacy only.
Clearly you have no understanding of evolution, especially the significance of social cooperation in the success of species survival. This is becoming off topic, I suggest the topic returns to a discussion of Ron Paul's candidacy only.That would be nice.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 02:16 PM
And return to OP:
At this point in the race, I'd like to see Jon Huntsman win the candidacy; I'll be voting for him. I think it would be important for him to pick a more "fringe" running-mate, though. Ron Paul would be an interesting Vice President, don't you think? You'd have two sides of the same ideological coin, a social and economic moderate Republican president and a libertarian vice president.
If nothing else, they'd generate a lot of ideas as a team.
Char. Limit
Jan3-12, 02:17 PM
::FACEPALM::
Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.
Before we get back on topic, let me just say I'm glad that you find this guy as loopy as I do.
::FACEPALM::
Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.
Ideally I'm an anarchist, so I just do libertarian because it's the smallest government
Ideally I'm an anarchist, so I just do libertarian because it's the smallest governmentGet back to the topic or please stop posting.
One little wrinkle in Paul's campaign. Many of his most ardent supporters/canvassers are actually too young to vote or participate in the caucuses. At least I'm assuming that you have to be a registered voter, as is the case in Maine.
FlexGunship
Jan3-12, 02:56 PM
One little wrinkle in Paul's campaign. Many of his most ardent supporters/canvassers are actually too young to vote or participate in the caucuses. At least I'm assuming that you have to be a registered voter, as is the case in Maine.
Yeah, it's odd that he has so many young supporters. I'm sure a lot of what he says appeals to a certain naivete on the surface, but that's not to be confused with the way his ideas can appeal more completely to a sound economic thinker.
Paul's push to reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve is a genuinely good idea. He wants to abolish it entirely, and that might be a little too far, but it's clear that the Federal Reserve has an anti-market tendency because its an enabler of the "bust" part of boom-and-bust cycles by cyclically devaluing the money in circulation.
Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?No, not at all. My point was his investment ideas are ... unusual in the extreme.
... To assume that being poor or unemployed is the fault of the poor/unemployed individual is fallacious,
It is not the fault of the poor/unemployed, it is the fault of the bloated state and the people that created it.
to not think it was a virtue for society to take care of these people is callous.'society' does not have virtue, society does not take care of people. Individuals, people take care of people.
It is not the fault of the poor/unemployed, it is the fault of the bloated state and the people that created it.
'society' does not have virtue, society does not take care of people. Individuals, people take care of people.And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? Consider that many of these were working, contributing citizens before they fell on hard times.
Speaking of Ron Paul and compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded
I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this video, but I suppose it could only be an ad. What do you think?
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Speaking of Ron Paul and compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded
I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this video, but I suppose it could only be an ad. What do you think?
Respectfully submitted,
SteveIt states that it's an ad.
It states that it's an ad.
But is it authentic?
Respectfully,
Steve
But is it authentic?
Respectfully,
SteveHow often are ads authentic?
How often are ads authentic?
I'm not always sure.
Yours,
Steve
But is it authentic?Political ads are fiction and spin.
Paul's past newsletters are homophobic, conspiracy-theory diatribes, laced with racism. He has said that 95% of the black males in DC are either criminals or semi-criminal. That is not a claim that a thoughtful, decent person would make.
IMO, the next move is for Paul to come out with an ad that says that he really doesn't think that the US government conspired with gays to down-play the AIDs epidemic. The guy is quite a nut-case, and his past will come back to haunt him over and over again even if he does OK in Iowa.
And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? ...There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?
There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?How many individuals would help if it was 100% voluntary? What would they do, pay my rent, my doctor and hospital bills, my food, clothing, etc...?
There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.
We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.
Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.
Just listen to Ron Paul talk man. During debates or whenever he is on TV, he speaks his mind and stays on topic with whatever he believes will help the country. I know he would never succumb to lobbyists, unlike the rest of the candidates. That alone would be enough for me to vote for him.
Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.
Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.
We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.
Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.What do you hope to accomplish with this list of unfounded assertions and strawmen, assuming to speak for all average people? Should I respond "collectivists like Obama are dangerous, IMO", so there?
Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net, he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound, which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual. He also focuses only on the limitations of the federal government. I read opinions forgetting that the federal government is not the only government in these United States.
Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?
We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?
Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.
When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.
Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.
I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.
Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.
Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent?I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. Hence, it seems necessary for the federal government to maintain an array of at least basic social services and aid for those who, for whatever reasons, can't provide it for themselves.
Paul's being against that sort of federal involvement is, for me, one of the main reasons to not vote for him.
Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.
I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.
Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.
I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.
It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.
Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.Thanks, I was told to give you a break because you were just a kid.
When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.
Well I would hate to go off-topic as per your rules. But, Ron Paul would get rid of social security in a heartbeat if he could.
Why would you need to pay into social security. I want to know, when you put money in, how is it expected that you will get back more than you put in? Where does this money come from, and how is it going to work on a large scale?
If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway. And yes I know it's not a libertarian society, but atleast ron paul wouldn't have the gall to invade another country to force upon other regions of the world to have the same government as us, unlike previous presidents.
Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net ...From reading a list of his positions on various issues I got the impression that that is what he, eventually, would like to see happen.
... he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound ...That's how anybody wanting to abolish the federal social safety net would have to start.
... which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual.I agree with you that lots of changes can and should be made. What I fear from an extreme libertarian like Paul is that, imo, his ultimate goal would be to abolish the federal aid system(s) altogether. Which, imo, would do much more harm than good.
lpetrich
Jan3-12, 06:36 PM
All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.
If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.
Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.
That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?
Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/03/santorum-paul-compete-to-prove-pro-life-credentials/)
He authored the 2003 federal partial-birth abortion ban. He supported another federal law to give legal rights to infants born alive after failed abortions, and one that acknowledged unborn children as victims if they are hurt or killed in a violent crime.
So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."
What do you mean statist on one issue? He's a statist on most issues.
Edit: why does fox new's motto say ''Fair and Balanced''?
Jimmy Snyder
Jan3-12, 06:41 PM
I think the idea is that if you tax rich people, then they won't invest in new companies and the end result will be fewer jobs. If I'm right about that, then the obvious solution to our country's woes is to give all of the money to a single individual. That should create the most jobs.
DavidSnider
Jan3-12, 06:44 PM
All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.
If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.
Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.
That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?
Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/03/santorum-paul-compete-to-prove-pro-life-credentials/)
So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."
Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.
It's fine to disagree with him, but at least disagree on his actual positions rather than a caricature of him.
If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?
They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.
:uhh:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html
Jimmy Snyder
Jan3-12, 07:14 PM
If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.
I'll help you pack.
You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?
They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.
:uhh:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html
You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.
Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.
You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.
Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.
Look at the taxes for the social benefits.
I thought you didn't want the government taking care of you, now you want that. :rolleyes: Why would Ron Paul have any say in Norway's government? What on earth are you going on about? You think the US is trying to change the way Norway's government runs things? :bugeye:
I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.
Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.
It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.
Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".
Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".True. My wife and I live within our means. Maxing out on SS contributions for a few decades does not mean that we are "rich". Staying debt-free and living within our means has left us comfortable. We never spent money on vacations and "luxury" goods.
Very few of the vociferous anti-tax people on the right can claim that, IMO. Even without my wife's income, I was in the top 2% of earners for many years, and we socked away money. If the US gov't had increased the marginal rates for income tax, it wouldn't have fazed me a bit. The anti-tax nuts hollering about apocryphal predictions are bomb-tossers. Ron Paul is out on the margins, once you get into sections of the electorate that actually produce wealth and earn decent livings. We deserve better in our candidates.
Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.
Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".
It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.
To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"
And I don't want freebies when I'm in a country that has libertarian upbringings. The government was supposed to be small...the fed would of been set up at the beginning if it was intended there be a national bank. Maybe the Norweigan people want socialism? Let Norway determine Norway, Iraq determine Iraq, and the USA be the USA without imposing USA on Iraq or Norway. Maybe I just like the climate of Norway and thats why I want to live there?
The government in the USA turned into something that it was never meant to be by the founders.There is a very specific document that clearly lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, and yet it is just ignored.
Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.
Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.It might be a good idea if you could support that claim. Paul is a Federalist, not a Libertarian, IMO. He would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because those impinged on the "rights" of southern states to suppress the rights of minorities to have access to voting and public access to public amenities. His newsletters are out there for all to see. He is not fit to be a candidate for the Presidency.
It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.Oh please. I paid the maximum for the last 20+ years, I'm not rich.
To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"Ok, that is a blatant falsification of what was being discussed. We were discussing Norway's social programs.
He would repeal the act because it impinged on the business's rights to choose who they want to serve. Why should the government tell you that you must serve every customer if you are a private enterprise?
You are eluding that he is racist, when it is so painstakingly obvious that he isn't. How could someone who is a major supporter (I mean his entire campaign is based on this) of individual civil liberties. Racism is a form of collectivism, and he is not a collectivist.
Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.
Respectfully submitted,
SteveHe lost, even though he stacked the caucus with his supporters, which are mostly "independants".
Read here, he's gone, which may not be so good, IMO. If the GOP chose Paul. analysts are saying it would be a landslide for Obama. It appears (from the mews) will be seeinhg Paul going down the tubes.
Santorum is scary, he has the Evangelist vote.
Many of Paul's voters identified themselves as independents, which may prove problematic for the libertarian-leaning congressman as the nomination calendar moves ahead to contests that are open only to Republican voters.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/iowa-razor-thin-result-indicates-fierce-battle-conservatives-065415792.html
lpetrich
Jan4-12, 12:43 PM
Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.
However, that can justify a heck of a lot of statism. What counts as "liberties"? It's not as self-evident as it might seem.
Furthermore, one can use a lot of anti-welfare-state and anti-statism rhetoric against even a minimal night-watchman state. One can argue that government protection is a form of welfare for those who are too lazy to protect themselves, for those who want to be protected with other people's money and other people's lives. One can argue that individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments are. One can argue that private-sector protection is much better than government protection. Private-sector protection like vigilante posses and volunteer militias and hired guards and mercenaries. One can argue that government protection has crowded out potentially-superior private-sector protection initiatives. One can argue that government protection makes creates dependency by making people dependent on government. Etc.
Back to Ron Paul, he certainly scored an impressive performance in Iowa, only a little behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the neck-and-neck front runners. But in 2008, he did much better in the caucuses than in the primaries proper, and what happened then is likely to happen this year. So the big test will be how well he does in New Hampshire.
Paul won't fly in NH. It should be a Romney blow-out with Santorum a distant second. Even with Gingrich as his wingman attacking Romney, Santorum won't fare well in NH. Just my opinion, but I think it's well-founded. New Hampshire voters tend to be conservatives, but they are not evangelicals, like you might find in the South and the heartland.
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) he will end up being a spoiler that will squander a GOP majority in the House. The "coattail" idea is simplistic, but the truth is that if your party is not enthused about the people at the top of the ticket, they might not flock to the polls, losing votes for your party-mates down-ticket.
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ...Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.
I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. ....Have you spent any time investigating the history?
Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it. He's the closest thing to a Libertarian that they have, so where do you think they will spend their money or steer their donors? Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.
People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.
Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it. CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.
Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.What do you care, with Obama's billion dollar campaign fund and not a word about it? Not a word about his blowing to pieces his public financing pledge in 2008.
Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.
CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.
Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.I'm referring mainly to Medicare, the 3:1 to 5:1 payout has been discussed in other threads.
http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/310667_Straight36.pdf Figure 2.
The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.You stated:
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ... without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?
Jimmy Snyder
Jan4-12, 03:31 PM
Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.
Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/iowa-razor-thin-result-indicates-fierce-battle-conservatives-065415792.html
Wow it's almost like Daily Show deja vu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo). #1 and #2 pictured prominently while #4 and #5 get video spots. Well, at least Ron Paul got a few lukewarm sentences and a link to a silly article about a twitter joke down at the bottom.
BTW, here's a Q&A article on him. http://news.yahoo.com/q-ron-paul-iowas-third-place-finisher-081000162.html
In it, Paul says:
"I'm super-confident in the message. Of course, I know my own shortcomings in the way I deliver messages, but I think it's the message that makes America great.
What do you mean by shortcomings?
I never use notes. I'm spontaneous and I'm more effective that way. And sometimes they'll say, 'Well, he sort of jumps around.' And I say, well I should jump around. But I survive it all. The message always come through. Today we talked to the high school kids, and it's the same message when I talk to the retired people."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I like that he's honest about what I see as a key weakness. He doesn't deliver the message well enough in playing the campaign game. Romney comes off as polished, well-groomed and well-coached with what I'd assume is a top-notch staff. Paul comes off as a jumpy loon in comparison (though more genuine as well). Perhaps he just needs the right consultant or adviser to give him that needed balance of polished electability with his honest conviction. It seems like much of politics is down to packaged marketing.
Char. Limit
Jan4-12, 05:21 PM
You stated:
without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?
I don't see how that's fact. If I stated something like this:
If mheslep has enough support to stay in it (think Evo, Micromass, etc.)
That's not stating that you are receiving support from those two users. That simply says "think about people like that". Of course, in this case, I just pulled random names out of my "last people remembered" list.
Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.Private pension-plans EARN interest, if they are invested properly. Determined-benefit plans (my wife and I each have one from previous employers) have to buy financial instruments. Such pensions are designed to provide adequate benefits to the beneficiaries (yes, even with projected inflation rolled in) but they are not designed to deal with criminal behavior on the part of the banks issuing the "investments" that are supposed to keep the funds healthy.
Tosh5457
Jan5-12, 06:37 AM
Yes Ron Paul has many radical ideas which I don't agree with, but it's funny how people think that the other candidates are more moderate. Continuing with the same foreign policy and with the gigantic military spending, for example, in my opinion is a radical idea, and the other republican candidates support this.
The policies on drugs are also ridiculous, and they mean a lot of unnecessary government spending.
And the debt is just monstrous, any serious candidate should now be talking on how to reduce the debt.
Ron Paul addresses these problems, and the other candidates just don't seem to care. Yes he has many radical ideas, but don't forget that a president can't pass anything he wants, so I think he'd do more good than bad as a president (unlike the others, who will definitely do more bad than good).
What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate, and that he never will the elections so the media shouldn't mention him. First of all that isn't democratic at all, every candidate should be respected independent on how he's running and his ideas. And second, then why does the media pay attention to Bachman and Gingrich? Ron Paul has more chances than them, so why doesn't the media pay more attention to Ron Paul than them? Hypocrisy at its finest...
mheslep
Jan11-12, 07:13 PM
Paul humor.
http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg
Paul humor.
http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpgLOl.
ThomasT
Jan11-12, 09:58 PM
... What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate ... I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.
This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).
I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.
This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).Only Santorum is scarier. IMO. But, yeah, even the republicans don't like the line up, 58% polled don't want any of them.
I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.
ThomasT
Jan11-12, 10:10 PM
Only Santorum is scarier. IMO.I agree that Santorum is worse. And so, apparently, do most Americans ... at least for the time being.
And, while not particularly desirable, imo, a Ron Paul presidency would at least be interesting. Whereas a, say, Mitt Romney presidency would be pretty boring, ie., just more of the same business as usual, imho.
ThomasT
Jan11-12, 10:17 PM
I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.I basically agree with this assessment. It's "a good thing" only in the sense that Obama has established, imo, that he's not going to do any great harm ... but then he isn't really advocating, or making happen, changes that I think would significantly improve the lives of average Americans. (Of course, it can be argued that that's mostly due to the intransigence of the GOP dominated congress, which is a topic for another thread.)
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.
IMO.
ThomasT
Jan11-12, 10:42 PM
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide.Well, that's an empirical question that can only be definitively answered if America was to implement Paul's isolationist ideas.
Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.IMO.But it could be argued that the people who are in positions to do anything about international politics are tools of the status quo. So, it's wrt that consideration that I would consider a Ron Paul presidency to be ... interesting.
Tosh5457
Jan12-12, 09:30 AM
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.
IMO.
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?
The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?
Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.
I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.
Tosh5457
Jan12-12, 06:46 PM
Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.
I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.
The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.
And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.
The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.
And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.
Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.
The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.
(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)
mheslep
Jan12-12, 08:20 PM
do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA?
Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?
I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.The nuts that promoted these wars are very fond of presenting false dichotomies. There is no international/foreign relations issue that has "two sides", and it's high time that somebody in the press mans up and explains that - loudly and over and over again. Politicians are professional liars, and if they can get enough of the public to get behind them, they can do tremendous damage with such simplistic claims.
Tosh5457
Jan12-12, 11:47 PM
Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.
The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.
(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)
Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there...
Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?
So just to make sure they don't get attacked again, US should stay on the Middle East forever?
USA's foreign policy is completely nuts. The military spending is monstrous, especially when US has so much debt. The question is not if US should cut on military spending or not, the question is how much they should cut. And to make those cuts the mentality about foreign policy has to change... USA are in NATO, they're allies with Europe... They don't need a fraction of the military they currently have.
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 12:11 AM
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?
The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.Your sarcasm is noted and well taken, imo. But, imo, the best foreign policy will be something between Bush-Cheney and Ron Paul. Not that Paul's strict isolationist ideas would necessarily be implemented if he were to be elected, but the prospect of it is enough for me to not vote for him. No country can afford to be isolationist, except maybe Monaco as long as they keep the dice rolling.
mathwonk
Jan13-12, 12:26 AM
does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?
does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?
You should have read her paper on "The topological implications of The bridge To Nowhere". If that doesn't win her a Fields medal, then I don't know what will.
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 01:00 AM
Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.
Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.
It wasn't my fault! Blame mathwonk!
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 01:06 AM
It wasn't my fault! Blame mathwonk!:smile:
Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there..
Nah, that was shorthand for: all initial motives are irrelevant since all actors will judge all other actors by outcome.
As far as the US is concerned, they are finishing off a mission considering national security. The rest of the world will hardly care (since they just don't know) and draw conclusions on the outcome of it. And since you're from Europe, like me, the most logical thing is that you're uninformed about US politics, like me, have different interests or stakes, and will draw different conclusions from that.
Somehow the world is a pretty strange place.
Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?
The truth is that, as long as people have this kind of intent, it will continue to happen.
This includes everyone from your murderer that shoots a gas station attendent for drug money to the more high-level, highly organized military attacks that kill many thousands of people.
I bet that there have been many more creative ways to kill, maim, torture, defile, and otherwise hurt other people in ways that are unconscionable to most people, but the fact is that, at least as basic human right in many countries, people are initially given a chance to do whatever they want until they decide to do something harmful: it hasn't (previously) worked the other way around.
What is happening now is that people are considered to be criminals a lot moreso than they used to. Look at the amount of fear that propogates nowadays.
The most ironic thing, is that one of the basic ideas of terrorism is for the terrorist to induce a state of fear on the victims to the point that the fear is deep and optimally, perpetual. Ironically, this is exactly what has happened, so in some sense they have accomplished just that.
The way that things have worked in the past have in my opinion been a good model: if someone with the intent uses it for a bad purpose, then if it is recognized as such in a legal sense, then they have forfeited their right to have some of the privileges they once enjoyed based on a social contract.
Trying to control everyone and everything around you is beyond playing god, it is just insane and goes against every form of intuition, common sense, and historical lessons that have come before us.
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 02:17 AM
Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?Apparently, the US government. And long before and up to 9/11/2001.
Chronos
Jan13-12, 02:41 AM
The 'fool me once' mentality is definitely in play now for US security concerns. We are fighting a war against idealogy, not countries.
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 03:02 AM
The 'fool me once' mentality is definitely in play now for US security concerns. We are fighting a war against idealogy, not countries.Something has to be done about the Palestinian problem. Paul's isolationist stance doesn't make any sense wrt this. The US is in a position to force an agreement that is fair to both Palestinians and Israelis, and without some sort of two-state solution, then the problem of terrorism by militant Islamic extremists remains. Of course, the problem might continue even after a two-state solution, but at least that would be a start, imho.
I think it is a misnomer to say Paul is isolationist. Is Switzerland isolationist? It does routine business with the rest of the world, is non-interventionist and not a member of the UN. The founders explicitly did not intend for the US to become an empire, a hegemon, an enforcer of it's own idea of global righteousness at the point of gun. It bankrupts us morally and financially. I think that's Dr. Paul's main point, and his main worth in the historical political dialogue. He will not become President. But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed. The college kids and serving members of the military get this already. Older folks in the entrenched media, entitlement society and military-industrial complex have thicker skulls.
Yep, Ron Paul and his followers are dangerous. Dangerous to the status quo!
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 09:46 AM
I think it is a misnomer to say Paul is isolationist.Ok, then non-interventionalist.
The founders explicitly did not intend for the US to become an empire, a hegemon, an enforcer of it's own idea of global righteousness at the point of gun. It bankrupts us morally and financially.During the time of the founders it was unrealistic to think that the US could be a global leader. But that changed. And it seems that things are changing again ... from the golden era of American hegemony.
I don't think that interventionism is necessarily a bad thing. And where Paul is clear on the details of his non-interventionist policy, then his position seems to me to be somewhat naive.
I do agree that US policy needs revamping, and that neither Obama nor any GOP candidate other than Paul is set on doing that. But Paul would need to talk about what he might do in much greater detail in order for me to consider him a serious candidate for the presidency.
As of now I wouldn't vote for any of them, including Paul and Obama ... but I reserve the right to change my mind.
mheslep
Jan13-12, 09:54 AM
... Is Switzerland isolationist? Yes, on matters of military related foreign policy of course it is. Switzerland is probably the most prominent isolationist nation of the 20th century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars)
But his son,...
While his son Rand shares many of his father's libertarian views, he notably rejects some of the isolationist aspects. Gary Johnson also differs from Ron Paul in that regard.
Our foreign policy resembles something out of a schoolyard bully playbook and this along with our wasteful spending is simply unsustainable IMO. Even though he's ridiculed or outright ignored at times, and I can see that his ideas have clear gaps in them, still, I can't help but feel that Ron Paul will eventually be on the right side of history.
In a world losing faith in the establishment and hungry for revolution, it's clear many are fed up with the status quo. Even if he's doomed to an inevitable defeat, it's inspiring to see the youth gravitating towards his message. It's an incomplete message really, as he doesn't adequately explain how to fill the void left by a frugal, non-intervening US government. Perhaps it's a message that really shouldn't be completed by him or his generation, but rather by the younger generation supporting his campaign as they're the ones who will suffer most from the decisions. Hopefully this campaign and overall election will spark a more constructive awakening for them as we certainly need new ideas.
With minor consideration from the mainstream media, his supporters have put together a very impressive Youtube presence with many news clips...
He might actually have a chance against Romney if he really is broadening his base like mentioned here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWvVze9Y4d0
Also, I like that the establishment finds it impossible to buy influence over him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNOWTRa8aNQ
As for his unorthodox foreign policy of "Mutually Assured Respect" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtQTTSmc-CU), I admit some of it sounds a bit naive but I'd rather we actually evolved towards this direction now by choice rather than by bankrupt desperation down the road. When he's allowed time to carefully explain his message, he does come off less "crazy" and more "presidential". Perhaps he's the candidate with the realest chance of uniting a divided nation.
And he can get tough too: Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Show,1988 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1nxu-Sy-w)
Containment
Jan15-12, 06:09 AM
I like what I hear from him but honestly I just want a president most people don't like. That way when they go to pass some new law giving them self more powers more people get opposed to it. That makes it have a less likely chance of passing slash sliding under the radar in my opinion. Honestly I think the presidential elections are the least important for the average person to vote in and if people really want to care about politics you should get involved with local stuff first.
Right now I'm thinking I would vote for newt as he seems to be the most disliked from what I'v seen. I also happen to like one of the things he helped push through congress that I wont go into. Paul would probably be my 2nd choice and Mitt probably my last as again I feel he is too liked by the average person to get proper scrutiny. So actually I'm kinda secretly hoping Obama wins as I feel he is the least likely to get away with stupid laws without anyone taking note.
Jimmy Snyder
Jan15-12, 08:30 AM
I like what I hear from him but honestly I just want a president most people don't like.
Unfortunately, our election system favors presidents that people like. I suggest that you vote for the candidate you think is going to lose. That way, the winner has less of a mandate.
LearninDaMath
Jan16-12, 01:21 PM
I voted for Obama last election and i'll likely not vote this time because I can't decide between Obama and Ron Paul. Yes, they are on different sides of the spectrum, but both those two make more sense than anyone else in the race. They are the only ones who seem to speak straight to the point, without beating around the bush. Everyone else seems to beat around every statement in order to avoid revealing how contradictary their various positions really are.
For me, there is no clear/definate "correct" path america should take. Regardless of our economic policies, money will exchange hands, and people will have incentive to be productive. We may argue on "from who" and "to where" the money should flow, but as long as there is the freedom to pursue our goals, we will, as a whole, be a productive country.
How we progress as a nation is the main battle for me.
One one hand, increased taxes for the purpose of helping those with less financial means is a very good way to give people the opportunity to take advantage of the educational benefits America has to offer. But "republicans" think its completely unfair, and borderline theft, for a third party, such as government, to take money from one person and give it to another.
One the other hand, I think letting people use their own money how they want to creates a great opportunity for people to pursue interests that can lead to new businesses and innovation. And the economic prosperity created by those who have kept their hard earned dollars will eventually trickle down to increase standard of living for people at the bottom of the economy. However, "Democrats" think its completely unfair for a super power with more than enough means to not take the responsibility to ensure all of our citizens have at least a basic level of care.
In my opinion, either route we take will lead to a better nation. It's the guys who try to play both sides of the economic fence who worry me. There seems to be so much political gridlock because you got a fork in the road, a "right" lane and a "left" lane and only one car (nation), half the politicians are trying to steer the country in one direction and the other half trying to steer the nation in the other direction and it's the american people's confidence and patience that are being stretched further and further.. until one day the political nonsense is going to tear this country apart.
Sure we can have a mix of free market and social policy as we have now, but there never seems to be an agreement on the perfect balance. As soon as one side seems to get close to what they are willing to accept, they go in and try to take far more than the other side was willing to accept and the tug of war starts all over again. When will the fighting end? When will we find a balance we can all except? Of course, never.
If I were to vote, i'd flip a coin and vote either Ron Paul, one extreme (heads) or Obama, the other extreme, (tails)...everyone else: full of bologney.
Angry Citizen
Jan28-12, 09:16 PM
He will not become President. But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed.
No, they will not. The 19th century model of America died for a reason. Ron Paul is polling dismally for a reason: because only a tiny contingent of people support him. The 'college kids' are still overwhelmingly left-leaning, by the way, and while I can't vouch for the prevalence of the opinion, I can vouch that most of the college kids I've spoken to who are politically active, are politically active for very left-wing causes (social democracy and even outright socialism). I'm one of them, by the way.
mheslep
Jan28-12, 11:15 PM
... But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed. Yes I think you are right, or I hope so.
Jasongreat
Jan29-12, 03:42 PM
No, they will not. The 19th century model of America died for a reason. Ron Paul is polling dismally for a reason: because only a tiny contingent of people support him. The 'college kids' are still overwhelmingly left-leaning, by the way, and while I can't vouch for the prevalence of the opinion, I can vouch that most of the college kids I've spoken to who are politically active, are politically active for very left-wing causes (social democracy and even outright socialism). I'm one of them, by the way.
It doesn't surprise me that college kids are highly liberal, since they have only benefited from liberal policies. IMO, once they actually get to the real world and work to make that money which they are so fond of receiving now, most will become conservative when it is their money now being confiscated. The founding ideals are as relevant today as they ever were, IMO, since our founders were very aware of human nature and that is what matters, since everything else comes and goes but we humans are always at the center of it.
I think it is a shame that since the invention of tv and radio, we have became a nation who judges the messenger more than the message. I wish Ron Paul would have taken more debate classes while in school. I would vote willingly for Paul, but the way it's going I will probably hold my nose and vote or Romney, if it's Gingrich I will stay home, since I feel it is better to make a democrat propose liberal policies, that way they have to take the blame unlike when a progressive conservative gets in there and all those policies which are repugnant to conservatives become supposed conservative policies. We only need to look at recent history for examples, think george bush and his famous speech about abandoning conservative principles to save the free market system when he went along with the bailouts emanating from the liberally controlled congress. Now bailing out failing companies is a conservative policy, at least according to the left and the media. Ron Paul 2012!
Angry Citizen
Jan29-12, 04:15 PM
It doesn't surprise me that college kids are highly liberal, since they have only benefited from liberal policies. IMO, once they actually get to the real world and work to make that money which they are so fond of receiving now, most will become conservative when it is their money now being confiscated.
History shows you to be wrong. Each successive generation has been more liberal than the last, dating back to the time of the Gilded Age. Sadly for holders of Republican ideology, education was the wrong thing to let slide by. It has destroyed their comfortable equilibrium state.
I think it is a shame that since the invention of tv and radio, we have became a nation who judges the messenger more than the message.
I think it's a shame that Ron Paul supporters can't seem to understand that their positions just aren't popular, and then seek to blame others for not 'understanding'. Ron Paul is as popular as he is because he's likeable. I like the guy. I think he's a principled man who fights for what he believes in, and doesn't compromise. We need more people like that. But Bernie Sanders is another man with similar level of conviction, and his policies are sane, sound, viable, and will be the future of humanity.
We only need to look at recent history for examples, think george bush and his famous speech about abandoning conservative principles to save the free market system when he went along with the bailouts emanating from the liberally controlled congress.
That's too convenient for you. If a President does poorly, he's no longer a conservative, eh? Was Reagan a conservative? Bush 41? Bleh. The last respectable Republican in office was Eisenhower.
lpetrich
Jan29-12, 04:59 PM
Here's what I think:
If you are young and not against taxes, you have no heart.
If you are old and still against taxes, you have no brain.
To me, wanting to live without taxes is like wanting to live without paying bills and wanting to live without work. How will one finance the things that one wants out of government? The money to finance a "strong national defense" or whatever doesn't grow on trees. Which provokes a mental picture of military bases and police stations having orchards of money trees that the soldiers and cops harvest to cover expenses.
Governments could go the Gulf-State route and sell natural resources, but some people would call that a kind of tax.
More seriously, all the perpetual complaining about government would seem to imply that anarchy is the ideal state of affairs. Or short of that, a government with all the political power of the Queen of England.
lpetrich
Jan29-12, 05:09 PM
Also, if the US Federal Government is so terribly evil, then why not dissolve it? Like what happened to Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, resulting in 50+ separate nations.
It seems to me that this is a recipe for political weakness. These new nations would either undo much of the dividing, or else they would soon become victims of foreign meddling. In that case, we Americans would end up having masters like Berlin and Brussels and Brasilia and Beijing.
History shows you to be wrong. Each successive generation has been more liberal than the last, dating back to the time of the Gilded Age.
What? The Gilded Age ended with the McKinley v. Bryan election, which McKinley (R) won.
The only times that liberal ideology has been dominant in the US are the 1930s and 1960s. Except for those times, the percentage of people who have self-identified as liberal has been at most 25%, oftentimes less than 20%.
Right now, per this Jan 29th Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx), liberal ideology is apparently waning.
It is never a good idea to extrapolate the politics you see in college to the country as a whole.
Angry Citizen
Jan29-12, 06:13 PM
First off, never trust a poll. Not only can they be biased (I have no idea if it is biased in this case), but people themselves may have no idea what the questions mean. Loads of people may consider themselves conservative in principle, but those same polls show overwhelming support for not only healthcare reform, but single payer health care reform. They also show huge support for class warfare and a desire for the government to intervene in economics. One of these polls is lyin'. You can decide which to believe in. (As an aside, the poll data in question ends in 2010, the year of the great Republican resurgence and prior to the waning of the Tea Party's influence. One wonders just how far the Republicans have since fallen as a result of the "Do Nothing" Congress, the debt ceiling fiasco, the radical rhetoric, and other points which the public clearly dislikes.)
Secondly, I would urge you to study history. Ever heard of the McKinley Tariff, a protectionist policy passed with the support of McKinley? Modern Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of free trade, which flies in the face of your apparent claim that McKinley was in any way, shape or form related to the modern Republican. You don't seriously believe that the South suddenly decided to start supporting Republicans because of a huge ideological shift on their part, do you? No. The political parties themselves have undergone enormous realignment throughout history. The Republicans of the 19th century would be the Democrats of today, evidenced by the broad support given to Republicans in the North in the 19th century.
'Liberal' ideology has dominated in periods throughout American history. Alexander Hamilton, then Lincoln, then during the end of the Gilded Age, then during the Progressive Era, then for forty years during the adoption, implementation, and enjoyment of the New Deal (we note here that liberal policies always become fashionable after an enormous economic collapse facilitated by conservative policies). Reagan has shifted the country rightward for three decades; that's not in dispute. But liberal ideology is due for a major comeback after the Great Recession, and it's happening now. 'Occupy' is only the faint, thready heartbeat of its return.
And lastly, I do not extrapolate current political leanings from what I see on college campuses. I extrapolate future political leanings. People don't magically become conservatives once they earn a dime.
AlephZero
Jan29-12, 08:44 PM
People don't magically become conservatives once they earn a dime.
You'll probably grow out of that idea eventually, if you survive long enough.
As somebody once said, "Anybody aged 20 who isn't a socialist has no heart. Anybody aged 50 who is still a socialist has no brain".
Angry Citizen
Jan29-12, 08:49 PM
1) You're actually paraphrasing Churchill, ignoring that he said nothing about socialism; 2) I'm not a socialist; 3) I'm a social democrat because that's what works. Let us observe two nations: America and Scandinavia. One has poverty; the other does not. One has boom-and-bust economics; the other does not. One has enormous wealth inequality; the other does not. One is drowning in debt; the other has maintained fiscal responsibility.
Those who claim conservatism is the realistic, logical, or sensible solution are ignoring historical precedent otherwise.
lpetrich
Jan29-12, 10:54 PM
On the subject of taxes, many Americans seem to think that tax money only goes to lazy bums and other unworthy recipients. I've found a very interesting study: Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? | The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/534) Though the US has such features as being more rural, being more decentralized, and having fossilized political-institution features like lack of proportional representations, the most important feature is amount of racial and ethnic divisions.
The authors of that study found a negative correlation between the amount of racial division and the amount of welfare statism, both across nations and across US states. For US states at least, that was even true if one divided out GDP per capita. People are more willing to be generous with people they perceive as much like themselves, rather than with people that they perceive as hostile others. That is even true on the Right, where the "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" set does not seem to object to fellow members sticking their snouts in government troughs.
The US is gradually converging on Europe, becoming more urban and more racially tolerant. The US still has a way to go, but the days of Southern politicians defending lynching are long gone.
People don't magically become conservatives once they earn a dime.
A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.
A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.
Here's a question for you: Do you think that trend holds for people have billion dollar incomes? What about multi-billion dollar incomes?
lpetrich
Jan30-12, 05:43 AM
So once you discover how much you pay in taxes, you become an anarchist?
What happens when you discover how much you have to pay in bills? Do you become a Commie?
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 06:10 AM
A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.
Not only is this incredibly offensive and condescending to those who hold liberal positions at my age and continue to hold them at more advanced years, but it's flat out not true. Older people hold more conservative positions, but those conservative positions were once either moderate or liberal positions in their day - excepting, of course, strange phenomena like the Reagan takeover.
You cannot point to any historical precedent or logical fact that shows conservatism as 'pragmatic', or that it comes with maturity. You attack individuals for holding alternative beliefs, implying that they are immature and angst-ridden. If this is the way conservatives seek to advance their agenda - by demeaning their opponents - then it seems we are not the ones in dire need of maturation.
A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.
As someone who over the years has made progressively more money, I am getting more liberal as the years pass. I fear the day when I make a million dollars and tout Dennis Hopper as the great mind of liberalism.
As someone who over the years has made progressively more money, I am getting more liberal as the years pass.
You are in the minority then. Most people get more conservative (fiscally conservative, that is) as they progressively make more money. One problem with conservatism as of late is the growing influence of the social conservatives. I suspect that it is the growing influence of the social conservatives that have made you get more liberal as the years pass. Those social conservative bug me, too.
That the rich vote Democratic is a myth. Here's Paul Krugman (*not* a conservative) on that myth: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/.
Here's a question for you: Do you think that trend holds for people have billion dollar incomes? What about multi-billion dollar incomes?
The 400 billionaires in the US are a tiny, tiny fraction of the 1 percent against which the OWS protest. How those billionaires vote, how they behave, is statistically irrelevant. Even if all 400 voted Democratic, it wouldn't make a statistical blip in the voting characteristics of top 50%, or the top 10%, or even the top 1%. Those 400 billionaires are 0.03% of the top 1%. They are a minisculely tiny blip on top of a smallish blip.
What motivates those billionaires is quite different from what motivates the bottom 90% of the top 1%. Extreme class warfare is extremely hazardous to the plutocracy; it often causes plutocrats tend to lose their heads. Mollifying the lower 99.99% helps prevent that. Extreme taxation such as that seen in the 1950s and 60s is also hazardous to the plutocracy. Keeping the Democrats mollified with large campaign donations helps prevent that.
The United States Bullion Depository holds 4,577 metric tons (5046 tons) of gold bullion (147.2 million oz. troy). This is roughly 2.5% of all the gold ever refined throughout human history. Even so, the depository is second in the United States to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's underground vault in Manhattan, which holds 7,000 metric tons (7716 tons) of gold bullion (225.1 million oz. troy), some of it in trust for foreign nations, central banks and official international organizations.
So the US has less than 4 million oz of gold on hand, much of which doesn't belong to us, but is held in trust. What would happen to the price of gold if the entire economy of the US was forced to operate on the gold standard? The US economy was estimated to be $14.5 trillion in 2010. Anybody want to speculate on what a return to the gold standard would do to our economy and the rest of the global economies? How about damages to ecologically-fragile areas that would end up getting mined for trace amounts of gold? I don't think Paul is too good at math.
Jimmy Snyder
Jan30-12, 11:51 AM
So we've got about 375 million oz, and about 300 million people. So we've got somewhat more than 1 oz per person on average. With that gold, you are expected to buy everything, from a candy bar, to a house. This means that your oz. has to be chippered into miniscule coins to be usable. It will take a keen eye to identify a $1 coin, used to buy something at the dollar store, and a microscope to fish out 7 cents for the sales tax.
I don't think Paul is too good at math.
But he is very good at delusional thinking, and at attracting other delusionists. And it is delusional to think that we can stuff the genie back in the bottle that our country opened over 100 years ago with the Treaty of Paris (1898).
So we've got about 375 million oz, and about 300 million people. So we've got somewhat more than 1 oz per person on average. With that gold, you are expected to buy everything, from a candy bar, to a house. This means that your oz. has to be chippered into miniscule coins to be usable. It will take a keen eye to identify a $1 coin, used to buy something at the dollar store, and a microscope to fish out 7 cents for the sales tax.Thanks for that bit of perspective, Jimmy. Too true!
My bold
You are in the minority then. Most people get more conservative (fiscally conservative, that is) as they progressively make more money. One problem with conservatism as of late is the growing influence of the social conservatives. I suspect that it is the growing influence of the social conservatives that have made you get more liberal as the years pass. Those social conservative bug me, too.
You're probably right in that regard. I find social policy to be more important to me than fiscal policy.
BTW, I still have a $10 gold certificate in my father's strong-box. An old man gave me that for doing a bunch of work for him when I was a kid. When Roosevelt ordered citizens to redeem gold bullion, coins, and gold certificates, the old guy apparently didn't much care for that and didn't comply.
dydxforsn
Jan30-12, 02:01 PM
If Ron Paul doesn't win the primary I wonder if he will become a VP candidate this year. I could see the republican party supporting him more if his foreign policy was nullified by being a VP pick instead of the president. That being said, I don't dislike his foreign policy, I think it's a breath of fresh air. It's not what we want to do, but what we can do with what we're given that should guide us in the coming decades.
Ron Paul's principles can be viewed as radical, but I believe he is what the country needs in today's world of prison sentences for a bag of weed, massive unsustainable military spending, infringements on human rights, and unprecedented debt (at least in total size of debt, I think some of Europe beat us to it in terms of percentage of GDP). I may not completely agree with him in an ideal case of a country with zero debt, but that's not the card we've been dealt. I would like to see him at least influence the country for the better.
I also love to watch the established republicans squirm at his foreign policy. It's pretty funny. He got booed for stating the golden rule at a republican debate recently ("Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.") Would have been nice if Hitler abided by that..
So once you discover how much you pay in taxes, you become an anarchist?
What happens when you discover how much you have to pay in bills? Do you become a Commie?
Other than your straw man characterizations, that sounds about right. People want the government to give them benefits, and they want other people to pay for it. It's a great deal if you can get it.
mheslep
Jan30-12, 05:58 PM
A good argument can be made showing the majority of the rich in the US lean left based on political donations, at least they did 2008, if political donations are any indication of wealth.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89
There are certainly plenty of anecdotal examples circling the White House: Jeff Immelt, Buffet, the Solyndra investors, etc.
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 06:35 PM
I believe he is what the country needs in today's world of prison sentences for a bag of weed, massive unsustainable military spending, infringements on human rights, and unprecedented debt (at least in total size of debt, I think some of Europe beat us to it in terms of percentage of GDP)
This is not accurate. The social democracies of Europe have significantly more liberal drug laws, significantly lower military spending, much greater respect for human rights, and the issue of debt will be resolved once the EU figures out that they're repeating the mistakes of the Articles-era US by keeping a loose, independent confederacy without the ability to tax and redistribute wealth among nations. Of course, one cannot help but mention the fact that most of Europe is better off about debt than we are, and the most left-wing among them (Scandinavia) have very little debt at all. The world needs social democracy, not Ron Paul's new neo-Gilded Age.
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 06:39 PM
A good argument can be made showing the majority of the rich in the US lean left based on political donations, at least they did 2008, if political donations are any indication of wealth.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89
There are certainly plenty of anecdotal examples circling the White House: Jeff Immelt, Buffet, the Solyndra investors, etc.
Well, there's also T. Boone Pickens, the Koch Brothers, so on and so forth for the Republican side. I think the case is stronger that billionaires lean Republican. Of course, it's inconsequential given that both the Republicans and the Democrats are technically right wing parties according to any reasonable political spectrum.
dydxforsn
Jan30-12, 06:49 PM
This is not accurate. The social democracies of Europe have significantly more liberal drug laws, significantly lower military spending, much greater respect for human rights, and the issue of debt will be resolved once the EU figures out that they're repeating the mistakes of the Articles-era US by keeping a loose, independent confederacy without the ability to tax and redistribute wealth among nations. Of course, one cannot help but mention the fact that most of Europe is better off about debt than we are, and the most left-wing among them (Scandinavia) have very little debt at all. The world needs social democracy, not Ron Paul's new neo-Gilded Age.
What I said is completely accurate.. You "disproved" me with a complete red herring and mentioned nothing that Ron Paul advocates or plans on doing if elected.
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 06:56 PM
Besides the elimination of the Civil Rights Act, which would torpedo the whole 'human rights' thing? Besides return us to the gold standard which would instantly implode our economy into massive, irrecoverable debt? You're right, Obama advocates all the things you mentioned. But on some of them, his method of going about them would be horrifying and destructive.
mheslep
Jan30-12, 07:46 PM
The hard left wing European state thing is all very 20th century.
Fewer and fewer European countries are run by left-leaning governments. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/europes-left) Only five left now, and Scandinavia is not among them. Sweden peaked out its leftism back in the 70s. Its current government is looking for ways to cut taxes.
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 07:48 PM
The hard left wing European state thing is all very 20th century.
Fewer and fewer European countries are run by left-leaning governments. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/europes-left) Only five left now, and Scandinavia is not among them. Sweden peaked out its leftism back in the 70s. Its current government is looking for ways to cut taxes.
Hmm. And did someone say something about Europe drowning in debt? I wonder why...
Incidentally, I know for a fact Norway is run by a Labour/Socialist coalition as we speak.
Did some more research. Finland's parliament is comprised mostly of economic left wingers. Sweden is practically evenly split. Denmark's left is very likely to form a majority in the next election. France's Parti Socialiste will very likely see huge gains in the coming election, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if Sarkozy survives it.
You're right that the Reagan Revolution was worldwide. Thankfully, the world seems to be coming to its senses again.
ThomasT
Jan30-12, 08:09 PM
... both the Republicans and the Democrats are technically right wing parties according to any reasonable political spectrum.This is the way I see it also. They're alike in that they're status quo parties wrt most important issues. Paul seems to me to be the only major party candidate who represents a departure from and opposition to the status quo -- especially wrt the corporatization of America and American politics.
But while some of Paul's positions are inspiring, others seem to me to be naive and potentially quite harmful.
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 08:16 PM
I've actually seen nothing in Ron Paul's repertoire of 19th century policies which leads me to believe he would do anything for campaign finance reform. It would be government regulation, and he would be against it. If you have something to suggest otherwise, I would actually like to hear it.
ThomasT
Jan30-12, 08:31 PM
I've actually seen nothing in Ron Paul's repertoire of 19th century policies which leads me to believe he would do anything for campaign finance reform. It would be government regulation, and he would be against it. If you have something to suggest otherwise, I would actually like to hear it.I think that this might be one of the areas where Paul is, imo, naive to a fault, and where he's effectively not a man of and for the people. But this is a question that I haven't yet answered for myself. Any input is appreciated.
dydxforsn
Jan30-12, 10:08 PM
Besides the elimination of the Civil Rights Act, which would torpedo the whole 'human rights' thing? Besides return us to the gold standard which would instantly implode our economy into massive, irrecoverable debt? You're right, Obama advocates all the things you mentioned. But on some of them, his method of going about them would be horrifying and destructive.
Now that's a better reply than your first. I think those would be weak points of his, but then again every candidate has weak points. In many ways being a libertarian would help reduce our federal debt and prevent civil liberty from being taken (I guess I meant "liberties" earlier when I said "rights", though I'm not sure what the difference is.) This point is obvious so I'm not going to go into any more detail.
I guess what I said is not "completely accurate" as I said, I apologize for that, but still I think overall he is the best of the republican candidates. I'm a moderate, but if there is not more radical spending cuts and downsizing in the government (this includes military spending), I don't believe we will be able to cut a radical debt. I feel Ron Paul will do this the best, seeing as how other candidates probably won't even touch military spending, which is an unbelievable sink of money, especially when so much military spending goes to international companies and isn't quite the stimulus to the economy that it once was.
I'm assuming "Obama" was a typo.
Angry Citizen
Jan30-12, 10:23 PM
Now that's a better reply than your first. I think those would be weak points of his, but then again every candidate has weak points. In many ways being a libertarian would help reduce our federal debt and prevent civil liberty from being taken (I guess I meant "liberties" earlier when I said "rights", though I'm not sure what the difference is.) This point is obvious so I'm not going to go into any more detail.
I guess what I said is not "completely accurate" as I said, I apologize for that, but still I think overall he is the best of the republican candidates. I'm a moderate, but if there is not more radical spending cuts and downsizing in the government (this includes military spending), I don't believe we will be able to cut a radical debt. I feel Ron Paul will do this the best, seeing as how other candidates probably won't even touch military spending, which is an unbelievable sink of money, especially when so much military spending goes to international companies and isn't quite the stimulus to the economy that it once was.
I'm assuming "Obama" was a typo.
Yes, it was a typo, my apologies. No idea how that snuck in there.
I agree that Ron Paul is by far the best of the Republican candidates (not that that's saying much), but I can't say as I agree that the debt is the huge problem you believe it is. No one's going to let us default (except apparently the Republican Congress - what in god's name were they thinking...), because if we default, the economic foundation of the world - the dollar - will collapse.
Six things need to happen to fix the American economy in perpetuity. 1) Cut the military budget by half (gradually, over about ten years). 2) Restore Kennedy-era taxation on the rich (approximately double what it is now). 3) Cut corporate taxes to about 20%-25%, and close loopholes. 4) Protect unions by nullifying all Right To Work legislation. 5) Engage in shameless protectionism against China and other countries engaging in immoral labor practices. 6) Single-Payer healthcare. ObamaCare is an interesting approach, but I believe that maintaining the profit incentive will only lead to greater expense.
Frankly, the debt will take care of itself with such a leftward shift. Again, I point to the fact that the EU debt average is much lower than ours as a ratio of GDP, and that more left-wing economies like Scandinavia's is doing very well with regard to debt.
mheslep
Jan31-12, 12:46 PM
Deficit predicted to be another $1.1 billion again next year.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3737513&postcount=101
Suggesting that a balance budget can be achieved by cutting the defense budget in half (which I ~favor over time) and raising taxes on the rich, even immediately, is at war with simple math. If spending reduction action is not taken within the next several years, something akin to Simpson Bowles or what Paul proposes, then a return to historic interest rates on the debt will explode interest payments. In that case wiping out US defense spending entirely will not balance the budget.
Angry Citizen
Jan31-12, 12:50 PM
Deficit predicted to be another $1.1 billion again next year.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3737513&postcount=101
Suggesting that a balance budget can be achieved by cutting the defense budget in half (which I ~favor over time) and raising taxes on the rich, even immediately, is at war with simple math. If spending reduction action is not taken within the next several years, something akin to Simpson Bowles or what Paul proposes, then a return to historic interest rates on the debt will explode interest payments. In that case wiping out US defense spending entirely will not balance the budget.
Deficit is predicted to be about $600 billion in FY 2015. Advocates of austerity always fail to conduct appropriate research.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=b
I agree that Ron Paul is by far the best of the Republican candidates (not that that's saying much), but I can't say as I agree that the debt is the huge problem you believe it is. No one's going to let us default (except apparently the Republican Congress - what in god's name were they thinking...), because if we default, the economic foundation of the world - the dollar - will collapse.
Deficit predicted to be another $1.1 Trillion again next year.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3737513&postcount=101
Suggesting that a balance budget can be achieved by cutting the defense budget in half (which I ~favor over time) and raising taxes on the rich, even immediately, is at war with simple math. If spending reduction action is not taken within the next several years, something akin to Simpson Bowles or what Paul proposes, then a return to historic interest rates on the debt will explode interest payments. In that case wiping out US defense spending entirely will not balance the budget.
If the debt and deficit are not addressed, we will be eaten alive by interest payments.
"If you are broke and fighting, nothing else matters."
Ron Paul, bless his heart, addresses the issues of war and debt like no one else does, honestly and fearlessly. The others are all lying in order to get elected. War and debt is potentially an existential problem. Social and cultural issues pale into insignificance at such a time. Maybe Ron Paul is a crank. I've met him and I don't think so. But even if he is, to ignore his message on the importance of war and debt is to put our lives and fortunes into the gravest conceivable jeopardy.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Angry Citizen
Jan31-12, 01:03 PM
Ron Paul, bless his heart, addresses the issues of war and debt like no one else does, honestly and fearlessly. The others are all lying in order to get elected. War and debt is potentially an existential problem. Social and cultural issues pale into insignificance at such a time. Maybe Ron Paul is a crank. I've met him and I don't think so. But even if he is, to ignore his message on the importance of war and debt is to put our lives and fortunes into the gravest conceivable jeopardy.
I'll risk it rather than elect a man who would return us to the 19th century. Sure, debt was very low back then, but would anyone really want the work conditions experienced during the Gilded Age? The level of wealth inequality? The monopolies spreading like a cancer?
I have no doubt that Ron Paul is a man of principle. But a man of principle can still have wrong principles. Ron Paul's principles are overwhelmingly wrong, save for some nuggets of common sense on the social and foreign policy fronts.
mheslep
Jan31-12, 01:15 PM
Deficit is predicted to be about $600 billion in FY 2015. Advocates of austerity always fail to conduct appropriate research.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=bIs that what you assert you have done there, conduct appropriate research? That FY 2015 estimate comes from the White House (table 1-1) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2012-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2012-TAB.pdf), which more than a little bets on increased revenue from economic growth. On what basis do you consider it reliable, or even plausible?
I'll risk it rather than elect a man who would return us to the 19th century. Sure, debt was very low back then, but would anyone really want the work conditions experienced during the Gilded Age? The level of wealth inequality? The monopolies spreading like a cancer?
I have no doubt that Ron Paul is a man of principle. But a man of principle can still have wrong principles. Ron Paul's principles are overwhelmingly wrong, save for some nuggets of common sense on the social and foreign policy fronts.
Paul would not return us the the 19th century...maybe the 18th :)
Perhaps man has devolved since the apex of the enlightenment, or Age of Reason.
But no man, not Ron Paul, Nikola Tesla, Jules Verne nor anyone else can turn back the hands of time.
The other jerks out there lack even common sense. Through their senseless wars and heedless spending do they send us to moral ruin and financial poverty - worse than the 19th century!
Respectfully,
Steve
Angry Citizen
Jan31-12, 01:20 PM
It makes perfect sense, actually. The economy will recover - it always does. The Bush Tax Cuts will expire (which is also something being considered in that figure, I believe, given that they expire this January and Obama isn't going to sign an extension of them). The extra revenue from ObamaCare will be factored in. All of this will happen within the next few years. But regardless, if you're going to question government sources regarding government debt, then I don't think there's much hope in any conversation.
mheslep
Jan31-12, 01:49 PM
It makes perfect sense, actually. The economy will recover - it always does. Over what time line? Ten years, as in the depression, or as in Japan, or as in Italy? Source please?
The Bush Tax Cuts will expire (which is also something being considered in that figure, I believe, given that they expire this January and Obama isn't going to sign an extension of them). The extra revenue from ObamaCare will be factored in.Obama said he would not raise taxes, at all, on those making less than $250K/yr.
All of this will happen within the next few years. But regardless, if you're going to question government sources regarding government debt, then I don't think there's much hope in any conversation.There are relatively independent government sources such as the CBO, there is the reporting of past and existing known data, and then there are future 'predictions' from blatant political government sources such as this White House's OMB. They are not all the same thing.
jduster
Jan31-12, 04:54 PM
I guess I will diverge from most of the internet which seems to be infatuated with Congressman Paul.
1. Ron Paul will not win the nomination.
After each victory, the Paul camp makes false projections and after each setback they move their goalpost. The only reason Paul was successful early on was because the majority of Republican voters (who Paul would probably call "establishment" or "neocon") were divided among 5+ other candidates. Once Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman dropped, it is now apparent that with the weaker candidates gone, their votes went into Romney/Gingrich - not Paul.
2. His views are extreme/wrong
It's one thing to hear a speech on Iraq, the federal reserve or the bailouts and praise him, but his views go beyond that. He wants to end Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and student aid. He wants heroin and cocaine legal. He wants the wealthiest people in society to pay 0% in taxes.
SHISHKABOB
Jan31-12, 05:59 PM
I find bits and pieces of Ron Paul's positions to be attractive, but when all of them are put together I get really put off. I don't think I like him.
jduster
Jan31-12, 06:04 PM
I find bits and pieces of Ron Paul's positions to be attractive, but when all of them are put together I get really put off. I don't think I like him.
Yes. That's my overall point.
I've had many Democrats say they like Ron Paul until I told him he wanted to eliminate food stamps and taxes for the wealthy.
I've had many Democrats say they like Ron Paul until I told him he wanted to eliminate food stamps and taxes for the wealthy. This doesn't surprise me as I used to be one of those Democrats until I became so disillusioned with the status quo and shifted more towards being libertarian. I actually agree with much of Ron Paul's idealistic craziness because to me it's an overall "1-step back, 2-steps forward" type of deal. The problem is he can only articulate the back step in his clumsy, old-fashioned way and somehow believes the American People will rise to the challenge of moving forward from the comfy nest of Big Government. Call it naive, but I still agree with him that we have that potential in us even if it's not easy to envision it.
Angry Citizen
Jan31-12, 09:08 PM
Over what time line? Ten years, as in the depression, or as in Japan, or as in Italy? Source please?
Well, I could provide a source, but it would almost certainly be biased one way or another. I have no idea with what timeline it'll occur. But it will occur.
Obama said he would not raise taxes, at all, on those making less than $250K/yr.
When people refer to the Bush Tax Cuts, they're generally referring to the portion given to the rich. Obama has expressed the desire to maintain the cuts for those making less than 250k/yr, but I don't think there will ever be another deal like the one made in 2010. The tax cuts will expire. They can be reenacted if the Republicans take over again, but I find that a hopelessly naive proposition. The Republicans are doomed this election, especially if unemployment dips below 8%.
There are relatively independent government sources such as the CBO, there is the reporting of past and existing known data, and then there are future 'predictions' from blatant political government sources such as this White House's OMB. They are not all the same thing.
Ignore it if you wish. Shout conspiracies if you wish. I used to be like that, a conservative trying to explain numbers away... Then I decided to stop losing debates. *shrug*
Angry Citizen
Jan31-12, 09:10 PM
This doesn't surprise me as I used to be one of those Democrats until I became so disillusioned with the status quo and shifted more towards being libertarian. I actually agree with much of Ron Paul's idealistic craziness because to me it's an overall "1-step back, 2-steps forward" type of deal. The problem is he can only articulate the back step in his clumsy, old-fashioned way and somehow believes the American People will rise to the challenge of moving forward from the comfy nest of Big Government. Call it naive, but I still agree with him that we have that potential in us even if it's not easy to envision it.
Funny story. In my slow but steady transition from a youthful, idealistic conservative to a (more) mature, pragmatic social democrat, I went through a libertarian phase. I understand the appeal of small government. But it's a fantasy - a fantasy that results in the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've tried Ron Paul before. It didn't work. That's why we had the New Deal and the Progressive Era.
Funny story. In my slow but steady transition from a youthful, idealistic conservative to a (more) mature, pragmatic social democrat, I went through a libertarian phase. I understand the appeal of small government. But it's a fantasy - a fantasy that results in the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've tried Ron Paul before. It didn't work. That's why we had the New Deal and the Progressive Era.I see the Internet as the game-changer that empowers the people to a degree where they can create dynamic and more adaptive models for themselves. Perhaps my disgust with partisan bickering is nothing new, but my hope has turned to technology and peoples' innovative use of it as the path forward. We see a little of it in the use of social media, forums and networking to circumvent the mainstream media bias. One might have also said trying to topple Middle Eastern regimes through social networked mobilization would be a hopeless endeavor before it actually worked. I feel we're in a time where the status quo of stagnant models is being effectively questioned and I'm looking forward to where it all takes us as I believe we haven't yet seen this generation's full potential.
Jasongreat
Feb1-12, 08:37 PM
Funny story. In my slow but steady transition from a youthful, idealistic conservative to a (more) mature, pragmatic social democrat, I went through a libertarian phase. I understand the appeal of small government. But it's a fantasy - a fantasy that results in the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've tried Ron Paul before. It didn't work. That's why we had the New Deal and the Progressive Era.
We've tried Ron Pauls policies in the past, like the Washington presidency, the Jefferson presidency, the madison presidency, the monroe presidency, the Coolidge presidency(not a complete list, just the high notes). We have tried the big government solution far more, Adams, Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Woodrow, Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush's, Obama(Again not a complete list). I will take the formers results over the latters any day.
I find it rather amusing when people who consider themselves conservative, claim their lineage is Hamilton, Lincoln and Teddy. One was a well known Nationalist, the second concreted the idea of one nation through a bloody war fought against their neighbors, as well as implementing the income tax. He was a Radical Republican, Imo, one is either a radical or a conservative but can never be both. The last, the father of the modern progressive movement(ever read the promise of american life by herbert crowly?), who's crowning achievement was confiscation of land from western states, land which they had settled. Imo, these beliefs are an indictment of the public school system, which instead of teaching history, teach progressive water downed pollitically correct half truths as fact. A republican should be for state rights, Ron Paul is the only Republican with a complete faith in a republic.
Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):
A non-interventionist = an isolationist, the civil war was fought to end slavery, that our founders founded a nation, that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic. That the Federalists were right, since we now have over two hundred years of history which prove most of the anti-federalist claims were spot on. That our government is not a voluntary agreement, one which can be negated at any time by any member for reasons of non-compliance by other members of the federal government itself. That our government can do anything the people want, without ammending the constitution. That the constitution controls what the people may do instead of controlling what the government may do. That anyone supporting state rights is a racist. That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence. That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 09:26 PM
We've tried Ron Pauls policies in the past, like the Washington presidency, the Jefferson presidency, the madison presidency, the monroe presidency, the Coolidge presidency(not a complete list, just the high notes). We have tried the big government solution far more, Adams, Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Woodrow, Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush's, Obama(Again not a complete list). I will take the formers results over the latters any day.
Misconceptions everywhere. For "big government" you are seriously considering Hoover to be a big government guy? He did nothing when the economy started collapsing.
As for Thomas Jefferson, this man made a purchase of territory without consent of Congress for a very large sum of money.
I would urge you to reexamine your history and note that the "small government folks" had enormous problems of their own, and that most of them participated in a decentralized, agrarian economy that hasn't existed in America for well over a century. Back in Monroe's days, we didn't have companies wanting to pour toxic contaminants into our soil. But we did have absurdly rich people, and the level of income inequality back then showed its effects in many ways. The populace was kept ignorant and relatively destitute for a very long time until government began to intervene. No, my friend, government has a huge role to play, and its positive effects have been shown throughout history.
He was a Radical Republican, Imo, one is either a radical or a conservative but can never be both.
Just so you're aware, the Republicans were once the party of Big Government Solutions. There's a distinct reason why the Democrats once ruled the south and the Republicans once ruled the north, and civil rights doesn't explain half of it. The parties have essentially switched themselves on the ideological spectrum since their creation.
Ron Paul is the only Republican with a complete faith in a republic.
In a confederacy, you mean. Even when I was a libertarian, I couldn't stand the notion of states' rights. It is such a meaningless distinction, and from an efficiency standpoint is incredibly poor. Federalism/devolution is for the birds.
Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)
I'm glad you represent this position as "IMO", given that it is essentially false to the letter.
Jasongreat
Feb1-12, 10:05 PM
=Angry Citizen]Misconceptions everywhere. For "big government" you are seriously considering Hoover to be a big government guy? He did nothing when the economy started collapsing.
Yes, Hoover was a big spending Republican, There were quite a few times, IIRC, that FDR stated that what he was doing was no differnt than hoover did, so he didnt understand why conservatives were upset about his policies. Calvin Coolidge made a statement to the effect that I have never been a spender, if you want a spender I am not your man, Hoover was then elected.
As for Thomas Jefferson, this man made a purchase of territory without consent of Congress for a very large sum of money.
So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.
I would urge you to reexamine your history and note that the "small government folks" had enormous problems of their own, and that most of them participated in a decentralized, agrarian economy that hasn't existed in America for well over a century. Back in Monroe's days, we didn't have companies wanting to pour toxic contaminants into our soil. But we did have absurdly rich people, and the level of income inequality back then showed its effects in many ways. The populace was kept ignorant and relatively destitute for a very long time until government began to intervene. No, my friend, government has a huge role to play, and its positive effects have been shown throughout history.
I agree government has a role to play, Paul and his supporters are not anarchists, it has a role well defined in a thing called the constitution and it doesnt matter wether we are in an agrarian society or a manufacturing society, a technical society, or a service society.
Just so you're aware, the Republicans were once the party of Big Government Solutions. There's a distinct reason why the Democrats once ruled the south and the Republicans once ruled the north, and civil rights doesn't explain half of it. The parties have essentially switched themselves on the ideological spectrum since their creation.
I am well aware, that what was once called a classical liberal is now called a libertarian or anarchist, and that those who support larger government are called Republicans and Democrats.
In a confederacy, you mean. Even when I was a libertarian, I couldn't stand the notion of states' rights. It is such a meaningless distinction, and from an efficiency standpoint is incredibly poor. Federalism/devolution is for the birds.
State rights was the base of our government, and I believe can be again. In a federlist/republican system each state is free to do whatever they want, except for those things enumerated to the federal government in the constitution such as defense, treaties, etc;. In doing so we would have fifty different tries at solving our problems, if one state becomes oppressive we are free to move to another state where we may find a better fit, if one state finds a solution others are free to follow or to tweak it to their beliefs. When we are formed as a nation, and everything gets settled at the national level, we get one try to solve a problem, if we dont like the outcome we are stuck with it since how are we going to vote with our feet? Where else is there to go? I like how some think that it is more efficient to take money from the states, send it to washington, pay the beaurocrats, than send whats left back to the state. Wouldnt it be more efficient to leave the whole amount in the state, for those citizens to do as they will. The only thing a national government is more efficient at is force.
I'm glad you represent this position as "IMO", given that it is essentially false to the letter.
Just because it is my opinion doesnt mean it is wrong. However since you stated(and not an IMO) that it was essentially false I would like to see some support of that. Perhaps you can change my opinion, it is definitely not the same one I started with 30 years ago, and I am sure it will still be modified again before I die, please help me with that, if you will.
Char. Limit
Feb1-12, 10:15 PM
So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.
A quick question I thought up while reading this. Would you agree with the following statement?
"Social security and the FDIC are unnecessary, and FDR was wrong for instituting them."
What about this one?
"The economy was working fine until FDR came along."
Just wondering.
if you think hoover wasn't a big government guy, just google "Revenue Act of 1932"
Federalism/devolution is for the birds.Then you must think the US is for the birds, as federalism is the law of the land.
Jasongreat
Feb1-12, 10:47 PM
=Char. Limit;3740599]A quick question I thought up while reading this. Would you agree with the following statement?
"Social security and the FDIC are unnecessary, and FDR was wrong for instituting them."
I guess it depends on your definition of wrong, were they constitutional?, No. Is the Federal governments job to protect individuals as individuals?, no it is not. Is it the federal governments job to completely remove the risks that come with liberty? No. A social security program should be part of state governments, since the individual is under the purview of the states. Did they convince the people he was doing their bidding? Yes. Did they help him get re-elected? Yes. So from my point of view, yes they were wrong. From FDR's point of view, they were right, i suppose.
What about this one?
"The economy was working fine until FDR came along."
Just wondering.
I already stated that Hoover started things going the wrong way, so no the economy was not working fine until FDR came along, although I would argue that the economy was worse off after FDR. I find it interesting that at the beginning of the twenties, the US had a depression, the federal government did nothing, the down turn ended and the roaring twenties began. A decade later we had another depression, the government made huge investments in the economy and the depression lasted a decade, Keynesian economics have never worked, never will IMO. If it is excessive spending which got us into the mess, escessive spending will not get us out of the mess. The belief that things are different in government is wrong, whatever affects us as individuals will affect the government in the same way. If you are underwater in debt, would you think taking on more debt is the way to solve the original debt, or does lowering your spending make more sense?
We have tried the big government solution far more, ... ReaganReagan was a big defense guy, not a big government guy otherwise.
Jasongreat
Feb1-12, 10:59 PM
Reagan was a big defense guy, not a big government otherwise.
Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing. I do agree that Reagan was a great man, held alot of conservative beliefs, and was a good president, especially when compared to Carter. When compared to Jefferson he left me wanting a more conservative president. Although at the time I liked him as a whole, but I was only eight. :)
If the three things I listed above were removed from his presidency, I would have listed him in my list of conservatives, instead of the list of progressives.
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 11:09 PM
Yes, Hoover was a big spending Republican, There were quite a few times, IIRC, that FDR stated that what he was doing was no differnt than hoover did, so he didnt understand why conservatives were upset about his policies. Calvin Coolidge made a statement to the effect that I have never been a spender, if you want a spender I am not your man, Hoover was then elected.
He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.
So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.
I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said it wasn't the least bit constitutional.
I agree government has a role to play, Paul and his supporters are not anarchists, it has a role well defined in a thing called the constitution and it doesnt matter wether we are in an agrarian society or a manufacturing society, a technical society, or a service society.
Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.
I am well aware, that what was once called a classical liberal is now called a libertarian or anarchist, and that those who support larger government are called Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans really don't want larger government, at least economically.
State rights was the base of our government, and I believe can be again. In a federlist/republican system each state is free to do whatever they want, except for those things enumerated to the federal government in the constitution such as defense, treaties, etc;. In doing so we would have fifty different tries at solving our problems, if one state becomes oppressive we are free to move to another state where we may find a better fit, if one state finds a solution others are free to follow or to tweak it to their beliefs. When we are formed as a nation, and everything gets settled at the national level, we get one try to solve a problem, if we dont like the outcome we are stuck with it since how are we going to vote with our feet? Where else is there to go? I like how some think that it is more efficient to take money from the states, send it to washington, pay the beaurocrats, than send whats left back to the state. Wouldnt it be more efficient to leave the whole amount in the state, for those citizens to do as they will. The only thing a national government is more efficient at is force.
It's precisely because they're efficient at force that the federal government should remain the most powerful entity. Bureaucrats will exist regardless. Do you believe that people can send money to states and no one take a cut off it? Ridiculous. You either have one agency taking up all the inefficiency, or fifty separate ones.
Furthermore, the 'efficiency' argument is untrue. What about companies that wish to operate across state lines? Instead of one set of rules that applies nationally, they have to follow two, three, ten, maybe even fifty different sets of rules. As for the 'experiments' argument, I think that too is not borne out by history. We have ample precedent that single payer health care is an incredibly good system of health care, yet only one state currently practices it (Vermont - and I don't believe it has been fully implemented yet). We can use other countries for experiments. And we can experiment ourselves. It's not hard, and it's not disastrous.
Furthermore, where does your argument end? The same exact logic could be applied for the primacy of city/local governments. Why send money to Austin when it could be kept in Podunk Texas? Heck, why send money to the city when it could be kept on your street? While we're at it, what's with those greedy neighbors wanting my money?!? I better hide my money under my pillow and spend it only on my own interests!
A non-interventionist = an isolationist
This is actually quite true. But I don't believe we've ever had a non-interventionist president.
the civil war was fought to end slavery
The prime cause was most certainly about slavery, which trickled its way down into issues like 'states rights' and other baggage which was then quite important.
that our founders founded a nation
What did they found, then? They certainly didn't found a vacuum cleaner!
that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic.
The term I would ideally prefer is 'Democratic Republic'. However, that often has connotations of Communism (for some strange reason). A true republic does not require a voting public, and a true democracy does not have representatives. We are a representative democracy. The term 'constitutional' is usually applied only to monarchies whose country has a Constitution. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't have a constitution, and I'm rather lacking in examples of a country with that system. I think Belgium might, or maybe Spain...
That the Federalists were right, since we now have over two hundred years of history which prove most of the anti-federalist claims were spot on.
Given that a proper application of Federalist mentality (taken to its logical conclusion) would result in a country like Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, it stands to reason that this is patently false. I would urge you to conduct a thorough study of Scandinavian welfare states. These represent the most left-wing nations on Earth that still maintain a foundation in capitalism, and they are without a doubt the most egalitarian, most humane, most democratic, and most liveable nations. Their debt's pretty low too, just in case you were about to mention that.
That our government is not a voluntary agreement, one which can be negated at any time by any member for reasons of non-compliance by other members of the federal government itself.
That's the definition of government. If it were voluntary, no one would pay taxes (except me, but I'm weird and have a sense of civic duty).
That our government can do anything the people want, without ammending the constitution.
Not anything, but the Commerce Clause gives tremendous powers.
That anyone supporting state rights is a racist.
No, but the last hope of states rights supporters is a racist:
http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-in-national/hunting-nazis-anonymous-snares-ron-paul-operation-blitzkrieg
That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence.
I beg to differ, good sir or madam. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time when the articles of confederation still hadn't come into being. If you want to see what a Ron Paul nation would look like, you may look at the nation under the Articles.
That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).
Not gonna argue this one.
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 11:10 PM
Then you must think the US is for the birds, as federalism is the law of the land.
Actually, I just think the US has a bad system. Sure, it's the law of the land. I didn't question that. I do question the efficacy of such a system.
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 11:14 PM
A decade later we had another depression, the government made huge investments in the economy and the depression lasted a decade, Keynesian economics have never worked, never will IMO.
Again with the IMO. Please, please look at Scandinavia. Also, I think you may have gotten your hands on revisionist history. The government made huge investments in the economy after Hoover waited years before trying to do something.
It's interesting to note that FDR was probably wrong. But he was wrong because he did not go far enough. We have proof that the Great Depression was ended by government spending - in fact, I can tell you exactly what caused the reemergence of the American economy: World War II, with incredibly high government spending. FDR let us tread water for a while. What should have happened was a lot of nationalization, starting with the banks.
Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing.Agreed. He was not a libertarian on drugs. But on net, he tried to shrink the overall size of government, though he failed.
Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing. I do agree that Reagan was a great man, held alot of conservative beliefs, and was a good president, especially when compared to Carter. When compared to Jefferson he left me wanting a more conservative president. Although at the time I liked him as a whole, but I was only eight. :)Not to get too far off topic, but just to offer an alternative view, I was in my 30's during Reagan's presidency, and, to me, he seemed like an incompetent stooge. An actor playing a part. We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office. As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.
Jasongreat
Feb2-12, 12:18 AM
As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.
Before his presidency Reagan was a governor of one of the largest states in the nation, Carter a peanut farmer in Georgia. According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_pre sidential_candidates) Reagan was a much bigger man than Carter ;). It seems he was a bigger person, and more signifigant than carter, but you did get one thing right, he was an actor. :)
Before his presidency Reagan was a governor of one of the largest states in the nation, Carter a peanut farmer in Georgia. According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_pre sidential_candidates) Reagan was a much bigger man than Carter ;). It seems he was a bigger person, and more signifigant than carter, but you did get one thing right, he was an actor. :)Ok, we can agee to disagree on this -- except for the height thing, which I concede.
Jasongreat
Feb2-12, 01:19 AM
=Angry Citizen;3740684]He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.
How about his spending leading up to the depression? He was a big spending progressive conservative, in todays terms, a compassionate conservative.
I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said it wasn't the least bit constitutional.
I agree, I only wrote what I did to show a change in thinking in Washington. Jefferson atleast fretted about the constituionality of it, today the constitution isnt even mentioned.
Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.
Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from? Government loves to cause a problem then turn around and say they have a cure. Heck, if it wasnt for governmental overreach I dont think the politicians would have much to run on. The railroads were one of the last corporations created by the old rules, by those rules they can only be a railroad. Now that the rules have changed corporations can use those exceptions the people gave them when they formed and use the money they made off those to go into other markets, helping to get to the too big to fail area. The main thing that kills me is we always hear how superior we are to past generations, if we are so superior, why do we need so much more government than they did?
Republicans really don't want larger government, at least economically.
No, but they do like expanded government when it controls the morallity of the masses.
Furthermore, where does your argument end? The same exact logic could be applied for the primacy of city/local governments. Why send money to Austin when it could be kept in Podunk Texas? Heck, why send money to the city when it could be kept on your street? While we're at it, what's with those greedy neighbors wanting my money?!? I better hide my money under my pillow and spend it only on my own interests!
And it should be, why should the city send money to the county, when they can spend it how they want where they want to better their community? Next, why should a county send money to a state, when they are in a better position to see what the county needs than the state can? And finally, why should a state send its money to the feds, to solve problems in their state. One of the things I liked in the constitution of the southern confederacy, was that they prohibited taking money from one state to make improvements in another. It seems to me it would solve alot of problems if California or Mass. or any other state were forced to pay for their failing policies, instead of taking money from their neighbors through the feds. It really helps one to see the error of their ways, when they face the consequences of those choices, on the otherhand it is very easy for people to put their heads in the sand when someone else bails them out.
This is actually quite true. But I don't believe we've ever had a non-interventionist president.
Well maybe you should read more US history. Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson. None were isolationists though. Here is a quote from Jefferson: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Notice how he wants to do buisiness with all nation, not isolationist. Yet he doesnt want to get involved in entangling alliances, non-interventionist.
The prime cause was most certainly about slavery, which trickled its way down into issues like 'states rights' and other baggage which was then quite important.
Why then did it take till the end of the war for the emmancipation proclamation, seems to me if the war was about slavery, one would free the slaves then send the army out to enforce said law. I cant remember who wrote it but it was a study of the civil war, they concluded that it would have been cheaper for the feds just to pay the going rate for the souths legal property, not to mention the half million men who would get to live the rest of their lives. If war was needed to end slavery, why did no other slave owning countries have to resort to war for slavery to end?
The term I would ideally prefer is 'Democratic Republic'. However, that often has connotations of Communism (for some strange reason). A true republic does not require a voting public, and a true democracy does not have representatives. We are a representative democracy. The term 'constitutional' is usually applied only to monarchies whose country has a Constitution. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't have a constitution, and I'm rather lacking in examples of a country with that system. I think Belgium might, or maybe Spain...
Wouldnt that term mean that the majority controlled what the government could do, we have a document that controls the government, which is why it is a constitutional republic?
That's the definition of government. If it were voluntary, no one would pay taxes (except me, but I'm weird and have a sense of civic duty).
So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me. There is no need of force for taxes, our country went a long time on tariffs and duties. I think a national sales tax would work, if you want a ferrari you will pay the tax it takes to get one. On the other hand if the government abuses its taxing the impact would be immediate. People would quit buying the products because of the excessive tax. Unlike the system in place now, death by a thousand cuts, all federal tax would be in one place.
Not anything, but the Commerce Clause gives tremendous powers.
Tremendous powers to regulate interstate commerce, in state commerce not so much.
I beg to differ, good sir or madam. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time when the articles of confederation still hadn't come into being. If you want to see what a Ron Paul nation would look like, you may look at the nation under the Articles.
The declaration of rights was a declaration of what the citizenery of the colonies believed, the articles of confederation and then the constitution were their attempts at creating a government that would best suit those beliefs. The Declaration was the founding document of our country, the constitution was the controlling document of the federal government, atleast thats the way I see it.
The main reason I like Paul is he starts the discussion at zero, isnt that the way to barter? If we keep arguing about should the feds get 10, 20 or 30 percent, we are going to keep getting what we already have. I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.
lpetrich
Feb2-12, 05:01 AM
Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):
What do you mean by "anti-American"?
A non-interventionist = an isolationist,
What's the difference?
the civil war was fought to end slavery,
Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.
In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery.
You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed? (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm)
Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause.
But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery.
that our founders founded a nation,
They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.
Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map.
that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic.
I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.
That anyone supporting state rights is a racist.
Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.
A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle.
That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence.
It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.
That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).
Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.
This chart will help readers get an idea where they fit on the political spectrum.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PL07fcBkGNE/TnIhX5QzmkI/AAAAAAAAVaA/fQQNs9QMyPg/s1600/AsplundChart.jpg
Respectfully,
Steve
Jimmy Snyder
Feb2-12, 07:17 AM
It still would have been useless, but at least he could have put centrists in the center.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 08:25 AM
How about his spending leading up to the depression? He was a big spending progressive conservative, in todays terms, a compassionate conservative.
I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.
Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from?
Folks like Andrew Carnegie used to have a philosophy. First they'd create a company. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to create its product. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to ship its product to consumers. Then they'd try to buy out other companies in the industry. It was a system known as vertical integration, if I remember correctly. No government required. Indeed, it wasn't until the anti-trust laws came about that monopolies could be legally eliminated.
And it should be, why should the city send money to the county, when they can spend it how they want where they want to better their community? Next, why should a county send money to a state, when they are in a better position to see what the county needs than the state can? And finally, why should a state send its money to the feds, to solve problems in their state. One of the things I liked in the constitution of the southern confederacy, was that they prohibited taking money from one state to make improvements in another. It seems to me it would solve alot of problems if California or Mass. or any other state were forced to pay for their failing policies, instead of taking money from their neighbors through the feds. It really helps one to see the error of their ways, when they face the consequences of those choices, on the otherhand it is very easy for people to put their heads in the sand when someone else bails them out.
I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.
However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city!
Well maybe you should read more US history. Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson.
Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within.
Why then did it take till the end of the war for the emmancipation proclamation, seems to me if the war was about slavery, one would free the slaves then send the army out to enforce said law.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy.
Wouldnt that term mean that the majority controlled what the government could do, we have a document that controls the government, which is why it is a constitutional republic?
No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes.
So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me.
Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me.
I think a national sales tax would work
I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.
I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.
Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.
lpetrich
Feb2-12, 09:48 AM
Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from?
So no business can possibly do bad things? As Angry Citizen noted, it's possible to build a monopoly by legitimate business practices, like buying the competition. It's also possible to use less-legitimate practices, like demanding that business partners not deal with rivals. That's what Microsoft has done with operating-system preloads. Make it significantly more expensive to preload Windows on 99.99+% of a company's PC's than to preload Windows on 100.00% of them. This makes it much more difficult for that company to offer preloaded alternates. There are even less legitimate practices, like physically attacking rivals, as in the frog wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog_war) between railroad companies in the 19th cy., and between rival criminal gangs. One might argue that that's not true capitalism, but that seems to me the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson. None were isolationists though. Here is a quote from Jefferson: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Notice how he wants to do buisiness with all nation, not isolationist. Yet he doesnt want to get involved in entangling alliances, non-interventionist.
Commerce with no military involvement? That's idealistic nonsense that only works with friendly nations. Even in the early years of the US, that policy could not be made to work.
So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me.
If the other states agree to secession, then I'm sure that national-level politicians will go along. That's an interesting historical riddle -- why was the North reluctant to let the South secede? Could it be the attack on Fort Sumter? Or concern about being weakened by division?
What's so patriotic about secession, anyway?
I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.
To get protected, for starters.
...We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office.
Well, "there you go again". :tongue: At best all you will find are anecdotes about senility. As to being a 'stooge', Reagan was a prolific writer. You can judge for yourself from his ample letters and radio speeches.
http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own-Hand-Revolutionary/dp/074320123X
And from the PBS series, Howard Baker taking over from the disgruntled Don Regan as Chief of Staff:
Narrator: What Baker's transition team was told by Don Regan's White House staff that weekend shocked them. Reagan was "inattentive," "inept," and "lazy" and Baker should be prepared to invoke the 25th amendment to relieve him of his duties.
Edmund Morris, Official Biographer: The incoming Baker people all decided to have a meeting with him on the Monday morning, their first official meeting with the President and to cluster around the table in the Cabinet Room and watch him very, very closely to see how he behaved, to see if he was indeed losing his mental grip. They positioned themselves very strategically around the table so they could watch him from various angles, listen to him and check his movements and listen to his words and look into his eyes. And I was there when this meeting took place. And Reagan who was, of course, completely unaware that they were launching a death watch on him, came in stimulated by the press of all these new people and performed splendidly. At the end of the meeting they figuratively threw up their hands realizing he was in perfect command of himself.
Howard Baker, Chief of Staff (archival): Ladies and gentlemen, is this president fully in control of his Presidency? Is he alert? Is he fully engaged? Is he in contact with the problems? And I'm telling ya, it's just one day's experience and maybe that's not enough, but today he was superb.
Reporter (archival): And Mrs. Reagan? The issue of Mrs. Reagan's involvement in West Wing decisions?
Howard Baker, Chief of Staff (archival): I haven't talked to Mrs. Reagan today. I intend to do that later today. I intend to do that later today. But let me say, I've known Nancy Reagan a long time too. And I did speak to her on Friday, and I expect -- there's the phone now.
Howard Baker, Chief of Staff: From moment one at the White House with Ronald Reagan, I came away convinced not only was he fully in command -- fully competent -- but that -- he was not being well served by the arrangements in the White House -- but that he was fully capable of discharging that job in a very, very effective way. And I still think that.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/reagan-transcript/
lpetrich
Feb2-12, 10:08 AM
I spent some time perusing what the candidates have recently stated about Iran, and Ron Paul is the only dovish one. I could easily find hawkish statements from Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.
I spent some time perusing what the candidates have recently stated about Iran, and Ron Paul is the only dovish one. I could easily find hawkish statements from Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.
If more war and debt is sincerely desired, there are many to choose from who will leap to take us there. Romney, for instance, has surrounded himself with neocons, those wonderful folks who lied us into Iraq.
If you value peace above all else, our only current choice is Ron Paul.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Jasongreat
Feb2-12, 06:28 PM
What do you mean by "anti-American"?
What's the difference?
Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.
In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery.
You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed? (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm)
Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause.
But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery.
They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.
Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map.
I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.
Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.
A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle.
It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.
Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.
Sorry, I misspoke, I meant un-american. As I have said in my other posts, the DOI was a statement of beliefs the colonists shared, so I consider those tenets in the DOI, american. If a belief runs contrary to that document I consider it an un-american belief. Still though there are alot of un-american policies that are anti-american, as in they hurt americans.
The south was trying to protect thier legal property, it was the US government when writing the constitution that continued the princple of slaves(human beings) being property. Protecting property is one of the enumerated powers of the general government. The south added to their constitution that no other slaves may be imported. By the by, I have read their constitution before, while I was reading the rise and fall of the confederate states by Jefferson Davis.
The founders did found thirteen different colonies(countries) domestically, one unified front for foreign affairs like treaties, wars, and trade, atleast they intended to.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;
The only problem I have with the term democracy being used is we are not a democracy, that belief is the one that allows for the justification of tyrannical policies. Quite a few supreme court decisions I have read say that even though there is not a power in the constitution allowing it they feel the people want it, therefore they agree to it. The only way the will of the people overides the US Constitution, is superduper-majorities of the states ammending the constitution.
The constitution should be legally binding, however it has not proven to be so in most cases. The constitution was based on the beliefs asserted in the DOI.
Yes, every candidate except Paul is war-hawkish, including Obama.
Edit: One of the proposals voted down was the inclusion of the word nation in the constitution, they opted for united states.
Jasongreat
Feb2-12, 07:18 PM
I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.
I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.
However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city!
Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy.
No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes.
Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me.
I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.
Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.
Hoover was a self described progressive reformer, according to his wiki page. Hoover signed the revenue act of 32 which raised taxes to 63% on wealthy individuals. The depression only worsened. Harding in the early twenties, reduced the top tax rate from 73%, revenues increased and the forgotten depression ended, the roaring twenties began.
California's problem is not that they took too few taxes, it is that they spend too much.
Nice strawman, dont you think most locallities would make similar regulations? The city should be free to do everything relating to the individual. Like moral laws, gun laws, whatever that little group feels is in their best interest. Then the counties come along and legislates, what the cities dont have the resources to do on their own, then the state comes along and legislates whatever the counties cant do for themselves, then the feds legislate everything that the states cant do for themselves. Seems to me a simple plan, which would work better than what we have now? How does someone in Washington know the interests of the localities, 2000 miles away? I can see far more mischief coming from a one size fits all nation, than a to each its own confederacy.
I like your Madison argument, he was an interventionist because he went to war against others intervening in our affairs. The british were intervening in our trade and in our domestic affairs(supporting indians), as well as imprisoning americans to involuntary servitude in the royal navy through impressment. My point still stands, Madison was not an interventionist.
By your own definition then we were a constitutional republic until the ratification of the 17th ammendment in 1912, when the progressive era was in full swing. Is it a coincidence that those wanting to enlarge the powers of the federal government were also the ones who started refering to the US as a democracy?
See: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. That whenever the form of government becomes destructive it is the right of the people to abolish said government. Sounds to me like the founders beilieved in seccession. I stated in my earlier post that one of the first proposals in the convention was the use of Nation, they chose united states instead.
On my proposal of a sales tax, I never included what I thought those taxes should be applied to. I think any staple needed to live like food and shelter should be tax free, and every product not needed would be taxed like cell phones, cars, computers, etc;.
If by didnt work you mean did not allow for the ever increasing size and scope of the general government, I agree, however if you meant did not provide sufficient revenue to provide the government our constitution set up I disagree. We had no income tax until Lincoln used one to pay for his war, then it came back permantly when progressives wanted to increase the size of government, coincidence?
Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.
Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln.
Does it matter? It was centuries ago.
Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln.
Does it matter? It was centuries ago.It was a blink of the eye in long-term historical terms, and practically yesterday for any Southerners who hold a grudge against the "War of Northern Aggression". Most of the $$$$$$$$ artifacts that I auctioned in my years in selling military artifacts were sold to wealthy southerners who had collections.
Tosh5457
Feb2-12, 09:01 PM
Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 09:05 PM
Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.
Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.
ParticleGrl
Feb2-12, 10:07 PM
Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):... the civil war was fought to end slavery
I call BS. And thinking this betrays such a lack of study that no one should give you the benefit of the doubt on anything you've written about history.
The south succeeded and tried to raise a country with the EXPLICIT goal of defending slavery. Read the succession documents from the various states! Here is a choice quote from the Cornerstone Speech:
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition
Alexander Stephens was the vice president of the Confederacy. He was not alone in championing this "ideal",again-the South succeeded, according to its leaders explicitly to defend slavery.
And always remember- the opening act of aggression in the Civil War was South Carolina militia firing on Fort Sumter.
Tosh5457
Feb2-12, 10:09 PM
Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.
In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue, which Greenspan put in practice and Bernanke followed. Corporations can't expect the Fed will be there to lend money when they need, there have to be other solutions, namely more regulation. Now Wall Street will go back to what it always did, certainly partly because they know there's a lender of last resort.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 10:15 PM
In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
Tosh5457
Feb2-12, 10:23 PM
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
Just ending it and putting the gold standard monetary system back would be even better than controlling it. The gold standard brings stability and sound money. Switzerland for example, has a system close to a gold standard, since they have a lot of gold reserves.
Hmm nationalization of all banks is crazy in my opinion, the government can't and shouldn't run an entire sector. What we need is more regulation, and start by putting back the regulations that existed before, like distinguishing between commercial and savings banks.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 10:27 PM
The gold standard brings stability and sound money.
No it doesn't. In times of economic pain, a gold standard will destroy an economy. Keynesian economics is a proven format - it's just that most nations don't bother to pay down the debt in times of plenty like J.M. Keynes advocated.
Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue.
The Fed was created specifically to be a lender of last resort. It was supposed to be there to provide loans to otherwise healthy banks when there was a run on them so that they wouldn't collapse and cause a financial panic.
I think Ron Paul is nutty about wanting to go back to a gold standard, but I can understand why he has problems with the Fed. The Fed wields an incredible amount of power over the economy, and its track record has been uneven at best. Reverting to a gold standard would wrest all that power out of the hands of the interests who control it now.
ParticleGrl
Feb2-12, 11:13 PM
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 11:16 PM
The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?
Sure it would be helpful. The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis). I don't think you have much to worry about as far as politicians, so long as an informed citizenry exists.
... On second thought, perhaps we need to wait until Americans become more similar to Europeans in terms of political consciousness. Given certain political realities in America today, it's obvious that Americans are pretty lacking in that department.
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 02:15 AM
Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course)
Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymous-hacks-neo-nazis-finds-ron-paul.html
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 02:20 AM
Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course)
Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymous-hacks-neo-nazis-finds-ron-paul.html
I tried to go to www.nazi-leaks.info to see the documents, and it wouldn't load... then I think I found out why. A white supremacy forum is launching a DDos attack here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t857212/
edit:
as of this edit, the white supremacist forum has been taken out, the site is available again:
http://www.nazi-leaks.info/
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 03:36 AM
most of the links in the nazi-leaks site work, but the particular damning one with the relevant e-mail is going really slow, despite being only 66MB; I have tried downloading four times now, each time I reach a different point before it gets cut off. Going to keep trying though.
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 05:03 AM
Finally got it downloaded. It's a lot of material, but so far the only mention of Ron Paul is that they would vote for him. Can't find anything like what the article reports.
Jasongreat
Feb3-12, 02:12 PM
The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis). I don't think you have much to worry about as far as politicians, so long as an informed citizenry exists.
If, "an informed citizenry exists", then "The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis)." would never happen. Even with a informed public as long as government provides free money or practicly free money(low interest) housing bubbles will continue to exist, would you pay more than a house is worth if it isnt going to have compounding interest on the overcost, how about if there is 5% compounding interest? How about 10% interest? I think I would be less apt to overpay the higher the interest rate goes, the opposite would be true the lower they go. The other side of the coin is the local governments, the ones who value your property for tax purposes, it is in thier interest to say your property is worth more than it is, since it gives higher tax revenue for the city, county, parish or whatever. If a true market controled the price, bubbles would be less apt to happen, as long as government controls the market, bubbles will continue to happen.
An "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html
RENO, NEV. — The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.
But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.
They never do.
Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.
The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
lpetrich
Feb3-12, 03:29 PM
The south was trying to protect thier legal property, it was the US government when writing the constitution that continued the princple of slaves(human beings) being property.
The original Constitution nowhere mentioned "slave" or "slavery". In fact, it tries to dodge that issue in a few places, like where states get to include in their population for representation purposes "three fifths of all other Persons."
Protecting property is one of the enumerated powers of the general government.
Where?
The founders did found thirteen different colonies(countries) domestically, one unified front for foreign affairs like treaties, wars, and trade, atleast they intended to.
Everybody else would call it a nation -- it's more than (say) the European Union.
The only problem I have with the term democracy being used is we are not a democracy, that belief is the one that allows for the justification of tyrannical policies.
Pure hairsplitting. Reminds me of the lengthy argument I once had on another board about someone who insisted that the UK is not a "crowned republic" or a "monarchical republic".
The constitution should be legally binding, however it has not proven to be so in most cases.
News to me and to just about every jurist in the business.
Angry Citizen
Feb3-12, 05:05 PM
An "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html
RENO, NEV. — The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.
But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.
They never do.
Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.
The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
This is rather laughable, to be blunt. Ron Paul selling out his principles to ally himself with the Republican whose record is the least conservative, most "big government" of all.
Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course)
Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymous-hacks-neo-nazis-finds-ron-paul.htmlI wouldn't know how to ascertain whether this is true or not. Imho, the main reason to not vote for Paul is because he's a libertarian who believes that the less government intervention and regulation the better. We know that this is an orientation leads to big problems. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that his libertarian economic approach was wrong. It seems that Paul hasn't learned some important lessons that our history might teach us.
I have the feeling that lots of people in the US romanticize the glory days of how the west was won (I don't blame them.) They always seem to want to return to the 'primordial soup' of society. It wouldn't surprise me if libertarians and the extreme right-wing US share that belief.
Doesn't say a lot about Ron Paul, though.
Jasongreat
Feb4-12, 04:32 PM
=ParticleGrl]I call BS. And thinking this betrays such a lack of study that no one should give you the benefit of the doubt on anything you've written about history.
Which is exactly the point I was making, I have no doubt that you are intelligent and 'well' educated. Yet you hold the exact politically correct understanding of american history I was refering to.
I hope that neither you nor anyone else gives anyting I say the benefit of the doubt. But I think if you study the same sources I have you will come to the same conclusion.
The south succeeded and tried to raise a country with the EXPLICIT goal of defending slavery. Read the succession documents from the various states! Here is a choice quote from the Cornerstone Speech:
Alexander Stephens was the vice president of the Confederacy. He was not alone in championing this "ideal",again-the South succeeded, according to its leaders explicitly to defend slavery.
I came to my beliefs reading Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, John Taylor of caroline, the federalist and anti-federlist papers among others, and for the souths view I read the rise and fall of the confederate states, by the president of the confederacy Jefferson Davis.
And always remember- the opening act of aggression in the Civil War was South Carolina militia firing on Fort Sumter.
Another politically correct 'fact'. The south had been victims of the norths aggression for years before fort sumter. Your fact also fails to take into account that while the south had people in washington trying to negotiate a peaceful solution, the north were sending reinforcements and supplies to fort sumpter. If I was in a city, and across the bay a fort was being filled with men, weapons and supplies, I would consider that aggression, especially since those in the forts had been free to go into town to re-supply.
It has long been the custom that to the victors goes the spoils, in this case the victor re-wrote history to justify its unjust, unneeded, anti-constitutional war. That is the history taught in school today and is why I labeled it the way I did.
Jasongreat
Feb4-12, 04:49 PM
=lpetrich;3743631]The original Constitution nowhere mentioned "slave" or "slavery". In fact, it tries to dodge that issue in a few places, like where states get to include in their population for representation purposes "three fifths of all other Persons."
Where?(In response to property being protected in the USC)
So your argument is that since slavery is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it does not qualify as protected property?
1) At the time the constitution was adopted, slaves were held as legal property.
2) In that same constitution it meantions no ex-post-facto laws can be passed. Therefore one cannot pass a law depriving one of their legal property. You can make a law effecting all future property, but cannot make a law effecting presently held property.
3) In the fourth ammendment it says that all persons are to be secure in their effects, effects are property, unless through due-process. Going to war is not due proccess.
I am well aware that today it is easy to distinguish between human beings and property, but at the time in question, human beings were legally binding property, unfortunately.
As fun as this has been, and even with states rights being part of pauls platform, civil war history however is a bit off topic and as such I will not reply to any more post on this subject, feel free to respond though, you all will have the last word, if you so choose.
ParticleGrl
Feb4-12, 08:35 PM
and for the souths view I read the rise and fall of the confederate states, by the president of the confederacy Jefferson Davis.
But apparently you've never read any of the succession documents! Reading this "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." The vice-president of the confederacy seemed to believe that THE founding principal of the Confederacy was slavery. The various states that succeeded cited slavery as the principal reason they succeeded. Everyone writing before the war seems to believe that slavery was the proximal cause.
If slavery was a non-issue, why did Davis devote a large portion of his book to the history of slavery, the hypocrisy of northerners toward slavery, etc, etc...
Not to get too far off topic, but just to offer an alternative view, I was in my 30's during Reagan's presidency, and, to me, he seemed like an incompetent stooge. An actor playing a part. We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office. As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.
Reagan was most certainly not a stooge by any means. I'd rank him as one of our greatest presidents, when viewing his economic policy and his foreign policy.
Misconceptions everywhere. For "big government" you are seriously considering Hoover to be a big government guy? He did nothing when the economy started collapsing....He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.
This is completely untrue. Hoover was a reknowned disaster-management expert and very much intervened when the economy started collapsing. He raised taxes to try and balance the budget, he enacted price and wage controls, he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and began various public works programs. Hoover did not believe in laissez-faire capitalism. If Hoover's response had actually been laissez-faire, then the economy might not have spiraled into the depresison the way that it did. One of the prime reasons why the economy did what it did was because of terrible monetary policy at the Federal Reserve, but no one really understood this at the time. We also had a much more limited understanding of macroeconomics at the time.
The populace was kept ignorant and relatively destitute for a very long time until government began to intervene. No, my friend, government has a huge role to play, and its positive effects have been shown throughout history.
Government had nothing to do with the population gaining prosperity, that was due to the market economy. Government can play a role in facilitating the market through infrastructure or funding research, but government itself is not what caused people to rise up from being destitute. And while government does have some roles to play, it also has a huge record of very negative effects from doing things as well.
Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.
A big government is not required for adequate regulation. An economy needs, overall, light and efficient regulation. Regulation is one of the means by which corporations "rape the middle class," if you will, as they use regulation to establish cartels, to drive smaller competitors out of the market, to force people to buy more expensive light bulbs as we've seen recently under the guise of being "green," and so forth. Regulation is a tricky subject because with too little of it, businesses will abuse people. And with too much of it, businesses will abuse people. That is why Republicans are for limited government. Not anti-government, but limited government.
It's precisely because they're efficient at force that the federal government should remain the most powerful entity. Bureaucrats will exist regardless. Do you believe that people can send money to states and no one take a cut off it? Ridiculous. You either have one agency taking up all the inefficiency, or fifty separate ones.
Furthermore, the 'efficiency' argument is untrue. What about companies that wish to operate across state lines? Instead of one set of rules that applies nationally, they have to follow two, three, ten, maybe even fifty different sets of rules. As for the 'experiments' argument, I think that too is not borne out by history. We have ample precedent that single payer health care is an incredibly good system of health care, yet only one state currently practices it (Vermont - and I don't believe it has been fully implemented yet). We can use other countries for experiments. And we can experiment ourselves. It's not hard, and it's not disastrous.
Single-payer healthcare is not the ideal form of universal healthcare because it is socialist and as such, is fraught with the problems of rationing. The British system has this problem, the Canadian system has been experiencing it, other European countries have partially privatized their healthcare systems because of the rationing problems.
Given that a proper application of Federalist mentality (taken to its logical conclusion) would result in a country like Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, it stands to reason that this is patently false. I would urge you to conduct a thorough study of Scandinavian welfare states. These represent the most left-wing nations on Earth that still maintain a foundation in capitalism, and they are without a doubt the most egalitarian, most humane, most democratic, and most liveable nations. Their debt's pretty low too, just in case you were about to mention that.
They also are very small and very uniform and don't have much in the way of defense spending. Take Norway, Denmark, or Sweden and crank up the population by 30X, add in a whole slew of additional cultures, ethnicities, races, religions, languages, etc...and you'll find they don't function nearly as smoothly. And Norway, BTW, gets 25% of its GDP from oil exports. It is one of the world's largest oil exporters.
BTW, why is egalitarianism always viewed as some noble end to be sought after? It's fine for a society to strive to have a safety net, but otherwise, freedom and opportunity should be the goal, not "egalitarianism" where we all come out equal in the end.
Again with the IMO. Please, please look at Scandinavia. Also, I think you may have gotten your hands on revisionist history. The government made huge investments in the economy after Hoover waited years before trying to do something.
You might want to look at just what FDR did during the New Deal, as much of it was utterly disastrous statist economic policy that lengthened out the depression. Government is mostly incapable of stimulating an economy in the short-term. Long-term, it can facilitate economic growth, which the New Deal did, but this would be years later.
It's interesting to note that FDR was probably wrong. But he was wrong because he did not go far enough. We have proof that the Great Depression was ended by government spending - in fact, I can tell you exactly what caused the reemergence of the American economy: World War II, with incredibly high government spending. FDR let us tread water for a while. What should have happened was a lot of nationalization, starting with the banks.
World War II spending did not get us out of the Great Depression. What ended the Depression was a few things:
1) The rest of the industrialized world had been bombed to ruins and was re-building. The U.S., meanwhile, had not only not been bombed, but not made up a massive chunk of the world's total industrial capability.
2) Some countries followed the path of socialism, which was disastrous, such as the UK.
3) The New Deal's infrastructure programs - the New Deal had some bad aspects, but it did contribute to the post-war economic recovery in terms of the infrastructure. The infrastructure programs did not stimulate the economy during the Depression itself, but after the war, they allowed for whole areas of the country, which had previously been rural backwaters, to develop into booming, thriving economies, because of roads, electricity, airports, bridges, etc...
4) The defense budget. The U.S.'s defense budget served as a major form of industrial policy after the war by providing funds for research into various industries. Things ranging from the C programming language, C++, and Unix, to the laser and transistor were all developed at Bell Labs, with funding from DARPA. The Internet and GPS both stem from military spending. The AEGIS air defense computer and the Apollo spacecraft computer contributed to the development of computer architecture. All of these technologies led to the creation of booming industries and lots of economic growth in the economy.
5) The Interstate Highway System - another infrastructure project, one which was also tied to national defense, so we'd have the ability to move the army from one side of the ocuntry to another easily if need be. The IHS has had a huge economic impact on the nation since being constructed.
6) During the Great Depression, the birthrate declined. By the time the end of World War II rolled around, the men who had been born during the Depression years, many of whom were just entering the job market, found jobs ready and waiting for them.
FDR did not have the nation tread water, he basically anchored the country underwater, until finally after the war, the various things he'd done that were constraining the economy, were lifted. Also, why would nationalization have saved the economy during the Depression (it actually was quasi-nationalized due to FDR's policies, which hampered economic growth)?
lpetrich
Feb4-12, 10:13 PM
Which is exactly the point I was making, I have no doubt that you are intelligent and 'well' educated. Yet you hold the exact politically correct understanding of american history I was refering to.
What's "political correctness"? Some sort of big conspiracy?
I came to my beliefs reading Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, John Taylor of caroline, the federalist and anti-federlist papers among others, and for the souths view I read the rise and fall of the confederate states, by the president of the confederacy Jefferson Davis.
Including what George Washington did about the Whiskey Rebellion?
Another politically correct 'fact'. The south had been victims of the norths aggression for years before fort sumter. ...
I don't see why the South is supposed to be so worth weeping for. One can argue with such stretched definitions of "aggression" that the southern states had aggressed against the northern ones in their efforts to protect slavery.
So your argument is that since slavery is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it does not qualify as protected property?
No, it's that you've been reading too much into the Constitution.
1) At the time the constitution was adopted, slaves were held as legal property.
2) In that same constitution it meantions no ex-post-facto laws can be passed. Therefore one cannot pass a law depriving one of their legal property. You can make a law effecting all future property, but cannot make a law effecting presently held property.
An ex post facto law is one that's retroactive. Thus, the Federal Government had the right to outlaw slavery, but not to make it retroactive for people who've already freed their slaves. Jasongreat, that is a VERY questionable legal theory, and I don't think that you'll find many jurists supporting it.
3) In the fourth ammendment it says that all persons are to be secure in their effects, effects are property, unless through due-process. Going to war is not due proccess.
I disagree.
I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.
The history is wrong. Again, Hoover was no friend of laissez-faire and definitely not one to sit on the sidelines, being reknowned for disaster management as he was.
Folks like Andrew Carnegie used to have a philosophy. First they'd create a company. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to create its product. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to ship its product to consumers. Then they'd try to buy out other companies in the industry. It was a system known as vertical integration, if I remember correctly. No government required. Indeed, it wasn't until the anti-trust laws came about that monopolies could be legally eliminated.
Are you aware that FDR's policies allowed violation of the anti-trust laws?
I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.
California's problem is excessive spending, not a lack of tax revenue.
I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.
Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have among the highest VAT taxes in the EU, which is sort of like a national sales tax, except it's a hidden tax that taxes every stage of the production and distribution of goods and services. It primarily hits the poor and middle-income because of how it raises the cost of living. It hits the rich too whenever they buy things, but the rich guy doesn't care if his grocery bill costs more or if his fuel bill costs more.
Sure it would be helpful. The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis). I don't think you have much to worry about as far as politicians, so long as an informed citizenry exists.
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
We tried two nationalized central banks and both had to be shut down due to corruption. The current Federal Reserve is the third attempt at getting it right and is a hybrid institution as we can't have a privatized central bank either. If you nationalized all banks, you would have capital getting allocated via politics as opposed to economic needs.
No it doesn't. In times of economic pain, a gold standard will destroy an economy. Keynesian economics is a proven format - it's just that most nations don't bother to pay down the debt in times of plenty like J.M. Keynes advocated.
Much of Keynesian economics has been shown to be very over-simplified and just flat-out wrong.
... On second thought, perhaps we need to wait until Americans become more similar to Europeans in terms of political consciousness. Given certain political realities in America today, it's obvious that Americans are pretty lacking in that department.
Not really. That's a common stereotype, but it isn't true. One look at the media in Europe and one will see that the Europeans have a rather limited worldview given how their media leans almost entirely socially-democratic. It isn't like in the U.S., where you have firey polemic on both ends of the spectrum. This is because the Europeans don't trust the free-market to handle the issue of media, and thus entrust it to the government, in the idea that the government running the media will ensure it is fair, balanced, objective, etc...but which often results in it being unfair, unbalanced, and completely subjective. Media that is run by the private-sector, they regulate very stringently.
That this happens shouldn't be surprising, because people with a political agenda are rarely objective, and even the ones that lean a certain way but try to be objective, will still tend to end up producing content that leans in their direction. To a social democrat, what seems a centrist position would to many other people on the right clearly be center-left, and what seems a center-left position would be seen as flat-out left. So such people will tend not to produce objective news. The same thing will occur with the right-wing as well. With the American media system however, we have all manner of news, everything from the New York Times and the Washington Post to the Washington times and the New York Post. We have National Review and The Weekly Standard and The Nation and Mother Jones. We have Fox News which leans right and CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc...which lean left, and talk radio, which is mostly dominated by right-leaning programs, but also there are left-leaning ones.
You don't find this in Europe where the government either runs the media or regulates it highly. The Scandinavian nations are in particular bad in this sense. What it leads to is a populace that is very limited in its worldview on things if it relies on its nation's media.
Jasongreat
Feb4-12, 10:52 PM
What's "political correctness"? Some sort of big conspiracy?
Including what George Washington did about the Whiskey Rebellion?
I don't see why the South is supposed to be so worth weeping for. One can argue with such stretched definitions of "aggression" that the southern states had aggressed against the northern ones in their efforts to protect slavery.
No, it's that you've been reading too much into the Constitution.
An ex post facto law is one that's retroactive. Thus, the Federal Government had the right to outlaw slavery, but not to make it retroactive for people who've already freed their slaves. Jasongreat, that is a VERY questionable legal theory, and I don't think that you'll find many jurists supporting it.
I disagree.
Sorry, I thought I could seperate myself from this discussion and allow those with less then honorable policies to argue against my points. However the replies have been ridiculous.
The whiskey rebellion is one of the black spots on Washingtons record, imo. And is the reason that washington doesnt fall into my list of best presidents, however he does fall into my list of great presidents.
A ex post facto law is one that is retroactive, and is why these type of laws are not allowed in the US. Those who owned a leaded car didnt have their cars confiscated, they were allowed to own the same car but to put unleaded fuel and additives into their tank.
Jasongreat
Feb4-12, 11:41 PM
Wh
An ex post facto law is one that's retroactive. Thus, the Federal Government had the right to outlaw slavery, but not to make it retroactive for people who've already freed their slaves. Jasongreat, that is a VERY questionable legal theory, and I don't think that you'll find many jurists supporting it.
I disagree.
An expost facto law is retroactive, and why it is dissallowed under the constitution.
Reagan was most certainly not a stooge by any means. I'd rank him as one of our greatest presidents, when viewing his economic policy and his foreign policy.He was an ignorant tool of the status quo, imho. One of the very worst US presidents in history. His economic policy benefited a small minority at the expense of the vast majority of the populace, and some of his documented foreign policy dealings were awash with corruption. He was a not well studied one-dimensional anticommunist and a laisez faire capitalist. A rich, not too smart, McCarthyite. But also a good looking guy, and a, sort of, movie star. By the most important measures Reagan was, imho, a lightweight. But he had the necessary personal habits to be a presentable president.
He was an ignorant tool of the status quo, imho.
Reagan was anything but the status quo and much of what he did was extremely controversial at the time as a result.
One of the very worst US presidents in history. His economic policy benefited a small minority at the expense of the vast majority of the populace, and some of his documented foreign policy dealings were awash with corruption.
The economy benefitted everyone under him. That's why he was re-elected with one of the largest, if not the largest, margin in history for a re-election. I don't know what you mean about his economic policy benefiting a few at the expense of the many. His economic policies consisted of reducing tax rates, closing tax loopholes (to make it where those in the upper brackets avoiding taxes would now be paying), and reducing regulations. In other words, what he did primarily was to free up the economy. That isn't a policy aimed at benefiting the few.
His foreign policy was controversial because he directly confronted the Soviet Union and called it for what it was, an evil empire. He sought to end communism, something that at the time, the elites considered a fantastical and childish notion (the mighty Soviet Union wasn't going anywhere, and the notion that it could be ended was a childish fantasy). He was not for detente nor was he for the "stuffed goose option" that many on the Left were for (i.e. give the Soviet Union what it requested in the form of aid). He directly countered the Soviets militarily (which many considered dangerous at the time). His major foreign policy blunder was the Iran-Contra Scandal. His economic policies were considered controversial to lunatic, depending on the person at the time.
He was a not well studied one-dimensional anticommunist and a laisez faire capitalist. A rich, not too smart, McCarthyite. But also a good looking guy, and a, sort of, movie star. By the most important measures Reagan was, imho, a lightweight. But he had the necessary personal habits to be a presentable president.
Reagan was not a lightweight. This is something the Left have gone out of their way to try to claim, but anyone who looks at Reagan's dealings with the Soviet Union sees he was far from any simpleton. How he dealt with the Soviet Union was more nuanced than many realize. His handling of the Soviets ranged from using the Strategic Defense Initiative (missile defense) to get concessions from Gorbachev (really hilarious in hindsight as no one in the U.S. saw the SDI as even being viable, at most decades out, and at the time only being something on the drawing board), to backing various anti-communist guerilla movements around the world to counter the Soviet-backed communist movements, to purposely denying the Soviets technology and supplies they needed, to engaging in a large-scale defense build-up, which the Soviets knew from the outset that they could not match, which unto itself made them more pliable. One of the reasons Gorbachev was selected to head the Soviet Union was because he wasn't a hard-liner, as the Soviets knew the old hard-liner method was not going to work with Reagan. Reagan also gave support to the Eastern European resistance movements against the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev gets a lot of credit for enacting various liberal reforms in the Soviet Union (Perestroika and Glasnost). It is these reforms which helped contribute to the Soviet Union breaking up. But they wouldn't have come into existence without Gorbachev, and Gorbachev likely wouldn't have taken control if there'd been no Reagan. Another thing to keep in mind was that it was Gorbachev who was considered the sophisticated, suave, likable world leader by the media and elites at the time. He was younger, and was trying to make the Soviet Union more free, which everyone loved. Reagan was seen as the warmongering buffoon (ironic as it was the Soviet Union that was in Afghanistan at the time, and Reagan was countering Soviet military aggression (he decided to counter the Soviets placing nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe with nuclear missiles pointed back at them)). Yet it was Gorbachev who gave the concessions to Reagan, not the other way around (and up until he gave the concessions, many thought Reagan a fool for even attempting to get them).
Regarding economics, Milton Friedman, the late great free-market economist who worked with Reagan, said that the two most academically intelligent presidents he ever knew were Nixon and Clinton. But he said the notion that Reagan was a simpleton is nonsense.
Reagan was the first post-war president to really put the nation's economic health ahead of his political career. Prior to him, presidents might support the Federal Reserve in raising interest rates to counter inflation, but then immediately pressure them to reduce interest rates so that the economy didn't tank and ruin their political viability. One of the worst offenders at this sort of thing was Nixon, who enacted price controls knowing full well the effect they would have, but doing so for short-term political viability. Reagan, on the other hand, did a first in providing the political cover and support the Federal Reserve needed to raise interest rates as high as they did for as long as they did to kill the inflation at the time. The Fed was finally able to act independently of the whims of politics to take a longer-term view of the economy. The nasty side effect was driving the economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan was criticized for this and his poll ratings tanked as the economy sank. Volcker was called the worst Federal Reserve chairman in history and one Congressman tried to introduce legislation that would have forced the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates.
In addition to this, Reagan's policies of tax cuts and deregulation were criticized as well. His policies of reducing welfare were criticized. His ending the gas price controls was also very criticized. But the strategy worked. The inflation came down to a healthy level and the economy came back to life (and this was a risk as well because the strategy of raising interest rates to kill inflation hasn't always worked when tried). Some have tried to claim that Reagan got lucky in terms of the economy turning around. But if not for Reagan, we'd likely have had a president who would not have given the Fed that kind of support to reduce inflation, nor would they have enacted policies to free up the economy the way Reagan did. If anything, from what the Democratic candidates of the time were proposing, we'd have had even more price controls and regulations.
Reagan didn't bring down the Soviet Union all by himself nor did he turn the economy around all by himself, but he was critical to both happening, and without him, the economy probably would have remained racked with high inflation and the Soviet Union might still be around today.
He was an ignorant tool of the status quo, imho. One of the very worst US presidents in history. His economic policy benefited a small minority at the expense of the vast majority of the populace, and some of his documented foreign policy dealings were awash with corruption. He was a not well studied one-dimensional anticommunist and a laisez faire capitalist. A rich, not too smart, McCarthyite. But also a good looking guy, and a, sort of, movie star. By the most important measures Reagan was, imho, a lightweight. But he had the necessary personal habits to be a presentable president.TT: If you were to add to a post like this, "Reagan was X, because he did" verifiable facts Y,Z,... or verifiable events "Y,Z occurred under his watch", and perhaps compared to other leaders, the post will carry more weight. As is, with "some of", "awash", etc, the post appears to me as agenda driven propaganda.
@ CAC1001,
Ok, points to ponder. I disagree with your assessment of Reagan, but we've gotten a bit off topic. Back to Paul.
TT: If you were to add to a post like this, "Reagan was X, because he did verifiable facts Y,Z,... or verifiable events "Y,Z occurred under his watch" the post will carry more weight. As is, the post appears to me as agenda driven propaganda, and therefore unpersuasive.I agree. It's just my opinion. And since we're getting away from discussing Paul, I won't say anything more about Reagan in this thread. The info is on the internet for anybody who cares enough about Reagan's legacy to look into it.
One look at the media in Europe and one will see that the Europeans have a rather limited worldview given how their media leans almost entirely socially-democratic. It isn't like in the U.S., where you have firey polemic on both ends of the spectrum. This is because the Europeans don't trust the free-market to handle the issue of media, and thus entrust it to the government, in the idea that the government running the media will ensure it is fair, balanced, objective, etc...but which often results in it being unfair, unbalanced, and completely subjective. Media that is run by the private-sector, they regulate very stringently.
As a European, I am not sure whether I should be grateful for being enlightened.
Last night's sweep of caucuses and beauty contest by Santorum really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. Paul even pushed Romney down to 3rd in Minnesota.
This is going to set in a state of extreme jitters, blood-spitting and deep agonizing amongst the party pros, financiers, pundits and media elites. They literally have no idea what to do, so I expect anything, possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.
Gov. Daniels was pushed hard to enter before the primaries started and did not. Do you have any information indicating he would change his mind now, when its nearly a practical impossibility to run a campaign?
Gov. Daniels was pushed hard to enter before the primaries started and did not. Do you have any information indicating he would change his mind now, when its nearly a practical impossibility to run a campaign?
Yes, sir. The scenario I have in mind has the current candidates continuing to score delegates such that, come the convention, none of them have sufficient numbers to take the nomination on the first ballot. This allows a unification candidate to be presented by the party elders on subsequent ballots. I mentioned Daniels, but there are several others who might fit the role.
Respectfully yours,
Steve
Char. Limit
Feb8-12, 12:20 PM
I dunno why, but I love how you put "respectfully yours" after your messages. It makes them so much nicer to read.
I dunno why, but I love how you put "respectfully yours" after your messages. It makes them so much nicer to read.
Thank you!
Mainly, I do it because I really mean it.
After retiring from Boeing, I joined numerous forums for continuing education, intellectual stimulation and various special interests. I've come to learn that things go better when one is polite, respectful and follows the rules, and also that PF members are the smartest, most highly educated people I've met on any forum.
Respectfully yours,
Steve
Yes, sir. The scenario I have in mind has the current candidates continuing to score delegates such that, come the convention, none of them have sufficient numbers to take the nomination on the first ballot. This allows a unification candidate to be presented by the party elders on subsequent ballots. I mentioned Daniels, but there are several others who might fit the role.That's not possible without cooperation of the existing candidates. In many states those delegates are committed in writing to voting for the winning candidate in their state, unless that candidate releases them.
SoggyBottoms
Feb8-12, 10:13 PM
Not really. That's a common stereotype, but it isn't true. One look at the media in Europe and one will see that the Europeans have a rather limited worldview given how their media leans almost entirely socially-democratic. It isn't like in the U.S., where you have firey polemic on both ends of the spectrum. This is because the Europeans don't trust the free-market to handle the issue of media, and thus entrust it to the government, in the idea that the government running the media will ensure it is fair, balanced, objective, etc...but which often results in it being unfair, unbalanced, and completely subjective. Media that is run by the private-sector, they regulate very stringently.
There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparantly there's no market for that in Europe.
There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparantly there's no market for that in Europe.
At least, that's what the media says :biggrin:.
Yes obviously smugness has long been the way to go there.
SoggyBottoms
Feb9-12, 11:19 AM
That doesn't make any sense.
lpetrich
Feb9-12, 03:17 PM
Returning to the OP, Wikipedia now has a collection of the Republican primary results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries). This page's maintainers will update it as more states vote.
Mitt Romney now has over half the delegates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum about 1/6, and Ron Paul about 1/10. Looking back to 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries), Ron Paul is now doing better than he had in 2008 in delegate fraction.
ThomasT
Feb10-12, 02:15 AM
There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparantly there's no market for that in Europe.I think there's still a market for it in Europe, but less so in Europe than in America. Let's not forget that the US was originally populated and continues to be replenished, to a certain extent, by people who couldn't make it in their home countries.
Anyway, the real reason I replied to you is your username, SoggyBottoms, which reminded me of the Smucker's ads -- "With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good!"
With a name like SoggyBottoms, you had better be good. :smile:
Jasongreat
Feb10-12, 02:49 AM
I think there's still a market for it in Europe, but less so in Europe than in America. Let's not forget that the US was originally populated and continues to be replenished, to a certain extent, by people who couldn't make it in their home countries.
Come on thomas,is that true or a common missconception? The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in thier home country. For the most part in early history most those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in america your abilities were all that counted. I enjoyed one of Franklins letters to a frenchman, he pretty much said you can find mechanics, masons, blacksmiths, carpenters, pretty much any trade, in america, the one thing you wouldnt find is an athiest.
For the most part immigrants came here because of religious oppression in their home country, second to that scientific oppression. See Joseph Priestly. Today I would agree that religion takes second place to those just wanting a better life, but to sy they couldnt make it in their home countries is dissengenious. Did Einstein come because he couldnt make it in his home country?
ThomasT
Feb10-12, 04:15 AM
The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in thier home country. For the most part in early history most of those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in America your abilities were all that counted.I don't see anything in your statement that counters mine. I think that, other than sheer adventurers and financed profiteers, the bulk of the people who migrated to the US did so because they weren't, and foresaw no prospects of being, successful in their home countries. They were the poor, the tired, the hungry, the oppressed, etc. To a certain extent that I don't know enough about to quantify. So I could be a bit off wrt that notion. But I don't think it would be correct to call it a myth, as I think it's, essentially, an accurate characterization of a significant portion of the people who have migrated to the US, and an accurate characterization of a significant portion of portion of the people who are, in current times, migrating to the US.
ThomasT
Feb10-12, 04:18 AM
We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.
Jasongreat
Feb10-12, 04:47 AM
We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.
I would have to agree, but I dont think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?
It is a discussion we havent seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.
Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)
ThomasT
Feb24-12, 10:12 PM
I would have to agree, but I dont think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?
It is a discussion we havent seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.
Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.
The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.
The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.
The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.
ThomasT
Feb24-12, 11:34 PM
Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.I don't know. I mean "nuts and extremists" would seem to characterize the GOP candidates. Except maybe wrt Romney. But then he is a Mormon. An extremely rich Mormon.
Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.
The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.
Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.
The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.I don't think that the GOP primary system is doing a good job filtering out extremists. If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties. I don't see that basic benchmark in the GOP, which is pretty sad.
AlephZero
Feb25-12, 08:27 AM
If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties.
An op-ed piece in the UK Financial Times made the comment that the Democrat party has effectively redefined itself from being the "industrial working class party" to "the billionaires, academics, minorities, and single women party". The consequence of that shift was to drive the white working class to the Republicans, which is now split into the "Rotary Club Wing" of its traditional upper-middle-class membership base, and the new "Burger King Wing".
It draws the analogy with Humphrey and Wallace for the Democrats in 1968, where the Wallace faction moved to Republican after 72, and forecasts that similarly many "Romney Republicans" will be Democrats in 2016.
The FT piece didn't make any comparison with the UK, but I think there is a similarity, except that in the UK's multi-partys system, the white working class who felt abandoned by the Labour Party's shift to "New Labour" have tended to join new minority right wing parties (e.g. the UK Independence Party and the British National Party) rather than join up with the tranditional Conservatives.
Galteeth
Feb26-12, 02:26 PM
The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.
The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.
Could you be a bit more specific?
I'm interested in recent reports that say Paul's organization is taking over the GOP at the grassroots delegate level, installing many people in ongoing positions of influence and authority in the party infrastructure. They say these delegates will play a powerful role not only at the convention, but well beyond. Maybe Paul is crazy - crazy like a fox!
I think I'm starting to enjoy this,
Steve
Gokul43201
Feb26-12, 06:59 PM
The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.Can you show us this article, so we can read it too?
Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/president-ron-paul-ron-pa_b_890037.html
Gokul43201
Feb26-12, 07:25 PM
Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/president-ron-paul-ron-pa_b_890037.htmlWhile it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.
While it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.Here you go:
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/
mheslep
Feb26-12, 10:02 PM
I don't know if Paul has somewhere else said the things attributed to him in that newsone article, but he does not make statements that merit the term 'neo confederate' in the video. Newsone purports that he does:
why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.
which is misleading, bordering on a lie.
ThomasT
Feb26-12, 11:09 PM
While it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.
I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.
But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.
By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana. And, no, I don't smoke, or advocate smoking, the stuff.
Galteeth
Feb27-12, 01:35 AM
It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.
I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.
But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.
By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana. And, no, I don't smoke, or advocate smoking, the stuff.
Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.
As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.
ThomasT
Feb27-12, 02:16 AM
Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.
As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.Good points, imo. Still, I remain skeptical wrt Paul.
Gokul43201
Feb27-12, 05:44 AM
It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.
I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.
Here, try this for size: Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Obama's philosophy wishes that God would condemn the United States. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Obama's demonstrated preference of apologizing for the actions of the US.
I would suppose that if Obama were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the violent stuff that was practiced in the past by one of his friends.
But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.Unless you specify (with evidence, where needed), what speific positions you find extreme, it's difficult for a reader to know what you're talking about: one person's 'extreme' is another person's 'reasonable'.
For instance...By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana.I imagine a large majority[1] of people in the party Paul is running in likely consider that an extreme position, even though it seems wholly reasonable to you.
1. See, for instance, p17 in this PDF --> http://people-press.org/files/2011/03/711.pdf
ThomasT
Feb27-12, 06:40 AM
Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.Yes, that is a problem. I just recall reading that a certain (apparently significant) contributor to Paul's effort was pro confederacy. But since I don't remember the source, then it's not a significant or arguable point, and, unless it can be documented, then it should be disregarded.
Here's an interchange between Paul and a newsperson on the civil war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY
Paul's responses here seem pretty reasonable to me.
Gokul43201
Feb29-12, 04:31 PM
I don't think that the GOP primary system is doing a good job filtering out extremists. If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties. I don't see that basic benchmark in the GOP, which is pretty sad.For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.
I disagree with Paul on many of his positions. But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.
In 2010, the average payout to members of Congress from lobbyists was around $50,000, with top recipients (usually senior members of Congress, mostly Dems) bagging over a million bucks each of lobbying money. Paul is credited with receiving a whopping $352.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/lobbyists-pay-millions-honor-congress-executive-branch/
For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.My lack of support for Paul is based on his off-the-wall views on many issues. Even if he had a chance at getting elected, there is no way that a sitting president can reform the electoral system, roll back Citizens United, and eliminate lobbying. Congress has to do those things to make them happen, but they won't because the system is rigged toward incumbents.
mheslep
Feb29-12, 05:08 PM
... But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.
Well said and strongly agree. I wonder if those characteristics have become available only to libertarian candidates. I see similar characteristics in his son the Senator from Kentucky.
mheslep
Feb29-12, 05:14 PM
@Turbo - a popular president with strong principles on limited government could well demolish much of the existing system. Beholden to no government interest, least of all government employees, such a leader could, and would, threaten that which the existing
interests hold most dear: spending. Such a leader would not blink at a threat of shutting down the government from Congress, and could simply veto spending bills until he gets what he wants.
That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.
Galteeth
Feb29-12, 05:54 PM
That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.
Sounds great....
Galteeth
Feb29-12, 09:54 PM
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3792005&posted=1#post3792005
I am requesting for any one with statistics expertise to please look at this thread.
Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.
mheslep
Apr24-12, 12:19 PM
Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.
Then they will never quit, as they will not prevail. Santorum won 11 states and he's out (9 if you give back Iowa and Minn to Paul).
Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.Please post where the GOP has decided this and you must use a maintream, official source, I can't find one.
Please post where the GOP has decided this and you must use a maintream, official source, I can't find one.
Dear Evo,
I'd love to be able to post that the GOP has finally decided this, but the delegate process is ongoing in many states and under many different sets of rules.
But I will give you a true anecdote: Despite never having been a Republican, I was elected to be one of 21 delegates to the Washington State Republican Convention at the 36th Legislative District Caucus (comprising the Belltown, Queen Anne, Magnolia and Ballard neighborhoods in Seattle). When it became clear that the Paul delegates outnumbered the combined "unity slate" delegates for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, the GOP LD executive had the ballots and counting machine immediately secreted from the premises! Despite this dirty trick - all too typical in politics - the Paul delegates prevailed and took all 21 delegate spots and 21 alternates to the State party convention. Other LD's around the state have strong Paul contingents. Then at the convention it will be decided who wins the state and its delegate count. You out in TV land may wish to believe the talking heads on TV, but at the grass roots level the fight goes on, the count is not in, and decision not made. Ron Paul has a shot at Washington State, as well as others.
I will tell you something else, too. At 63, I was probably among the very oldest persons for Paul in the caucus of 214 precinct delegates. Paul's supporters are varied, but young people and veterans were prominent in numbers, thoughtfulness and energy. Their hands are now gripping the levers of power in the local Republican party.
In conclusion, I will venture to say that the future is out there for the young and strong to win, and those that rest easy in their Lazyboy recliners and put their trust in talking heads on TV are in for a big surprise.
Very respectfully yours,
Steve
Maine's GOP is in turmoil since the caucuses. Waldo county's voters were disregarded, as were Washington county's voters, and the heavily Paul-supporting Waterville caucus results were also suppressed (there are two colleges in that town).
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-15/politics/31062266_1_paul-s-campaign-ron-paul-vote-count
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57381016/ron-paul-wins-maine-county-caucus/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/ron-paul-maine-caucus-results-2012_n_1270850.html
http://www.infowars.com/maine-caucuses-counties-ron-paul-won-were-ignored-omitted-from-final-count/
I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but he sure did get the dirty end of the stick from the Maine GOP.
jduster
Apr26-12, 02:06 PM
At this point, even if Ron Paul won every single state, by a landslide, he would not win the nomination.
But he can keep moving the goalpost to keep his supporters happy.
ThomasT
Apr28-12, 03:51 AM
At this point, even if Ron Paul won every single state, by a landslide, he would not win the nomination.Yeah, anyway, Paul's message or ideas seem to be unimportant to the American people. He's history. Close the thread.
Rajput9572
Apr28-12, 05:06 AM
I would vote for him in the general election against Obama.
mheslep
Apr28-12, 11:33 AM
I would vote for him in the general election against Obama.
As would millions of others.
As would millions of others.So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.
So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.
To be fair, in the latest Gallup polls he could still count on ~10% support from GOP supporters. That makes him lose badly, of course, but that's still millions of people.
jduster
Apr28-12, 01:58 PM
There is a reason why Ron Paul gets all of these donations, has stadiums packed at his rallies and has grassroots all over the nation, yet so little votes.
Ron Paul supporters are a vocal minority, whereas Romney supporters are a silent majority.
Let's say there are 1 million Paul Supporters and 10 million Romney Supporters, which primaries show this simplistic estimate isn't too far from reality.
The 1 million Ron Paul supporters will be outside campaigning, while almost all of Romney's supporters will be sitting at home, living their normal lives for months, and generally not having politics on their minds.
When voting day comes, whether you campaigned every week for the past 12 months or you are barely political. Your vote counts no more than anyone elses.
mheslep
Apr28-12, 03:23 PM
So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.
A majority of R. primary voters, not all, found the other R. candidates more appealing. Paul maintained a dedicated support hovering around ~20% nationally up through February (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/07/poll-ron-paul-surges-to-second-place-nationally-just-eight-points-behind-romney/) at least. There is also a progressive/left leaning anti-war contingent that switches over from the Democrats only for the idea of Paul candidacy in the general election. Of the ~120 million or so that turn out for a presidential election, Paul would get his millions against Obama, even if he would highly unlikely to win.
SHISHKABOB
Apr28-12, 03:52 PM
A majority of R. primary voters, not none, found the other R. candidates more appealing. Paul maintained a dedicated support hovering around ~20% nationally up through February (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/07/poll-ron-paul-surges-to-second-place-nationally-just-eight-points-behind-romney/) at least. There is also a progressive/left leaning anti-war contingent that switches over from the Democrats only for the idea of Paul candidacy in the general election. Of the ~120 million or so that turn out for a presidential election, Paul would get his millions against Obama, even if he would highly unlikely to win.
if a majority of R. primary voters found Santorum and Romney more appealing than Paul... I have a hard time seeing Paul ever getting to the general election.
Gokul43201
Apr29-12, 06:47 AM
As would millions of others.If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html
I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.
SixNein
Apr29-12, 09:06 AM
If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html
I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.
I find it hard to be impressed by a person who actually takes libertarian ideas seriously.
mheslep
Apr29-12, 02:17 PM
If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html
I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.Agreed. And in so doing he paves the way for another libertarian-ish candidate that may be more electable, i.e. his Senator son, former Gov Johnson, or the like.
CAC1001
Apr29-12, 05:36 PM
I find it hard to be impressed by a person who actually takes libertarian ideas seriously.
Small-L libertarians are fine I think. Libertarian Party libertarians are where you find the people who believe that President Bush was being secretly controlled by aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, the Moon landing was a hoax, every single government regulatory agency needs to be done away with, etc...but otherwise, libertarian ideas in terms of limited government, economic freedom, social freedom, etc...I think are very sound.
SixNein
Apr30-12, 04:35 AM
Small-L libertarians are fine I think. Libertarian Party libertarians are where you find the people who believe that President Bush was being secretly controlled by aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, the Moon landing was a hoax, every single government regulatory agency needs to be done away with, etc...but otherwise, libertarian ideas in terms of limited government, economic freedom, social freedom, etc...I think are very sound.
I suppose I don't understand the appeal of objectivism.
Galteeth
Apr30-12, 09:33 AM
I suppose I don't understand the appeal of objectivism.
Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism, and even libertarianism has radically different meanings to different people. (It's historical meaning was left-wing anarchism.)
ThinkToday
Apr30-12, 11:57 AM
Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism, and even libertarianism has radically different meanings to different people. (It's historical meaning was left-wing anarchism.)
Meaning is depended on many things as wiki notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I tend to feel it falls along the last example in Wiki for the US "It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues, going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States."
ThinkToday
Apr30-12, 12:02 PM
If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.
I think you're confusing the "anybody but Obama" vote as being support for Paul's ideas.
SixNein
Apr30-12, 05:56 PM
Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism, and even libertarianism has radically different meanings to different people. (It's historical meaning was left-wing anarchism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Influential_libertarian_philosopher s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Influential_libertarian_philosopher s
Libertarianism != Ayn Randism.
Gokul43201
Apr30-12, 06:14 PM
I think you're confusing the "anybody but Obama" vote as being support for Paul's ideas.I think you're confusing what I said with what you think I said. I made no quantitative statements about support for Paul's ideas.
SixNein
Apr30-12, 07:01 PM
Libertarianism != Ayn Randism.
But it is quite influenced by it.
Ethical egoism seems to be the central theme of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is not "Objectivism" (Rand's philosophy).
Rand, throughout her career, harshly criticized libertarians for ripping apart her ideas, and using only parts of them, rather than embracing it as a whole.
Nevertheless, Rand's philosophy of Objectivism was neither philosophy nor objective.
Paul's supporters hope to hijack the Maine GOP primary this week, as published in this weekend's local papers. He might have some other reason for staying in the race this late, but I don't know what it could be, since he is far out of the running. He can't hope to win too many extra delegates (though he did well in the Maine GOP caucuses), but he may be sticking in the hunt to get a little extra influence headed into the GOP nationals.
John Creighto
May5-12, 11:30 PM
Libertarianism != Ayn Randism.
And baby blue is not sky blue but they are both blue.
But it is quite influenced by it.
Ethical egoism seems to be the central theme of libertarianism.Ethical egoism? What does that mean, and on what basis is that the theme of libertarian philosophy?
Ron Paul supporters jammed the Maine state Republican party convention this weekend and grabbed a share of the top spots, hoping to give Paul leverage in Tampa.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html
Romney's camp is not happy.
Ethical egoism? What does that mean, and on what basis is that the theme of libertarian philosophy?
Ethical egoism is usually the moral defense and rallying cry of libertarianism.
Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote one’s own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it is said that although it is always moral to promote one’s own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/#SH2b
John Creighto
May6-12, 10:03 PM
Ethical egoism is usually the moral defense and rallying cry of libertarianism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/#SH2b
I think if we are going to discuss libertarian theory we probably should start another thread. If we want to discuss Ayn Rand specifically we do have a thread about here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=478792
I do wish to say that, I think that trying to simplify Rand's ethic's to ethical egoism is an over simplification. Rand's ethics are partly deotological in that she believes in certain rights (As a minimum the right to life). She also (although she denies it) is to a degree consequentialist in that she justifies her ethical systems by contrasting them against the consequences of collectivism. She also calls her ethics "Objective" in that she views the market as an objective criteria to measure value.
I think if we are going to discuss libertarian theory we probably should start another thread. If we want to discuss Ayn Rand specifically we do have a thread about here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=478792
I do wish to say that, I think that trying to simplify Rand's ethic's to ethical egoism is an over simplification. Rand's ethics are partly deotological in that she believes in certain rights (As a minimum the right to life). She also (although she denies it) is to a degree consequentialist in that she justifies her ethical systems by contrasting them against the consequences of collectivism. She also calls her ethics "Objective" in that she views the market as an objective criteria to measure value.
Ethical egoism is a little more generalized. But if you wish to read an Ayn Rand defense of it, I would recommend: "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism"
But back to the point of the thread...
Ron Paul took too high a dosage of ethical egoism. In my opinion, government problems have to be classified. Some problems require an individualist approach, and some problems require a collectivist approach. I don't like extremes in either direction.
In my honest opinion, the government really needs pragmatic people.
Galteeth
May7-12, 12:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Influential_libertarian_philosopher s
I'm pretty sure Bakunin and Rand would be mortal enemies.
In my honest opinion, the government really needs pragmatic people.
Sounds good, but does this imply that sometimes it's okay to obey the Constitution and sometimes it's fine not to?
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Sounds good, but does this imply that sometimes it's okay to obey the Constitution and sometimes it's fine not to?
I don't think so. This would, after all, set a horrible precedent, and it's quite pragmatic to keep this in mind.
Ron Paul's supporters took control of the state GOP convention and handed Paul 21 of Maine's 24 national delegates. The Romney camp claims that the tactics of the Paul camp were "illegal" and that the delegates should not be seated by the RNC. It's going to be messy in Tampa.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/for-now-pauliticsprevail_2012-05-06.html
Ron Paul's supporters took control of the state GOP convention and handed Paul 21 of Maine's 24 national delegates. The Romney camp claims that the tactics of the Paul camp were "illegal" and that the delegates should not be seated by the RNC. It's going to be messy in Tampa.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/for-now-pauliticsprevail_2012-05-06.html
Illegal according to what? Robert's Rules of Order? I doubt it, because that's the chief weapon of Paul's wily supporters against the entrenched GOP establishment, who are really the ones guilty of the dirty tricks. I know. I've seen it first hand.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0506/Ron-Paul-wins-big-in-Maine-and-Nevada <--- Confirmation of our tactics
Respectfully,
Steve
Illegal according to what? Robert's Rules of Order? I doubt it, because that's the chief weapon of Paul's wily supporters against the entrenched GOP establishment, who are really the ones guilty of the dirty tricks.
Respectfully,
SteveI doubt that there were breaches of Robert's Rules of Order, since Romney's top lawyer was at the convention, rule-book in hand. The Establishment got out-flanked, and now they are crying foul.
During the caucuses, the results from many pro-Paul areas were not included in the tallies, and the results of the Washington County caucuses (heavily pro-Paul) were not included, the results of the Waldo County caucuses were not included, nor the results of some cities including Waterville that went 21-5 for Paul. The Maine Republican Party indeed played some dirty tricks, steering the caucus victory to Romney by disenfranchising as many Paul supporters as possible. It's coming back to haunt them.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-15/politics/31062266_1_paul-s-campaign-ron-paul-vote-count
John Creighto
May7-12, 01:31 PM
I'm pretty sure Bakunin and Rand would be mortal enemies.
This is off topic. Anyway, one should not doubt that these two philosophers had wildly different viewpoints. However, they both advocate minimizing the coercive aspect of the state and hence the title of libertarian is appropriate. We should distinguish between Left-Libertarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
where Bakunin would be classified within and right-libertarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
where such people as Ron-Paul, Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick would fall.
Rand would differ with Bukunin on two accounts. The first account, being that Bukunin would have a greater concern about the common good than Rand. The second is that Ayn Rand called Anarchy unworkable because she believed that the first Gang to get strong enough would take control.
Her statement of this view makes me question her background/knowledge with regards to Anarchist philosophy because most Anarchist philosophers of historical note (including Bukunin) advocate some form of cooperation, although Bukunin for some paradoxical reason classified the “Post State” cooperation as “a-political”.
Nozick gives good justification for Rand’s view of the role of the state where he argues that personal protection is a natural monopoly. Such natural equilibriums fits well into Proudhon’s paradigm where freedom can exist only in the context of the state and to obtain maximum freedom one must find the best balance between Statism and liberty.
Sounds good, but does this imply that sometimes it's okay to obey the Constitution and sometimes it's fine not to?
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
I'm not sure where you arrive at such a conclusion. Of course, some people believe that they and they alone are the ultimate authority on the constitution. In these arguments, they all too often forget the role of the 3rd branch.
Suppose that Ron Paul really did believe that government wasn't acting within its constitutional bounds. Why doesn't he challenge it in court?
A lot of people didn't believe Obamacare was constitutional, so they challenged it in court. The Supreme court has heard the case, and it will be resolved soon one way or another.
I'm not sure where you arrive at such a conclusion. Of course, some people believe that they and they alone are the ultimate authority on the constitution. In these arguments, they all too often forget the role of the 3rd branch.
Suppose that Ron Paul really did believe that government wasn't acting within its constitutional bounds. Why doesn't he challenge it in court?
...
Or, should he get elected he could simply do what FDR did and threaten to pack to the court with as many justices as he needs to make it to his liking.
Or, should he get elected he could simply do what FDR did and threaten to pack to the court with as many justices as he needs to make it to his liking.
And he would be no more successful then FDR in accomplishing such a task. The legislator would have to be willing to pass such legislation.
But he could still pack the courts the traditional way by nominating justices akin to his views. Currently, we have a fairly conservative court (5-4). Of course, justices have to play along too. Justice Stephens didn't retire when he did because of his poor mental state.
And he would be no more successful then FDR in accomplishing such a task. The legislator would have to be willing to pass such legislation.
But he could still pack the courts the traditional way by nominating justices akin to his views. Currently, we have a fairly conservative court (5-4). Of course, justices have to play along too. Justice Stephens didn't retire when he did because of his poor mental state.
:confused: FDR's court packing threat, which included legislation that became law, was utterly successful.
Initial New Deal legislation attempts were demolished by the Hughes court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937#Black_Monday ). Subsequently FDR introduced his court packing legislation by way of one his fireside chats. The passage of the 1937 court packing plan allowed the addition of six judges to the existing nine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937). Afterwards, the Court began wholesale approval of New Deal legislation, culminating in Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) where the court sided the federal government assertion of the power to prevent a farmer from growing wheat for his own, private, consumption.
Galteeth
May8-12, 11:51 PM
I doubt that there were breaches of Robert's Rules of Order, since Romney's top lawyer was at the convention, rule-book in hand. The Establishment got out-flanked, and now they are crying foul.
During the caucuses, the results from many pro-Paul areas were not included in the tallies, and the results of the Washington County caucuses (heavily pro-Paul) were not included, the results of the Waldo County caucuses were not included, nor the results of some cities including Waterville that went 21-5 for Paul. The Maine Republican Party indeed played some dirty tricks, steering the caucus victory to Romney by disenfranchising as many Paul supporters as possible. It's coming back to haunt them.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-15/politics/31062266_1_paul-s-campaign-ron-paul-vote-count
In my observation, the republican establishment seems to care very little for the official rules. The intersection of actual law versus party by-law is complex. Party by-law is not necessarily law, although it can be. There is also a difference between illegal according to party law, illegal according to election law (state and/or federal), and "not in the spirit of fairness" (which is probably what Romney's lawyers are whining about).
:confused: FDR's court packing threat, which included legislation that became law, was utterly successful.
Initial New Deal legislation attempts were demolished by the Hughes court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937#Black_Monday ). Subsequently FDR introduced his court packing legislation by way of one his fireside chats. The passage of the 1937 court packing plan allowed the addition of six judges to the existing nine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937). Afterwards, the Court began wholesale approval of New Deal legislation, culminating in Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) where the court sided the federal government assertion of the power to prevent a farmer from growing wheat for his own, private, consumption.
Did you read all of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937#Bill.27s_f ailure
Your source doesn't agree with you.
and it goes on to say
President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937.
Did you read all of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937#Bill.27s_f ailure
Your source doesn't agree with you.
Again I said threat, and the outcomes I stated are correct (though I was wrong about the 1937 bill actually becoming law). Rooselvelt held his fireside chat on March 9th, 1937, announcing his intentions to pack the court. Afterwards, the next ten continuous New Deal related supreme court cases, decided March through May 1937, were in Roosevelt's favor, a complete reversal of the 1936 blowout 5 loss to 1 win blowout. The court packing law was defeated later in the summer of 1936 after the opposition ship had already sunk.
Office_Shredder
May20-12, 08:18 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57437868-503544/ron-paul-wins-majority-of-delegates-in-minnesota/?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.4
Ron Paul playing the delegate game with panache
lpetrich
May22-12, 06:27 PM
So he's trying to score big with backroom deals for state delegates?
Seems like a throwback to the days of smoke-filled rooms.
ThomasT
May23-12, 01:42 PM
So he's trying to score big with backroom deals for state delegates?I think Paul's intention was to make some sort of impact regarding his message, which, to a certain extent, he's done, imo.
Seems like a throwback to the days of smoke-filled rooms.I think that back room negotiations have always been, and still are, a major part of politics at any level. It's just that these days the rooms are less smoky. :smile:
Office_Shredder
May23-12, 02:01 PM
It's not Ron Paul's fault that the Republican establishment requires that delegates in Minnesota are selected in shady backroom deals instead of having a primary
mheslep
May23-12, 02:34 PM
It's not Ron Paul's fault that the Republican establishment requires that delegates in Minnesota are selected in shady backroom deals instead of having a primary1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?
Jimmy Snyder
May23-12, 03:17 PM
1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?
I don't think the phrase shady backroom deal means that the room was actually shady or that it was in the back or even that a deal was made in a room. Probably it just refers to the fact that Paul got 27% of the vote in Minnesota, but 83% of the delegates. That's not Paul's fault. He didn't make the rules, he just plays well by them.
Office_Shredder
May23-12, 03:30 PM
1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?
No they had a caucus not a primary. Caucuses are just straw polls and typically have no effect on the delegate selection process. Depending on each state's byzantine rules local caucuses select delegates (independent of the straw poll typically) to send to a larger convention to select state delegates
mheslep
May23-12, 03:33 PM
I don't think the phrase shady backroom deal means that the room was actually shady or that it was in the back or even that a deal was made in a room. Probably it just refers to the fact that Paul got 27% of the vote in Minnesota, but 83% of the delegates. That's not Paul's fault. He didn't make the rules, he just plays well by them.
Perhaps, but that was not my take. I think the "backroom" phrase does not refer to an assumption of unfair, existing rules. I think it means to infer that the rules were ignored or at the least manipulated by the powerful, so that the outcome is fixed. Here the process is asserted as fixed by a Republican process in Minnesota that is inherently corrupt, as compared to others, all without evidence. Now, the phrase may be justified as corruption in politics is hardly unheard of. But then neither are whining and bogus claims from the unsuccessful.
lpetrich
May23-12, 05:54 PM
I think that "backroom deal" is a completely appropriate term for something that took place behind the scenes, outside of public view.
If Ron Paul's followers have a lot greater fraction of delegates than votes, as they seem to do in some places, then it reflects on their politicking skills, not on what the voters had wanted.
Office_Shredder
May23-12, 05:56 PM
lpetrich, if that's your only criterion you should be railing against all the winner take all states. You can have a candidate take ALL the delegates without winning a majority
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.