Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[PaulOakenfold]

Read up, you had to know I wasn't going to take this discussion (or really any of the discussions in GD) seriously when I defended Epi based on what I said. There, now I have spelled it out for you.

[HeavenSent]

Last word.

Oh if only that were true!:yawn: :nuke: :ermm:

[Vatican Assassin]

Read up, you had to know I wasn't going to take this discussion (or really any of the discussions in GD) seriously when I defended Epi based on what I said. There, now I have spelled it out for you.

Hey! He derailed our thread!

[Epinephrine]

If pulling out of Iraq correlates to abolishing our military, then I guess I'm wrong.

Well his aim is to abolish the income tax, pull out of iraq (his only good idea), and his vague notion that 'america should not be policing the world' and then his little rant about kosovo and afghanistan on his website. Clearly he's for a much smaller military, and of course without the funds to pay for such a thing, the military will shrink drastically. Perhaps not abolish, but basically shrink down the military by a fair margin. Well I guess that is probably a good thing overall shrug.

You keep saying Paul's a quack, but I think Reaver and I and others are at least trying to debate the subject and make logical arguments. Maybe we aren't doing a good job but at least its interesting, talking about politics can be entertaining and a learning experience.

You keep bringing up the fact that somehow income taxes are ALL used to pay this private bank called the federal reserve bank. That particular theory was debunked pages ago on this thread with some simple stats that Kolar cited. I don't even know how someone could state something which was so blatently a lie, be corrected on it, and keep mentioning it and still have the aducity to say that they are running a well run argument. You have shown that no matter what facts are presented in front of you, you will blindly ignore them to defend Ron Paul.

You said I was wrong in stating that Paul wants out of international organizations. Perhaps you can explain what he actually means when he says this on his website:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/am...d-sovereignty/

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

After spending paragraphs talking about how a multitude of the most important international organizations are infringing on America's independence, he clearly states that the US should withdraw from any organization that infringes on American independence. This to mean means he wants to pull out of all these organizations.

Unless you mean to say that just like how Bush used to mention Saddam Hussein, Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence over and over, he never actually meant they were connected, in which case Ron Paul is a lying bastard, instead of just grossly misinformed about these world organizations which the US largely founded.

Epi made a good point which I am not afraid to admit, but some other arguments don;t seem to make sense. If he won't even address us anymore then I guess we're done then.

Ron Paul has some good ideas. Pulling out of Iraq is a good idea. Ending the debt is a good idea (even if I have no idea how he plans to do it if he's going to cut all these taxes. Seems like he supports social security, so I guess he'll have to cut the 3 other largest programs such as Defense, Medicare and Medicaid to do it). And I'm sure he's a nice man.

But basically all of his other ideas are either do nothing (immigration), contradictory (as others have already pointed out on this thread, his support of 'personal freedoms' is a sham considering he wouldn't mind if individual states could legislate away freedoms such as abortion and stopping emerging global freedoms such as gay marriage), or plain wacky (quitting world organizations, reinstating the gold standard).


If you want my personal view, I don't like any of the candidates. I certainly don't like Paul because he will end any ban on guns, which has a direct effect on Toronto where most of the guns on our streets and used in shootings are imported from the US. I also think that the US pulling out of world organizations is bad for the world. And I really don't think him being a 'nice honest guy' is any reason to vote for him, just as I think a vote for huckabee would be plain silly because of his social positions no matter how honest a guy he is.

I wish Al Gore would run, because absolutely no one out there is supporting the biggest issue that would affect me as a non-citizen of America which is vastly greater action to be taken against greenhouse gas pollution. But I digress...

[HeavenSent]

You keep bringing up the fact that somehow income taxes are ALL used to pay this private bank called the federal reserve bank. That particular theory was debunked pages ago on this thread with some simple stats that Kolar cited.

The government has to pay interest to the Fed on every dollar. Kolar's page had nothing to show how this interest is being paid. Anyone could have made up the shit Kolar posted... and it didn't jive at all with reality.

in which case Ron Paul is a lying bastard, instead of just grossly misinformed about these world organizations which the US largely founded.

Just because Americans pay taxes doesn't mean they support this shit. Where's the billions of dollars going from the CIA/government/corporate drug smuggling & money laundering operations? (don't even try to answer that.. for you it was rhetorical) That's another financial stat not included on Kolar's list.

If you want my personal view, I don't like any of the candidates. I certainly don't like Paul because he will end any ban on guns, which has a direct effect on Toronto where most of the guns on our streets and used in shootings are imported from the US.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The government wants to take the guns so citizens can't defend themselves from the corrupt government seeking to control & enslave its people. That's why it was put in the constitution in the first place.

I wish Al Gore would run, because absolutely no one out there is supporting the biggest issue that would affect me as a non-citizen of America which is vastly greater action to be taken against greenhouse gas pollution. But I digress...

You've gotta be the poster GIRL for those that want to keep the wool over the public's eyes. If i believed everything "Authority" told me, I'd be spewing the precise excrement from the diet you seem to be on. :sick:

[Reaver]

Well his aim is to abolish the income tax, pull out of iraq (his only good idea), and his vague notion that 'america should not be policing the world' and then his little rant about kosovo and afghanistan on his website. Clearly he's for a much smaller military, and of course without the funds to pay for such a thing, the military will shrink drastically. Perhaps not abolish, but basically shrink down the military by a fair margin. Well I guess that is probably a good thing overall shrug.

You keep bringing up the fact that somehow income taxes are ALL used to pay this private bank called the federal reserve bank. That particular theory was debunked pages ago on this thread with some simple stats that Kolar cited. I don't even know how someone could state something which was so blatently a lie, be corrected on it, and keep mentioning it and still have the aducity to say that they are running a well run argument. You have shown that no matter what facts are presented in front of you, you will blindly ignore them to defend Ron Paul.

You said I was wrong in stating that Paul wants out of international organizations. Perhaps you can explain what he actually means when he says this on his website:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/am...d-sovereignty/

After spending paragraphs talking about how a multitude of the most important international organizations are infringing on America's independence, he clearly states that the US should withdraw from any organization that infringes on American independence. This to mean means he wants to pull out of all these organizations.

Unless you mean to say that just like how Bush used to mention Saddam Hussein, Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence over and over, he never actually meant they were connected, in which case Ron Paul is a lying bastard, instead of just grossly misinformed about these world organizations which the US largely founded.

Ron Paul has some good ideas. Pulling out of Iraq is a good idea. Ending the debt is a good idea (even if I have no idea how he plans to do it if he's going to cut all these taxes. Seems like he supports social security, so I guess he'll have to cut the 3 other largest programs such as Defense, Medicare and Medicaid to do it). And I'm sure he's a nice man.

But basically all of his other ideas are either do nothing (immigration), contradictory (as others have already pointed out on this thread, his support of 'personal freedoms' is a sham considering he wouldn't mind if individual states could legislate away freedoms such as abortion and stopping emerging global freedoms such as gay marriage), or plain wacky (quitting world organizations, reinstating the gold standard).

These are his stances on immigration and border control:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/bo...ration-reform/

How can you say that's a "do nothing" policy?

I see your point on withdrawing from national organizations but I don't agree with it completely. One of your biggest oppositions to this idea seems to be "America won't be the superpower anymore!" As for the gold standard, you didn't address what I've already mentioned in this thread about it.

[Kolar]

Anyone could have made up the shit Kolar posted... and it didn't jive at all with reality.

That was information on the budget priorities along with Government income sources. Military and intelligence funding are appropriations. I don't think you, Epi or I have any expertise in economics so the figures stand as they as. And on issues concerning the Military complex and the intelligence agencies I think the current Administration has over funded it (without Iraq taken into consideration) and also requires more oversight which the current Admin. again rejects as "Judaical activism" or "legislative interference".

The United States removing its self from the UN or any other body will not make those institution irrelevant. China, Russia and other rouge and oppressive regimes will have a lot more pull in international affairs and on their own people domestically.

Without some form of income tax the Federal Government can not afford to fund social programs millions rely on and truly need. I personally dislike paying higher taxes and I don't like that people live off the system but it will always be needed by the truly needy. NGOs can only do so much.

[Epinephrine]

These are his stances on immigration and border control:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/bo...ration-reform/

How can you say that's a "do nothing" policy?

I see your point on withdrawing from national organizations but I don't agree with it completely. One of your biggest oppositions to this idea seems to be "America won't be the superpower anymore!" As for the gold standard, you didn't address what I've already mentioned in this thread about it.

Withdrawing is a lose-lose situation. Countries around the world are motivated to do things because of these organizations. China changed many of it's laws directly because it wanted to join the WTO. This liberalized China's economy significantly from the huge amounts of tariffs from before and helped globalization and the lowering of prices for everyone. Smaller countries around the world do believe in the UN. Proclaimations at the UN do hold water and do make countries change their ways. As well it buys the political legitimacy for the world to act. Speak as you want, UN resolutions and weapons inspectors halted Saddam from making nukes. UN resolutions put an end to various crises around the world from the Suez crisis, to East Timor having elections, to the UNHCR which takes care of over 18 million refugees around the world, to the WHO which is UN affiliated and acts as the most impartial tracker of human disease, to many other things.

Simply put, the legitimacy conferred by organizations that the entire world belongs to, makes those who act outside of it try and conform to it's rules much more than if these organizations never existed. As a very powerful country, the US helps put other countries into line when part of these organizations.

Secondly, because the US is in these organizations as a founder and usually as their most important member(s), it means the US gets a hand in shaping the policy that the rest of the world will try to conform to. If the US were NOT part of this process, then decisions made, will not reflect US interests at all. If these organizations are able to form policy where it is a fact in most of the world aside from the US, US interests will be hurt. For instance, American companies will have a very hard time complying with further environmental legislation that the rest of the world agrees to because they have to compete with other American companies in a race to the bottom of no protection (which is of course cheaper) at home, while simultaneously competing in foreign countries where they have to abide by regulations. This is a main reason why America's CEOs consistently support the Kyoto Accord and futher negotiations because they know if this isn't forced in America, eventually they will lose out in the world.

So if America leaves these organizations, it shows that America is pulling out of ideals and organizations that it created itself, which tells the rest of the world 'hey don't believe in these values because we abandoned them', while at the same time, the hard work done in the last 50 years to get most of the countries around the world on board American ideas expressed by these organizations will be undone, as America just lost all of it's clout in helping write world policy to things Americans believe in and benefit from.



Gold standard means every single dollar is 'backed' by an equivalent amount of gold. What this means is that theoretically in the past, you could actually exchange money for gold if you went to the bank. This practice slowly slid out of practice as time went on and non dollar assets became more popular, until it was seen as completely pointless by the time of Nixon so the gold standard was thrown out.

The thing is, the US only has about $200 billion of gold reserves which do still exist. There is vastly, vastly FAR more money out there than this. So if you go back to a gold standard, either the value of US money significantly drops, or you take back billions of dollars. Either way, the economy goes into a nosedive as the current value of the dollar plummets into nothingness or the economy contracts by many times over.

The reason why the current system works is precisely because the gold standard was silly anyway. Gold has little inherent value besides being a really good conductor which does not erode. It's value derives from the fact that it's shiny and people THINK it's worth a lot. Money these days has value because people believe in it - they THINK it has value. Putting it back to a gold standard where money's value is just backed on gold's value (which is yet again very overinflated because it's based on people's belief in it) is just putting another layer of complexity into the 'money is worth something because people believe it's worth something' idea.

Furthermore because there is a limited supply of gold out there, there are issues with actually increasing the money supply, as you can't actually just create more money and thus expand the economy, which is what we've been doing for decades. And you'd be left with a more static amount of 'this is all the money there is to go around irregardless of population increases'.

There's no reason to go back to the gold standard, and going back in fact would be a disaster for the entire world as most of the world uses the US dollar as it's reserve currency.


As for immigration, I'm quoting you:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...2&postcount=92

Here's a direct quote from Ron Paul on Immigration, "I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case."

Tell me if I'm reading you wrong. What I see is, 'let's not round up immigrants, but let's enforce the law and not reward illegals'. That sounds pretty status quo to me, although it seems like his point is that the law isn't enforced now and it should be. It doesn't sound like a solution at all, because those millions of people aren't going away even if the 'borders were secured' (I guess he wants a second fence or something?). And considering Paul keeps wanting to give more power to the local governments, it's funny he would even comment on not letting people go to schools and hospitals. And ending birthright citizenship? How would people gain citizenship then?

[HeavenSent]

And ending birthright citizenship? How would people gain citizenship then?

Is your fur real? Duh! They apply for it and do their time in the country as a legal immigrant. <_<

[Epinephrine]

Is your fur real? Duh! They apply for it and do their time in the country as a legal immigrant. <_<

So your kids have to do this too? Or does that not count as birthright.

[Reaver]

Withdrawing is a lose-lose situation. Countries around the world are motivated to do things because of these organizations. China changed many of it's laws directly because it wanted to join the WTO. This liberalized China's economy significantly from the huge amounts of tariffs from before and helped globalization and the lowering of prices for everyone. Smaller countries around the world do believe in the UN. Proclaimations at the UN do hold water and do make countries change their ways. As well it buys the political legitimacy for the world to act. Speak as you want, UN resolutions and weapons inspectors halted Saddam from making nukes. UN resolutions put an end to various crises around the world from the Suez crisis, to East Timor having elections, to the UNHCR which takes care of over 18 million refugees around the world, to the WHO which is UN affiliated and acts as the most impartial tracker of human disease, to many other things.

Simply put, the legitimacy conferred by organizations that the entire world belongs to, makes those who act outside of it try and conform to it's rules much more than if these organizations never existed. As a very powerful country, the US helps put other countries into line when part of these organizations.

Secondly, because the US is in these organizations as a founder and usually as their most important member(s), it means the US gets a hand in shaping the policy that the rest of the world will try to conform to. If the US were NOT part of this process, then decisions made, will not reflect US interests at all. If these organizations are able to form policy where it is a fact in most of the world aside from the US, US interests will be hurt. For instance, American companies will have a very hard time complying with further environmental legislation that the rest of the world agrees to because they have to compete with other American companies in a race to the bottom of no protection (which is of course cheaper) at home, while simultaneously competing in foreign countries where they have to abide by regulations. This is a main reason why America's CEOs consistently support the Kyoto Accord and futher negotiations because they know if this isn't forced in America, eventually they will lose out in the world.

So if America leaves these organizations, it shows that America is pulling out of ideals and organizations that it created itself, which tells the rest of the world 'hey don't believe in these values because we abandoned them', while at the same time, the hard work done in the last 50 years to get most of the countries around the world on board American ideas expressed by these organizations will be undone, as America just lost all of it's clout in helping write world policy to things Americans believe in and benefit from.



Gold standard means every single dollar is 'backed' by an equivalent amount of gold. What this means is that theoretically in the past, you could actually exchange money for gold if you went to the bank. This practice slowly slid out of practice as time went on and non dollar assets became more popular, until it was seen as completely pointless by the time of Nixon so the gold standard was thrown out.

The thing is, the US only has about $200 billion of gold reserves which do still exist. There is vastly, vastly FAR more money out there than this. So if you go back to a gold standard, either the value of US money significantly drops, or you take back billions of dollars. Either way, the economy goes into a nosedive as the current value of the dollar plummets into nothingness or the economy contracts by many times over.

The reason why the current system works is precisely because the gold standard was silly anyway. Gold has little inherent value besides being a really good conductor which does not erode. It's value derives from the fact that it's shiny and people THINK it's worth a lot. Money these days has value because people believe in it - they THINK it has value. Putting it back to a gold standard where money's value is just backed on gold's value (which is yet again very overinflated because it's based on people's belief in it) is just putting another layer of complexity into the 'money is worth something because people believe it's worth something' idea.

Furthermore because there is a limited supply of gold out there, there are issues with actually increasing the money supply, as you can't actually just create more money and thus expand the economy, which is what we've been doing for decades. And you'd be left with a more static amount of 'this is all the money there is to go around irregardless of population increases'.

There's no reason to go back to the gold standard, and going back in fact would be a disaster for the entire world as most of the world uses the US dollar as it's reserve currency.


As for immigration, I'm quoting you:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...2&postcount=92



Tell me if I'm reading you wrong. What I see is, 'let's not round up immigrants, but let's enforce the law and not reward illegals'. That sounds pretty status quo to me, although it seems like his point is that the law isn't enforced now and it should be. It doesn't sound like a solution at all, because those millions of people aren't going away even if the 'borders were secured' (I guess he wants a second fence or something?). And considering Paul keeps wanting to give more power to the local governments, it's funny he would even comment on not letting people go to schools and hospitals. And ending birthright citizenship? How would people gain citizenship then?

You're arguing it from the wrong angle. I agree that what those organizations have done is great. And I also agree that the U.S. has played a large role in them. But what I don't agree with is trying to help manage the World when we've got problems of our own. Especially with the value of the dollar going into the gutter, poverty, health care issues, social security. I don't doubt some of those organizations would lose credibility if the U.S. pulled out but I also believe we've got some of that credibility because of our status as a World power. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we have much of that status due to our massive military. Which is a huge problem. You can't have a massive military and just sit around. As I've stated earlier, inflation is politicians favorite way of paying for wars. If we had a gold standard, the taxes would have to be directly levied by the people. How many more wars for oil are we going to have then? Can America cut it's budget and still remove income tax all the while, lowering debt? Yeah, but it's going to take many cut backs. We've gone over this I know before, but I'm not entirely in agreement with Kolar's breakdown. Not that Kolar would intentionally lie but if we're really paying a lot more money to the Fed in interest than reported, don't you think it would be detrimental to that organization if the American public found out?

A gold standard can and has worked in the past. Allan Greenspan, John F Kennedy and Ron Paul are a few American's that have supported it. Gold is not immune to inflation but it's impacted less than our current system. Yes, Gold is a limited supply but what isn't on this Earth? The supply is still increased with mining today. Gold has a very high stock to flow ratio, so new annual production is a tiny fraction of the existing stock. Gold can be inflated within extremely narrow limits; government paper can be inflated ad infinitum. When politicians and central bankers behave well inflation amounts to a tax on all dollar holders, a tax which bears largely upon wage earners and pensioners, those at the bottom of the economic ladder. At worst, inflation causes severe economic distortions often leading to the eventual ruin of the currency and economic chaos. And finally, yes Gold receives it's value because people believe in it. You could propose that people would suddenly find great value in lollipops, and theoretically yes it's possible. The only problem is that it's theoretical, just not historical. I'm thoroughly convinced that gold will always be sought after by all classes, upper, lower and middle.

[Epinephrine]

1) The US is fighting a war now, and inflation is of course at historic lows. If there is any inflation recently, it's because the cost of oil and other raw materials have gone up, which is directly because of the rise of China and India, the lack of any cohesive energy savings strategy in the rich world, and of course because of Agri-business shifting into producing Ethanol instead of food thus leading to a rise in prices of food the world over.

Inflation may be CAUSED by fighting wars, as the prices of resources goes up because they are directed to the war effort, but using the reason that 'politicians use inflation to pay for wars' as a justification to go back to the gold standard shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how and why inflation happens, and how the gold standard and current monetary system works.

2) Many, many countries had problems with inflation, even with the gold standard. The most obvious example is post-WW1 Germany. The gold standard isn't a solution to problems, it's an antiquated system that served us well for man years, but has long passed it's prime. There's absolutely no reason to go back to it.

Here's some USA statistics, look at the early 1920s to see how inflation happened even with the gold standard:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._currentPage=7

[Reaver]

My argument isn't that the gold system is the greatest system ever. My argument is that it's not a nutty thing to suggest, and it's completely feasible. As for inflation being a record low, you see the value of the dollar right now, right?

[Epinephrine]

My argument isn't that the gold system is the greatest system ever. My argument is that it's not a nutty thing to suggest, and it's completely feasible. As for inflation being a record low, you see the value of the dollar right now, right?

You know that the current reason for the fall in the value of the dollar has nothing to do with inflation right? Do you even know what inflation is???

Do you understand that the value of the dollar would drop about 10x more if you reversed to the gold standard? You also realize that wars were fought ALL THE TIME even with the gold standard right?

The reasons for the current problems with the economy have more to do with government mismanagement (which can be corrected as even in the Clinton years there were yearly surpluses) and pure unadulterated belief that unregulated markets know what's best by people like Greenspan which led to financial institutions cheating investors out of money and tricking people who wanted loans which created this subprime mortgage crisis. People like Greenspan mind you, who for years denied there were any problems at all, when various commentators have been publicly saying that major problems would happen if things continued, because of their blind belief in the markets.

[Kolar]

I would be more worried about black projects and intelligence funding. All that probably runs into the billions if not more. A gold standard in comparison to Fiat currency seems to me to be limiting and potentially unstable, but again I do not have a lot of knowledge of either. Historically has it not failed (even in the US), and if it were a superior monetary system would not at least one country be using it?

Look up the budget for each year and income sources if you really want to know.