Will Ron Paul fizzle out?

Post Reply New Topic

WOW!
The JBS sounds FANTASTIC!
Why isn't Paul a member?

I smell a Pinko...

I don't know, you'd have to ask him yourself. Ron has always been a guy to allies himself with people that agree with him on certain issues but may have disagreements in other areas to achieve a shared goal. He has also worked with guys like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Alan Grayson on a whole host of issues such as; auditing the Federal Reserve, ending the wars overseas, and the drug war here at home. He's not caught up with being a partisan hack like most people in congress.

latest poll out of Iowa has Ron Paul again in first with 27.5%. So that's 3 polls with him in 1st now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPDTkeYjFs[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiwUAMY_Xrw[/youtube]

Goes to show you; the Republican leadership and many of their rank and file are so hardline conservatives that they are completely resistant to any change from the status quo that has been their law of the land for years.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Strictly speaking, that's wrong. There's a lot of ordinary, working Americans who'd be affected like hell if Ron Paul decide to suck a trillion dollars from the economy in the middle of a period of stagnant growth. His pigheaded ideas might just cause a second dip.

But, in terms of some of his anti-crony capitalist/corporate media positions, Paul's just experienced dismissive coverage with moderate attacks thus far. When they need to be, the corporate establishment can be pretty brutal - hammering down even the most popular of policies. As mentioned in above, a lot of Ron Paul's economic policies would be unpopular with middle America - giving corporate America plenty of room to annihilate him if they go into high gear.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 21 Dec 2011, 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

I personally would be out quite a bit of money under Paul's proposed policies. I was formerly a recipient of a federally-funded scholarship (they cut its funding last year), I still benefit from federal student loans at below-market interest rates, and I have worked on research funded by the government (though the organization that issued those grants may be shut down following upcoming budget cuts). This is just in fairly direct monetary transfers to me, disregarding the innumerable ways in which I am a beneficiary of public services provided by the state.

Which is different from the Democrats how?

That discussion will happen when Ron moves on to the general election but I doubt you're going to see the GOP attack Paul over his economic policies. The meme right now is that Ron is right on most things but is dangerously wrong on foreign policy. I don't believe it is going to work because I believe most normal Americans believe in the principle of non-interventionism and agree that we should be staying/getting out of these crazy wars.

His "Plan To Restore America" plainly lays out what his 1st term goals are. They don't include getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, or even the progressive income tax like some fearmongers would like you to believe, honestly its not as radical as a lot of his supporters want it to be but he's the only guy that has made a serious proposal to addressing our astronomical national debt. A trillion or 2 over a decade like most the proposals by the president and the GOP establishment are completely laughable. We'd be better upping spending a 1000% and spending it on infrastructure than than Obama or the GOPs plan because at least when the entire economic system inevitably collapses, we won't be left completely empty handed.


If they want to go nasty, they'll go a much less substantive route and try to paint him a racist conspiracy nut as some others have said before. Which is funny when you consider that everyone besides Ron Paul openly supports racial profiling and are ardent supporters of the racist War on Drugs.(Newt Gingrich being the worst of the bunch proposing the death penalty for marijuana) These are the same people that have been whining about Obama's birth certificate the last 4 years(something Ron never cared to wade into) and they have the nerve to call Ron a conspiracy nut because he believes in this radical concept called "blowback"? A term our own CIA coined.

Last edited by Jacoby on 21 Dec 2011, 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Government funding of science cuts both ways. There is no doubt that some important and useful work has been financed by tax loot. For example virtually everything we learned from the HST and other orbiting astronomical devices and the various probes sent to the planets. Every last one funded by money taken at gunpoint from tax payers. On the other hand there are junk projects also funded out of tax loot and the dynamic of seeking government funding has cost good scientists valuable time preparing requests for grants. Government involvement is a mixed blessing and a mixed curse.

The objections to government sponsorship and funding loses some bite when the practical outcomes are examined. It is the morally principled objections that have some weight with some people.

In the mean time I have no hesitation to make use of good results from government funded science. If for no other reasons than I helped to pay for these results..

ruveyn

ruveyn

When Ron Paul runs as a Democrat, we'll know.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The JBS leadership has seen communist and Marxist dust bunnies under every bed for decades. Yes, we have an ideological and philosophical problem, but it is not Marxism. It is collectivist Statism which is a form of fascism.

ruveyn

You knows the Birchers would call even you a commie, too.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Positively. My denial is positive proof that I am a Fellow Traveler, a Parlor Pink and a Useful Idiot.

ruveyn

There will be a lot more people affected in the future if that trillion dollars isn't sucked out. When you are in debt and about to lose your house, you don't put yourself into more debt so you can keep the house for a little bit longer. You give up the house and start saving so you can pay off the debt.

Please stop using this utterly idiotic meme (and fallacy of composition) of treating a government with a sovereign currency as if it's just like a household. Sucking a trillion out of the economy during a demand slump is utterly stupid and will lead to a second dip. In the long-run, the way to deal with the budget (and private sector) deficit is to fix the trade deficit by lowering the US dollar.

No. Of course an economy is not as simple as an individual's own budget. The analogy is fully applicable, however. The U.S economy is made of phony wealth that is propped up on fiat currency and foreign debt, and persons such as yourself that follow the Keynesian train of thought will only serve to increase the size of the bubbles in the U.S economy, resulting in a much larger and more devastating burst.


You don't get it. There is no use in fighting a recession, it needs to happen. It is a market correction resulting from too much consumption and not enough production. Cutting the budget by a trillion may cause a double dip, but it is much more favourable to the scenario in which an inflated bubble bursts.