Ron Paul's candidacy

mheslep

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:
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 is still greater than Reagan's (in today's dollars) at the peak of his defense spending in the cold war. 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 2012 deficit is forecast as $1.1 trillion per the White House's OMB. Predictions further out are hand waving bets on the economy and reflect no spending reforms.

fashizzle

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

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.

mheslep

So how does Ron Paul invest his money?

about which, an investment manager says:


http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/201...aul-portfolio/

ThomasT

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.

ThomasT

Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?

MarcoD

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

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."

MarcoD

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

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!"

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.

MarcoD

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

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.
Guess what, I wouldn't choose "as a check."

MarcoD

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.

Woopy

A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties

MarcoD

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. ]

Woopy

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

MarcoD

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.