Ron Paul

[OnlyAmbrose]

I guess what they say is right about Ron Paul - his base is seriously coming from the internet.

I can't believe jay is voting for him!

I pretty much owned Guliani in my announcement of candidacy in the mock election today.

Ron Paul is so cool...

[muy_thaiguy]

I guess what they say is right about Ron Paul - his base is seriously coming from the internet.

I can't believe jay is voting for him!

I pretty much owned Guliani in my announcement of candidacy in the mock election today.

Ron Paul is so cool...

You are starting to sound a little like xtra!

[Titanic]

I guess what they say is right about Ron Paul - his base is seriously coming from the internet.

I can't believe jay is voting for him!

I pretty much owned Guliani in my announcement of candidacy in the mock election today.

Ron Paul is so cool...

You are starting to sound a little like xtra!

Scarily like Xtra...

[OnlyAmbrose]

I guess what they say is right about Ron Paul - his base is seriously coming from the internet.

I can't believe jay is voting for him!

I pretty much owned Guliani in my announcement of candidacy in the mock election today.

Ron Paul is so cool...

You are starting to sound a little like xtra!

Scarily like Xtra...

I am WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY short of buying into 9/11 conspiracy theories, relax

[got tonkaed]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

He's been pretty clear about how he plans to go about things. In essence, he's said that he wants to work with Congress, and you've got to assume that if America will vote for a small-government president (a long shot by any means), a fairly cooperative Congress will follow.

Even then, he's certainly not a radical in that he's not for immediate abolition of such departments and entitlements. He wants a "transition period", made possible by extra funding from the soon-to-be-ended war in Iraq, in which people are slowly weaned off of their entitlements. He says that if he or some other like minded individuals are not elected, the entitlements will cause such runaway inflation that it will crush those who get them with NO transition period.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev4AEyac10o

[got tonkaed]

thanks for the clairification...

[Titanic]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

He's been pretty clear about how he plans to go about things. In essence, he's said that he wants to work with Congress, and you've got to assume that if America will vote for a small-government president (a long shot by any means), a fairly cooperative Congress will follow.

Even then, he's certainly not a radical in that he's not for immediate abolition of such departments and entitlements. He wants a "transition period", made possible by extra funding from the soon-to-be-ended war in Iraq, in which people are slowly weaned off of their entitlements. He says that if he or some other like minded individuals are not elected, the entitlements will cause such runaway inflation that it will crush those who get them with NO transition period.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev4AEyac10o

What? Where does the runaway inflation come from? What causes it, and why?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

He's been pretty clear about how he plans to go about things. In essence, he's said that he wants to work with Congress, and you've got to assume that if America will vote for a small-government president (a long shot by any means), a fairly cooperative Congress will follow.

Even then, he's certainly not a radical in that he's not for immediate abolition of such departments and entitlements. He wants a "transition period", made possible by extra funding from the soon-to-be-ended war in Iraq, in which people are slowly weaned off of their entitlements. He says that if he or some other like minded individuals are not elected, the entitlements will cause such runaway inflation that it will crush those who get them with NO transition period.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev4AEyac10o

What? Where does the runaway inflation come from? What causes it, and why?

Increased spending causes increased borrowing. We're already horrendously in debt, so we print more money to pay it off. This is a cycle which is happening right now, and has only been hastened by the war in Iraq.

Prices, then, rise faster than wages, which generates greater profits for big business, while the lower-middle class gets squished.

[DaGip]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

Of course, as president, Ron Paul has to follow THE LAW. Ron Paul has stated this in debate. Some of Ron Paul's beliefs are not going to be shared by everyone...just like a myriad of BUsh's beliefs aren't held by everyone. Bush does not support abbortion, but do you see abortion being illegal yet? No...Bush is still subject to law (even though he thinks he is above it).

[DaGip]

OK, this is what my new sig was supposed to say but had to be shortened to fit.


"Well, I've been googling Ron Paul. Watched his debates and have come to the conclusion if we want real change in Washington, Ron Paul is the way to go. I'd rather "waste" a vote on someone who stands for something than to give it to someone who will become a puppet of politics. I'm sick of voting against someone instead of for someone. Paul is a guy I can stand behind. So February 3rd there will be a vote cast for Ron Paul in my name. (And I expect to sleep well that night)"

Huh? But you LOVE the Iraq "conflict"...remember? All the evildoers we are eliminating, etc?

"The constant call for "cutting and running" is a lose/ lose proposition. If we do pull our troops the aftermath of such action would be almost incomprehensible." - jay_a2j

Why the flip-flop Jay?

As Ron Paul defended on this issue:

"..the same people who told you that Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, are the same one's that are telling us that if we pull our troops out, it will leave a vacuum.."

The point that Ron Paul is making, is that since the administration made a mistake by going in, then perhaps they are making a mistake by concluding "the vacuum" theory. Sooner or later, those people are going to have to want liberty on their own. Our presence is exceedingly despised and hated by the majority of Iraqi civilians. The strain of The War is starting to hit home. Many freinds and family that have loved ones in the military are starting to hate this war, and that number is only growing. Let's nip it in the bud and vote Ron Paul!

[jay_a2j]

OK, this is what my new sig was supposed to say but had to be shortened to fit.


"Well, I've been googling Ron Paul. Watched his debates and have come to the conclusion if we want real change in Washington, Ron Paul is the way to go. I'd rather "waste" a vote on someone who stands for something than to give it to someone who will become a puppet of politics. I'm sick of voting against someone instead of for someone. Paul is a guy I can stand behind. So February 3rd there will be a vote cast for Ron Paul in my name. (And I expect to sleep well that night)"

Huh? But you LOVE the Iraq "conflict"...remember? All the evildoers we are eliminating, etc?

"The constant call for "cutting and running" is a lose/ lose proposition. If we do pull our troops the aftermath of such action would be almost incomprehensible." - jay_a2j

Why the flip-flop Jay?

Because I'm sick of it... and now Bush wants to invade Iran. I dislike Bush more and more. Paul is the only anti-war conservative running. I am most impressed with his other stances. His voting record. His integrity.

[Backglass]

Huh? But you LOVE the Iraq "conflict"...remember? All the evildoers we are eliminating, etc?

"The constant call for "cutting and running" is a lose/ lose proposition. If we do pull our troops the aftermath of such action would be almost incomprehensible." - jay_a2j

Why the flip-flop Jay?

Because I'm sick of it... and now Bush wants to invade Iran. I dislike Bush more and more.

WHO ARE YOU and what have you done with my buddy jay?!!

Seriously though..."Hallelujah". My own conservative republican father recently admitted basically the same thing.

If you have finally seen reality, maybe there is hope for the conservative party after all.

[riggable]

I've been listening and reading up on Ron Paul and I must say he does have some compelling points. Unfortunatly, basically all the things i've been watching and reading have been Pro-Ron Paul in the first place, so I think I'm seeing a One-sided picture. If someone, who actually understand and actually is informed about this, could please give me the argument as to why voting Ron Paul is a bad idea, that would be great.
I'm asking for the common answer for this question, you don't have to agree with it, if you don't want to. Thanks.

[Titanic]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

He's been pretty clear about how he plans to go about things. In essence, he's said that he wants to work with Congress, and you've got to assume that if America will vote for a small-government president (a long shot by any means), a fairly cooperative Congress will follow.

Even then, he's certainly not a radical in that he's not for immediate abolition of such departments and entitlements. He wants a "transition period", made possible by extra funding from the soon-to-be-ended war in Iraq, in which people are slowly weaned off of their entitlements. He says that if he or some other like minded individuals are not elected, the entitlements will cause such runaway inflation that it will crush those who get them with NO transition period.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev4AEyac10o

What? Where does the runaway inflation come from? What causes it, and why?

Increased spending causes increased borrowing. We're already horrendously in debt, so we print more money to pay it off. This is a cycle which is happening right now, and has only been hastened by the war in Iraq.

Prices, then, rise faster than wages, which generates greater profits for big business, while the lower-middle class gets squished.

Lol, what are you talking about...your not horrendously in debt, your debt levels compared to you GDP is around average for a western country. I dont think the Fed will print out more money, especially enough money to cause this "runaway inflation". There economists after all, they know the consequences of their actions.

Also, inflation does not play into the hands of big businesses, because during inflation loads of businesses actually have much reduced profits, and have to make thousands redundant. Lower wages and high inflation does not mean more money for them, as theres less people actually buying their products as well because not as many people have the disposable income to do that.

[DaGip]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

He's been pretty clear about how he plans to go about things. In essence, he's said that he wants to work with Congress, and you've got to assume that if America will vote for a small-government president (a long shot by any means), a fairly cooperative Congress will follow.

Even then, he's certainly not a radical in that he's not for immediate abolition of such departments and entitlements. He wants a "transition period", made possible by extra funding from the soon-to-be-ended war in Iraq, in which people are slowly weaned off of their entitlements. He says that if he or some other like minded individuals are not elected, the entitlements will cause such runaway inflation that it will crush those who get them with NO transition period.

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev4AEyac10o

What? Where does the runaway inflation come from? What causes it, and why?

Increased spending causes increased borrowing. We're already horrendously in debt, so we print more money to pay it off. This is a cycle which is happening right now, and has only been hastened by the war in Iraq.

Prices, then, rise faster than wages, which generates greater profits for big business, while the lower-middle class gets squished.

Lol, what are you talking about...your not horrendously in debt, your debt levels compared to you GDP is around average for a western country. I dont think the Fed will print out more money, especially enough money to cause this "runaway inflation". There economists after all, they know the consequences of their actions.

Also, inflation does not play into the hands of big businesses, because during inflation loads of businesses actually have much reduced profits, and have to make thousands redundant. Lower wages and high inflation does not mean more money for them, as theres less people actually buying their products as well because not as many people have the disposable income to do that.

During times of war, the Central Bank prints out more money and borrows it at interest to the FED...each dollar that the FED receives from the Central Bank is automatically in debt, therefor, we...the taxpayer, have to pay off the interest to the Central Bank. War only makes a profit for the Central Bank, which is a small number of private individuals...who do not have to pay ANY tax! What's wrong with this picture? Small number of elitist individuals who control ALL the money...face it, you have no power, it is a wafting illusion if you think you do.

Vote Ron Paul!

[Titanic]

During times of war, the Central Bank prints out more money and borrows it at interest to the FED...each dollar that the FED receives from the Central Bank is automatically in debt, therefor, we...the taxpayer, have to pay off the interest to the Central Bank. War only makes a profit for the Central Bank, which is a small number of private individuals...who do not have to pay ANY tax! What's wrong with this picture? Small number of elitist individuals who control ALL the money...face it, you have no power, it is a wafting illusion if you think you do.

Its hard going to called this "times of war". By saying that you make it sound like WWI or WWII where the whole country and economy was focused on the war machine. Also, I dont know exactly how Americas central banking and finance system works, so I cant go into too much economic detail. I always thought the Feds were the ones who [ritned the money and are your central bank (ie. the same role as the Bank of England, just in USA).

I dont quite follow your logic either. When the central bank lend the fed the money, the interest is generally very long term so any money the fed borrow to cover any shortfallings or to provide funding for somethign will not be payed back for a very long time. This means that the amount of money that the taxpayer pays back for this loan per annum is very very small, hardly noticeable. For instance, the UK finished paying off its WWII debt to NA last December, but because the payments were so small and over a logn period of time (60 years) it hardly affected the budget, and by itself did not cause any tax raises.

[got tonkaed]

I guess the question id pose for ron paul supports is...

if elected how effective do you feel he would be in coming through on his promises. After all a lot of the limiting government measures he is attempting to take on, would find harsh if not complete resistance. Although the next president will likely have more executive authority than those in the past, how effective do you think he can be at elminating some of the government agencies that he feels are ineffective. If he cannot do a lot of these things are you running a risk of voting for a rather lame duckish president?

Of course, as president, Ron Paul has to follow THE LAW. Ron Paul has stated this in debate. Some of Ron Paul's beliefs are not going to be shared by everyone...just like a myriad of BUsh's beliefs aren't held by everyone. Bush does not support abbortion, but do you see abortion being illegal yet? No...Bush is still subject to law (even though he thinks he is above it).

Your answer does not actually address the question here, and does not give anymore credence to the notion that Ron paul would be effective as the head of the executive branch.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Its hard going to called this "times of war". By saying that you make it sound like WWI or WWII where the whole country and economy was focused on the war machine.

Just because the economy isn't mobilized doesn't mean that the government isn't running out of cash. Quite to the contrary, since it's a war effort that the civilian populace is overwhelmingly opposed to, funding is extremely difficult to come by. Whereas in WWII the US government borrowed money from its own citizens, an unpopular war is forcing us to borrow more and more from foreign nations - notably China.

To cover our debts and continue supplying an unpopular war which the population would be loath to pay MORE taxes for (we're already taxed nearly half of our income - or more in some cases), printing is the only way out for the government.

I always thought the Feds were the ones who [ritned the money and are your central bank (ie. the same role as the Bank of England, just in USA).

I can't claim to have an expert understanding either, all I have is a semester economics class, but in essence the currency of America is monitored by the Federal Reserve, also called "the Fed". Their meetings are private and not revealed to the public.

The money supply is controlled entirely by the Fed. Entirely. And its directors (called the board of governors) are appointed by the president.

Anywho, rapidly rising prices and far more slowly rising wages are not healthy for America.

[DaGip]

Vote Ron Paul!