Ron Paul

[iamshack]

It's from the CNN youtube debate, McCain questions Paul's foreign policy.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=atYgjPD4uqc&feature=related

 

Thanks, I enjoyed that.

[iamshack]

A few things to you iamshack:

 

First, no, it would not be "Federal oversight" to the ENTIRE country. It would be Federal oversight on a case-by-case basis.

 

If what affects AND BOTHERS people in Illinois, does NOT affect and bother people in Nevada - why should Nevada be imposed by the SAME LAW? If Indiana's polluting the air makes Illinois' citizens upset, but Utah polluting the air does not make Nevada residents upset - why should Utah have the SAME RESTRICTIONS as Indiana? That is a REMOVAL of civil liberties. Our society has simply become USED to this and accepts it as status quo now - not realizing that it is Un-Constitutional.

 

As the 10th Amendment states:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

That is an Amendment, in the Constitution. I don't see ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it is stated that the United States government regulates the environment, education, medicine, etc. No where. I also don't see it saying that the Federal government CAN'T do these things. And, by that matter, it is left up to the individual STATES & its citizens, respectively, to decide how they want to live. This is not up to you. You are a member of a state. Your state can decide things for your state. My state can decide things for my state. But, your state cannot decide things for my state, and the federal goverment (in THESE cases) cannot decide things for either of our states unless we take each others state to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling. Even THEN, the ruling affects OUR states, not OTHER states where THEIR citizens have THEIR OWN RIGHT to CHOOSE how THEY want to live. That is our republic. We are not a socialist, fascist, etc. country where the GOVERNMENT makes OUR decisions. Your argument is 100% invalid because you are defending the RIGHT of the Federal Government to makes these decisions for ALL States. That is NOT the case & is so stated in the Constitution. And that is final. The Constitution - maybe in your eyes - was not "made to deal with 300,000,000 people" - BUT that is beside the point - because if the citizens of the USA wanted to change it - they CAN. It is a living document that can be changed. The problem is - it has not been changed to make your argument a valid point. Your argument is invalid, citing the Constitution of the United States of America. If you want to tell me how I "should" live, or how others "should" live for yours and their benefit - that is your right. But it is also my right to choose to ignore you and your socialist polices. The Constitution itself states you are wrong. The States have the right rule how they see fit - and not be mandated by the Federal Government by powers that were NOT DELEGATED to the Federal Government at the time the Constitution was written. Whether it "should" or "shouldn't" be that way is not up to you, or to the Federal Government to decide. It is up to the people to AMEND the Constitution to make it so - and I don't see that happening on these (social policy) subjects.

 

1) Please do not represent that I made a statement I never made (your 300 million statement);

2) I'm not telling anyone what to do, in Nevada, Utah, or Illinois.

3) The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

If what affects AND BOTHERS people in Illinois, does NOT affect and bother people in Nevada - why should Nevada be imposed by the SAME LAW? If Indiana's polluting the air makes Illinois' citizens upset, but Utah polluting the air does not make Nevada residents upset - why should Utah have the SAME RESTRICTIONS as Indiana? That is a REMOVAL of civil liberties. Our society has simply become USED to this and accepts it as status quo now - not realizing that it is Un-Constitutional.

 

Now we're back to the short-sighted nature of people. If everyone in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin is just fine and dandy with dumping pollution in Lake Michigan, it doesn't mean that we should or should be allowed to.

 

Purely free markets aren't always the best answer.

Edited January 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

First, no, it would not be "Federal oversight" to the ENTIRE country. It would be Federal oversight on a case-by-case basis.

...in every part of the country. And, once precedence was set, it would become de facto standards.

[iamshack]

And iamshack:

 

I was throwing out the 300,000,000 in response to a comment made by someone earlier to 'quick defend' so I didn't have to in a later post. And regulating commerce does not entail telling the citizens of the country the laws under which they need to obey - such as socialist policies to help the country. Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information or money between two or more entities. Your argument is defunct via the Constitution. Its right there in front of you. States have the rights that are NOT given to the Federal Government via the Constititution & there is nowhere in the Constitution mentioning environment, education, etc.

 

The states are free to enact their own laws, which they do, and have the same three branches of government as the Federal Government does. They enact and enforce their laws under the citizens within their jurisdiction, and prosecute violators of said laws.

 

Many of the Federal regulations you are claiming are invalid because of the power left to the States by the Constitution deal specifically with commerce, including environmental and education issues. If you think that for one minute federal environmental regulations don't affect "commerce between the several states," you need to look a bit more deeply into the affect of the examples you've cited, such as one state polluting another's natural resources, or one state's educational system which purchases buses, textbooks, and even pays teachers from other states or regions of the country.

 

The Constitution specifically states, as you have pointed out repeatedly, that the rights not given to the Federal Government are those of the States, or the People. The Constitution specifically gives the right to regulate commerce to the Federal Government, thereby NOT giving it to the States. Now the States ARE allowed to regulate commerce as well, but any "field" already "occupied" by Federal regulation preempts State regulation.

 

My argument isn't the one that is defunct- it's the one supported by the vast majority and the one in current practice. It appears to me that your view, the radical minority view, is the one that is defunct.

[StrangeSox]

Free Markets are the best answer. I have a masters in economics and have studied economics for the past 15 years diligently. Free Market Capitalism is the only system that no matter what (industries rising & falling), net production always increases.

 

Free Markets bring us child labor, sweatshop labor, and slave labor. They also gave us massive industrial pollution to the point of rivers catching on fire. They're not always the best answer.

 

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great, but purely free markets have their flaws.

Edited January 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Every type of market has a flaw. Every single one. The MARKET in FREE MARKET has no flaws that are corresponding to government collapses, etc. Your views on child labor, etc. are social views. They have nothing to do with the Free Market policy. There are laws in place that take care of those social policies now. Don't mix the economics of free market with the socialist policies you speak of.

OK now this is a little ridiculous. You first say every type of market has flaws, then you say free markets have none. Then you refer to the human consequences of unregulated free markets as being somehow completely segregated from those markets. That's like shooting someone and saying the bullet killed them. Its technically true, but misses the point.

 

Free markets work quite well, but a truly open, unregulated free market economy is a utopian fantasy that has as much chance at success as true communism. Free markets, in a free country, need some degree of regulation - or else you end up with a fiefdom.

 

[iamshack]

Your view is the "accepted" view, but it is not "correct" legally. As I said, if state A is polluting state B's natural resource - state B takes state A to the Supreme Court to have the case decided. Just because civil liberties have been taken away slowly but surely since the Civil War (how this debate started), does not mean it is right, legal, or Constitutionally. It is the opposite, to be sure. The problem is, the education level of MOST of Americans so SO LOW that they cannot even being to comprehend these matters - a more direct result of government inefficiency of another social program in education. You learn only what they want you to learn. You must go outside the box to see exactly what it is they have (and continue to) take away.

 

Why is it for the Supreme Court to decide if the Constitution has already given the power to regulate to the Federal Government? It's the power to "regulate," not simply the power to "adjudicate."

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[santo=dorf]

Tell me again why property law trumps state's rights or civil liberties, or any of the other rights you bring up?

How about your actions affect the quality of life on other individuals?

[iamshack]

How about your actions affect the quality of life on other individuals?

 

In what sense?

 

 

[CWSGuy406]

Not to change topics, but Paul is currently getting 6% in the Michigan primaries, sitting in fourth ahead of Guliani and Thompson -- that's pretty decent and slightly better than "projected", right? Just trying to put this into som perspective here.

 

(Note: This'll be my first election I'll be voting in, so I'm trying to be a somewhat informed person here.)

[santo=dorf]

In what sense?

Is it possible you or some nuclear power company dumping s*** into the local resevoirs will affect my tap water or close the beach on a hot weekend?

[StrangeSox]

 

 

Yes, I can, as that's my entire argument against 100% free markets -- they have some pretty terrible consequences. There needs to be some level of regulation to prevent such atrocities.

 

Also, without government anti-trust laws (more regulations), many markets would have developed monopolies long ago and would no longer be free markets. Free market is a great system, but 100% free market is not.

[Balta1701]

Reason Magazine has taken a closer look at the infamous Ron Paul report, who actually probably authored the letters, and how exactly they fit into the Paul strategy at the time. If you're interested in the guy's history or this particular issue, I suggest reading it. (Wow, legit research and reporting. If only the rest of the media could do stuff like that!)

Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

[southsider2k5]

So out of curiousity, What would Ron Paul's solution be to fixing the potential recession if he was President right now?

[sox4lifeinPA]

So out of curiousity, What would Ron Paul's solution be to fixing the potential recession if he was President right now?

 

give it a pap smear...

[NorthSideSox72]

Ron Paul is currently running 2nd in Nevada, with 13% - ahead of all but Romney. That is something worth noting.

 

[mmmmmbeeer]

So out of curiousity, What would Ron Paul's solution be to fixing the potential recession if he was President right now?

 

 

I think this is a multi-pronged attack from Paul:

 

1. Cut spending drastically. This will involve the immediate withdrawal of troops from around the world and bring them home. Troops in Korea? Bring em home. Troops in Europe? Bring em home. Asia and Africa? Bring em home. This will save hundreds of billions of dollars. Our service in these nations is no longer needed. We are no longer in a cold war nor are we, supposed to be, in the business of building an empire.

 

2. Immediately dismiss the fiat money policy and return to a gold standard. The world is quickly losing faith in the dollar. I know you're a financially minded dude, SS, so I'm next to positive you've a very clear vision of the ramifications of the fed manipulating interest rates and printing more money to pay our debts...I won't get into that being I think you know the issue exists. Placing a firm value on the dollar again will restore faith in the dollar and keep it the top currency in the world, a position it is quickly losing to the euro.

 

3. Stop trade with China until they allow the value of their currency to be determined by the market. Our trade deficit is absolutely killing us and, with China being our largest source of foreign goods, the inaccurately low value of their currency is not fair trade.

 

4. Dismiss the federal reserve. This is a private entity with private interests in mind. There is no reason a privately owned entity should be in charge of public economic policy.

 

5. Elimination of the income tax (funded by savings from bringing troops home). This will introduce an ENORMOUS amount of capital back into our system...profits will skyrocket, personal incomes will skyrocket, business startups will boom, housing will rebound as Americans have money to spend on real estate and, for those victims of ARMs and other wreckless lending, lienholders will be able to more easily afford their debts.

 

6. And perhaps most importantly, the psychological impact of having a true economist, a free market capitalist, in charge of the world's economic superpower. Wall Street should love this guy and, if he somehow gets elected, investor confidence will absolutely soar.

 

 

I don't know if you've watched any of Paul's showdowns with Bernanke when Bernanke sits down to speak with reps. If not, please check it out. Ron Paul has a VERY distinguished medical career, both in education and service. He says himself that as successful as he has been in medicine his true love is economics. He's studied economic policy all of his life and, if you've ever heard him speak about economics, his understanding is deep.

[southsider2k5]

That might be the dumbest thing to come out of a Presidential campaign if this is true.

 

#1 would cause a deflationary cycle that would destroy already shaky housing and credit markets, not to mention explode unemployment nationwide.

 

#2 Would completely stall growth in this country, and in fact it would contract our economy to fit into how much gold we have. It would cause a massive inflationary cycle in the dollar. It will KILL the lower classes in this country. You can't just assign an arbitrary value to a currency. Free market systems dictate that, and tying it to a fixed commodity limits growth. The dollar might be worth more, but no one will be using it, because the world wouldn't be dealing with the US under the protectionism that is being pedaled here anyway.

 

#3 More inflation. Who is going to produce all of the goods we take for granted that China now supplies us with? Are you willing to pay thousands of dollars for a basic TV? That's what it would cost to make it in the good old US of A.

 

#4 All you have to do is look at the enormous boom and bust cycles in US economic history, ending with the Great Depression before the Fed Bank was established to understand why we need it.

 

#5 Under the first four things you have proposed, umemployment would probably be double what it is now, if not more. You are literally talking about pulling the bottom cards out that our economy is built on. Plus the idea that we could still function as a country without an income tax is just laughable.

 

#6 Wall Street won't exsist if the first 5 things came to pass. Large corporations would pretty much have to fold up and leave the US because of the spiraling inflation and unemployment. Their wouldn't be any capital to do business with, because the money supply would disappear.

 

Economically Ron Paul is a dreamer with no grips on reality. This stuff might work on a chalkboard, but it would literally destroy the USA as we know it to do this stuff.

[EvilMonkey]

 

While I like the idea of bringing home troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc, how will that save us much money? They still get paid, they still eat, they still need housing, so it doesn't really matter if it is here or outside of Tokyo.

[southsideirish71]

When Paul gets rid of the FBI and the CIA and some of the other federal agencies to pave way for his savings he can have Deputy Dawg and company deal with this.

 

CiA and SANS admit that Cyberattacks have already caused on major power outage.

 

 

[mmmmmbeeer]

When Paul gets rid of the FBI and the CIA and some of the other federal agencies to pave way for his savings he can have Deputy Dawg and company deal with this.

 

CiA and SANS admit that Cyberattacks have already caused on major power outage.

 

 

When has Paul ever mentioned eliminating the CIA and FBI? Please provide a link. Here's a hint, watch his appearance on Meet the Press.

[mmmmmbeeer]

That might be the dumbest thing to come out of a Presidential campaign if this is true.

 

#1 would cause a deflationary cycle that would destroy already shaky housing and credit markets, not to mention explode unemployment nationwide.

 

#2 Would completely stall growth in this country, and in fact it would contract our economy to fit into how much gold we have. It would cause a massive inflationary cycle in the dollar. It will KILL the lower classes in this country. You can't just assign an arbitrary value to a currency. Free market systems dictate that, and tying it to a fixed commodity limits growth. The dollar might be worth more, but no one will be using it, because the world wouldn't be dealing with the US under the protectionism that is being pedaled here anyway.

 

#3 More inflation. Who is going to produce all of the goods we take for granted that China now supplies us with? Are you willing to pay thousands of dollars for a basic TV? That's what it would cost to make it in the good old US of A.

 

#4 All you have to do is look at the enormous boom and bust cycles in US economic history, ending with the Great Depression before the Fed Bank was established to understand why we need it.

 

#5 Under the first four things you have proposed, umemployment would probably be double what it is now, if not more. You are literally talking about pulling the bottom cards out that our economy is built on. Plus the idea that we could still function as a country without an income tax is just laughable.

 

#6 Wall Street won't exsist if the first 5 things came to pass. Large corporations would pretty much have to fold up and leave the US because of the spiraling inflation and unemployment. Their wouldn't be any capital to do business with, because the money supply would disappear.

 

Economically Ron Paul is a dreamer with no grips on reality. This stuff might work on a chalkboard, but it would literally destroy the USA as we know it to do this stuff.

 

#1 Please explain how moving the military out of other nations results in deflation. You lost me. Unemployment of locals employed at bases, sure, but hardly a significant enough number to equate to a global economic impact.

 

#2 How we were doing before 1971 when we had a gold standard? Arbitrary value to a currency?!?!? What in the hell are we doing now?

 

#3 We're also China's biggest client, if you will. Their economy would be instantly destroyed if we got in a trade war with them. I, as well as Dr. Paul, think we should call their bluff. We're supposed to be an economic superpower, right? The "richest" country in the world, right? Why in the hell are we bowing down to the demands of a nation whose entire economy is dependent upon us. Oh yeah....our mainstream candidates in the house, senate, and white house have racked up SO much debt with the Chinese that maybe we aren't in control. I'd take my chances and place a ridiculous tariff on all Chinese imports until they let the market dictate the value of their currency. I can say with 99% confidence that they will bow to OUR demands. Oh, and we have great trade relations with Japan for our TVs.

 

#4 What does the fed do, exactly? I see them falsely manipulating the value of our currency, an absolute no-no in a capitalist, free market system. Their work is counterproductive and their devaluation of the dollar, along with other policies outside of the fed, have got us in the unfortunate position we're in now.

 

#5 What'd we do before 1913? We weren't building an empire then.

 

#6 The money supply would disappear? With every American having every dollar they earn to spend, the Chinese no longer able to undercut domestic manufacturing, and the dollar actually based on a material object again.....I beg to differ with your take.

 

 

Please, listen to some of Dr. Paul's speeches on economic policy on youtube or what have you. He can speak to the matter much better than I.

 

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

When has Paul ever mentioned eliminating the CIA and FBI? Please provide a link. Here's a hint, watch his appearance on Meet the Press.

Here, on a debate, the moderator reiterates his point, "...you say you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal reserve, the Dept. of Homeland Security, medicare, and I know that you used to want to end the FBI, I am not sure whether you still support that idea, sir, perhaps you can tell us....." and all the time the moderator is speaknig, he is just nodding his head yes and clapping. I think that sounds like an acknowledgement of those being his positions.

[southsider2k5]

#1 Please explain how moving the military out of other nations results in deflation. You lost me. Unemployment of locals employed at bases, sure, but hardly a significant enough number to equate to a global economic impact.

 

What exactly do you plan on doing with all of the military, military personal, military bases, military equiptment, military spending etc? You are talking about taking 20% of spending out of the economy. Take 20% out of your paycheck and tell me what happens.

 

#2 How we were doing before 1971 when we had a gold standard? Arbitrary value to a currency?!?!? What in the hell are we doing now?

 

Go back and look at historical growth rates before and after the gold standard. The gold standard insures that our growth rate can be no larger than how much gold we mine and store in a storage room somewhere. To me that is more arbitrary than how the dollar responds to an actual free market condition. The dollar value moves according to supply and demand, not on anything else's value. To me, if Ron Paul is REALLY in favor of the free market, he should not be in favor of gold standard. The dollar should determine the value of itself.

 

#3 We're also China's biggest client, if you will. Their economy would be instantly destroyed if we got in a trade war with them. I, as well as Dr. Paul, think we should call their bluff. We're supposed to be an economic superpower, right? The "richest" country in the world, right? Why in the hell are we bowing down to the demands of a nation whose entire economy is dependent upon us. Oh yeah....our mainstream candidates in the house, senate, and white house have racked up SO much debt with the Chinese that maybe we aren't in control. I'd take my chances and place a ridiculous tariff on all Chinese imports until they let the market dictate the value of their currency. I can say with 99% confidence that they will bow to OUR demands. Oh, and we have great trade relations with Japan for our TVs.

 

So then they sell out all of our debt, and make the dollar worth less than toilet paper. We still have no imports, and hyperinflation, instead of just regular old inflation. No thanks.

 

#4 What does the fed do, exactly? I see them falsely manipulating the value of our currency, an absolute no-no in a capitalist, free market system. Their work is counterproductive and their devaluation of the dollar, along with other policies outside of the fed, have got us in the unfortunate position we're in now.

 

The fed has stabailized the ups and downs of the economy. Its no coincidence that all of the countries largest panics and depressions happened before the Fed really got an understanding of macroeconomics.

 

#5 What'd we do before 1913? We weren't building an empire then.

 

We also weren't the world's largest economy, and having 300 million people. Then again if you get rid of those pesky other non-white races like Paul used to allow for in his newsletters, maybe contracting the size of the economy could happen

 

#6 The money supply would disappear? With every American having every dollar they earn to spend, the Chinese no longer able to undercut domestic manufacturing, and the dollar actually based on a material object again.....I beg to differ with your take.

Please, listen to some of Dr. Paul's speeches on economic policy on youtube or what have you. He can speak to the matter much better than I.

 

The money supply would indeed disappear, because it would have to contract to fit our gold standard. We wouldn't be able to have growth years like we have had in the last 25-30 years, because there is only a finite amount of gold. Wall Street won't like that, because that means they can only grow so much too. There won't be any domestic manufacturing because we won't be able to afford our own products. That is why so much of the country has lost industry in the first place. People won't, and don't, spend that kind of money, and Wall Street knows that.

 

Unless you are completely misrepresenting Ron Paul's speeches, I have no need to listen to them. His economics might have worked in 1789, but they are completely unrealistic in 2008.