## Ron Paul

 Quote by IMP Income should not be taxed to begin with. If you are forced to give up a portion of your labor, at the threat of prison, well that is just wrong. Taking someones labor against their will should not exist in 2007.
So you're saying taxation should be "voluntary"? You might as well just abolish government completely, since all government services will be left to the market anyways.
 Quote by Economist Not true. Even in a world where everyone does not start at the same starting point, policies built on freedom may still be optimal. In fact, most of the economists I know who have strong libertarian ideas, don't even think that it's true that people are all equal.
If people are unequal, and thus inequality is "natural", then you're advocating then that one should "leave the poor to be poor" and "leave the rich to be rich"?

See, your argument is predicated on the assumption that the market reflects people, that is, people are paid exactly what they are "worth". However, this is simply not the case, because you're saying then that a CEO is "worth" 600x more than a wage-labourer than say, years ago when it was simply just 60x. In fact, there is a nasty tautology that develops where the logic becomes that the CEO is paid a lot of money because he is rich (since he is worth more).

Even Adam Smith knew that large inequalities will be a bad thing for society, and criticized "materialistic excesses".
 Yeah, obviously gender, race, and class exist. But that doesn't prove anything about the role they play in our society currently. Even in economics it is still not completely understood the role these things play in peoples job opportunities, incomes, etc. Some people say they don't matter at all, because the market cares mostly about talent, ability, productivity, etc. While others say that it does matter, and that there is discrimination in the labor market, etc. However, for you to sit here and act as if you know the role these things play in the US, is hugely a misrepresentation of your knowledge. What you should say is that you think they play an important role, just like I think they don't play that large of a role.
It's not an issue of "I think this" and "you think that", because gender, race, and class are real and have real effects that are empirically measured. How else can you explain women making 70% of what men make, when given the same job, qualifications, and abilities? Just because your fantasy economic modelling don't see this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 As far as I am concerned, in economic areas gender does not play that large of a role. The gender earnings gap has continued to sharply decrease over the past 30 - 40 years, college is currently female-dominated, and many careers and majors that used to be male-dominated has seen increasing number of women in recent years. Furthermore, it is not known whether in the past females didn't earn much mainly for social reasons (oppression, discrimination, etc) or economic reasons (stable income because less likely to divorce, technology advances that allowed both members of a household to be able to work (vacuums, dishwashers, washers, dryers, etc)). In regards to race, yes there still is inequality when you look at raw numbers. However, this still doesn't mean it's a result of racism, discrimination, or oppression. One thing that jumps out at you when you look at the data is the difference in schooling, especially between whites and blacks. Some blame this on peer effects and cultural values (read some of the work done by the African American Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr). Some blame this on the horrible public schools that are disproportionally black (the same schools that liberals seem so worried to bring economics competition to). Even in regards to race, the explanation of racism, discrimination, and oppression don't seem to hold up that well when you look at some things. For example, black women are quickly increasing in both the amount of education they get, as well as the amount of income they earn. Another example is Asian Americans, who generally have average incomes above that of whites. Racism, discrimination, and oppression is not really consistent with either one of these cases.
So essentially in two paragraphs you say that race and gender do not matter, there are other factors beyond this. The most elementary of sociological articles can easily refute your claim that there is just "something other" that is causing this oppression and not admitting that there is blatant discrimination in the world because it doesn't follow your neoclassical model of economic outcomes.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00005/art00002
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00005/art00006
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00001
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...467-9620.00277
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/rec...accno=ED397148
But according to you, "nah, race and gender don't matter, it's just the individual and it's unexplainable factors like culture that bogs them down." Sociologists are just making stuff up. They're full of fluff.
 It's interesting to me that sociologists dwell so much on the role their ideas play in the private sector. They almost seem obsessed with it, and I don't understand it. Maybe they think if we can't find much evidence of all their theories in the private sector, maybe they think it's a huge knock to their ideas and concepts.
Thank you for the ad hominems Mr economist major, but sociology is as empirical as economics and hardly needs "evidence" that you feel that they "can't find".
 LOL. Yeah, government is the great equalizer. Sure. That's why the founding fathers of the US were largely skeptical of government.
Well, I guess taxation doesn't exist, universal education is a failure, and government doesn't do anything but waste money. I'm sure the founding fathers said that. After all, they say things that both liberals and conservatives use that "support their argument".
 What you should have done is replaced governments with one of the following words: individual liberty/freedom, limited government, economic freedom, markets, free enterprise, capitalism, etc.
You somehow unabashedly think market fundamentalism will solve the problems of the world.

Recognitions:
 Quote by mheslep From a column on Rep. Paul's US HoR website. ShawnD - I blame myself, really, for giving you any initial creditability.
So you didn't even watch the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.

 Quote by ShawnD Even Reagan was smart enough to bail on the middle east after realizing what a piece of garbage it is.
That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.

Recognitions:
 Quote by DrClapeyron That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.
Reagan is very often quoted on this. Here is what he wrote in his autobiography, word for word:

 Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

As much as I hate Reagan, I have to give him credit when he can admit possible mistakes.
 Of course neutrality may have worked in Lebanon. There were half a dozen guerilla groups operating in Lebanon. The US chose a side, was bombed and moved off shore where the guerillas could no longer attack. It wasn't as though Lebanon was crucial to US foreign policy. What exactly is Lebanon's staple export/commodity/product? Location Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.
 he's never going to win

Recognitions:
 Quote by DrClapeyron Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.
The Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years, and the US did nothing to protect either country. The US was helping to fuel the war by selling/giving weapons to Iraq, then it was later discovered in the Iran-Contra scandal that the US was also selling weapons to the Iranians. That's not protection. That's war mongering. If you want to know why Arabs hate the US so much, a review of the 1980's would be a good start.
 Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.

Recognitions:
 Quote by DrClapeyron Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.
You're right about defending allies being a top priority, but the blowback theory isn't about defending allies. It's about state sponsored terrorism that some US politicians openly talk about on live TV. Of course they don't call it terrorism; they prefer the term "Nation Building" which roughly translates as the process of replacing a country's government with one that you like more. Such examples include the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran where CIA and British intelligence overthrew a democratically elected government in order to put the Shah back in power. Then in 1979 he was overthrown, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and American diplomats were taken hostage. But I'm sure that was just a coincidence and it had absolutely nothing to do with government terrorism that happened in 1953. It makes me wonder if Carter or Reagan tried that same "they hate our freedom" line.

The worst part of this is that there is a disconnect between the people and their government. Nobody goes to the polling station with the mentality of "I think I'll vote for terrorism this time", but politicians end up doing that. Then when retaliation happens 5, 10, 20 years later and innocent people like those in the WTC or on the USS Cole are killed, those same politicians throw up their hands and act like they have no idea why this happened. Sure I was yelling at the dog and hitting it with a stick, but why did he bite me??

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by DrClapeyron Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.
Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?
 Ivan Seeking, I meant that the US is motivated to protect its cash-futures market, to be blunt about the matter. ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually prefered the Shah.

Recognitions:
 Quote by DrClapeyron ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually prefered the Shah.
Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).

He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by ShawnD the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.
No. Paul clearly opposes US foreign involvement, esp. Iraq. He's hardly clear about the causes of the 9/11 attack, he's dancing on the head of a pin.
~11:17
 Host: "Are you suggesting the US caused 9/11? Paul: "No, ..." Host: "What did America do to cause the attack on 9/11?" Paul: "The Americans didn't do anything to cause it..."
In the debate he says generically 'attacked' due to policies, is ambiguous whether or not he's means 9/11 or in Iraq; taken with the rest of the video and his own writing posted on the House site, he's contradictory at best. All the more reason why one has to be careful about what's attributed to him.

As an aside, the fun part is the >12000 Paul You Tube comments! For which, this is well earned.
 Recognitions: Science Advisor Youtube comments are hilarious. That's half the reason for going there. I'm refering to the actual debate itself at roughly 6:00 in the video. Moderator: You don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks? Ron: What changed? Moderator: Noninterventionlist policies Ron: No, nonintervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the middle east... I think Reagan was right, we don't understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics, so right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what we would do if someone else did it to us. Moderator: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir? Ron: I'm saying we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delighted we're over there because Osama Bin Ladin has said "I am glad you're over here on our sand because we can target you so much easier." We've already since that time killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary. Americans themselves did nothing to cause this, as the guy at 11 minutes is trying to get him say, but the government certainly does deserve some of the blame, and Ron Paul says just that at 6 minutes.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by ShawnD Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing). He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).
Excuse me while I shift the topic to something like ... the title of this thread, R. Paul. On the subject of avoiding foreign wars with admittedly hostile powers, Paul has cited as an example that the US[West] managed to contain the Soviet Union while avoiding a hot war; I suppose that would also go for China under Mao[1]. If I read Paul correctly, he contends the US should do likewise with todays bad actors. Fair enough. It must be seen however that the USSR containment was done by fighting a cold war through some nasty proxies in S. America, Iran as posted here, the M. East, etc., which Paul again criticizes, saying they cause 'blowback' among other things. I'd agree some of these cold war actions were ill advised / foolish in some cases. I'd also say its unavoidable to have blunders like that in a war, cold or hot.

Now, my summary take on Paul is he:
-Opposes direct military action in Iraq, Sudan, etc and points to containment strategies instead (probably while people rot - Sudan),
-Opposes involvement with proxies required to execute containment,
and all the while says hes not an isolationist. I'm still waiting for a Presidential foreign policy plan he supports in one sentence without criticizing it in the next.

[1] Not that I'd grant this is a given 'good' as Uncle Joe killed/imprisoned 20 million and Mao 10's of millions, but ok, the argument for containment is it's better than blowing up the whole world.

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by Ivan Seeking Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?
Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill.

 To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy H.R.6 Title: An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110ErkbdS::

1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf.

Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to$15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Evo Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110ErkbdS:: 1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf. Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to$15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.