or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 7

post #241 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Does the Constitution grant the government a monopoly on those services?

As part of "regulation of commerce", I would say probably, yes. But let's ask the Supreme Court (not Ron Paul) because they are the experts (not Ron Paul).
post #242 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The Supreme Court sees the Commerce Clause and "Necessary and Proper" as a completely legal justification for the national government to provide services and tax its citizens.

Is there a case that can be read? The assertion is there, but a few backup points would be nice. You know, for context of the assertion.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #243 of 376
George Bush thought the US constitution was "just a piece of paper" and I think it 's possible the founding fathers might have found taxing citizens to fund social security an abomination of their intentions, but the system they had in mind didn't step up to the plate, literally.

Reading about the way in which clever lawyers were able to sidestep the constitution, by carefully satisfying its requirements, has been a godsend for many poor folks.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #244 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

George Bush thought the US constitution was "just a piece of paper" and I think it 's possible the founding fathers might have found taxing citizens to fund social security an abomination of their intentions, but the system they had in mind didn't step up to the plate, literally.

Reading about the way in which clever lawyers were able to sidestep step the constitution, by carefully satisfying its requirements has been a God send for many poor folks.

What has Bush got to do with this conversation?

http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-th...iece-of-paper/

Sigh....
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #245 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

What has Bush got to do with this conversation?

http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-th...iece-of-paper/

Sigh....

George Bush used to be POTUS recently.

Bush would have never said something so blatantly anti-American in public, obviously. And it's the kind of quote that's dangerous to print (for careers in journalism) given what Bush said, and the fact it was said behind closed doors by those who's access puts them in close proximity to powerful politicians. It also relies on this from a serious news reporter from Capitol Hill Blue-

Ive talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper. Thompson comments."
~ http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...eceofpaper.htm

The fact that Capitol Hill Blue has said there are doubts about the reliability of the sources, should be taken with a pinch of salt, given we're talking about a very humiliating mark against a US president.

Feel free though to write it off....I'll keep an open mind though.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #246 of 376
Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These Eleven Reasons

Quote:
Establishment political personalities are quick to claim poor "electability" to diminish Ron Pauls chances because they presume that Paul holds no positive advantage in a head-to-head matchup against Obama in the general election. Thats an apparent premise of their calculation.

This is either a sublime miscalculation or a profound deception. If Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, the path to the White House could seem downhill by comparison. Why?

Unprecedented debt circumstances demand an unprecedented reimagining of US government priorities and obligations. The U.S. national debt is categorically unsustainable and literally, its now mathematically impossible to repay, too. That the debt, banking, and finance system is increasingly proven to be a rigged Ponzi scheme in mainstream media only underlines Ron Pauls tenured criticism of the oligarchical Federal Reserve System itself. Further, increasing numbers of voters awaken daily to the direct correlation between endless foreign interventionism and that categorically unsustainable debt that vexes the nation.

Indeed, from wars, rumors of wars, a fading dollar, climbing prices, hopeless unemployment, and an overreaching federal police state, the time is ripe for Ron Pauls small-government message.

Theres merely that small prerequisite for the general election: winning the Republican nomination.

The first contest, the Iowa caucus, is an activist-gathering, hand-raising event that heavily favors a strong ground organization. Ron Paul, by all accounts, enjoys a robust ground organization in Iowa the strongest of the field. Rons numbers are up recently in Iowa, too, leading many previously dismissive pundits to consider seriously the prospect of a Paul victory next month.

After all, Paul fell just short of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August by a mere 150 votes to Michelle Bachmann, whos since collapsed utterly from relevance or posing any serious threat of repeating. Bachmann was merely the first of several anybody-but-Romney candidates to grab the "frontrunner" baton for a few precious moments of prime time.

The momentum for Ron Paul coming out of an Iowa victory could roll right through New Hampshire, considered a more libertarian-leaning electorate, and in turn, trigger Romneys long-inevitable glass house collapse.

Despite a hiccup here or there, maybe in South Carolina, no other already-passed-the-baton "frontrunner" could stop Ron Paul after victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So there you go: early victories, nomination, a speech, and on to the general election.

In that general election matchup, Ron Paul would make short work of Obama, for these eleven reasons.

1. Ron Paul significantly outclasses Obama in any extemporaneous, conventionally conceivable economic or foreign policy debate format not involving teleprompters. How does Obama justify expanding the bailouts, the wars, and the police state at home after promising the opposite "hope and change" throughout his 2008 campaign? Filling his cabinet with crony bankster speculators and lobbyists? Secretly bailing out insiders and foreign banks alike? How does Obama defend Solyndra or Fast and Furious? Answer: He cant.

I say "conventionally conceivable" because it seems thered be one offsetting chance here for Obama: cancel the debates. And the election.

One things clear, though: if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the debate moderators will have much more difficulty ignoring him on a stage of two or three than in the midst of eight or more in the GOP primary debates.

2. Ron Paul wins the issue of war and foreign policy for anti-war liberals, independents, libertarians, and constitutional conservatives. Dont look now, but thats a sizable and growing coalition, and one that isnt currently gauged by restricting polling samples to GOP primary likely Republican voters. Theres upside there, too, as Paul makes progress with traditional Bush-supporting "conservatives" who begin to recognize that wars cost trillions, and the U.S. is flat broke.

Theres a significant portion of Obamas base that elected him based on his antiwar rhetoric, which he subsequently abandoned upon inauguration. These disillusioned liberals and independents have witnessed Obama expand the war in Afghanistan as he drew down symbolic numbers in Iraq (and replaced those troops with mercenaries). They watched Obama expand the front in Pakistan with collateral damage-inflicting drone strikes even as he launched a completely new conflict in Libya without a declaration or even an unconstitutional authorization from Congress.

The most depraved recent offense? Obama executed an American citizen and his children in Yemen without a trial, presentation of evidence, or any authentication whatsoever of the speech crimes allegedly committed by him. (Anwar Al-Awlaki, this new Boogeyman/Goldstein/Osama, had himself questionable ties to the US military industrial complex shortly after 9/11.) Consider that with Ron Paul and Barack Obama on a debate stage, Obama becomes the pro-war candidate. Needless to say, any voter who trends anti-war will likely vote for Ron Paul.

3. Ron Paul wins the domestic police state issue before the debate even begins. After all, Obama is the one on that stage who must answer for gratuitous TSA abuse. Seemingly all voters have either had bad experiences themselves with the TSA, or have heard anecdotes from friends or relatives describing the rampant violations of dignity and body so common now to airport travel. Everyones heard the stories about TSA agents raping, stealing, leering, and murdering. Would Obama attempt to suggest that the TSA keeps us safe by exposing our children to pat-downs by pedophiles?

With domestic surveillance, Obama essentially expanded Bushs worst abuses and then argued for more. Even more disaffected liberals and independents will join the libertarian and constitutional conservative coalition over these issues and vote for Ron Paul.

4. Ron Paul wins the federal drug war issue by arguing to end it. By killing that decades-old federal boondoggle, Paul wins the support of most California, Washington, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, and Oregon medical marijuana patients whove watched as Obamas DEA raids state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries contrary to state law. You know who else would appreciate an end to federal drug enforcement? Minority populations, who are disproportionately prosecuted for nonviolent federal drug crimes. Still think Obama has an unquestionable advantage with minority groups? How is this growing coalition of voters even quantified?

5. Ron Paul wins the abortion issue. Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life in his personal life, and as an obstetrician, he speaks with conviction from wisdom and personal professional experience. He will own the Christian vote on this issue, obviously. But Paul argues that the federal government holds no jurisdiction over the issue, and if individual states wish to pass more restrictive or permissive laws, those states should pursue the legislation that best fits their unique populations.

Its a compromise, in other words. So even if pro-life Christians cant be enthusiastic about Pauls lack of advocacy for a federal ban on abortion, "pro-choice" abortion supporters cant credibly be existentially threatened by Pauls 10th amendment approach, which is less strident than sound-bite saber rattling over a federal ban. In other words, dont look for this issue to serve as a convincing single-issue rallying cry for Obama supporters, which qualifies it as a win for Paul.

6. Ron Paul wins the homeschool, pro-organic, anti-mandatory vaccination, and other pro-liberty niche crowds. Who else but Ron Paul has argued for the rights of the people to consume raw milk? Who else but Ron Paul has proposed granting tax credits and more freedom to homeschooling families to set their own curricula? Contrast this with Obamas attempts to nationalize education standards further on the back of Bushs overreaching "No Child Left Behind," and the more recent viral images of armed FDA goons raiding organic food store Rawesome Foods in Venice, California. Yep, even more Californians sympathetic to Paul.

Republicans will turn out en masse to support the GOP nominee even if its Ron Paul. Consider how anti-Obama the lowest common denominator of GOP talking points has become, as voiced by pundits, talk radio, and primary candidates in the debates. Making Obama a "one-term President," repealing "Obamacare," and so on.

7. Republican voters, long accustomed to "lesser of two evils"-type calculated rationalizations, wont bat an eye when pulling the lever for Ron Paul. After all, Pauls single heresy from current GOP orthodoxy is over his principled resistance to interventionism abroad. But hes the first to point out that its the current GOP thats out of step with the traditional Republican Party platform, not him. Those voters whom Paul cant convert on morality can also be swayed by fiscal arguments. Wars cost trillions. The U.S. is broke. Rationalizations abound.

Either way, expect a giant anti-Obama Republican turnout in November, 2012 regardless the GOP nominee. The advantage with a Paul nomination is that Republicans can expect Paul supporters to support the Republican nominee something they cant do if they nominate Romney or Gingrich.

8. The Tea Party rallies behind Ron Paul because his Trillion Dollar Plan is a perfect ideological match. After all, Ron Paul supporters are the ones who started the Tea Party movement in 2007 the proto-Tea Party. As far as the electorate recognizes the problem to be government spending, Ron Paul is the clear answer.

9. Ron Paul wins on auditing and ending the Federal Reserve. Who can claim that the US has a "free market" despite artificial price fixing of interest rates at the very core of the economy? What free market advocate supports crony secret taxpayer-funded bailouts of speculators and foreign banks? The Tea Party and the entire GOP field now parrots Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve.

But theres yet more upside here for Paul: the Occupy movement makes a special point to protest crony capitalism and the abuses of a corrupt, insider financial oligarchy. If Paul can tap that sentiment, which clearly overlaps with his arguments against crony capitalism and the lack of transparency of the Federal Reserve System, he can convert a portion of those Occupy voters into voting Paulistinians. Rest assured, Paul volunteers are already performing this outreach on the ground.

10. Ron Paul wins on torture and the Bill of Rights. Let Obama attempt to characterize water boarding as something other than torture, as his neocon counterparts have, and Ron Paul will provide a stark contrast an iconic symbol of authentic, principled "hope and change." As for the Bill of Rights in general, Ron Paul wins clearly with any voter who cherishes the idea of not having to present his or her papers at random checkpoints; for whom government surveillance of citizens is anathema; who cherishes the idea that the government is the slave to the people and not the other way around; or in particular relevance to the Obama record to anyone who cherishes the idea that we have a right to be left alone.

11. Circumstances and current events in November, 2012, will play right into Ron Pauls wheelhouse. This one is the clincher. After repeated, nefarious inflations of the money supply through bailouts and Fed treasury purchases, Obamaflation will be unmistakable at the grocery store, the doctors office, and at the fuel pump. Gold will be well over $2,200/ounce. And after an eleven-year string of templated, bankrupting, and needless interventionist wars abroad, voters wont be easily convinced that high gas prices are solely Irans fault. Ron Paul is expertly capable of clearly articulating the causation between interventionist foreign policy and poor economic circumstances at home including the inflation that will be hitting voters right smack in their wallets as they head to the voting booths.

So there you have it. If only Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, global and domestic current events in November, 2012 will assure that a Ron Paul victory in the general election is a very high probability. Compared to the primary fight, some might even describe that general election matchup as a cakewalk for Paul.

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: if you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neoconservative like Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third party ticket, and due to the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9%). That would undoubtedly reelect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Save your outrage and answer instead this question: given your less than courteous opinion of Paul, how can you possibly explain your sense of entitlement toward his supporters and their votes? Answer: you cant.

Besides, even if Ron Paul did not run third party, and even if he were to endorse the neoconservative Republican nominee, his supporters wouldnt necessarily follow his lead. I know I wouldnt.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #247 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ron_paul2012



Until this year I have been relatively ambivalent about Ron Paul, but I actually hope that he does well in his bid. If he got the nomination, I would likely vote for him.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-ron-paul/ronpaul2012/

The fans are revved, what do those of you on this site think?

So far, he is the only candidate (Republican or Democrat) who has sought nomination who is worth voting for, IMHO.

On the downside: Election results are determined by the who is favored in the mainstream media, the amount of money raised by the candidate to sponsor a bid, and on election day itself the "security" (ie who has access) of the voting machines and central tabulators (and many other issues as regards the integrity of elections). On those grounds alone, Ron Paul, being an underdog, out of favor with the establishment/status quo, is at a huge disadvantage.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #248 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

So far, he is the only candidate (Republican or Democrat) who has sought nomination who is worth voting for, IMHO.

On the downside: Election results are determined by the who is favored in the mainstream media, the amount of money raised by the candidate to sponsor a bid, and on election day itself the "security" (ie who has access) of the voting machines and central tabulators (and many other issues as regards the integrity of elections). On those grounds alone, Ron Paul, being an underdog, out of favor with the establishment/status quo, is at a huge disadvantage.

In no way was GW Bush favored by the media, not during his first campaign and definitely not his reelection campaign.
post #249 of 376

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #250 of 376
Ron Paul Ad: BIG DOG

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #251 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul Ad: BIG DOG

I'll vote for Ron Paul if he is the Republican nominee for the general election.

I also desperately feel the need to go buy a new pick up after watching that commercial.

I'll be in the backyard building.... I don't know, something. I have to also build something after watching that commercial.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #252 of 376


It obviously made an impression. Effective, eh?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #253 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post



It obviously made an impression. Effective, eh?


Well it reminded me of something I had seen before.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #254 of 376
Nice!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #255 of 376
This was, perhaps, Ron Paul's best debate performance yet.

Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul doesn't have to waste time explaining himself - what his positions are as compared to what they were at a certain point in time. He's been consistent for 30 years.

And it's evident that some of his opponents are finally coming to their senses and agreeing with him on some points.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #256 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This was, perhaps, Ron Paul's best debate performance yet.

Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul doesn't have to waste time explaining himself - what his positions are as compared to what they were at a certain point in time. He's been consistent for 30 years.

And it's evident that some of his opponents are finally coming to their senses and agreeing with him on some points.

Good for him...really. He's definitely consistent and as I've stated, I agree with much of what he stands for. If he wins the nomination, I will definitely support him.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #257 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This was, perhaps, Ron Paul's best debate performance yet.

Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul doesn't have to waste time explaining himself - what his positions are as compared to what they were at a certain point in time. He's been consistent for 30 years.

And it's evident that some of his opponents are finally coming to their senses and agreeing with him on some points.

He has some points though that are clearly untenable and worse still, that don't flow from the conclusions of his beliefs.

During the last debate he said we need to liquidate our debts. Liquidate means default. Are you honestly saying we will elect someone or that we should elect someone who is going to default on almost 20 trillion in obligations but somehow believes we ought to still fulfill our Social Security obligations? That's just nuts. While Paul isn't a Baby Boomer, heck at 76, he's well into retirement years, he suffers from the same blindspot in believing the brunt of this fix only has to happen for the young.

Call me when he talks about cancelling Social Security as part of getting us back to the same principles that the Gold Standard and lack of Fed support. Wealth transfer from young to old needs to stop and we need generational accounting.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #258 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He has some points though that are clearly untenable and worse still, that don't flow from the conclusions of his beliefs.

During the last debate he said we need to liquidate our debts. Liquidate means default. Are you honestly saying we will elect someone or that we should elect someone who is going to default on almost 20 trillion in obligations but somehow believes we ought to still fulfill our Social Security obligations? That's just nuts. While Paul isn't a Baby Boomer, heck at 76, he's well into retirement years, he suffers from the same blindspot in believing the brunt of this fix only has to happen for the young.

Call me when he talks about cancelling Social Security as part of getting us back to the same principles that the Gold Standard and lack of Fed support. Wealth transfer from young to old needs to stop and we need generational accounting.

So...are you calling out Ron Paul for NOT wanting to do away with Social Security immediately? The guy who wants to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, Commerce, and Interior in his first year in office?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #259 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So...are you calling out Ron Paul for NOT wanting to do away with Social Security immediately? The guy who wants to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, Commerce, and Interior in his first year in office?

I'll absolutely call him out. If all the cuts disproportionately hit one group and protect another, that is no different than any other type of cronyism? How is defaulting on the present and future to protect the past any sort of acceptable solution?

If we have an unsustainable and cronyistic big government that redistributes wealth, and runs unsustainable debts covered by printed fiat money, that includes the retirement system and Social Security as well. You can't exempt them and their health care which is government provided. You just can't and declare you are serving a principled cause.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #260 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll absolutely call him out. If all the cuts disproportionately hit one group and protect another, that is no different than any other type of cronyism? How is defaulting on the present and future to protect the past any sort of acceptable solution?

If we have an unsustainable and cronyistic big government that redistributes wealth, and runs unsustainable debts covered by printed fiat money, that includes the retirement system and Social Security as well. You can't exempt them and their health care which is government provided. You just can't and declare you are serving a principled cause.

The only way to purge the bad debt is to default on it. That's why Ron Paul was against the bailouts, because all they did was move the toxic assets that the big banks should have defaulted on to the government and the taxpayers.

The assets are still toxic, and we're only compounding the problem the longer we sit on them. We need to do what the banks should have done and default on them to get rid of them. Now. Or we won't have much of a future to argue about.

Whether we like it or not, many people are dependent on government. Many of them paid into the system with the promise that they would get something back out of it. This was, of course, wrong. Government should not be in the welfare or retirement business. But then the government turned around and spent their money. This was also wrong.

Now you want to pull the rug out from under these people AND keep their money? That's wrong, too.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #261 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The only way to purge the bad debt is to default on it. That's why Ron Paul was against the bailouts, because all they did was move the toxic assets that the big banks should have defaulted on to the government and the taxpayers.

Yes and the banks dumping them would have revealed the fraud that the government operates within and since the government didn't want that revealed, they helped them out.

However that said, it isn't like the U.S. runs on a fiat money system and everyone else is backing their currency with something of value. The lie is universal and as such, cannot be unraveled by just one party. It's sort of like those sex studies where all the men cheat and all the women are chaste. The question becomes, who the hell are they all supposedly cheating with? Some claim that it is all some ridiculously small number of prostitutes but day to day reality says that's a lie.

Quote:
The assets are still toxic, and we're only compounding the problem the longer we sit on them. We need to do what the banks should have done and default on them to get rid of them. Now. Or we won't have much of a future to argue about.

The assets do have an inherent value and that value is disconnected from the contractual paper, which is supposed to be paid back with fiat paper. Since the latter two can be manipulated and already is having this done in subtle ways, it is not necessary to default. Now with the downgrade and debt ceiling talks, people are becoming aware of what percentage of debt to GDP we have. A historical understanding (the kind Newt provides) will show that most of the costs of the Vietnam war were inflated away once Nixon took us off the gold standard. All fiat currency is sort of proxy for a number of human variables since they aren't backed by anything. Those human variables can be influenced and manipulated to improve the debt ratio pretty quickly. I've said for years now that they Fed will run the presses HOT and hide the inflation. It's clear that is what they are doing and since everyone is playing the game, the way to win is to play it the best. The Yuan isn't going to be a reserve currency. The Euro is falling apart. In a game in which everyone is a liar, being the smallest and best liar might be the best you can get.

Quote:
Whether we like it or not, many people are dependent on government. Many of them paid into the system with the promise that they would get something back out of it. This was, of course, wrong. Government should not be in the welfare or retirement business. But then the government turned around and spent their money. This was also wrong.

Now you want to pull the rug out from under these people AND keep their money? That's wrong, too.

How is it any different from the assumptions made by banks, by home owners, by corporations planning under previous law? It isn't any different. You can't selectively default. You can't say the present and future has to take all the pain and the people who actually made all the mistakes get off pain free. You especially can't do this if again, coming from a principled reform position. You can't keep half of a bad system in place just because it wouldn't be fair to ask from some people who were lied to by the government and not the other people who were lied to by the government. You either agree to a small lie that fixes it for everyone (inflation) or you break it for everyone (default and start over). You don't sort of default but keep the wealth redistribution system in place, oh and by the way now it transfers real wealth instead of worthless paper. That is the worst of all worlds.

Imagine that your grandparents bought into a big lie and now they are broke. However their lie ruins YOUR credit. To fix their lie you have to buy them a house and also yourself a second house. Since your credit it ruined you have to pay for both houses using gold.

Um, how is that fair again?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #262 of 376
Allowing the younger generation to opt out of Social Security is the first step towards phasing it out completely. You have said that the president won't be able to do much without the support of Congress. Well, why don't you give Ron Paul credit for taking an approach to Social Security that is more likely to gain support in Congress than calling outright for complete elimination of the program?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #263 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Allowing the younger generation to opt out of Social Security is the first step towards phasing it out completely.

Yes except the only thing they can opt out of is their obligation to receive it. It is clearly a PAY as you GO wealth transfer system. There isn't a way to pay for it unless you have wealth to transfer. They may not call it a Social Security Payroll Tax but the point is the money will clearly have to come from those working to pay for those not working. There's no real trust fund and no way around that fact.

Quote:
You have said that the president won't be able to do much without the support of Congress. Well, why don't you give Ron Paul credit for taking an approach to Social Security that is more likely to gain support in Congress than calling outright for complete elimination of the program?

Because I'm doing exactly what the media will do and that is hoist him on his own petard. You can't be half-way principled. You can't declare that your solution is superior because it comes from a morally superior position and then have entire areas where it doesn't follow that premise. You can't be sort of pregnant or faithful especially if you are going to lambast others as being whores or crooks.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #264 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Because I'm doing exactly what the media will do and that is hoist him on his own petard. You can't be half-way principled. You can't declare that your solution is superior because it comes from a morally superior position and then have entire areas where it doesn't follow that premise. You can't be sort of pregnant or faithful especially if you are going to lambast others as being whores or crooks.

Okay, so:

1. Ron Paul won't be elected because he's too extreme and the media will call him out on it.

2. Ron Paul won't be elected because he isn't extreme enough and the media will call him out on it.

3. Newt isn't principled, but vote for him because he'll make snarky remarks to the media when they call him out on his past and principles.

Got it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #265 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Okay, so:

1. Ron Paul won't be elected because he's too extreme and the media will call him out on it.

2. Ron Paul won't be elected because he isn't extreme enough and the media will call him out on it.

3. Newt isn't principled, but vote for him because he'll make snarky remarks to the media when they call him out on his past and principles.

Got it.

Substitute principled and you are probably closer to the mark. It can indeed sound like a contradiction but the media have no shame. They'll absolutely say he's too extreme because he wants to cut multiple departments and likewise a hypocrite because he won't touch entitlements the same way. They really don't care to be logical or rational. They want their team to win at all costs and logical and reasoning are certainly tossed out ot help their team.

Newt is principled but you don't see him as such. Regardless, the point is that exposing and managing the media needs to be part of an election strategy. Newt appears to beat the media at their own game. Ron Paul is going to need 200 million to do an end around since he can't beat them at their own game.

In the meantime here's an article I thought you would like.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #266 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Substitute principled and you are probably closer to the mark. It can indeed sound like a contradiction but the media have no shame. They'll absolutely say he's too extreme because he wants to cut multiple departments and likewise a hypocrite because he won't touch entitlements the same way. They really don't care to be logical or rational. They want their team to win at all costs and logical and reasoning are certainly tossed out ot help their team.

Newt is principled but you don't see him as such. Regardless, the point is that exposing and managing the media needs to be part of an election strategy. Newt appears to beat the media at their own game. Ron Paul is going to need 200 million to do an end around since he can't beat them at their own game.

In the meantime here's an article I thought you would like.

I actually think Newt is less principled and more of a pragmatic conservative. He wants to find solutions. Sometimes those solutions are not all that conservative. By contrast, Paul is "all in" on principle...to a fault, I believe.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #267 of 376

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #268 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I actually think Newt is less principled and more of a pragmatic conservative. He wants to find solutions. Sometimes those solutions are not all that conservative. By contrast, Paul is "all in" on principle...to a fault, I believe.

Well taking the former solution and making it about 5-10% more conservative is honestly the best we can hope for in the current environment in my opinion. Crony capitalism and food stamp nation doesn't just say "sure take the trillions we've been receiving during the Obama term and then grab another cool trillion on top of that just to start."

Understand I'd LOVE the cuts that Ron Paul espouses to happen yet I doubt even the Republicans are conservative enough to make it happen. When the government grabs and MISALLOCATES trillions over a couple generations, those mistakes might need some ramping down, some weening off, etc.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #269 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Understand I'd LOVE the cuts that Ron Paul espouses to happen yet I doubt even the Republicans are conservative enough to make it happen. When the government grabs and MISALLOCATES trillions over a couple generations, those mistakes might need some ramping down, some weening off, etc.

You mean like Ron Paul's plan to wean us off of Social Security?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #270 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well taking the former solution and making it about 5-10% more conservative is honestly the best we can hope for in the current environment in my opinion. Crony capitalism and food stamp nation doesn't just say "sure take the trillions we've been receiving during the Obama term and then grab another cool trillion on top of that just to start."

Understand I'd LOVE the cuts that Ron Paul espouses to happen yet I doubt even the Republicans are conservative enough to make it happen. When the government grabs and MISALLOCATES trillions over a couple generations, those mistakes might need some ramping down, some weening off, etc.

Agreed. I'm not presenting his pragmatism as a negative. Just a difference.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #271 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You mean like Ron Paul's plan to wean us off of Social Security?

Funny you bring that up, because that's one thing that causes people to shy away from him. It's just not going to happen. Maybe it should, but it won't.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #272 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Funny you bring that up, because that's one thing that causes people to shy away from him. It's just not going to happen. Maybe it should, but it won't.

And that's the difference between us, SDW.

You say it should be done, but it's impossible.

I say it should be done, and it is possible.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #273 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You mean like Ron Paul's plan to wean us off of Social Security?

Sorry but Ron Paul is too liberal there for me.

However that is a pretty good point. You take what is in my opinion, the most middle of the road and thus pandering to politcal reality position of his, and the fact is there is not a majority on that anywhere that would let it happen.

The reality is everyone wants to buy the lie. There's a reason people believe they can get rich from a set of books and DVD's and lose weight with a pill or by exercising just their abs when watching TV late at night. They want the magic bullet. They want the easy way out. Right now people want to believe that Social Security is sustainable and can be tweaked. So since what will really need to happen will amount to a bunch of little lies, likely a raising of retirement age, a change in formula to hide inflation and thus rob the benefits of their purchasing power, a change in tax structure to create a form of means testing, etc. the person who claims they only act on principle cannot make that happen.

That's some ugly, ugly sausage that needs to be made.

Tell me how Paul could make this happen in a half principled fashion and how being half-principled here means he should be given full credit for being principled in other areas. I mean to bash Newt a bit, it's sort of like him saying he won't screw around on this wife. Is he an adulterer? Absolutely. I'd rather have a known quality there though rather than risk the guy who claims the high ground claiming to be a perfect husband who then ends up being a liar. There's nothing to hide or drag someone down with when they admit their flaws. I don't see that happening with Paul. I see a guy who's calling card is a claim to virtue who can't push that virtue through Congress. Then it comes down to compromise and getting a bit dirty. How can the guy who's claim is principle and virtue say I'm going to make this happen using compromise and some ugly sausage making? How can a guy who promises elimination of multiple departments and a trillion dollars in cuts on principle settle for the departments remaining in a consolidated fashion or half a billion in cuts instead?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #274 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry but Ron Paul is too liberal there for me.

However that is a pretty good point. You take what is in my opinion, the most middle of the road and thus pandering to politcal reality position of his, and the fact is there is not a majority on that anywhere that would let it happen.

The reality is everyone wants to buy the lie. There's a reason people believe they can get rich from a set of books and DVD's and lose weight with a pill or by exercising just their abs when watching TV late at night. They want the magic bullet. They want the easy way out. Right now people want to believe that Social Security is sustainable and can be tweaked. So since what will really need to happen will amount to a bunch of little lies, likely a raising of retirement age, a change in formula to hide inflation and thus rob the benefits of their purchasing power, a change in tax structure to create a form of means testing, etc. the person who claims they only act on principle cannot make that happen.

That's some ugly, ugly sausage that needs to be made.

Tell me how Paul could make this happen in a half principled fashion

Well, you can't do what needs to be done all at once. People can rarely quit an addiction cold turkey unless they have support, and we know that there will be little support for that approach. Ron Paul knows this, too.

Tackle the big problems first so you can then work on the rest. Social Security is bankrupt, but people are still dependent on it for their very survival. So first we stop the bleeding. We reign in our foreign empire which we have spent billions upon billions annually to maintain. We eliminate the bloated, unnecessary, unconstitutional programs that won't jeopardize the lives and safety of those dependent upon them, like the Department of Education, HUD, etc. We balance the budget and make sure social security is actually funded so we can then reform it and phase it out, weaning people off of it as best we can and letting it eventually fade into oblivion.

I think most people of my generation or younger would support this approach, especially if it means they get to keep more of their own money and invest in their own futures as they see fit.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #275 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Well, you can't do what needs to be done all at once. People can rarely quit an addiction cold turkey unless they have support, and we know that there will be little support for that approach. Ron Paul knows this, too.

Tackle the big problems first so you can then work on the rest. Social Security is bankrupt, but people are still dependent on it for their very survival. So first we stop the bleeding.

Brilliant. We are in complete agreement there. The only difference of view is that you understand this for Social Security and I know it is true of the entire federal government.

Quote:
We reign in our foreign empire which we have spent billions upon billions annually to maintain.

Some of those bases have 40 year leases on them. It costs money to bring these items home or even to turn them over in a safe manner. While I agree it can and should be done, I wouldn't count of any immediate savings from unraveling the last 60 years of American empire. I'd say we might start having true savings from it 4-5 years from now.

Quote:
We eliminate the bloated, unnecessary, unconstitutional programs that won't jeopardize the lives and safety of those dependent upon them, like the Department of Education, HUD, etc.

Except the media and all the recipients of those funds will declare they are of course life and death. They are already coming out with death estimates based on slightly less funding. Whole sale elimination will allow them to declare genocide for goodness sakes. The crazy thing is that when the economy is growing, all you have to do is slow the rate of growth and the economy catches up to and balances the budget rather quickly. That is what happened in the 1990's. Then you let the hysteria pass over the cuts. Everyone can see the media is full of shit and Grandma isn't dead. Then you have built credibility for much larger cuts.

Quote:
We balance the budget and make sure social security is actually funded so we can then reform it and phase it out, weaning people off of it as best we can and letting it eventually fade into oblivion.

The only truly affordable "reform" of Social Security is to make it a means tested form of welfare for the elderly and give the minimal amount to those truly need it. The boomer generation is so large, so broke and left such a budget hole that it is the only solution. Since they won't vote to slit their own throats, and since S.S. along with Medicare are the true big problems (How can Paul avoid touching the biggest problem?!?) we need someone who can cut a deal.

Quote:
I think most people of my generation or younger would support this approach, especially if it means they get to keep more of their own money and invest in their own futures as they see fit.

I think you fail to understand that "reform" means your generation needs to pay for both but only receive one and even then the numbers don't add up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #276 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Brilliant. We are in complete agreement there. The only difference of view is that you understand this for Social Security and I know it is true of the entire federal government.

But that approach is not applicable or effective in every case. If you are flat broke, there's really no way you can borrow or spend less so you can be less broke. It's too late for that. Something's got to give.

Quote:
Some of those bases have 40 year leases on them. It costs money to bring these items home or even to turn them over in a safe manner. While I agree it can and should be done, I wouldn't count of any immediate savings from unraveling the last 60 years of American empire. I'd say we might start having true savings from it 4-5 years from now.

I think we would see some immediate savings. Ron Paul has a specific, detailed plan to balance the budget by year 3 of his term, and reigning in our overseas empire is a big part of that.

Quote:
The only truly affordable "reform" of Social Security is to make it a means tested form of welfare for the elderly and give the minimal amount to those truly need it. The boomer generation is so large, so broke and left such a budget hole that it is the only solution. Since they won't vote to slit their own throats, and since S.S. along with Medicare are the true big problems (How can Paul avoid touching the biggest problem?!?) we need someone who can cut a deal.

But Social Security and Medicare are not the biggest problems we face, trumpt. They are symptoms that need to be treated. Ron Paul has made very clear the biggest problems we face and will tackle those head-on as best he can.

Quote:
I think you fail to understand that "reform" means your generation needs to pay for both but only receive one and even then the numbers don't add up.

I think more of us understand that than you realize. I have been operating under the assumption that I will receive no Social Security income when I retire, in spite of being forced under threat of violence to pay into it. My goal is to be self-sufficient by retirement age. And if I do receive any Social Security payments (or whatever it's called when I retire), I will donate them to charity.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #277 of 376
You like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.

If you fall into this category, this video is for you.

Have you wondered why veterans and active duty military support Ron Paul far more than any other candidate? Watch and learn.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #278 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But Social Security and Medicare are not the biggest problems we face, trumpt. They are symptoms that need to be treated. Ron Paul has made very clear the biggest problems we face and will tackle those head-on as best he can.

This is a bigger problem than Social Security, wouldn't you agree?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #279 of 376

No the promised benefits for Social Security and Medicare absolutely dwarf those numbers as scary as they already happen to be. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Federal Retirement Pensions equal 47% of the budget. Their estimated unfunded obligation is 60-80 trillion depending upon who's projections you use. While being the cop for the world is not something we should be doing and we could see some savings from that, it is 20% of the budget and future projections show similar percentages of the budget being used for that. We don't see people making projections for defense eating more of the federal budget or an ever increasing percentage of GDP. We do see that for all items federally related to retirement and health care.

So no, I wouldn't agree at all. No one is projecting us being a cop for the world having 80 trillion in unfunded and unattainable costs.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #280 of 376
But that 60-80 trillion obligation was accumulated over how many years?

We're talking 16 trillion in bailouts in the blink of an eye, here. And they want to do more (probably have without telling us).

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)