Ron Paul for President???

[815Sox]

Honest Question: What does Ron Paul plan to do to end corporate money flowing into political campaigns. Something almost every single American can agree with is that banks and big business has far to much influence right now. How does he plan to regulate the banks? What does he plan to do about corporate loopholes.

As a Libertarian, I'd assume that he is opposed to regulation of the "free market" (there is no such thing). That will not go over very well with the climate of the country.

As for Paul's budget, it basically gets rid of every single social program, gets rid of many regulatory boards and doesn't really address income disparity. Its a pipe dream. People have to remember we have tried this in the 1890s, the 1920s and have been deregulating since the 1980s. It always ends up with recession/collapse. Capitalism needs to be regulated to be fair/effective.

Paul rarely addresses hard questions. He keeps repeating the same things over and over, basically throwing out red meat. I still would like to here him actually address all the racist garbage that appeared in the "Ron Paul Survival Report". Saying "my secretary did it, I didn't do it", doesn't work. If that is really the case, than how was he so irresponsible to allow it to appear in several different issues?

Why did Ron Paul introduce a bill on the federal level that would change the definition of "life" to being "at conception"? That is a favorite of hard core anti-choice advocated. If a fertilized fetus is legally a "human life" abortion is murder.

This is why its very hard for me to take Ron Paul seriously. At the end of the day, he looks like a paleoconservative in the Thrumond/Goldwater tradition. No way this guy would ever get elected, he is way way too conservative. Plus, some of his supporters are so GD annoying. They are obsessive over the guy and just completely unable to accept any criticism of him. They then have the gall to call others "sheep" and say they have a "messiah concept". 99 percent of them seem to be big Alex Jones followers... which says it all.

Anyways it is probably going to be Obama vs a very badly damaged Romney and Obama will win. This upcoming election is going to be disgusting, as it is the first post Citizens United election.

[Glitch]

Honest Question: What does Ron Paul plan to do to end corporate money flowing into political campaigns. Something almost every single American can agree with is that banks and big business has far to much influence right now. How does he plan to regulate the banks? What does he plan to do about corporate loopholes.

i apologize for not reading the rest of your post but Ron Paul has no plan for anything of the sort. Everytime hes asked about it- he says theres a difference between "capitalism and corporatism" he does not give his opinion on big bonuses and usually changes the subject after playing these semantic games.

[815Sox]

Plus, Ron Paul is associated with and has accepted money from Dr. Thomas Woods.

http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/09/tom-woods-how-to-make-history-for-ron-paul/

Thomas Woods is a well known neo-confederate racist. If we are going to attack politicians for their associations, I would imagine this will become pretty serious if Paul actually becomes a serious candidate (he won't).

Ron Paul also said some extremely disgusting things about MLK jr that do not ever deserved to be written down. Very very disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8aEGs0WLEc

This is a video from Reason, which is actually has a very strong libertarian lean.

[815Sox]

i apologize for not reading the rest of your post but Ron Paul has no plan for anything of the sort. Everytime hes asked about it- he says theres a difference between "capitalism and corporatism" he does not give his opinion on big bonuses and usually changes the subject after playing these semantic games.

Yes, from all that I have seen this is correct. I am just asking this too see if Paul supporters have actually looked into this more than suggesting that you read his website. I have and its vague. If I were to tell them to go read another politicans website and take it as fact, I doubt they would. I have no idea what makes Paul's different. I understand how what he says goes over well in a backwater Texas district, but that is not going to work in many other places.

Ron Paul really reminds me lots of Lyndon Larouche. Just saying whatever sounds good to try to grab as many supporters as he can.

[815Sox]

Here is Ron Paul addressing these statements. Not surprisingly, he tries to change the topic to him wanting to legalize drugs. Do I disgree with what he is saying about drug laws, not entirely. But answer the damn question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

[ABEHONEST]

Here is Ron Paul addressing these statements. Not surprisingly, he tries to change the topic to him wanting to legalize drugs. Do I disgree with what he is saying about drug laws, not entirely. But answer the damn question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

Boy, what a dumbas* this fisherman is. Thank you 815Sox for allowing this great American to explain your baseless accusation!
You'll need a bigger boat to catch this "Great White!"

[Tully Mars 63]

We disagree on a lot of things, that's clear. People are responsible for their money. There is no question about this. You cannot ever have the government regulate how and what on people can spend their money.


The housing bubble was largely the creation of the federal reserve. They kept interfering with the market by keeping rates artificially low, which in turn, let the banks give out bad loan after bad loan because it made it easier for people to buy a house when they really couldn't afford it.

In the end, the banks got bailed out and people lost their homes.

The government doesn't give money to corporations. Corporations earn the money that the government seeks to tax. It's not the government's money.

One trillion in the first year is a great start and under Paul's plan we would have a surplus within three years! Now that is getting the country back on track and moving forward again.

If you want to get more details Paul's plan is now online where you can read it for yourself.

We do disagree on a lot but I appreciate the civility in that disagreement.

I think your explanation of the housing bubble is one leg of a three legged stool. The Fed played it's part as did the banks and their customers. The banks loaned money to people who had no business borrowing the amounts they were borrowing. I watched as neighbor after neighbor bought big ass boats, RV's and motorcycles mostly on second and/or third mortgages. I thought at the time is was stupid and I still think it's stupid. It was stupid for the bank to make the loans and it was stupid for the tax payers to bail them out. I kept my 1981 Bayliner, which I owned outright and my 10yr. old Ford F-150 4X4... I caught just as many fish as anyone else and I got my elk every year I hunted. If I hadn't crushed my leg and foot I'd have no mortgage.

I have read through Mr. Paul's plan. I need to really go through it. So far it sounds a lot like "I'm going to be increasing the number of bets I win by not placing anymore losing bets." How am I going to do that you ask? "I'm just going to do it."


Edit-

I need to change what I said about your statement on the housing bubble. I think you and I are pretty close to agreement on that. I read through your post too fast and mis read some of it.

Sorry I'm running late for a lunch date and don't have time to cover everything I'd like to on this subject. On the bright side I'm going have a lot more fun after lunch then I am yakking with folks on the net.

[Iced]

Honest Question: What does Ron Paul plan to do to end corporate money flowing into political campaigns. Something almost every single American can agree with is that banks and big business has far to much influence right now. How does he plan to regulate the banks? What does he plan to do about corporate loopholes.

Corporate money flowing into campaigns only has an influence on public policy when politicians endorse more government control of the economy; Ron Paul supports the separation of government and economy. As for regulating banks, they already are regulated. George W. Bush regulated the most of any President since Richard Nixon [http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/1...atory-kiss-off]. What activities do you think need to be regulated? As for corporate loopholes, I'm personally in favor of more tax loopholes. Money earned by businesses should be kept by business, not go to the parasitic bureaucrats in DC. Corporations are already taxed at 35%, more than any other country in the world. How do you expect corporations to hire, expand, and invest if 35 cents of every dollar they make goes to the government?

As a Libertarian, I'd assume that he is opposed to regulation of the "free market" (there is no such thing). That will not go over very well with the climate of the country.

There hasn't been a semblance of a free market in this country since the 19th century. He will deregulate as much as he can, yes.

As for Paul's budget, it basically gets rid of every single social program, gets rid of many regulatory boards and doesn't really address income disparity. Its a pipe dream. People have to remember we have tried this in the 1890s, the 1920s and have been deregulating since the 1980s. It always ends up with recession/collapse. Capitalism needs to be regulated to be fair/effective.

Oh jeez, so much wrong here.
- Panic of 1893 - caused by a disastrous railroad policy, funded almost entirely by the US government [not the free market]
- Great Depression - Herbert Hoover was the greatest regulator and biggest spender in US history at the time of his Presidency, what was deregulated? FDR's New Deal extended the depression until after WWII ended and Truman started cutting price controls, wage controls, rationing, taxes, and regulations.
- since the 1980s - Not one President has deregulated anything since the 1980s.

As for income disparity, what do you mean by this? The rich have indeed gotten richer, but the poor have gotten richer as well. If I asked you if you wanted 1/2 of a pie of 1/3 of a pie, which slice would you want? It, of course, depends on the sizes of each pie. The pie has gotten bigger over time and the rich may have a bigger slice than before, but the poor have gotten a bigger slice as well.

Paul rarely addresses hard questions. He keeps repeating the same things over and over, basically throwing out red meat. I still would like to here him actually address all the racist garbage that appeared in the "Ron Paul Survival Report". Saying "my secretary did it, I didn't do it", doesn't work. If that is really the case, than how was he so irresponsible to allow it to appear in several different issues?

Not really an issue in my opinion. Ron Paul doesn't support any federal regulatory discrimination laws, so even if he racist (which is an unfounded claim) it wouldn't make any difference.

Why did Ron Paul introduce a bill on the federal level that would change the definition of "life" to being "at conception"? That is a favorite of hard core anti-choice advocated. If a fertilized fetus is legally a "human life" abortion is murder.

Because he's anti-abortion. Not really different than any other GOP candidate in this respect other than he wouldn't have the feds regulate abortion.

This is why its very hard for me to take Ron Paul seriously. At the end of the day, he looks like a paleoconservative in the Thrumond/Goldwater tradition.

Paleoconservativeism and libertarianism are somewhat similar, but not really all that close. You're just wrong here.

No way this guy would ever get elected, he is way way too conservative.

Nah, he's way too libertarian and anti-status quo, that's why he'll have a hard time getting elected as President. The media and establishment hate him.

Plus, some of his supporters are so GD annoying. They are obsessive over the guy and just completely unable to accept any criticism of him. They then have the gall to call others "sheep" and say they have a "messiah concept".

Yeah, I hate how those darn Ron Paul supporters don't just support one of those awesome establishment candidates like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Those two represent real change. /sarcasm

99 percent of them seem to be big Alex Jones followers... which says it all.

[citation needed]
No, just no.

Anyways it is probably going to be Obama vs a very badly damaged Romney and Obama will win. This upcoming election is going to be disgusting, as it is the first post Citizens United election.

Yeah, definitely. Because the two Presidential victors before the Citizens United decision were George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Real gems they were.

[jarvol]

As for Paul's budget, it basically gets rid of every single social program, gets rid of many regulatory boards and doesn't really address income disparity.

Why the fukk would you want to the government to address income disparity???

You an advocate of redistribution of weath? Socialism?

[AribaAriba]

ricky perry seems confuse WTF

[PhillyFlyers]

[BigdaddyQH]

Philly. How come you have not addressed my comments on the thread that deals with Ron Paul's economic and foreign policies? Is it because you DO NOT have an answer for the legitimate questions that I raise? So typical of Paul supporters.

Ariba. To say the Rick Perry is confused is probably an understatement. The debates have killed him. He is a terrible campaigner, but a great money raiser. We shall see if he can "buy" the nomination.

Iced, I suggest you take a course in economics. Arguing for more tax loopholes instead of less opens the door for the rich to pay less taxes than they do now. The bottom line is simple. Paul can not have any hopes of getting his economic package through Congress, and has even admitted that he has no chance of implementing his program. If that is true, then what? The vast majority of the tax burden will still be with us. Who foots the tab?

Tully. The banks just followed the policies laid down by Fannie and Freddie, who are government run lending institutions. Fanny and Freddy, along with their Liberal supporters who mistakenly thought that it was the RIGHT of every American to own a home, led to the disaster which is today's Real Estate Market. The bottom line is this. We all know that the Liberals made an ill fated attempt to allow more minority households to purchase homes, knowing full well that many of these people simply could not afford them. It was totally political in nature.

[PhillyFlyers]

Philly. How come you have not addressed my comments on the thread that deals with Ron Paul's economic and foreign policies? Is it because you DO NOT have an answer for the legitimate questions that I raise? So typical of Paul supporters.

Ariba. To say the Rick Perry is confused is probably an understatement. The debates have killed him. He is a terrible campaigner, but a great money raiser. We shall see if he can "buy" the nomination.

Iced, I suggest you take a course in economics. Arguing for more tax loopholes instead of less opens the door for the rich to pay less taxes than they do now. The bottom line is simple. Paul can not have any hopes of getting his economic package through Congress, and has even admitted that he has no chance of implementing his program. If that is true, then what? The vast majority of the tax burden will still be with us. Who foots the tab?

Tully. The banks just followed the policies laid down by Fannie and Freddie, who are government run lending institutions. Fanny and Freddy, along with their Liberal supporters who mistakenly thought that it was the RIGHT of every American to own a home, led to the disaster which is today's Real Estate Market. The bottom line is this. We all know that the Liberals made an ill fated attempt to allow more minority households to purchase homes, knowing full well that many of these people simply could not afford them. It was totally political in nature.

Bigdaddy, what questions did you ask? I must have missed your post.

[BigdaddyQH]

Bigdaddy, what questions did you ask? I must have missed your post.

I will repost it here. This is a direct response to Paul's economic plan that you posted in another thread:

I am glad you posted this. Now we can look at this point by point:

1. "Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel..." How does he accomplish this? Specifically, how does he makes these cuts? Are the cuts made through attrition? If that is the case, it will take years to implement. How will he slash Congressional pay and perks? Only Congress can do that, and anyone who thinks that Congress is going to vote themselves a paycut is sadly mistaken.

2. "Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg...." I am all for this, except ending the taxes on personal savings. That gives the wealthy a huge tax loophole.

3. "Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels..." This is totally impossible to do. First, who takes on the responsibility of the Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education Departments? Someone has to take on the load. You can not just wave a magic wand and eliminate 5 cabinet departments and allow the things that were the responsibility of these departments to dangle in the air. Someone has to take over those responsibilities. Who does that? Next, most airports and all railroads are owned by a government, be it Federal, State, or Local. So how do you "return" the responsibility for security to "private property owners" when airports and railroads are NOT owned by private property owners. This would lead to a huge raise in State and Local texes to pay for the security needed to guard airports, and railroads. Next, by stopping all foreign aid, you take an isolationist view. If we stop all foreign aid, a war breaks out in the Middle East overnight. We are not just talking about another "Arab-Israeli" war, but a war where terrorist will attempt to over run every country in the Middle East, including Arab Nations like Saudi Arabia, and others. If we stop all foreign aid, and our oil supply is cut off, where do we get oil? Sure we can drill here, but that takes years, not months. In the meantime, the price of Gasoline soars, costing Americans more than it costs them for their Foreign Aid tab. As far as returning spending to 2006 levels, that is a reach. Most politicians and economist target a 2008 spending leverl as doable.

Now I challenge all of you Ron Paul suporters to prove me wrong. The fact is that I have made a logical argument, based on the information that you have posted. The problem with you Paul supporters is that you use no logic or foresight when you discuss his plan. You just follow along blindly. You do not see the impossibility of this plan. You are unwilling to accept the fact that the vast majority of his domestic policies would have no chance of being enacted by Congress. You can not tell me where he will get the votes in Congress. There are some parts of his plan that I agree with, but for the most part, it is an ill conceived plan with absolutely no chance of implementation.

[BigdaddyQH]

Just what I thought. Not one response from the chicken s**t Paul supporters. Notice how they run and hide when Paul's ridiculous economic policies are brought to light and examined. You guys are nothing but a bunch of sheep, following your leader, no matter where he takes you. I hope he finds a cliff for all of you, including him.

[PhillyFlyers]

I will repost it here. This is a direct response to Paul's economic plan that you posted in another thread:

I am glad you posted this. Now we can look at this point by point:

1. "Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel..." How does he accomplish this? Specifically, how does he makes these cuts? Are the cuts made through attrition? If that is the case, it will take years to implement. How will he slash Congressional pay and perks? Only Congress can do that, and anyone who thinks that Congress is going to vote themselves a paycut is sadly mistaken.

2. "Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg...." I am all for this, except ending the taxes on personal savings. That gives the wealthy a huge tax loophole.

3. "Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels..." This is totally impossible to do. First, who takes on the responsibility of the Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education Departments? Someone has to take on the load. You can not just wave a magic wand and eliminate 5 cabinet departments and allow the things that were the responsibility of these departments to dangle in the air. Someone has to take over those responsibilities. Who does that? Next, most airports and all railroads are owned by a government, be it Federal, State, or Local. So how do you "return" the responsibility for security to "private property owners" when airports and railroads are NOT owned by private property owners. This would lead to a huge raise in State and Local texes to pay for the security needed to guard airports, and railroads. Next, by stopping all foreign aid, you take an isolationist view. If we stop all foreign aid, a war breaks out in the Middle East overnight. We are not just talking about another "Arab-Israeli" war, but a war where terrorist will attempt to over run every country in the Middle East, including Arab Nations like Saudi Arabia, and others. If we stop all foreign aid, and our oil supply is cut off, where do we get oil? Sure we can drill here, but that takes years, not months. In the meantime, the price of Gasoline soars, costing Americans more than it costs them for their Foreign Aid tab. As far as returning spending to 2006 levels, that is a reach. Most politicians and economist target a 2008 spending leverl as doable.

Now I challenge all of you Ron Paul suporters to prove me wrong. The fact is that I have made a logical argument, based on the information that you have posted. The problem with you Paul supporters is that you use no logic or foresight when you discuss his plan. You just follow along blindly. You do not see the impossibility of this plan. You are unwilling to accept the fact that the vast majority of his domestic policies would have no chance of being enacted by Congress. You can not tell me where he will get the votes in Congress. There are some parts of his plan that I agree with, but for the most part, it is an ill conceived plan with absolutely no chance of implementation.

1. "Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel..." How does he accomplish this? Specifically, how does he makes these cuts? Are the cuts made through attrition? If that is the case, it will take years to implement. How will he slash Congressional pay and perks? Only Congress can do that, and anyone who thinks that Congress is going to vote themselves a paycut is sadly mistaken.

I think the short answer is that he would introduce legislation to slash congressional pay. He would likely apply political pressure on congress to take a pay cut, especially in light of the fact that he himself would only be taking a salary of $39,336.

Also, each congressional office is assigned a specific budget per fiscal year which all comes from appropriated dollars. This comes from the President's annual budget proposal. He can threaten to slash it severely.

Additionally, he can introduce legislation which stipulates that all further congressional pay raises be determined through a constituency vote and take it out of the hands of congress completely.

2. "Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg...." I am all for this, except ending the taxes on personal savings. That gives the wealthy a huge tax loophole.

"Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing FAMILIES to build a nest egg...."

That doesn't sound like he has the wealthy in mind when he proposed this. Sounds like he's talking directly to the middle class.

3. "Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels..." This is totally impossible to do. First, who takes on the responsibility of the Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education Departments? Someone has to take on the load. You can not just wave a magic wand and eliminate 5 cabinet departments and allow the things that were the responsibility of these departments to dangle in the air. Someone has to take over those responsibilities. Who does that? Next, most airports and all railroads are owned by a government, be it Federal, State, or Local. So how do you "return" the responsibility for security to "private property owners" when airports and railroads are NOT owned by private property owners. This would lead to a huge raise in State and Local texes to pay for the security needed to guard airports, and railroads. Next, by stopping all foreign aid, you take an isolationist view. If we stop all foreign aid, a war breaks out in the Middle East overnight. We are not just talking about another "Arab-Israeli" war, but a war where terrorist will attempt to over run every country in the Middle East, including Arab Nations like Saudi Arabia, and others. If we stop all foreign aid, and our oil supply is cut off, where do we get oil? Sure we can drill here, but that takes years, not months. In the meantime, the price of Gasoline soars, costing Americans more than it costs them for their Foreign Aid tab. As far as returning spending to 2006 levels, that is a reach. Most politicians and economist target a 2008 spending leverl as doable.

1. Why is this impossible to do? Because you say so? It's not impossible. The responsibility of those departments would go back to individual states. Additionally, some of those responsibilities could go to other departments that are kept.

2. He stated that airports should opt for private security because "federal bureaucrats are less qualified than those in the private sector to provide security." He has also stated......“Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport security. The free market can and does produce excellent security in many industries. Many security-intensive industries do an outstanding job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves. Airlines cannot make money if travelers and flight crews are afraid to fly, and in a free market they would drastically change security measures to prevent future tragedies. In the current regulatory environment, however, the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so that they cannot be held accountable for lapses in the future.”

"What we need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the “guidance” of the federal government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers."

"In the meantime, this week I am introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey. As we continue to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I hope that my colleagues in the House will listen to their constituents and join with me to support this legislation."


3. You misunderstand Ron Paul's positions. He isn't an isolationist. He isn't a no-war whatsoever guy. He is a no-undeclared, unconstitutional war guy.

As for stopping foreign aid, tell me how we can afford it? We have no money. We are in debt over our heads. Yet, you want to give money that would have to be borrowed on American taxpayers' dime to give away.

As Ron Paul said in the debate, foreign aid amounts to us taking money from poor people here and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

He's exactly right.

As for your comment about gas prices, we have alternatives. We do not have to be dependent on the middle east.



Finally, I have a challenge for you Bigdaddy.

Tell us who you support and what your candidate plans are to get this country out of the mess it's in. I would like to compare your candidates positions to Ron Paul and see how he holds up.

[Dutch]

I watched the Republican debate on cnn a few nights ago. Ron Paul made a few good points but didn't exactly define what he would do as President. He also dropped the ball on the question "Would you negotiate with terrorist?". There were a couple of other moments that I'm drawing a blank on now that I'm trying to write this post.

Like I said before, I like Ron Paul enough. I think he's right on a lot of things....But so what? He doesn't play the politics game very well. Which some people think is a plus, I don't, because he'll have very few allies in congress and the senate and what good is a Pres. who can't push thru any of his ideas.

I'm not sure why I keep reading and responding to this thread. Ron Paul is no more electable than Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. At least Ron is smart enough not to run 3rd party and split the Republican vote like Perot did. Which cost Bush Sr. the election in '92.

Fuk the Republicans and the Democrats by the way. Both parties can kiss my ass.

[BigdaddyQH]

First, I have not decided which candidate I am going to support. Let me tell you what I am looking for in a candidate, ANY candidate, as far as economic policies are concerned:

1. Taxes: I would entertain an argument to raise taxes on thise who make more than one million dollasrs a year to 35%. No higher.

2. I would freeze taxes on all Americans who make between $30,000 and $999,999.

3. I would tax any money that is given to welfare recipients. That is income. Notice I said "welfare". That is NOT Social Security.

4. I would eliminate any welfare subsidies to illegals. Period. End of statement. No money. No food stamps. No free medical coverage.

5. I would eliminate Agriculture subsidies. It makes no sense to me to pay people for not producing.

6. I would end all foreign aid to countries who are either sworn enemies of the U.S, or who back any terrorist group that is an enemy of the U.S. I would also end all foreign aid to Mexico. Mexico does nothing to stop the murderous illegal drug trafficing on both sides of the border, and actually encourages their people to illegally cross the border.

7. I would drastically reduce the Federal mandates, regulations, and laws that tie the hands of Small and Big Business. It is time for the Federal Government to allow Small and Big Business to run their businesses in a manner they see fit. I would also allow each business to determine if they want to unioniaze or not. Obama has no business trying to force businesses to unionize.

8. I would stop all "Police Actions" against other nations. If we go to war, we go in with the attitude of wiping the country we are fighting off the face of the map. No more of this half-assed fighting. No more restricting our Military Leaders. We either go in to win, or we do NOT go in at all.

9. No more Egypt's, Libya's, Uganda's, or Iraq's. Let them kill each other off, for all I care. If there is a direct threat against the U.S, as there was in Afghanistan, then destroy the country that is making the direct threat. This B.S. about freeing people from tyranny and trying to force our way of life on them must stop. We should not pick and choose our battles, like Obama is doing now. Either kill them (our enemies and their millitary) all, or do not bother fighting.

10. Stop forcing the "Green" movement on Americans. It has been a dismal failure that has wasted billions of dollars. If companies opt to start a "Green" business, that is on them. They should receive no subsidies from the Federal Government. They should be treated just like any other company. Also allow more drilling for oil and natural gas. You can not have it both ways like the Liberals and Obama want it. You can not cut America's dependency on foreign oil and not allow more drilling in the U.S.

I hope that answers your question. There is one more thing that you MUST remember. NO President can FORCE Congress to do anythig in regards to spending money. That is the decision of the Congress. The President has two options, and two options only. He can sign spending bills, or he can veto them. Congress appropriates the funding in this country, NOT the President. If Paul tried to cut appropriations to Congress by threat of veto, Congress will simply override the presidents veto. That is how powerless Paul would be regarding economic matters. He has nowheres near the 34% of congress needed to sustain a veto. Paul would be a terrible President because he would be so hated in Congress by BOTH parties, he would never be able to accomplish anything he wanted to, be it good or bad. Paul himself has stated many times that he doubts that many of his programs would ever be implemented by Congress. If he admits that he has little or no chance of changing anything, why elect him?

[Tully Mars 63]

Fuk the Republicans and the Democrats by the way. Both parties can kiss my ass.

Could not agree more.

[BigdaddyQH]

This is the problem with most of you people. You say "Fuk the Republicans and the Democrats", but there is absolutely NOTHING that you people want to do about it. All you people want to do is complain. You are POWERLESS to do anything about the nations problems unless you actively try to do something. Bitching and moaning in here does not do a thing to improve things. It would help if some of you would have an idea. Most of you do not. Now notice I said "MOST" of you. Not "ALL" of you.

[PhillyFlyers]

First, I have not decided which candidate I am going to support. Let me tell you what I am looking for in a candidate, ANY candidate, as far as economic policies are concerned:

1. Taxes: I would entertain an argument to raise taxes on thise who make more than one million dollasrs a year to 35%. No higher.

2. I would freeze taxes on all Americans who make between $30,000 and $999,999.

3. I would tax any money that is given to welfare recipients. That is income. Notice I said "welfare". That is NOT Social Security.

4. I would eliminate any welfare subsidies to illegals. Period. End of statement. No money. No food stamps. No free medical coverage.

5. I would eliminate Agriculture subsidies. It makes no sense to me to pay people for not producing.

6. I would end all foreign aid to countries who are either sworn enemies of the U.S, or who back any terrorist group that is an enemy of the U.S. I would also end all foreign aid to Mexico. Mexico does nothing to stop the murderous illegal drug trafficing on both sides of the border, and actually encourages their people to illegally cross the border.

7. I would drastically reduce the Federal mandates, regulations, and laws that tie the hands of Small and Big Business. It is time for the Federal Government to allow Small and Big Business to run their businesses in a manner they see fit. I would also allow each business to determine if they want to unioniaze or not. Obama has no business trying to force businesses to unionize.

8. I would stop all "Police Actions" against other nations. If we go to war, we go in with the attitude of wiping the country we are fighting off the face of the map. No more of this half-assed fighting. No more restricting our Military Leaders. We either go in to win, or we do NOT go in at all.

9. No more Egypt's, Libya's, Uganda's, or Iraq's. Let them kill each other off, for all I care. If there is a direct threat against the U.S, as there was in Afghanistan, then destroy the country that is making the direct threat. This B.S. about freeing people from tyranny and trying to force our way of life on them must stop. We should not pick and choose our battles, like Obama is doing now. Either kill them (our enemies and their millitary) all, or do not bother fighting.

10. Stop forcing the "Green" movement on Americans. It has been a dismal failure that has wasted billions of dollars. If companies opt to start a "Green" business, that is on them. They should receive no subsidies from the Federal Government. They should be treated just like any other company. Also allow more drilling for oil and natural gas. You can not have it both ways like the Liberals and Obama want it. You can not cut America's dependency on foreign oil and not allow more drilling in the U.S.

I hope that answers your question. There is one more thing that you MUST remember. NO President can FORCE Congress to do anythig in regards to spending money. That is the decision of the Congress. The President has two options, and two options only. He can sign spending bills, or he can veto them. Congress appropriates the funding in this country, NOT the President. If Paul tried to cut appropriations to Congress by threat of veto, Congress will simply override the presidents veto. That is how powerless Paul would be regarding economic matters. He has nowheres near the 34% of congress needed to sustain a veto. Paul would be a terrible President because he would be so hated in Congress by BOTH parties, he would never be able to accomplish anything he wanted to, be it good or bad. Paul himself has stated many times that he doubts that many of his programs would ever be implemented by Congress. If he admits that he has little or no chance of changing anything, why elect him?

You are a clusterf**k of confusion. You take positions that are a mix of real conservative, liberalism, neoconism. Damn.

[Ice House]

go ron paul.. i think we got a shot baby

[Ice House]

did he do well at the debate? what is fox news view of him now....


it seems fox news controls the way society thinks

[BigdaddyQH]

You are a clusterf**k of confusion. You take positions that are a mix of real conservative, liberalism, neoconism. Damn.

All politicians are the same way. Look at how many politicians are economic conservatives and
social liberals. The reverse is true. What politicians say during a campaing, and what politicians really believe are often two different things. Politicians have to bend over backwards to try and please their voting constiuents. I am not running for office, so I do not have to bend over backwards to please anyone. People who are totally conservative or liberal on every view are little more than sheep, being led by the nose by either conservatives or liberals. There is nothing confusing about what I want from a candidate. Is there any one of my 10 points that you specifically object to? If so, please tell me what they are. Making general statements means nothing to me. Show me a specific area of disagreement and we can discuss it.

[Tully Mars 63]

Tully. The banks just followed the policies laid down by Fannie and Freddie, who are government run lending institutions. Fanny and Freddy, along with their Liberal supporters who mistakenly thought that it was the RIGHT of every American to own a home, led to the disaster which is today's Real Estate Market. The bottom line is this. We all know that the Liberals made an ill fated attempt to allow more minority households to purchase homes, knowing full well that many of these people simply could not afford them. It was totally political in nature.

First, the banks followed a path they thought would lead to the most profit. They put profit over everything, fukk the economy, fukk their customers and fukk the country. They bundled mortgages that they knew were worth jack shit and sold them to unknowing investors. Second, don't go blaming some liberal bogey man here most of the for shit lending happened under Bushy Jr and the neocons, you know back when deficits didn't matter. Most of us here could make bank if we simply had a dime for every time "W" stated "Home ownership is at an all time high" during the 2004 election. In fact if you look back over the past 40 years of so the debt increases way more during GOP POTUS's then during Dem terms. I think Bush Sr. tried to turn it around and was nearly tossed out of his own party for it.

Both parties are to blame for the shit hole we're in now as are the US voters for continuing to elect these ass wipes.

I too haven't decided who to vote for, I get no vote in the primaries since I'm currently living in Mexico, but if I had to vote in the GOP primary tomorrow I'd probably just go diving or fishing instead. They all sound full of crap to me. At least I believe Paul believes the crap he's saying. I don't buy it but I'm convinced he does.

[PhillyFlyers]

All politicians are the same way. Look at how many politicians are economic conservatives and
social liberals. The reverse is true. What politicians say during a campaing, and what politicians really believe are often two different things. Politicians have to bend over backwards to try and please their voting constiuents. I am not running for office, so I do not have to bend over backwards to please anyone. People who are totally conservative or liberal on every view are little more than sheep, being led by the nose by either conservatives or liberals. There is nothing confusing about what I want from a candidate. Is there any one of my 10 points that you specifically object to? If so, please tell me what they are. Making general statements means nothing to me. Show me a specific area of disagreement and we can discuss it.

OK so politicians are as f***ed up as you are.


And no, people who are totally one way are not sheep, they are just not confused like you.

[BigdaddyQH]

OK so politicians are as f***ed up as you are.


And no, people who are totally one way are not sheep, they are just not confused like you.

You are the perfect example of a sheep. You blindly follow Ron Paul, but can not specify what points in my plan you do not like. That is what sheep do. Blindly follow along, and accuse everyone else of being f**ked up. You are a loser, and you and your candidate will be defeated in the Primaries.

[PhillyFlyers]

You are the perfect example of a sheep. You blindly follow Ron Paul, but can not specify what points in my plan you do not like. That is what sheep do. Blindly follow along, and accuse everyone else of being f**ked up. You are a loser, and you and your candidate will be defeated in the Primaries.

1. You're the sheep. Your thinking is so convoluted you can't explain what you are politically. I've already responded to your questions, if you don't comprehend that then maybe you actually are as stupid as your posts make you seem.

2. Me and my candidate? I asked you who was your candidate and you said you didn't have one. Obviously this was a lie. What's the matter? Are you afraid to tell us who you support because you know he can't compare to Ron Paul at any level?

3. I'm a loser? I'm not the one living off taxpayer money and sucking on the government's tit like you. You're the loser bud. If you couldn't go out into the world and make it on your own without sucking blood from the people that's no one's fault but your own.

[Iced]

First, I have not decided which candidate I am going to support. Let me tell you what I am looking for in a candidate, ANY candidate, as far as economic policies are concerned:

1. Taxes: I would entertain an argument to raise taxes on thise who make more than one million dollasrs a year to 35%. No higher.

So your first policy is to raise taxes higher than Obama? Brilliant.

I say, what is the economic logic behind this beauty? You're taking money away from the productive, private, wealth-creating sector of the economy and turning it over to the biggest wealth-destroyer of all time, the US government. Savings, investment, consumer spending, hiring, employment, expansion, and trade must all necessarily fall drastically with this policy. On the other hand, there is more money for sending drone missiles over to the Middle East in order to kill some of those dirty Muslims you hate so much. Or welfare, which is apparently something you're a fan of as well.

2. I would freeze taxes on all Americans who make between $30,000 and $999,999.

Got even worse after number one, didn't think it was possible. This tax bracket you have just set up manages to put in place even worst disincentives to work than the current tax code. Why would an entrepreneur or business owner expand his or her business if he or she is making $950,000? They immediately lose everything they've gained once they hit the $1 million mark.

3. I would tax any money that is given to welfare recipients. That is income. Notice I said "welfare". That is NOT Social Security.

Pshhhhh, bahhahahahahaha.

You're going to take money out of the economy by first taxing rich people, redistributing that money to poor people, and then taxing the poor people? Makes sense.

4. I would eliminate any welfare subsidies to illegals. Period. End of statement. No money. No food stamps. No free medical coverage.

How about ending all welfare subsidies to everyone?

5. I would eliminate Agriculture subsidies. It makes no sense to me to pay people for not producing.

How about ending all government transfers of money from private citizens to private businesses?

6. I would end all foreign aid to countries who are either sworn enemies of the U.S, or who back any terrorist group that is an enemy of the U.S. I would also end all foreign aid to Mexico. Mexico does nothing to stop the murderous illegal drug trafficing on both sides of the border, and actually encourages their people to illegally cross the border.

How about ending all government transfers of money from private citizens to foreign countries?

7. I would drastically reduce the Federal mandates, regulations, and laws that tie the hands of Small and Big Business. It is time for the Federal Government to allow Small and Big Business to run their businesses in a manner they see fit. I would also allow each business to determine if they want to unioniaze or not. Obama has no business trying to force businesses to unionize.

How about ending all mandates and regulations?

8. I would stop all "Police Actions" against other nations. If we go to war, we go in with the attitude of wiping the country we are fighting off the face of the map. No more of this half-assed fighting. No more restricting our Military Leaders. We either go in to win, or we do NOT go in at all.

Nuke 'em all.

9. No more Egypt's, Libya's, Uganda's, or Iraq's. Let them kill each other off, for all I care. If there is a direct threat against the U.S, as there was in Afghanistan, then destroy the country that is making the direct threat. This B.S. about freeing people from tyranny and trying to force our way of life on them must stop. We should not pick and choose our battles, like Obama is doing now. Either kill them (our enemies and their millitary) all, or do not bother fighting.

You had me until Afghanistan. In what way do uncivilized goat herders threaten the US? Do you expect them to throw Molotovs at DC from across the Atlantic Ocean?

10. Stop forcing the "Green" movement on Americans. It has been a dismal failure that has wasted billions of dollars. If companies opt to start a "Green" business, that is on them. They should receive no subsidies from the Federal Government. They should be treated just like any other company. Also allow more drilling for oil and natural gas. You can not have it both ways like the Liberals and Obama want it. You can not cut America's dependency on foreign oil and not allow more drilling in the U.S.

You sound like a disgusting mix of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Congrats.

Here's Bigdaddy's economic plan for rich people:

[Iced]

3. I'm a loser? I'm not the one living off taxpayer money and sucking on the government's tit like you. You're the loser bud. If you couldn't go out into the world and make it on your own without sucking blood from the people that's no one's fault but your own.

[PhillyFlyers]

[PhillyFlyers]

New Ron Paul Videos

[ABEHONEST]

Ron Paul has to be the most educated man in America when it comes to politics and our constitution.
He's over qualified for the Presidents job, if anything.
This first video covers a tremendous amount of ground. Who else has this much knowledge in our country? No one, so being the stupid, overfed pigs, we are, we'll pick the pretty guy for our President.

The only flaw I "see" in Ron Paul is that crooked right eyebrow in this video.

[PhillyFlyers]

VIDEO: Ron Paul Enters A Den Of Vipers, Interview With FoxNews AllStars!

[Ice House]

Ron Paul for president!!! !hell yeah I created this thread and its still going! SBR fly me out to Vegas!!!!