The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :)

[rlbond86]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Thanks for making me a spokesperson, but at least get it right....I have never said anywhere that "the bigger government, the better". You misrepresented the "general welfare" clause and FDR's "stacking the court" and now you are misrepresenting me.

I have said that it is in the best interest of the citizens and the states that some functions like regulating the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, securities and banking, the civil rights of citizens, etc....are best performed by the federal government. That doesnt it mean it cant be more efficient.

Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years. They just didnt have the balls to follow through and do more because of a lack of support from the Repub Congress and external (ie lobbyists) pressures. All the more reason for serious campaign finance reform, which Ron Paul opposes.

Ron Paul's arguments that these federal government functions are unconstitutional are false. His "states rights" argument that these are state mandated responsibilities in the Constitution is also false and would result in the ultimate in inefficiencies and inequities. And his argument that industry/private property owners make better self-regulators is simply absurd...with no basis in fact anytime in US history.

He is an extremist who wants to return to a 19th century federal government in a 21st century world.

Again, all of which explains why he has no mass appeal and is stuck at low single digits in the polls.

Agreed. There are very few things with multiple parts that can work without central management.

You don't run a company without a board of directors who oversee operations.

You don't use computer programs without an operating system.

You don't run a country without a federal government.

[ASU2003]

There is a difference between having a strong federal government and a weak one.

The federal dept of transportation is pretty small, but they give the money and standards to each state (for interstate highways). Each state as road crews and has the right equipment. What would happen if they made it all a federal government operation?

Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years.

I will only vote fo a candidate that has a sound policy for balancing the budget. I don't care which party they belong to.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

There is a difference between having a strong federal government and a weak one.

The federal dept of transportation is pretty small, but they give the money and standards to each state (for interstate highways). Each state as road crews and has the right equipment. What would happen if they made it all a federal government operation?



I will only vote fo a candidate that has a sound policy for balancing the budget. I don't care which party they belong to.

The federal government has the authority to build roads. Ron Paul has a sound policy for balancing the budget that is for sure.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

There is a difference between having a strong federal government and a weak one.

The federal dept of transportation is pretty small, but they give the money and standards to each state (for interstate highways). Each state as road crews and has the right equipment. What would happen if they made it all a federal government operation?

The DOT does a hell of alot more than fund the interstate highway system....all with constitutional authority.

It is responsible for managing the air traffic control system and the US commercial air space; promulgating air and rail safety standards; regulating the transportation of hazardous materials over air, rail and highways and through pipelines,...

Do you want these functions left to the states or the private tranportation industry?

[ASU2003]

I never said anything bad about the DOT or anything about what else they do, just that they let the states determine how to spend the highway dollars, instead of trying to manage it all themselves. And the federal government can control the states by not giving them the money if it doesn't get used properly.

[Willravel]

I was surprised to find this article on reddit today. Kucinich beat Hillary and Barak in a straw poll coming in second behind Edwards.

Frankly, I was starting to lose hope and give in to the idea that the underdog of this election was RP. I guess that's not necessarily the case. Kucinich and Paul are good friends, by my understanding. Ron Paul might make a good Vip.

[ASU2003]

Is it becauise of the war issue that he did so well?

[Willravel]

Probably. Kucinich has a very good anti-Iraq war record.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by willravel

I was surprised to find this article on reddit today. Kucinich beat Hillary and Barak in a straw poll coming in second behind Edwards.

Frankly, I was starting to lose hope and give in to the idea that the underdog of this election was RP. I guess that's not necessarily the case. Kucinich and Paul are good friends, by my understanding. Ron Paul might make a good Vip.

Winning straw polls means nothing...

Even though Ron Paul has dominated every other Repub candidate overall in straw polls.

Sorry, for the sarcasm, but that's all this thread has been about in regards to RP's achievements.

In all honesty, I'd easily vote for Kucinich over any Repub or Dem candidate besides Paul. Nice to see him beat Hillary for sure.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by samcol

Winning straw polls means nothing...

Even though Ron Paul has dominated every other Repub candidate overall in straw polls.

Sorry, for the sarcasm, but that's all this thread has been about in regards to RP's achievements.

In all honesty, I'd easily vote for Kucinich over any Repub or Dem candidate besides Paul. Nice to see him beat Hillary for sure.

Come on guys, be serious.....straw polls mean very little and measure even less, particularly county party events like this one and most of Ron Pau's straw poll "wins"

They have no statistical validity and only measure an organization's ability to get its more activist supporters to attend a a meaningless event (often a state/county party fundraiser where participants pay to play). This one cost $25

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Is it because of the war issue that he did so well?

I dont doubt that his war position helped....but he was the only candidate to attend in person. Don't you think that might have influenced the turn-out and results?

Of course, the bottom tier candidates try harder at these minor events...they have everything to gain by participating. Did the Hillary and Barak teams even bother to encourage their supporters to attend? Who knows?

Bottom line - there's not a political consultant around who would put much stock in a straw poll other than to build their contributors lists and potentially give their candidate a short term psychological boost.

But if it keeps you involved and engaged in the process, cool

[rlbond86]

Here is a reason I do not believe Mr. Paul's ideology. It is from Project Censored:

A report issued in June 2005 by the non-profit organization Action Aid reveals that much of the US tax money earmarked to rebuild Afghanistan actually ends up going no further than the pockets of wealthy US corporations. “Phantom aid” that never shows up in the recipient country is a scam in which paychecks for overpriced, and often incompetent, American “experts” under contract to USAID go directly from the Agency to American bank accounts. Additionally, 70 percent of the aid that does make it to a recipient country is carefully “tied” to the donor nation, requiring that the recipient use the donated money to buy products and services from the donor country, often at drastically inflated prices. The US far outstrips other nations in these schemes, as Action Aid calculates that 86 cents of every dollar of American aid is phantom.
Authors Ann Jones and Fariba Nawa suggest that in order to understand the failure and fraud in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, it is important to look at the peculiar system of American aid for international development. International and national agencies—including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and USAID, that traditionally distribute aid money to developing countries—have designed a system that is efficient in funneling money back to the wealthy donor countries, while undermining sustainable development in poor states.
A former head of USAID cited foreign aid as “a key foreign policy instrument” designed to help countries “become better markets for US exports.” To guarantee that mission, the State Department recently took over the aid agency. USAID and the Army Corps of Engineers now cut in US business and government interests from the start, making sure that money is allocated according to US economic, political, strategic, and military priorities, rather than according to what the recipient nation might consider important.
Though Afghans have petitioned to allocate aid money as they find appropriate, donor countries object, claiming that the Afghan government is too corrupt to be trusted. Increasingly frustrated and angry Afghan communities meanwhile claim that the no-bid, open-ended contracts being awarded to contractors such as Kellogg, Brown, and Root/Halliburton, DynCorp, Blackwater, and the Louis Berger Group are equivalent to licensed bribery, corruption, theft, and money laundering.
The Karzai government, confined to a self-serving American agenda, has delivered little to the average Afghan, most of whom still live in abject poverty. Western notions of progress evident in US-contracted hotels, restaurants, and shopping malls full of new electronic gadgets and appliances are beyond the imaginations or practicalities of 3.5 million war torn Afghan citizens who are without food, shelter, sewage systems, clean water or electricity.
Infrastructure hastily built with shoddy materials and no knowledge or respect for geologic or climatic conditions is culminating in one expensive failure after another. USAID’s website, for example, boasts of its only infrastructure accomplishment in Afghanistan—the Kabul-Kandahar Highway—a narrow and already crumbling highway costing Afghanis $1 million a mile. The highway was featured in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under the headline, “Millions Wasted on Second-Rate Roads.” The article notes that while other bids from more competent construction firms came in at one-third the cost, the contract went to the Louis Berger Group, a firm with tight connections to the Bush administration—as well as a notorious track record of other failed and abandoned construction projects in Afghanistan.
Former Minister of Planning, Ramazan Bashardost, complained that when it came to building roads, the Taliban had done a better job. “And,” he also asked, “Where did the money go?” Now, in a move certain to lower President Karzai’s approval ratings and further diminish US popularity in the area, the Bush administration has pressured Karzai to turn this “gift from the people of the United States” into a toll road, charging each driver $20 for a road-use permit valid for one month. In this way, according to American “experts” providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can collect $30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and thereby decrease the foreign aid “burden” on the United States.
Jones asks, “Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to ordinary Afghans to be something only foreigners enjoy?”
UPDATE BY Fariba Nawa
Afghanistan, Inc. is a thirty-page report that digs deep into the corruption involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The report focuses on US government-funded companies contracted to rebuild Afghanistan. The importance of this report is that it’s the first serious look at corruption of aid money spending from a grassroots level. It includes an emphasis on various projects in villages and the cities and it covers all sides of the issue. It shows how big money is spent on bad work.
The report was first published in English through CorpWatch, a watchdog of corporations, on May 2, 2006. It was translated into the Persian languages of Dari and Pashto in September 2006. The companies investigated in the report continue to receive millions of dollars in contracts from the US government despite their incompetence and wasteful spending. Louis Berger, Bearing Point, Chemonics, and DynCorp are still taking American taxpayers’ money and showing minimum results in Afghanistan.
Some of the mainstream press gave the report coverage, including NPR’s Morning Edition, KRON Channel 4 news in San Francisco when it was first published, and later on, BBC radio and many other European outlets continue to call and ask the author about the report. However, that’s a limited response to the fact that this was a groundbreaking report with important information for policy change. The report has been a source for many others researching the subject. If you’d like more information on corruption on reconstruction in Afghanistan, please refer to CorpWatch’s website www.corpwatch.org. Integrity Watch Afghanistan is another organization that monitors corruption in the country and produces various reports.
UPDATE BY ANN JONES
Nine months later the conundrum I described—no peace, no security, no development—still pertains, and Afghan hopes sour.
The US still looks for a military solution. In the first five months of 2007, seventy-five coalition troops were killed (compared to fifty-three in the same period last year), including thirty-eight Americans. Civilian casualties were variously reported—some sources said “almost 1,800”—including 135 killed by US or NATO forces.
The US position on military “progress” against the Taliban, expressed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 4, 2007, as he prepared to visit Afghanistan, remained “guarded optimism.” Gates told reporters a goal of his trip was to insure close coordination of combat operations and development and reconstruction efforts. That’s a switch, suggesting some clue that reconstruction may be a better way to “kill” the Taliban, but leaving unanswered the question of how to coordinate war and peaceful activity.
The real importance of “Why It’s Not Working in Afghanistan” lies behind the front page military coverage—in what it reveals of the systemic scams and should-be scandals of American aid. The story makes news now and then when billions “disappear” from reconstruction projects in Iraq, but to my knowledge it has yet to be investigated by media or congress. What’s discussed is the occasional budgetary black hole that suggests some random malfeasance, in much the same way that torture at Abu Ghraib was discussed as the work of a few “bad apples.”
Maybe reporters don’t want to take up the story because it’s complicated. It’s about numbers. Like Enron. Dreary, ho-hum, life-shattering stuff. I don’t know. But one curious thing: when my book Kabul in Winter appeared in 2006, a very long section on this topic was the one part no reviewer touched.
Now bigger voices than mine speak out. Abdullah Abdullah, the distinguished former Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, recently complained that of every $100,000 promised to Afghan development, less than a third reaches the country. Matt Waldman, head of Afghanistan policy for Oxfam, one of the most respected humanitarian NGOs in the world, wrote in The Guardian (May 26, 2007) that “America is bankrolling Afghanistan” but “as in Iraq, a vast proportion of aid is wasted.” And more to the point, “Close to half of US development assistance goes to the five biggest US contractors in the country.” Waldman argues that too much aid money is lost to high salaries and living costs of international experts, purchase of non-Afghan resources, and corporate profits. He figures the cost of the average expat (read “American”) expert at half a million dollars a year.
So why is it left to representatives of foreign governments, foreign humanitarian organizations, and foreign press to expose this fraud?

More proof that you can't trust corporations without regulations.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by rlbond86

Here is a reason I do not believe Mr. Paul's ideology. It is from Project Censored:

More proof that you can't trust corporations without regulations.

What does your post even have to do with free market. You're talking about government handing out contracts to corporations. That is not a free market.

Plus, Ron Paul has said numerous times that he is strickly against nation building which is what your quote was about.

You want the same government that hands out contracts to corporations in such a poor way, to regulate these corporations.

[dc_dux]

Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would lose to Stephen Colbert in a heads up presidential election, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

Colbert beats Ron Paul 36% - 32% and beat Kucinich 37% - 32%

According to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey of Colbert's prospects, the comedian culls greater support from likely voters than either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich when he is pitted against those candidates.

Given a choice between Colbert running as a Democrat and Republican Congressman Ron Paul, 36% of voters prefer Colbert while Paul attracts 32%. Twenty-one percent (21%) say they’d vote for some other candidate while 10% are not sure.

If the choice is between Colbert as a Republican and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, it’s Colbert 37%, Kucinich 32%. Nineteen percent (19%) would vote for some other candidate and 11% are not sure.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...sidential_poll

BTW, Rasmussen is more scientific in its polling that straw polls..or text message polls....or internet polls

[Willravel]

I'm fully aware of the futility of supporting Kucinich. He stands no chance whatsoever. That's why I posted the article above. Straw polls ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

[dc_dux]

Will....I would definetly vote for Kucinich over Colbert ..but I could never say the same about Ron Paul.

While Kucinich and Paul may share similar views on the unconstitutionality of Bush's war and a few other issues like privacy violations in the guise of national security, they differ substantially on the Constitutional role of the federal government.

Kucinich does not have the arrogance to attempt to force his interpretation of the framers' intent above the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

[samcol]

Ron Paul on Leno last night.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5448653651359708857&hl=en-GB

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5448653651359708857&hl=en-GB

[ASU2003]

I saw that last night. Jay's opening remark about how Dr. Paul was the only guy in Washington DC to tell more women to take off their clothes than Bill Clinton was great.

That Rasmussen Report makes no sense though. How could Colbert get the highest percentage? Do this mean that he is the front runner now? Or did they just ask people that were at the Colbert rally who they were voting for? You only have 31% voting for one of the other candidates...

As for the foreign aid example up there, that is why he wants to stop wasting the taxpayers money. Maybe the lobbiests said that it would spur the local economy in the US by doing it that way, but it is a mess, and they were able to survive prior to 1913 when America didn't get involved in anything.

[samcol]

Remember, Remember the fifth of November...

The website This November 5th had a sign up to attempt 100,000 donors to the Paul campaign at $100 dollars a donation. Only 18,000 signed up, however his contribution has gone up an amazing $2 million in just 12 hours.

This might be the most money raised ever in a 24 hour period (with 12 hours still to go), anyone know?

So, if you like the message support him by donating if you can.

[host]

I am concerned that Ron Paul's proposals are as unlikely as those of any republican candidates to improve what I perceive to be our most important negative economic trend. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would be quite the opposite of improving wealth distribution.

Just so you know:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..MARA33007M
Abstract
It has been well established by computer simulations that a free, unregulated market economy (in the simplest model of a yard sale economy) is unstable and collapses to a singular wealth distribution. It is now a common procedure in computer simulations to stabilize a model by favoring the poorer partner in each transaction, or by redistributing the wealth in the society in favor of the poorer part of the population. Such measures stabilize the economy and create a stationary state with a Gini index G<1. This suggests that there is some optimal range of the Gini index which is indicative of a healthy and dynamic economy. To verify this assumption, I plotted the PPP (parity purchasing power) for all countries in the world against their Gini indices, and found that they all (with only 2 outliers) fall into one of two groups: ``wealthy'' countries with PPP>10,000/year, and the rest. The former are characterized by G=0.29±0.07, and the latter by a uniform distribution of all possible Gs. <h3>This means that an enforced wealth redistribution is not a moral act of social consciousness, but a necessary precondition for a sustainable economy. </h3>The existence of an optimal G is illustrated through a simple model of a yard sale economy with taxation.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us
Page 3

....In this study, we analyze the effects of corruption on income inequality and
growth by using data from U.S. states. Our analysis advances the existing literature in
three ways. First, we avoid comparing different countries by examining differences in
income inequality, growth, and corruption across U.S. states. Data on corruption as
well as on income inequality and growth for U.S. states are more comparable than
those for different countries, and U.S. states are more similar in other dimensions that
are difficult to measure. .....

Page 5

... Between 1982 and 1997, five most corrupt states appear to be Illinois, Alaska, Tennessee,
Mississippi, and South Dakota whereas the five least corrupt states appear to be
Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and New Hampshire. Regarding income
inequality, Wisconsin, Vermont, Utah, Iowa, and Maine have the lowest Gini
Coefficients (lowest income inequality) whereas California, New Mexico,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas have the highest Gini Coefficients (highest income
inequality). The summary statistics for four 4-year periods between 1982 and 1997
and for fifty states of all variables are given in Table 1. ....

[filtherton]

What you're forgetting, host, is that ron paul is the only person- besides the subset of the founding fathers whose writings can be interpreted posthumously as being in agreement with ron paul- who is in a position to correctly interpret the constitution. That some of his opinions run completely counter to any number of constitutional law experts only means that the constitutional law experts are wrong. Ron paul is not wrong. Economic stability is unimportant, because ron paul doesn't think that the constitution allows it. Equitable income distribution isn't worthwhile because ron paul doesn't think the constitution allows it.

[dksuddeth]

wealth redistribution is nothing more than legally organized theft by government. If it was YOUR wealth that was going to be systematically redistributed, i'm guessing you'd have a bit different outlook on the issue.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

What you're forgetting, host, is that ron paul is the only person- besides the subset of the founding fathers whose writings can be interpreted posthumously as being in agreement with ron paul- who is in a position to correctly interpret the constitution. That some of his opinions run completely counter to any number of constitutional law experts only means that the constitutional law experts are wrong. Ron paul is not wrong. Economic stability is unimportant, because ron paul doesn't think that the constitution allows it. Equitable income distribution isn't worthwhile because ron paul doesn't think the constitution allows it.

Thoroughly enjoyable post.

[telekinetic]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Equitable income distribution isn't worthwhile because ron paul doesn't think the constitution allows it.

The only income distribution I'm concerned with is as much of my income as is not neccessary for the services I use, being distributed to me.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

wealth redistribution is nothing more than legally organized theft by government. If it was YOUR wealth that was going to be systematically redistributed, i'm guessing you'd have a bit different outlook on the issue.

Have you been looking at my bank statements again? Because otherwise, you know even less about what the government is doing with my wealth than you do about constitutional law.

My wealth is being redistributed, and it isn't just the government that's doing it. My school is pretty good at redistributing my money, as is my landlord, as is the car insurance company, and my grocery store, etc. The economy is a system of wealth redistribution. Sometimes there are situations in which the government might need to step in to keep things running smoothly- see host's post above mine.

Free-er markets tend towards radically uneven distributions of wealth. Radically uneven distributions of wealth tend towards a large group of poor and generally unhappy people who tend towards then being slaves to the people who own everything, either that or they tend to towards some sort of revolution- probably not of the libertarian sort.


edit:

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

The only income distribution I'm concerned with is as much of my income as is not neccessary for the services I use, being distributed to me.

The problem is that you live in a very interconnected economy. You benefit from the goverment spending your money in a lot of ways which aren't entirely obvious. One reason for economic growth is improvements in technology, and many improvements in technology come at the taxpayer's expense.

It doesn't really seem reasonable to me to be able to expect that you should only have to pay for the services you use, because you depend on people who use services that you don't use.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by host

I am concerned that Ron Paul's proposals are as unlikely as those of any republican candidates to improve what I perceive to be our most important negative economic trend. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would be quite the opposite of improving wealth distribution.

Just so you know:

I don't know how the federal reserve is not THE prime issue when it comes to wealth distribution. It is the heart of the matter. An institution that lends people money that it doesn't have (fractional reserve banking) then seizes 'real' assests (land, houses, cars etc.) when you can't pay up is the real problem. I don't need a computer simulation to tell me this system will end with big bankers and big corporations owning EVERYTHING. The longer this institution continues to operate the greater the wealth gaps will become.

Host, why do you focus on petty issues like welfare, social security and progressive taxing based on wealth? The Federal Reserve is the KEY economic wealth distribution problem.

Ron Pauls sollution is to abolish the Federal Reserve. This will fix the problem faster and more effectively than crying about taxes or social programs. Not voting for a candidate who supports ending the Federal Reserve is just contributing to the wealth gap.

[host]

samcol, the largest asset of the households in the US, far and away, is the equity hled in the homes that they live in. The equity held is the difference between what the homeowner or mortgagee, would net after a sale, and after proceeds of the sale first pay off all liens on the property and sales and closing expenses.

My understanding of what you and candidate Paul are advocating, is a "reform" which would eliminate fractional reserve banking. Mortgage loans approved to prospective home buyers would come from cash reserves of lenders, in the case of lending banks. from a portion of deposits not reserved to protect a bank from a sudden "run" on it's deposits, a series of numerous, unforseen withdrawals by depositors.

Since real estate values correlate directly to liquidity, the ease and availability of mortgage loans, how would ending of fractional reserve banking, even if it was a gradual...say five year process, preserve liquidity, especially since Americans support a negaitve savings rate? Wouldn't it be more likely that ending fractional reserve banking, in addition to pressures from mortgage loan resets and falling housing prices already in progress, would accelerate foreclosures and transfer an impressively large portion of housing assets from current householder/mortgagees....to wealthy investors?

Paul's intent is to reverse the quantity money supply. If that is done or even aniticpated, all assets will be worth less. Less government regulation will leave everyone to build on what they already have, or don't have. It offers an enormous headstart for the wealthiest and most connected, to take what is left in the hands of the less wealthy, 90 percent.

Call the "Paul movement", what is. It's a group of people in good health with good future income prospects who do not want to pay taxes.

Be careful crossing the street, avoid touching your face with your fingers, wash your hands often, avoid crowds and people who sneeze without covering their mouths. If you succeed in electing Ron Paul, you're going to have to stay healthy to earn and keep all that money!

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Have you been looking at my bank statements again? Because otherwise, you know even less about what the government is doing with my wealth than you do about constitutional law.

I was going to come back with a really smart ass remark, until I read the following by you....

Originally Posted by filtherton

My wealth is being redistributed, and it isn't just the government that's doing it. My school is pretty good at redistributing my money, as is my landlord, as is the car insurance company, and my grocery store, etc. The economy is a system of wealth redistribution. Sometimes there are situations in which the government might need to step in to keep things running smoothly- see host's post above mine.

This tells me that you were attempting to be sarcastic and failed or you don't know the difference between wealth redistribution and the actual creation of wealth. I'm tending towards the latter unless you can tell me differently.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by host

samcol, the largest asset of the households in the US, far and away, is the equity hled in the homes that they live in. The equity held is the difference between what the homeowner or mortgagee, would net after a sale, and after proceeds of the sale first pay off all liens on the property and sales and closing expenses.

My understanding of what you and candidate Paul are advocating, is a "reform" which would eliminate fractional reserve banking. Mortgage loans approved to prospective home buyers would come from cash reserves of lenders, in the case of lending banks. from a portion of deposits not reserved to protect a bank from a sudden "run" on it's deposits, a series of numerous, unforseen withdrawals by depositors.

Since real estate values correlate directly to liquidity, the ease and availability of mortgage loans, how would ending of fractional reserve banking, even if it was a gradual...say five year process, preserve liquidity, especially since Americans support a negaitve savings rate? Wouldn't it be more likely that ending fractional reserve banking, in addition to pressures from mortgage loan resets and falling housing prices already in progress, would accelerate foreclosures and transfer an impressively large portion of housing assets from current householder/mortgagees....to wealthy investors?

Paul's intent is to reverse the quantity money supply. If that is done or even aniticpated, all assets will be worth less. Less government regulation will leave everyone to build on what they already have, or don't have. It offers an enormous headstart for the wealthiest and most connected, to take what is left in the hands of the less wealthy, 90 percent.

Call the "Paul movement", what is. It's a group of people in good health with good future income prospects who do not want to pay taxes.

Be careful crossing the street, avoid touching your face with your fingers, wash your hands often, avoid crowds and people who sneeze without covering their mouths. If you succeed in electing Ron Paul, you're going to have to stay healthy to earn and keep all that money!

What is the better choice, a gradual removal of the fractional reserve or a never ending life of despotism with the federal reserve that no amount of social welfare programs can ever cure?

There is no doubt removing the Fed will definetly cause rocky economic times, but how is that worse than a complete crash that seems inevitable? Ron Paul's plan is to remove the Fed gradually as well mandatory participation in social programs. Abrubtly ending both instantly would be nothing more than a government manufactured crash rather than the assured crash that is coming.

I don't see how me being able to spend or save more of my money as a bad thing. I can't help it if someone doesn't practice sound personal financing, but if we let the government handle it we are all stuck. I have little faith in them getting us benefits or saving us in a crisis. Social Security has been robbed and FEMA's track record is horrible (New Orleans anyone?). The people running the show have proved time and time again that they cannot handle our money properly.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This tells me that you were attempting to be sarcastic and failed or you don't know the difference between wealth redistribution and the actual creation of wealth. I'm tending towards the latter unless you can tell me differently.

Oh, i'm aware of what the term "wealth redistribution" means when it's used as some sort of capitalist bogeyman. The word socialism is used in the same way. They are both vapid code words for, "stuff we don't like". The fact remains that if market systems didn't have some deficiency when it came to the equitable distribution of wealth then governments wouldn't have to step in.

[samcol]

closing in on 4 million with four hours to go....

This is incredible. I thought he'd get a million or so but he's got to be crushing every record by now.

Is this really just an internet thing? 3.5 or whatever million? Is he still a 2nd tier candidate?

[dc_dux]

Its an impressive one day total, but will it move him off his last place flatline:


http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

I think its more likely he will flameout like the last internet candidate, Howard Dean, who set all kinds of internet fundraising records in 04. And Dean also had a very respectable showing in the national polls going into the primaries in 04

Paul's national and state (Iowa, NH, SC) polls numbers are abysmal, indicative of the fact that his internet support still has not extended to the vast majority of likely republican primary voters in any measurable number.

And his contributors are overwhelming male (like over 80%)...which also doesnt translate well to general primary voters.

Much will also depend on how deep the voters dig beyond his surface appeal now that he is gaining some recognition.

Will his basic ad message of "end the war/bring the troops home, shut down the IRS" be enough for the non-internet mom and pops?

Or will primary voters want to know more...economic (jobs) poilcy, health care policy, energy and environmental policy..social policy. Do you really think most voters know or care about the Federal Reserve? Do you think there is widespread support to shut down EPA, DOE, Dept of Ed. (Reagan failed because there was not enough public support)? to end social security (Bush failed because there was not enough public support)and medicare?

If the other Republican candidates really perceive him as a threat (and they dont at this point), they will be licking their chops at raising the specter of Dr NO.....like his votes against NIH funding for medical research...against funding for Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect our kids from dangerous toys....against federal funding for alternative energy R&D, against federally-backed college loans....

His voting record against so many popular and/or (perceived) essential programs, once more widely known, will be his final death knoll.

BTW, Barack Obama is the big internet winner this year, with about 1/3 of his $80+ million from well over 100,000 small internet donors.

[rlbond86]

Originally Posted by samcol

What is the better choice, a gradual removal of the fractional reserve or a never ending life of despotism with the federal reserve that no amount of social welfare programs can ever cure?

There is no doubt removing the Fed will definetly cause rocky economic times, but how is that worse than a complete crash that seems inevitable? Ron Paul's plan is to remove the Fed gradually as well mandatory participation in social programs. Abrubtly ending both instantly would be nothing more than a government manufactured crash rather than the assured crash that is coming.

I don't see how me being able to spend or save more of my money as a bad thing. I can't help it if someone doesn't practice sound personal financing, but if we let the government handle it we are all stuck. I have little faith in them getting us benefits or saving us in a crisis. Social Security has been robbed and FEMA's track record is horrible (New Orleans anyone?). The people running the show have proved time and time again that they cannot handle our money properly.

This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.

Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.

Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.

The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.

I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.

[samcol]

From the best I can tell he raised $4,332,202.19 in 24 hours. There are mail in donations that might not of been processed. Plus, there's a rumor that credit card companies can only process so many requests an hour, so this total might be higher.

Still impressive none the less.

[telekinetic]

Originally Posted by rlbond86

This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.

Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.

Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.

The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.

I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.

He is not advocating that we eliminate social security for the people currently dependant on it, just that we find alternate means of funding it other than by taxing the people currently entering or newly in the workforce who can be fairly confident at this point that they will recieve no benefits from it.

Also, it's not as if the Government will be recieving zero funds at all, he's not abolishing ALL taxes. We get enough revenue through other sources (such as import/export traffic) to raise a significant amount of funds.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by rlbond86

This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.

Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.

Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.

The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.

I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.

The scary thing about this viewpoint is that you're trying to say that the only people who know how to run a government are those people who feel that you can only run a government with hugely funded liberal and socialist programs funded by the top income makers in taxpayer funds and that any other avenue of government is doomed to failure because it's idiotic.

the easy translation for this is 'i'm right, you're wrong, get the fuck over it and shut your mouth.' Frankly, i'm damn sick and tired of hearing this kind of shit from both the right and the left slanted people in this country that it makes me hope the civil war starts sooner rather than later. YOU are one of the main reasons that this country not only stays divided in it's purposes and causes, but will continue to become ever more divisive in nature.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

...the easy translation for this is 'i'm right, you're wrong, get the fuck over it and shut your mouth.' Frankly, i'm damn sick and tired of hearing this kind of shit from both the right and the left slanted people in this country that it makes me hope the civil war starts sooner rather than later. YOU are one of the main reasons that this country not only stays divided in it's purposes and causes, but will continue to become ever more divisive in nature.

Sorta like you and samcol and Ron Paul who believe that your interpretation of the Constitution is right and the Supreme Court's is wrong.

Get the fuck over it!

[Willravel]

The country is divided because most people lack the simple skill of thinking for themselves. It has nothing to do with a poor understanding of government and history.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Sorta like you and samcol and Ron Paul who believe that your interpretation of the Constitution is right and the Supreme Court's is wrong.

Get the fuck over it!

right, because it's so damn hard to interpret 'shall not be infringed', or 'congress shall make no law' and decide that it means 'reasonable restrictions'. what a bunch of political bullshit.

[host]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The scary thing about this viewpoint is that you're trying to say that the only people who know how to run a government are those people who feel that you can only run a government with hugely funded liberal and socialist programs funded by the top income makers in taxpayer funds and that any other avenue of government is doomed to failure because it's idiotic.

the easy translation for this is 'i'm right, you're wrong, get the fuck over it and shut your mouth.' Frankly, i'm damn sick and tired of hearing this kind of shit from both the right and the left slanted people in this country that it makes me hope the civil war starts sooner rather than later. YOU are one of the main reasons that this country not only stays divided in it's purposes and causes, but will continue to become ever more divisive in nature.

Surely we have the talent in the US to accomplish this, too:

http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue41/Ginsburg41.htm

.....Poverty in Sweden is low by international standards, especially among children. A recent UNICEF report (2005)14 found that poverty among children -- using the common European measure that defines poverty as those living in households with less than half of the national median income -- had risen from 3 to 4.2 percent in the 1990s. But Sweden still ranked fourth lowest among 26 OECD nations with a rate just under one-fifth of the comparable U.S. rate of 21.9 percent......

Sweden's majority is committed to the results described above. The government gets it done. What the government in Sweden accomplishes could be accomplished here, with your support. No other method besides the efforts of strong federal government have achieved the low poverty rate in Sweden.

Sweden's numbers make the US appear to be a failed economic state. Our government could be directed to make wealth distribution more rational here, to. We have the examples of Sweden, Denmark, and France to study, and we could implement the best of all three, and also, learn from their mistakes.

It is not that government does not work, it is that you are not interested in trying to make it work, but you offer not other remedy to mitigate growing wealth inequality. You leave it to reach a critical point. You have the models of Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico to study, to see what will come from your politics.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

right, because it's so damn hard to interpret 'shall not be infringed', or 'congress shall make no law' and decide that it means 'reasonable restrictions'. what a bunch of political bullshit.

It's frustrating, because you're not understanding simple constitutional law and governmental procedure.

The problem isn't the "shall not be infringed". That's pretty simple. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." speaks very clearly, however, about how "the people" who have "the right" "not to be infringed" must be a part of "a well regulated militia". This is very, very, very simple language. You're not in a well regulated militia, therefore you're not protected. But aside from obvious linguistics, the supreme court has spoken on their interpretation of the Second Amendment, and you disagreeing with them doesn't supersede their constitutionally provided authority to interpret. See, that's the bullshit. You read the constitution, and then ignore all of the constitutionally supported rulings over the next few hundred years. It's not 1776. It's 2007. The 231 years, 3 months, and 7 days between then and now still apply. You can ignore them if you want, but the reality is that legally, they happened.

Neither you nor Dr. Ron Paul are supreme court justices. It's not up to you to interpret laws, those interpretations which can be enforced by the executive. You vote. That is your right.