Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Oct 18, 2011 - 03:04am PT
|
After watching Zeitgeist and learning more about the Federal Reserve Bank, I am now leaning towards switching parties and voting for Ron Paul. Keep in mind I am a UC Santa Cruz alumni, full on social liberal atheist. I voted Obama, but he seems to be caught up in the stinky whirlpool when the sh#t really needs to get flushed. Please chime in, both for and against and offer good evidence to support your argument.
Thank You,
Kalen Glenn
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 18, 2011 - 03:34am PT
|
but only by changing parties can i vote in the republicant primary system.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 04:03am PT
|
Ron Paul is principled and sincere. But comparing Social Security and Medicare to “slavery” he positions himself too far to the right to win the general election. Liberals aren’t alone in wanting a safety net for American citizens.
Americans over 35-40, whether they have liberal or conservative sensibilities, and who have been paying into Social Security for much of their adult life aren’t going to vote for a candidate headstrong about ending it. Especially since SS can be saved by raising retirement ages.
|
|
wildone
climber
Troy, MT
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 06:43am PT
|
Rox speaks the truth.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 08:45am PT
|
He's a kook. Yes, he's right on several things, including civil liberties, but his whole private properties is sacrosanct mantra is destructive, and he wrongly believes the free market could solve nearly every problem. He would gladly scrap every major environmental law, i.e., clean air act, clean water act, with...get this...nuisance torts. Yeah, that worked well before, didn't it?
BTW, we also had the gold standard before the depression. Yeah, that also worked well, didn't it?
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 09:47am PT
|
He came out with his more detailed financial plan recently. If you haven't seen it:
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/ron-paul-calls-for-elimination-of-tsa-and-5-cabinet-departments-in-plan-to-restore-america/
Most of that article is pasted below. Not sure how he, as president, will do these things as they require acts of Congress. Oh well.
"The plan is drastic, outlining $1 trillion in spending cuts in one year mainly by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, stopping foreign aid and eliminating five cabinet departments: Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education.
Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration and return “responsibility for security to private property owners.”
On taxes, Paul would lower the corporate rate to 15 percent, extend Bush tax cuts and end the estate tax and taxes on personal savings.
The plan calls to end corporate subsidies, audit the Federal Reserve and enact “competing currency legislation,” for options other than the dollar.
Paul would also give himself a salary of $39,336, “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.” And he would cut Congressional “pay and perks,” and “excessive federal travel.”"
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 10:49am PT
|
I have voted for Ron Paul many times to send a message to those who can get elected that he represents popular constitutionalizm. (check out that word!)
I'm getting Herman Cain adverts on the sidebar now.
I really like Obama, but I'm going for Mr Cain next year.
Obama has been an excellent republican. Most republicans to such a bad job of implementing republican ideals that any democrat is better.
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 18, 2011 - 11:27am PT
|
I am fully against many of his policies, ie i am for a social safety net and pro choice. But the opportunity to audit and end the fed supercedes all other issues at this time for me.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 11:35am PT
|
Ron Paul is probably the most "honest" of all the choices we have before us. Formerly a Libertarian, he shares their belief that Hippy Lettuce should be legalized. I really like his arguments on the Federal Reserve and banking.
Regarding return to the Gold Standard, I see it as inevitable at some point. All of the recent financial meltdowns, derivative bubbles and their like could not have happened without the ability to overleverage inadequate assets using fiat currency.
Before introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the average American wasn NOT overburdened with almost unpayable debt. I personally would like to know what the Fed is actually doing via an Audit of the entire mess.
To quote the late Eustace Mullins, one of the Fed's severest critics:
It's NOT Federal, there are no Reserves, and it's more of a criminal conspiracy than a System.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 11:52am PT
|
Paul is certainly the most sincere of the crop of candidates, and his position on a number of issues is very intriguing. When looking at his entire platform, however, the guy is pretty out there in some key economic and domestic views. (Something close to 'kook-dom'.)
As a disillusioned Obama voter, there have been a few times where I'd come across a Paul statement, and was about ready to jump ship and plaster a Paul sticker on my rig. Before you make the leap, if you haven't already done so, you might want look at his entire platform...not just the parts that align themselves with your views.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 11:56am PT
|
Before introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the average American wasn NOT overburdened with almost unpayable debt.
Are we really comparing life before 1913 to life today?
Perhaps a few other things have changed since then?
The whole anti-Fed argument seems to ignore one piece of overwhelming evidence:
In the century since 1913, the US economy has prospered more than any other economy in all of world, in any century in history.
That's one helluva long-term tack record.
The Fed is a failure? By what metric? Certainly not any metric that measures economic growth and prosperity.
And what alternative would be better?
Have any of Paul's ideas been used anywhere else?
Why would we dismantle the most successful economic system in human history just for the sake of trying something completely untested?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 12:41pm PT
|
Ron Paul is principled and sincere.
So was Hitler.
The question is, do you support the principles he is sincere about? (Ron Paul's, not Hitlers's.)
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 12:56pm PT
|
I wish he had a chance.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 12:58pm PT
|
The Federal Reserve has almost nothing to do with the national debt.
The national deficit is the accumulated balance of Congress's annual budget deficits.
It is Congress' doing, not the fault of the Federal Reserve.
There was a national debt before the Federal Reserve existed, and getting rid of the Federal Reserve would not get rid of the national debt.
Fig. 1 US Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP, 1800-1999 (Wikipedia)
First, there were never any ‘good old days’. In Figure 1 you can see that the United States federal government has been in debt during its entire existence. The magnitude of the debt in uncorrected dollars can be found at the website of the U.S. Treasury, where you can see that the U.S. debt was $75,463,476.52 in the year 1791. As it turns out (and as we will see over and over again), war is expensive and the American Revolution that ended in 1783 had cost $37 million at the federal level in addition to $114 million in expenditures by the states, funded by loans from France and the Netherlands and the issuance of paper money (Jensen, 2004). The population of the US by 1790 was about 3.9 million, so the debt corresponded to roughly $38 per person in 1790s dollars (the equivalent of $920 per person in equivalent purchasing power in 2010). So the picture has never been quite so pretty as the image that is so often laid out for us when we are told of the halcyon past in which hard work and a dollar meant something because the dollar once had more value than it does now. According to the U.S. Treasury, the closest that the nation ever was to being debt free was during the years 1835 and 1836, when the debt was between $30,000 and $40,000.
Also, as population increases, government gets bigger. People ridicule “big government” but the government for a nation of 300 million people should be expected to be large. It should not be a surprise that the annual budget is given in trillions of dollars because each of the 300 million people contributes an average of at least a few thousand dollars to the budget per year. It is simple math. And what do we get for that? National Parks, Environmental Cleanup, some health care and Social Security (not as much as other countries), unemployment benefits, research and development, and (increasingly) the military and its associated wars. The government can help to improve the lives of all people if our tax money is invested properly. But therein lies the rub: We have a responsibility to hold our leaders’ feet to the fire to ensure that they do invest our money properly! Remember, Benjamin Franklin warned us in saying that we have “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 12:58pm PT
|
In this election cycle, Paul is where I've put my money instead of my mouth.
Mangy: A dollar today has 3% of the buying power it did in 1913. I'm not sure I'd call that "success." The dollar didn't complete it's decline until after 1964 when silver coinage no longer circulated. The dollar is entirely unbacked by any assets whatsoever. Just "full faith and credit of the United States."
I'm very sensitive to the Social Security issue; simply increasing taxes on present day wage earners without restructuring the system simply postpones the "day of reckoning." Once a "Ponzi Scheme, always a Ponzi Scheme."
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 01:01pm PT
|
There have been only two presidents under whom the natioanl debt was ZERO: Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren. At the ends of their terms, the United States had NO national debt.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 01:03pm PT
|
He may be a little nuts but I like that. All the others will just be business as usual.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 01:08pm PT
|
Romney is the worst of the "choices."
I would vote for either Paul or Cain, but not Perry or Romney or Obama.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Oct 18, 2011 - 01:11pm PT
|
Does that mean you'll stay home on election day, bdc?
'cuz Romney's gonna be the GOP candidate.
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 18, 2011 - 01:23pm PT
|
No one here is concerned that the Federal reserve bank is a privately held corporation that earns interest on every dollar printed? who gets those profits? why would we the people allow this? I see the federal reserve bank as a giant pinata filled with our living standards, bust it open and let prosperity rain on all. they have extracted our living standards!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|