Ron Paul
- Thread starter Hornius Emeritus
- Start date
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
He makes a whole lot of sense to the average common clay voter. He makes a lot of sense, period, in a lot of what he says. But with Ron Paul at the helm in '08, as opposed to Bush / Paulson, we would be in the midst of a Great Depression right now. A lot of what he says sure does resonate with me now, but b/c of his economic beliefs and what the unintended consequences would be, I'll never vote for him. He's a more sane version of A'sD.
Rex,
I think Paul is very aware of the consequences. Hes stated as much. The consequences arent pretty, but right now this country is broke. We have no money. No real money that is. We are so far in debt we really cant repay it, any time soon, regardless of what "cuts" we make. We really cant afford to continue our military campaigns, but we are still spending hundreds of millions...... of money that shouldnt even exist.
Ron Paul predicted all of this back in 2006/2007 while everyone laughed. But hes the kook........
I think Paul is very aware of the consequences. Hes stated as much. The consequences arent pretty, but right now this country is broke. We have no money. No real money that is. We are so far in debt we really cant repay it, any time soon, regardless of what "cuts" we make. We really cant afford to continue our military campaigns, but we are still spending hundreds of millions...... of money that shouldnt even exist.
Ron Paul predicted all of this back in 2006/2007 while everyone laughed. But hes the kook........
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
I agree 03. And I think the country is on a slow progressive course to failure right now. So the big changes should be made sooner than later. Do what needs to be done, let the chips fall where they may, and then let us climb out of it.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
The bottom line is, this country is a debt junkie. Paul wants us to go cold turkey as a way of getting off our fix. The country would indeed react like a junkie to such a solution. It would get very ugly before it got better.
Other politicians, including his son Rand, propose easing our way off the monetary heroin. With fiscal discipline and a 1% reduction in federal spending each year (that is, a TRUE cut of 1% from today's budgets for every department, not a 1% reduction off of future projected baseline growth) we can balance the budget in 8 years or so.
I think a more radical solution than Rand's (but less radical than Ron's) is necessary because I don't trust any congressman to have the fiscal discipline to keep that modest austerity course for 8 to 10 years. I think a 3 to 5 percent annual cut off of today's baseline should be implemented. Obamacare should be utterly repealed, many troops in foreign lands should be brought home and placed at our southern border, and no new spending programs should be initiated. That would balance the budget in a much quicker time frame, and yes, it would shock the economy in a negative way at first, but not so much as Ron's solutions would. Once we collectively get used to the idea that the federal government doesn't have any money to spend, those parts of the private sector that are tied to federal spending will shrink but be forced to innovate to make up the difference and growth would begin again soon enough.
Too radical? I don't think so, and I would immediately vote for and support any politician who proposed such a plan.
Other politicians, including his son Rand, propose easing our way off the monetary heroin. With fiscal discipline and a 1% reduction in federal spending each year (that is, a TRUE cut of 1% from today's budgets for every department, not a 1% reduction off of future projected baseline growth) we can balance the budget in 8 years or so.
I think a more radical solution than Rand's (but less radical than Ron's) is necessary because I don't trust any congressman to have the fiscal discipline to keep that modest austerity course for 8 to 10 years. I think a 3 to 5 percent annual cut off of today's baseline should be implemented. Obamacare should be utterly repealed, many troops in foreign lands should be brought home and placed at our southern border, and no new spending programs should be initiated. That would balance the budget in a much quicker time frame, and yes, it would shock the economy in a negative way at first, but not so much as Ron's solutions would. Once we collectively get used to the idea that the federal government doesn't have any money to spend, those parts of the private sector that are tied to federal spending will shrink but be forced to innovate to make up the difference and growth would begin again soon enough.
Too radical? I don't think so, and I would immediately vote for and support any politician who proposed such a plan.
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
Sangre, that's interesting. I'd like to read more about Rand's proposals, and the proposals of his dad. Where can I?
Gone To Texas
500+ Posts
Rex, The plan Rand Paul refers to is actually Rep. Connie Mack's "penny plan"The Link
While I'm a Ron Paul supporter, one thing that bugs me is that he never has a *specific* plan. Will be interesting to see if his campaign grows and gets more serious whether he finally puts one out there. I'd like to see his ideas, most of with which I agree, on paper with numbers attached.
While I'm a Ron Paul supporter, one thing that bugs me is that he never has a *specific* plan. Will be interesting to see if his campaign grows and gets more serious whether he finally puts one out there. I'd like to see his ideas, most of with which I agree, on paper with numbers attached.
Gone To Texas
500+ Posts
GTT, thanks for the link. I understood Rand Paul proposed the plan and Mack jumped on 2nd. But whoever it was that first proposed it doesn't really matter. It's the best idea being floated in DC right now.
It's funny that no matter how "crazy" Ron Paul's ideas are to people he seems like the only candidate that everyone can share some commonalities with.
Most Republicans will never vote for Obama no matter who opposes him
Most democrats will never vote for anyone opposing Obama
Maybe Paul represents a strange harmony between party lines?
Most Republicans will never vote for Obama no matter who opposes him
Most democrats will never vote for anyone opposing Obama
Maybe Paul represents a strange harmony between party lines?
At this point I dont care whose idea it was first. Paul may not be as specific as he could be, but hes been consistent as hell. Hes stated that the things he would propose would have to be voted on and approved, and that there would be major consequences, but hes actually addressing the root issues and not just pontificating.
At the very lease these things need to be in the national discussion, and if Paul has done only one thing, it is this. The current system has failed, and will continue to do so, so changes must be made.
At the very lease these things need to be in the national discussion, and if Paul has done only one thing, it is this. The current system has failed, and will continue to do so, so changes must be made.
I truly think a Great Depression event is bound to occur at some point, and if it had happened a few years back, we'd be starting to fix it (and quite a few trillion dollars less in debt). Right now, it seems we're just kicking the can down the road hoping our kids and grand kids can figure it out.
Gone To Texas
500+ Posts
Yeah he's out there, all right. But the alternative is to vote for tens of trillions in additional debt and perpetual war. What's more "out there"?
If Ron Paul could find a way to ease a way towards his ultimate goal, we would probably not see the urban riots that Coel predicts would happen. most americans just are not willing to give up their little cushy credit and debt filled lives. Problem is, the government sets the example.
America is not going to survive the next 10 years without drastic changes. That much is certain
America is not going to survive the next 10 years without drastic changes. That much is certain
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
Clean
5,000+ Posts
I heard on the radio coming to work that he was voted the winner of the debate last night. Newt was second.
I'm sorry, but the guy scares me.
His responses about Iran were strange. He said Iran hates us today because we installed the Shah in 1954. That ignores 56 years of history between us.
Also, he seems to me to be a strict isolationist. Didn't we try that already. We'd become even less of a world power under a Paul regime than we'll be after Obama.
There seems to be liitle difference between the exteme Left and the extreme Right to me.
I'm sorry, but the guy scares me.
His responses about Iran were strange. He said Iran hates us today because we installed the Shah in 1954. That ignores 56 years of history between us.
Also, he seems to me to be a strict isolationist. Didn't we try that already. We'd become even less of a world power under a Paul regime than we'll be after Obama.
There seems to be liitle difference between the exteme Left and the extreme Right to me.
Well, Clean,
Lets go over those "lost" 56 years. When we helped to install the Shah after the 1953 coup, he reigned for 25 years. So that brings us down to 31 years. When Iran deposed the Shah, the US began to make Iran public enemy #1, and has ever since. So theres the last 31 years....
Its not as if there was one isolated incident 56 years ago and everything has been peachy since....
Ron Paul isnt stupid. He is correct however, and the establishment cant stand it. It was funny to see so many of his opponents taking HIS stance from 4 years ago, when none of them shared it, on the economy and the FED, and run with it, especially Newt. Newt basically parroted a more mainstream version of what Ron Paul has been saying for years....
Paul isnt isolationist either.... Hes made that distinction before when asked. He wants to trade and have diplomatic relations with other countries, but he wants to end all of our bases in other countries and not have a military presence in so many places.
Obviously, with todays technology, it is impossible to be isolationist....
Lets go over those "lost" 56 years. When we helped to install the Shah after the 1953 coup, he reigned for 25 years. So that brings us down to 31 years. When Iran deposed the Shah, the US began to make Iran public enemy #1, and has ever since. So theres the last 31 years....
Its not as if there was one isolated incident 56 years ago and everything has been peachy since....
Ron Paul isnt stupid. He is correct however, and the establishment cant stand it. It was funny to see so many of his opponents taking HIS stance from 4 years ago, when none of them shared it, on the economy and the FED, and run with it, especially Newt. Newt basically parroted a more mainstream version of what Ron Paul has been saying for years....
Paul isnt isolationist either.... Hes made that distinction before when asked. He wants to trade and have diplomatic relations with other countries, but he wants to end all of our bases in other countries and not have a military presence in so many places.
Obviously, with todays technology, it is impossible to be isolationist....
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
Paul will do well early because of the plethora of candidates in the race. Let's say you have 10 candidates. Perhaps 25% polled favor Paul and the other 75% are split among the other nine candidates. Paul has a distinct ideology of libertarianism, monetary reform, and non-interventionism. The others do not. His 25% of the polling will stay constant unless he can convince other people to his worldview.
As the other candidates begin to drop out, the remaining 75% consolidate. Once you get down to say, four candidates, Paul has his 25%, but now the "establishment candidates" benefit by the diluted field. Paul would no longer have a chance of winning.
Frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach listening to the canned presentations most politicians make. Without both fiscal and monetary reform, this country's viability will end. It was encouraging to hear Gingrich address monetary issues (the Federal Reserve). Other than Paul, he's the only other candidate that has a cognitive awareness of that issue. I don't trust Gingrich however.
As the other candidates begin to drop out, the remaining 75% consolidate. Once you get down to say, four candidates, Paul has his 25%, but now the "establishment candidates" benefit by the diluted field. Paul would no longer have a chance of winning.
Frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach listening to the canned presentations most politicians make. Without both fiscal and monetary reform, this country's viability will end. It was encouraging to hear Gingrich address monetary issues (the Federal Reserve). Other than Paul, he's the only other candidate that has a cognitive awareness of that issue. I don't trust Gingrich however.
Ag, yes past presidents have started **** over in the ME. And pretty much no other president has ever had a problem with it. They have all upheld the status quo of maintaining that ****.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that talks about this and doing something about it. All the others are too chicken **** to do so.
As far as pulling all of our troops back, it would have to be a process, but again, Paul is the only candidate that is even talking about it.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that talks about this and doing something about it. All the others are too chicken **** to do so.
As far as pulling all of our troops back, it would have to be a process, but again, Paul is the only candidate that is even talking about it.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 45
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 521
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 434
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
