Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[dagnabit]

ron paul is regression, not progression.

Do you like the current "progression"?!?!
militarization of the police force?
crushing blows to mmj?
US citizens able to be held without trial forever?
preemptive war?
president owned by banks?
world police?

yay progress!

 

[bentom187]

Thanks for the info.

Is there anything to Paul defaulting on the national debt? I haven't read it in campaign literature but have seen the idea floated in video and blog responses.

yup,he'd have the FED write it off,since this is only intrest on the principle 14+Trillion and climbing in public debt .
in other word this is money the govt owes itself and is only using it for political manipulation.

 

[kmk420kali]

Wouldn't be surprised if one of the media turn offs is the reactionary response to relevant inquiry.

The idea that the media turns a deaf ear to Paul lends the impression that the primary electorate is under-informed. Yet, the voters are generally open enough to listen to ideas. If people get the impression that learning more requires already being on board, they may be less likely to consider.

The Media is starting to wake up and take notice-- Here is an article from today--

If you know anything about Ron Paul's economic views, it's probably that he's not a big fan of the Federal Reserve system, or that he loves the gold standard. But those are hardly the only noteworthy planks in his platform. The Republican congressman from Texas, who now looks to have a real chance of winning the Iowa caucuses in less than two weeks, also wants to abolish five Cabinet departments, drastically lower corporate taxes, and allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system.
Here are they key components of Paul's economic plan, "Restore America," released in October:
Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Energy; Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)
He would also scrap the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, eliminate corporate subsidies, end foreign aid, and return most other federal spending to 2006 levels.
Paul says he would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent, and accept a presidential salary of $39,336- roughly equal to what the average American makes. The president currently makes $400,000.
Paul, who opposes almost all American military intervention overseas, also says he would save money by ending foreign wars.
Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he'd like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn't suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul's campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we've written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street.
Regulation: Like most of his rivals, Paul would repeal President Obama's health care law. He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he'd scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.
Monetary Policy: Paul has written a book called "End the Fed," but his plan calls only for auditing the central bank--something he's been trying to do as a legislator. He also would push "competing currency legislation"--meaning he wants individuals to be able to use alternative currencies to the dollar, including gold and silver. The idea is to reduce the federal government's control over the monetary supply.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: Paul says he wouldn't scrap Social Security and Medicare. His plan "honors our promise to our seniors and veterans," meaning that those currently in the programs could stay in them. But he would like to allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system and the payroll taxes it imposes--although the details of how he would accomplish this are unclear.
"Dr. Paul is committed to fully funding Social Security and Medicare while we work a transition to allow young workers the freedom to save for their own retirement," Jesse Benton, the national chairman of Paul's presidential campaign, told Yahoo News.
Benton implied that the Social Security and Medicare payments for current retirees--paid for by payroll taxes on younger workers under the current system--would be provided by radically reducing the American military footprint around the globe, along with other cuts. "It will require cuts elsewhere, but we can save hundreds of billions of dollars a year by bringing troops home, ending foreign welfare and overseas nation building and providing a stronger national defense here at home," Benton said. "If we cut and work hard, we can take care of our seniors who rely on their Medicare and Social Security."
In its basic outline, Paul's plan shares several common features with those of his Republican rivals. All support extending the Bush tax cuts, and most want to lower the corporate tax rate. Newt Gingrich, Jon Hunstman, and Rick Perry would scrap the capital gains tax. And a desire to cut government spending is almost a requirement for entry into the Republican field.
If Paul's profile in the race continues to rise, he'll likely be required to fill in some of the plan's details, which remain vague. Extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half would make it difficult to balance the budget in three years, even by eliminating five Cabinet departments and cutting waste. The only feasible way to do so would be large cuts to the three big drivers of government spending: Social Security, Medicare, and the military.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paulonomics-ron-paul-plans-taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.html

 

[oldhaole]

If I was a single issue voter Ron would be my man.

But I'm not. While I'm not happy about many of Obama's policy decisions, he does seem to be the only adult in the bunch. As I see it the Republicans are willing to fly this country in the dirt in order to gain the presidency. A perfect example would be the House's rejection of the extention of reduced payroll taxes they already approved by them once.

At the begining of the New Year when all of your paychecks get smaller....you'll know who to thank.

RP doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell to grab the nomination. Libertarism sounds great until you study the fine print. Many voters don't bother to do that. When they do....RP sounds like a crackpot no better than all the other Republican canidates.

A second term comes with the knowledge that you don't have to worry about re election. That second term is where I think Obama will shine.

Oh...and he will easily win a second term in this crappy envionment.

 

[trichrider]

wait a second, government does not 'spend' anything on Social Security, those monies are 'taken' from our pay...it is our money, not the f'n gubment. keep that in mind.

i'd wager cutting military expenditures alone would suffice...if it included foreign aid.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

yup,he'd have the FED write it off,since this is only intrest on the principle 14+Trillion and climbing in public debt .
in other word this is money the govt owes itself and is only using it for political manipulation.

Public debt means the public owes it but not necessarily to itself.

I'm not exactly sure how QE works toward the bottom line (i.e. owing ourselves) but we owe other counties trillions of dollars in bond payments. Selling bonds is how we borrow money. China alone owns almost a $trillion in treasury bonds.

Defaulting i.e. bellying-up on bond loans would render our credit rating as nonexistent. Pulling out all our global military would see other countries extract their debt through US multinationals. Any country where Exxon, GE or the like operates might face liquidation and quite possibly prison.

It's one of the reasons that corporate America rejects Paul's platform. Randian theory is so individualistic it arguably threatens the corporate structure itself. The Koch bothers are market libertarians yet they understand how default would render their global enterprise.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

wait a second, government does not 'spend' anything on Social Security, those monies are 'taken' from our pay...it is our money, not the f'n gubment. keep that in mind.

i'd wager cutting military expenditures alone would suffice...if it included foreign aid.

Everything our government spends is our money or our children's money. The thing about Social Security is it doesn't add to the national debt. Like the postal system, SS is self-funded.

If we do nothing, Social Security is solvent up to 2038. If we continue to do nothing, we could continue to pay SS benefits at 80% of what we pay today. Being self-funded, Congress never mandated SS's ability to run deficits. The idea we'd spend ourselves into the red through SS isn't legally possibly. We'll be forced to alter means testing and or adjust payouts according to receipts.

Part of this already takes place in the form of COLA adjustments. Further management i.e. means-oriented reforms may be necessary but management itself is a never-ending process for organized expenditures. One wouldn't declare that business's need for management suggests that business is a Ponzi scheme.

The folks who want to eliminate SS say the program is insolvent. The real truth is they don't want SS. What's really interesting is these folks personal beliefs. If they're political candidates, they're smart enough to realize that THE most popular government program isn't going away.

W tried to privatize SS before the housing market collapsed. The public said no. Anybody trying to do it now will face stiffer contempt. Even the Tea Party argues that government health care savings diminishes their Medicare, lol. It's not only funny because savings are achieved through price caps, fraud enforcement and administrative efficiency, they're arguing for their government service.

Before you bank on politicians telling you that SS is a rip off, talk to the folks who rely on SS checks and whether they would have risked their very own private opportunity. If it's anything like Rove's 2004/2005 national polling figures, you won't find too many takers.

 

[stonedstoner]

If I was a single issue voter Ron would be my man.

But I'm not. While I'm not happy about many of Obama's policy decisions, he does seem to be the only adult in the bunch. As I see it the Republicans are willing to fly this country in the dirt in order to gain the presidency. A perfect example would be the House's rejection of the extention of reduced payroll taxes they already approved by them once.

At the begining of the New Year when all of your paychecks get smaller....you'll know who to thank.

RP doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell to grab the nomination. Libertarism sounds great until you study the fine print. Many voters don't bother to do that. When they do....RP sounds like a crackpot no better than all the other Republican canidates.

A second term comes with the knowledge that you don't have to worry about re election. That second term is where I think Obama will shine.

Oh...and he will easily win a second term in this crappy envionment.

thank you! finally, someone who has some sense. someone who sees through the bullshit. thank you for not being a paultard!

 

[stonedstoner]

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/14...l_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

here's some fishy shit about ron paul's hero.

 

[dagnabit]

Ill be a paultard...
If you will admit you are pro Goldman Sachs and citi having a fourth term

why would you want more gw bush?

 

[dagnabit]

What do you call an investment where old investors are paid from the funds of new investors?

 

[stonedstoner]

dude, obama isn't bush. sure, ndaa is horrible. but really, i don't think very many citizens are going to be imprisoned without a trial. if that shit happened ppl would go balistic. i'd rather have goldman and citi contributing than stormfront and other white power groups.

and i bet obama will pull out of iraq before the next election. he will get reelected, and he's not going to legalize weed, but i think he will call off the feds like he did back with that memo a few years ago. looks like melinda the hag went rogue and shit and obamas not doing anything right now because it might effect his chances of getting elected. but i think he will call the feds off of cali when he gets reelected. like oldhaole said, a second term comes with the knowledge of not having to worry about reelection.

legalization can't be the only issue you guys care about right? that's the only thing i really agree with paul on. so i can't support him when his other views are ridiculously conservative, regressive, and racist. i'm a liberal!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We're already out of Iraq.

After the housing bust, banks bet on D to fix all the broken shit. "Fixing" some of the broken bank shit came in the form of Dodd/Frank and the Consumer Protection Agency. Banks rail both and lobby hard to water them down.

Expect 2012 bank contributions to reflect those who worked to eliminate or water down 1st-term reforms. A second term will only mean more reforms and tougher stances to achieve them.

 

[dagnabit]

If you believe Dr paul is a white supremacist you probably believe Obama is a secret Kenyan muslim....

I agree with Dr paul much more than i do busbama..

Mostly i disagree with obusha's destruction of civil liberties and continued murder of sovereign citizens worldwide.

Well that and selling himself tothe very banks that are drowining our country.

I guess you can convince yourself that the DOJ went rogue and O let patients languish without medicine for political gain. But is that really ok?

your ok with the patriot act,fisa,ndaa and more war?

you are ok with the fact he followed his predecessor's plan for iraq?
leaving 10,000 of our men in Iraq and calling us out?

guess gitmo still running is okie dokie?

i understand you WANT obama to be somehow different from bushie but they were bought and payed for by the exact same corporations....

 

[Mia]

I believe that the general welfare clause(article.1 sec.8) has been easily manipulated as at the time they were written to mean something completely different than today.

Yeah clarity is essential in these kinds of conversations.
No doubt you are right about the general welfare clause, it's the same deal as the commerce clause. It's been interpreted so generally as to allow the government to basically do whatever they want.

We need to move away from federal government and bring things back to the state and local level.

The problem is the inclination of power is to get more not to exercise restraint.

Welcome to our federal government.

 

[Mia]

Obama is no different than the rest.
He's a politician.
Look at his top campaign contributors.
Look at his actions.
He's just grandiose rhetoric, that's all. Hope and change my butt...
I'll tell you what though, he'll never have to worry about his family, he's set.

 

[stonedstoner]

ok, obama isn't all he was cracked up to be. but isn't it possible, just possible, that ron paul is not what he's cracked up to be? the reason i'm so passionate about hating on ron paul is that his supporters think he can do no wrong. they think he's perfect in every way and won't admit to any of his faults. also, when i was in college in '07/'08, my campus was littered with "who is ron paul?" flyers. just all over the place, it was disgusting.

and atleast obama cares about the environment, unlike ron "global warming is a hoax" paul.

atleast tell me you disagree with ron paul on his environmental policies. give me that.

 

[bentom187]

Public debt means the public owes it but not necessarily to itself.

I'm not exactly sure how QE works toward the bottom line (i.e. owing ourselves) but we owe other counties trillions of dollars in bond payments. Selling bonds is how we borrow money. China alone owns almost a $trillion in treasury bonds.

Defaulting i.e. bellying-up on bond loans would render our credit rating as nonexistent. Pulling out all our global military would see other countries extract their debt through US multinationals. Any country where Exxon, GE or the like operates might face liquidation and quite possibly prison.

It's one of the reasons that corporate America rejects Paul's platform. Randian theory is so individualistic it arguably threatens the corporate structure itself. The Koch bothers are market libertarians yet they understand how default would render their global enterprise.

its important to understand the fractional reserve system ,espeacially with reguards to intrest,cause its essentially slavery if your working to pay off somone else's additional made up debt,its real time in your life you cant get back to pay that off.

its important if you wanna understand it not to be biased(rep v.dem),and youll prolly need to take a toke every now and then cause its 3.5 hours long,if you want a crunched down version thats in less detail watch from 3:00:00 onward its basicly a review of everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

this should help answer all your questions.

 

[Mia]

Creature from Jekyll Isalnd by Jedward griffith is a good book about the fed. Author is a little weird and has a bit of an agenda but the historical account of the creation of the fed as well as an explanation of fractional reserve banking is good.
So fractional reserve banking right.

These assholes are only required to have something like 5 or 10% of funds in the vault. Meaning when you go to deposit your huindred dollars, they put ten in the vault, and loan out the other 90 at interest. So they take your money, and loan it to other people for interest. Pretty sleazy right?
Well wait it gets better. So when people take loans, what do they often do/ They deposit the money in the bank. So that 90 bucks is then taken, nine dollars is taken out, leaving 81, and that is again loaned out at interest. This keeps going as far as it can.

And that's just one of their tricks.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Short of Abraham Lincoln, FDR and LBJ, Obama has signed more policy for the little guy than any other president. As far as rich, Obama was a Constitutional lawyer and political organizer. Not very much money in Constitutional law. Organizing pays if donations support, otherwise it's volunteer. Scholarship payments were projected 10 years out from graduation. That's little indication of wealth. He made 3 to 4 million off a book deal and that's about it.

I wouldn't expect to see Obama pass up the high paid speech circuit. But I do expect he'll mimic Clinton's world initiatives and much of that money will go toward helping others.

Somehow I don't get the impression a post Paul presidency would see Clintonian scale global benevolence. He's already worth $30 to $40 million or so I hears.