Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[Angry Citizen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 isn't 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 their 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 controlled the price, bubbles would be less apt to happen, as long as government controls the market, bubbles will continue to happen.

 

[Dotini]

An "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...stablishment/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]

The south was trying to protect their 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]

An "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...stablishment/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.

 

[ThomasT]

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 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.

 

[MarcoD]

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]

=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 referring 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]

=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 process.

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]

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...

 

[CAC1001]

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.

 

[CAC1001]

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]

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 referring 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 process.

I disagree.

 

[CAC1001]

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]

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 separate 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 doesn't 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]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

@ CAC1001,

Ok, points to ponder. I disagree with your assessment of Reagan, but we've gotten a bit off topic. Back to Paul.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[MarcoD]

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.

 

[Dotini]

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

 

[mheslep]

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?

 

[Dotini]

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]

I don't know why, but I love how you put "respectfully yours" after your messages. It makes them so much nicer to read.

 

[Dotini]

I don't know 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

 

[mheslep]

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]

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 apparently there's no market for that in Europe.

 

[lisab]

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 apparently there's no market for that in Europe.

At least, that's what the media says .

 

[mheslep]

Yes obviously smugness has long been the way to go there.