Ron Paul for President???

[Glitch]

facepunch, nothing wrong with stepping up the pace of the withdraw. But there is always a proper strategy (fast, slow or somewhere in the middle..)

We should never have been over there but we were. We have enemies and its our own fault. Dr. Ron Paul wants to bring these new friends here. Maybe he heard home field advantage was worth about 3 points.

[OmgUrMom]

facepunch, nothing wrong with stepping up the pace of the withdraw. But there is always a proper strategy (fast, slow or somewhere in the middle..)

We should never have been over there but we were. We have enemies and its our own fault. Dr. Ron Paul wants to bring these new friends here. Maybe he heard home field advantage was worth about 3 points.

Give me a scenario that makes any sense where any of these enemies can invade or seriously hurt the united states?

If we spent even half the money we currently do on foreign conquests, took that money and spent it on national defense we would have no problem keeping our BORDERS secure, and developing missile defense systems that could shoot anything down before it crosses into our airspace. That will keep us safe, not making millions of new enemies by invading other countries. The invasions of iraq and afghan have made us less safe, not more.

[Glitch]

Give me a scenario that makes any sense where any of these enemies can invade or seriously hurt the united states?

If we spent even half the money we currently do on foreign conquests, took that money and spent it on national defense we would have no problem keeping our BORDERS secure, and developing missile defense systems that could shoot anything down before it crosses into our airspace. That will keep us safe, not making millions of new enemies by invading other countries. The invasions of iraq and afghan have made us less safe, not more.

biochemical attack in times square. perhaps gaseous.

i agree

[Glitch]

sons, brothers, fathers, cousins of the deformed and slain are already here and will be here in even greater numbers when theyre not needed for fighting over there.

we need to patch things up and get out of there. dr. paul is forgetting about the patch things up part.

[BigdaddyQH]

Dr. Paul has 5% of the GOP vote, according to the latest polls. That is plural people. The Conservative Rasmussen Poll and the Liberal PPP Poll both show Paul at a dismal 5%, well behind Cain, Romney, Gingrich, and Perry. It is all over for Paul. Now what was that phony Flyer fan trying to tell us? Something about how Paul was surging in the polls?

[Tully Mars 63]

Where was Obama in the polls at this point in the 2008 election? Right about 5%.

[PhillyFlyers]

Ron Paul Plans "Major Announcement" In Nevada

http://ology.com/politics/ron-paul-plans-%E2%80%9Cmajor-announcement%E2%80%9D-nevada

[Glitch]

http://ology.com/politics/ron-paul-p...2%80%9D-nevada

"The announcement will come on Monday, October 17 at the Venetian Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. The announcement, hailed by his campaign as the “Restore America Plan,” is expected to be a series of economic proposals building on those already posted on his campaign’s website."

[Bill Dozer]

Cain was considered a fringe candidate a few weeks ago. The only thing the polls tell us right now is where the candidates will sit in the next debate.

[Tully Mars 63]

Cain was considered a fringe candidate a few weeks ago. The only thing the polls tell us right now is where the candidates will sit in the next debate.

Exactly.

[BigdaddyQH]

Where was Obama in the polls at this point in the 2008 election? Right about 5%.

Wrong. He was trailing Hilary Clinton, but had become a viable candidate. Try using some facts for a change. He also was Black, and did not have to pass 4 other candidates. You are comparing apples to oranges. Try thinking for a change.

[BigdaddyQH]

Cain was considered a fringe candidate a few weeks ago. The only thing the polls tell us right now is where the candidates will sit in the next debate.

Paul was polling at 11-13% a few weeks ago. He is now down to 5% in the two latest polls. What does that tell you? I am really going to enjoy kicking so many asses in here when paul loses and wimpers home to retire. I will destroy all of you, as far as credability is concerned. What a bunch of fools.

[Tully Mars 63]

Wrong. He was trailing Hilary Clinton, but had become a viable candidate. Try using some facts for a change. He also was Black, and did not have to pass 4 other candidates. You are comparing apples to oranges. Try thinking for a change.

OK, you're right. I looked up data for 2006 not 2007, my bad. But still Clinton was consistently beating Obama in the polls until around Feb. 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

[Iced]

Paul was polling at 11-13% a few weeks ago. He is now down to 5% in the two latest polls. What does that tell you? I am really going to enjoy kicking so many asses in here when paul loses and wimpers home to retire. I will destroy all of you, as far as credability is concerned. What a bunch of fools.

John McCain was polling at exactly where Ron Paul is at this this time in 2007. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were the front-runners. Early polling isn't a great indicator of eventual nominees. And no one here has claimed that Ron Paul is going to win the GOP nomination, so I'm not exactly sure what "credability" [sic] you plan on destroying. Go back to the drawing board and think of another argument other than "hurr durr ron paul kant win so ur stoopid for soppportting him" before you post here again.

[itchypickle]

Afghanistan will continue for 5 more years at least.

Iraq - 2 years as it sits now for full withdrawal but expect 'a reason to stay longer' to pop up the spring of 2013 once the Pres election is over, regardless of who wins the 4 years.

[jarvol]

Paul was polling at 11-13% a few weeks ago. He is now down to 5% in the two latest polls. What does that tell you? I am really going to enjoy kicking so many asses in here when paul loses and wimpers home to retire. I will destroy all of you, as far as credability is concerned. What a bunch of fools.

All another Ron Paul loss in a presidential primary will do is re-emphasize is just how dumb, ignorant, and void of critcal thinking skills most Americans really are.

[Tully Mars 63]

The average American voter has proved that year after year, election after election for 20,30 maybe 40 years. People rarely vote for the best candidate but rather who ever can come up with the best catchy ad campaign. If the Americans were turkeys, which they might well be, they could be convinced to vote for more frequent Thanksgiving dinners.

[Facepunch]

Paul was polling at 11-13% a few weeks ago. He is now down to 5% in the two latest polls. What does that tell you? I am really going to enjoy kicking so many asses in here when paul loses and wimpers home to retire. I will destroy all of you, as far as credability is concerned. What a bunch of fools.

How will you destroy me? or kick my ass? over the internet.

Who is your candidate? Cain, Romney, Perry?

Or are you just waiting to see who your overlords tell you to vote for?

[PhillyFlyers]

Ron Paul’s Economic Plan: Cut 5 Cabinet Agencies, Cut Taxes, Cut President’s Pay

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/17/ron-pauls-economic-plan-cut-5-cabinet-agencies-cut-taxes-cut-presidents-pay/?mod=google_news_blog

Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b2aMmbbo

[Tully Mars 63]

Interesting articles, thanks. I like a lot of what Mr. Paul says but have problems, big problems with some of his ideas. One of my problems with Paul is I have serious concerns that if he does what he's talking about doing the economy would nose dive, something I seriously don't think we need right now. But who knows maybe he could somehow cut all this spending, balance the budget in three years and lose all the jobs that goes with it and the economy would adjust rather quickly.

I do think he's getting hosed, BIG TIME, by the media. I think he deserves to be heard out and given just as much attention as any other serious candidate.

[PhillyFlyers]

Interesting articles, thanks. I like a lot of what Mr. Paul says but have problems, big problems with some of his ideas. One of my problems with Paul is I have serious concerns that if he does what he's talking about doing the economy would nose dive, something I seriously don't think we need right now. But who knows maybe he could somehow cut all this spending, balance the budget in three years and lose all the jobs that goes with it and the economy would adjust rather quickly.

I do think he's getting hosed, BIG TIME, by the media. I think he deserves to be heard out and given just as much attention as any other serious candidate.

I don't see how the economy would take a nose dive if Paul carries out his plans. He would cut the corporate tax rate, cut personal income taxes (actually he would probably eliminate them totally), get rid of the federal reserve, put us back on the gold standard so our money would actually be worth something, repeal Obamacare, repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley act (the only candidate that has so far proposed doing so).

Cutting a trillion dollars out of our spending would go a long way to help the economy as well. If you take a look at Romney's plan he proposes only $20 billion in cuts as opposed to Paul's $1 trillion.

[Tully Mars 63]

I don't see how the economy would take a nose dive if Paul carries out his plans. He would cut the corporate tax rate, cut personal income taxes (actually he would probably eliminate them totally), get rid of the federal reserve, put us back on the gold standard so our money would actually be worth something, repeal Obamacare, repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley act (the only candidate that has so far proposed doing so).

Cutting a trillion dollars out of our spending would go a long way to help the economy as well. If you take a look at Romney's plan he proposes only $20 billion in cuts as opposed to Paul's $1 trillion.

Maybe you're right. Maybe he can cut all the stuff he's talking abut cutting and things would be fine. I don't know. I think, for example, if he cuts the DOD the amount he wants, there will be a huge and sudden surge in unemployed. I need to go find a recent study I read that found for every active duty military member there's 20 civilians jobs either supporting them or being supported by them. I know every time a base closes the area around that base takes a nose dives.

On another note- I know many people hate the current healthcare law. I have many, many problems with it but I seriously think the way the current health care system is set up is completely ****** up. About 10 years ago I crushed my leg and foot, had good insurance... two insurances actually. I had coverage and was covered under my wife's policy. I was in and out of the hospital for 18 months. My out of pocket cost was 60K, I'm still paying off a mortgage I took out to cover my medical bills.

My father passed away in May. He'd had polio when he was 2 in 1927. It affected him his whole life but in the last 10 years it became out of control and he needed constant care. He had a good job and made a decent living. he grew up in the great depression so he was of the mindset that for every dime you make you'd better save a nickle. He went from living in a nice home my mother and he owned and driving upper end vehicles (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus etc...) to living in a rental in an "adult community." It's basically a single wide mobile home. My mom is currently driving a low end, leased Honda. She has cancer and can't find a doctor that will accept her medicare.

My first grand child was born in Nov. of 2009. She was 4-5 weeks early and had to be put in ICU for about 5 days. I flew up to be with my daughter and her husband and was there as they release my grand daughter from the hospital. The bill was 40 maybe 50 pages long and the total cost was 350K+. I was a little shocked, not really that much, I knew it would be a lot but was thinking maybe 100K. As my daughter was signing papers and getting last minute instructions from the nurse I read through the bill. I came to one line item and blurted out "$80 for a Tylenol!?!" Right there on the page, along with a bunch of other crazy costs, was a line that read- "500mg Tylenol- mother... $80." The nurse took the bill out of my hand and said "don't worry about that, she active duty military it won't cost her or your family anything." I didn't say anything but I really wanted to say "Yeah, well I pay taxes and I don't want my tax dollars being used to spend $80 on what amounts to ten cents worth of an over the counter medication."

Obamacare, as many people want to call it, maybe ****** up, I certainly find parts of it just stupid. But the current way we're doing things is ****** up too. It's really just getting to the point where if you don't have a shit ton of money you'd better not have a serious injury or illness.

[PhillyFlyers]

Maybe you're right. Maybe he can cut all the stuff he's talking abut cutting and things would be fine. I don't know. I think, for example, if he cuts the DOD the amount he wants, there will be a huge and sudden surge in unemployed. I need to go find a recent study I read that found for every active duty military member there's 20 civilians jobs either supporting them or being supported by them. I know every time a base closes the area around that base takes a nose dives.

On another note- I know many people hate the current healthcare law. I have many, many problems with it but I seriously think the way the current health care system is set up is completely ****** up. About 10 years ago I crushed my leg and foot, had good insurance... two insurances actually. I had coverage and was covered under my wife's policy. I was in and out of the hospital for 18 months. My out of pocket cost was 60K, I'm still paying off a mortgage I took out to cover my medical bills.

My father passed away in May. He'd had polio when he was 2 in 1927. It affected him his whole life but in the last 10 years it became out of control and he needed constant care. He had a good job and made a decent living. he grew up in the great depression so he was of the mindset that for every dime you make you'd better save a nickle. He went from living in a nice home my mother and he owned and driving upper end vehicles (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus etc...) to living in a rental in an "adult community." It's basically a single wide mobile home. My mom is currently driving a low end, leased Honda. She has cancer and can't find a doctor that will accept her medicare.

My first grand child was born in Nov. of 2009. She was 4-5 weeks early and had to be put in ICU for about 5 days. I flew up to be with my daughter and her husband and was there as they release my grand daughter from the hospital. The bill was 40 maybe 50 pages long and the total cost was 350K+. I was a little shocked, not really that much, I knew it would be a lot but was thinking maybe 100K. As my daughter was signing papers and getting last minute instructions from the nurse I read through the bill. I came to one line item and blurted out "$80 for a Tylenol!?!" Right there on the page, along with a bunch of other crazy costs, was a line that read- "500mg Tylenol- mother... $80." The nurse took the bill out of my hand and said "don't worry about that, she active duty military it won't cost her or your family anything." I didn't say anything but I really wanted to say "Yeah, well I pay taxes and I don't want my tax dollars being used to spend $80 on what amounts to ten cents worth of an over the counter medication."

Obamacare, as many people want to call it, maybe ****** up, I certainly find parts of it just stupid. But the current way we're doing things is ****** up too. It's really just getting to the point where if you don't have a shit ton of money you'd better not have a serious injury or illness.

Thank you for the reply. I understand your frustration. It's funny you mention the current healthcare crisis this country is in because Ron Paul is a doctor. The other thing you mention is the military and wouldn't you know, Ron Paul is also a veteran. Did you know that Ron Paul receives more military support via campaign contributions than all of the other republican candidates combined? He also has a clear understanding of the problems facing healthcare as you can see in the following video...




Military Support

[Tully Mars 63]

I'm a veteran as well, 4 yrs. Navy. Would have stayed in, I liked it, but when my wife was pregnant with my daughter I got ordered to ship out to Japan. I was 5 mos. from being due to re-enlist and my wife was 7 mos. along. I requested to stay stateside and was told by my Sr. Chief "Son this is the US Navy, not ******* Burger King! You take it our way and you like it." Couple months later that same guy was telling me about the great re-enlistment package he could get me, 16K for 4 more yrs. I told him "Sr. Chief this is the USA and once my contract is up I'm outta here." Probably just as well, alcohol was a cultural institution when I was in. I probably would have drank myself to death at the rate I was going.

Anyway I digress. Pauls answers all too often seem too simple to me at times. The world's very complex, even he states that. But then he comes back and answers "how would you leave Afghanistan?" with "I'd just leave." Not much of a plan if you ask me and I think "just leaving" might cause more problems. Again what's the plan for the several million folks who are suddenly newly unemployed?

I'm always leery of people who offer simple solutions to complex problems. I thought the same thing when they started talking about going into Iraq. Anytime people pointed out the logistical and political problems involved the answer was always something like "don't worry. We'll be in and out in no time, hell we'll be greeted as liberators! This will take no time at all, maybe 6 weeks... at most 6 months. The cost you say? Don't worry, it'll pretty much pay for itself. And once Iraq is liberated the rest of the middle east will all become democratic too." I thought "yeah, right the place has been ****** up for centuries and peole have been killing each other there over religious beliefs forever. We're going go in and take out one ****** up regime and everything will be all sunshine and roses... not buying it."

Like his answer on health care... "used to be churches and charities paid for people who couldn't afford it." That might have worked back before Nixon was in office, back when a lot of hospitals were non-profit. Now days with $80 Tylenol and $400 for a "nurse observation." I'm not sure that would be very effective. I heard some talking head one day say something to the effect that "Paul would have maybe been a great POTUS in 1912, in 2012? Not so much." I'm not sure that's wrong. Also not sure that's right. Bottom line is the country's so ****** up now I have no idea what the solutions are or who's right. I do think the shake ups he's taking about, if he could get them passed, would have very real and very painful transitions. Might be a hell of a lot better country when it's complete but I don't see that being done in a few years, more like a few decades. We didn't get this ****** up in a few years and we're not going to solve it in a few years either.

I do like his "get government out of peoples private lives" way of thinking. Though at times, like his pro-life stance, he contradicts himself.

[Bluehorseshoe]

Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed
John Hudson 9:39 AM ET 75,881 Views Comments

Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits -- Real Clear Politics's aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent -- has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the "primary news maker in only 2% of all election stories."

[jarvol]

Like his answer on health care... "used to be churches and charities paid for people who couldn't afford it." That might have worked back before Nixon was in office, back when a lot of hospitals were non-profit. Now days with $80 Tylenol and $400 for a "nurse observation." I'm not sure that would be very effective. I heard some talking head one day say something to the effect that "Paul would have maybe been a great POTUS in 1912, in 2012? Not so much." I'm not sure that's wrong. Also not sure that's right. Bottom line is the country's so ****** up now I have no idea what the solutions are or who's right. I do think the shake ups he's taking about, if he could get them passed, would have very real and very painful transitions. Might be a hell of a lot better country when it's complete but I don't see that being done in a few years, more like a few decades. We didn't get this ****** up in a few years and we're not going to solve it in a few years either.

I do like his "get government out of peoples private lives" way of thinking. Though at times, like his pro-life stance, he contradicts himself.

Ron Paul may be Pro-Life but you will never hear him say the federal government should outlaw abortions. People can have individual beliefs all they want but it is a BIG difference when they want to use government to outlaw the choices of other Americans or use government money to promote certain behavior or choices.

If chruches and charities aren't going to support the elderly, needy, sick, and poor then why the fukk are they still tax-exempt??? If a person can't take care of themself and their family and friends and tax-exempt churches and charities refuse to take care then all they have the right to do is die. They most certainly do not have the right to use the government to rob me of my possessions in order to provide for them. The day of reckoning is coming. America can ease into social Darwinism soon or have it brutally forced upon it later.

[PhillyFlyers]

Ron Paul may be Pro-Life but you will never hear him say the federal government should outlaw abortions. People can have individual beliefs all they want but it is a BIG difference when they want to use government to outlaw the choices of other Americans or use government money to promote certain behavior or choices.

If chruches and charities aren't going to support the elderly, needy, sick, and poor then why the fukk are they still tax-exempt??? If a person can't take care of themself and their family and friends and tax-exempt churches and charities refuse to take care then all they have the right to do is die. They most certainly do not have the right to use the government to rob me of my possessions in order to provide for them. The day of reckoning is coming. America can ease into social Darwinism soon or have it brutally forced upon it later.

Churches and charities have always and always will support the elderly, needy, sick, and poor. The difference between back in the day and now is that back then Churches and charities had more support than they do today and also the fact that the government has taken over a huge portion of the health care system whereas back in the day it wasn't counted on.

[Tully Mars 63]

Ron Paul may be Pro-Life but you will never hear him say the federal government should outlaw abortions. People can have individual beliefs all they want but it is a BIG difference when they want to use government to outlaw the choices of other Americans or use government money to promote certain behavior or choices.

If chruches and charities aren't going to support the elderly, needy, sick, and poor then why the fukk are they still tax-exempt??? If a person can't take care of themself and their family and friends and tax-exempt churches and charities refuse to take care then all they have the right to do is die. They most certainly do not have the right to use the government to rob me of my possessions in order to provide for them. The day of reckoning is coming. America can ease into social Darwinism soon or have it brutally forced upon it later.

Might want to read watch this regarding Paul and his stance on a woman's choice regarding abortion-

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/ron-paul-courts-the-pro-life-vote/

I'm with ya on the tax the churches stand. L. Ron Hubbard told all his friends the best way to get rich was to start a religion... he then started Scientology and immediately filed for tax exempt status.

[Tully Mars 63]

Churches and charities have always and always will support the elderly, needy, sick, and poor. The difference between back in the day and now is that back then Churches and charities had more support than they do today and also the fact that the government has taken over a huge portion of the health care system whereas back in the day it wasn't counted on.

So you think if the government just stop filing these gaps then charity's and churches would step back up? I don't think they could even if they wanted and I'm not sire that's their focus. My dad once pointed out that his neighbor was a preacher/father/minister(?) My response was "So?" "So?! So, look at him! He's driving a Cadillac and wearing $500 suit!" "Again... so? Why shouldn't he have nice things too?" He went on a rant for about 10-15 minutes how back in his day if the local elders of a church were running around in luxury cars and wearing fancy clothes no one would have denoted a dime to that church." I'm not sure I agree 100% with him on this issue but churches seem to be more about making money for themselves and pushing their political power (another reason I think they should be taxed) around then they are about helping the poor, sick and elderly these day. I read about one church in the south that's entire mission is to make it's followers richer... says Jesus wants you to be rich. The leader is always mentioning how through his prayer and worship he's been able to gain great wealth, owns two jets and several houses. I'd be willing to bet he's gained that wealth off the backs of those attending his church way more then through worship.

[ABEHONEST]

Dr. Paul has 5% of the GOP vote, according to the latest polls. That is plural people. The Conservative Rasmussen Poll and the Liberal PPP Poll both show Paul at a dismal 5%, well behind Cain, Romney, Gingrich, and Perry. It is all over for Paul. Now what was that phony Flyer fan trying to tell us? Something about how Paul was surging in the polls?

Well, that's positive proof just how fkd up the Republican Party is, today!

[AribaAriba]

our guy has broader support amongst the middle class, keep spreading the message boys.

[Tully Mars 63]

Why is Newt even sticking around? Book sales and speaking fees? He's delusional?

The support Paul gets from average, middle class voters kind of reminds me of Obama in 2008. Maybe he'll turn this around.

[PhillyFlyers]

So you think if the government just stop filing these gaps then charity's and churches would step back up? I don't think they could even if they wanted and I'm not sire that's their focus. My dad once pointed out that his neighbor was a preacher/father/minister(?) My response was "So?" "So?! So, look at him! He's driving a Cadillac and wearing $500 suit!" "Again... so? Why shouldn't he have nice things too?" He went on a rant for about 10-15 minutes how back in his day if the local elders of a church were running around in luxury cars and wearing fancy clothes no one would have denoted a dime to that church." I'm not sure I agree 100% with him on this issue but churches seem to be more about making money for themselves and pushing their political power (another reason I think they should be taxed) around then they are about helping the poor, sick and elderly these day. I read about one church in the south that's entire mission is to make it's followers richer... says Jesus wants you to be rich. The leader is always mentioning how through his prayer and worship he's been able to gain great wealth, owns two jets and several houses. I'd be willing to bet he's gained that wealth off the backs of those attending his church way more then through worship.

I think if Churches and charities had the support they did today as they had in the past, then yes they would step in and fill the void. People would not be able to rely on the government and so would turn to what's available to them and that would be the Church and charities. Again though, for that to happen churches and charities would have to have the support they had in the past. And the idea that Churches should be taxed is horrible. Once you start taxing them they will be unable to provide any sort of support to the poor and sick. You would in essence be hurting the most vulnerable people in society. I can tell you that great charities like Catholic Charities spends every dime they receive on helping the most needy. Not just for the USA either but for the whole world.

[Tully Mars 63]

I think if Churches and charities had the support they did today as they had in the past, then yes they would step in and fill the void. People would not be able to rely on the government and so would turn to what's available to them and that would be the Church and charities. Again though, for that to happen churches and charities would have to have the support they had in the past. And the idea that Churches should be taxed is horrible. Once you start taxing them they will be unable to provide any sort of support to the poor and sick. You would in essence be hurting the most vulnerable people in society. I can tell you that great charities like Catholic Charities spends every dime they receive on helping the most needy. Not just for the USA either but for the whole world.

I'll admit I know nothing about the way the Catholic church and it's charity's operate but if they spend every dime they bring in on helping out the "most needy" how is the church paying off on all these huge law suits for the molestation cases and cover ups?

And I you might be right about "if Churches and charities had the support they did today as they had in the past..." But they don't and I doubt things are going to go back to the way they used to be anytime soon. Unless of course someone builds a time machine.

And we simply disagree on the tax the churches issues. There's really noithing you're going to say to get me off that position and I doubt you're going to move either... let's just agree to disagree.

I've been watching youtube clips and reading statement made by Mr. Paul and somethings been bugging me. At first I thought it was just his ideas that sound all too simple for such complex problems. But I think I see a reoccurring theme. A theme where he makes a statement and everyone, including a lot of reporters, simply nod their heads like it's a fact and he a wise man for pointing it out. Look at the clip you posted from the "View." Listen to his comment about people being responsible for their own money. If what he's saying were true and people were so good at handling their own money the housing bubble would have never occurred. People would have handled their finances responsibly and not gone out and taken out huge mortgages on houses they couldn't afford. They wouldn't have used their homes as ************ to buy boats, RV's and any number of other toys either. No that I'm for some nanny state where the government decides what, when and how you can spend you're money but I think there's a balance that includes some regulations to keep people from doing or being conned into stupid financial situations.

He was on CNN yesterday and this morning, he's getting more press time which is good in my opinion. But he answers question like "what will happen to the several hundred K people who will be unemployed when you cut all these jobs?" with "well they'll find work in the private sector, corporations will have more money to hire since they'll be paying much lower taxes." GE made 5 BILLION last year and paid no income tax. And they're not alone, there's something like 16 large corporations that made big bucks and paid little to nothing in tax. If Paul's right and lowering the tax paid by large corporations will create jobs how come these companies aren't hiring right and left now? Or does the government need to give them money rather then just not tax them before that happens? If so wouldn't that be welfare too? Just a corporate welfare instead of a individual welfare.

He also talks about making these cuts, one trillion in the first years and balancing the budget in three years. When asked how that will work his answer sounds a lot like his "we leave Afghanistan by simply leaving" answer.

I'm not sold his ideas are workable. Would be great if they were but I have serious, serious doubts.

[PhillyFlyers]

I'll admit I know nothing about the way the Catholic church and it's charity's operate but if they spend every dime they bring in on helping out the "most needy" how is the church paying off on all these huge law suits for the molestation cases and cover ups?

And I you might be right about "if Churches and charities had the support they did today as they had in the past..." But they don't and I doubt things are going to go back to the way they used to be anytime soon. Unless of course someone builds a time machine.

And we simply disagree on the tax the churches issues. There's really noithing you're going to say to get me off that position and I doubt you're going to move either... let's just agree to disagree.

I've been watching youtube clips and reading statement made by Mr. Paul and somethings been bugging me. At first I thought it was just his ideas that sound all too simple for such complex problems. But I think I see a reoccurring theme. A theme where he makes a statement and everyone, including a lot of reporters, simply nod their heads like it's a fact and he a wise man for pointing it out. Look at the clip you posted from the "View." Listen to his comment about people being responsible for their own money. If what he's saying were true and people were so good at handling their own money the housing bubble would have never occurred. People would have handled their finances responsibly and not gone out and taken out huge mortgages on houses they couldn't afford. They wouldn't have used their homes as ************ to buy boats, RV's and any number of other toys either. No that I'm for some nanny state where the government decides what, when and how you can spend you're money but I think there's a balance that includes some regulations to keep people from doing or being conned into stupid financial situations.

He was on CNN yesterday and this morning, he's getting more press time which is good in my opinion. But he answers question like "what will happen to the several hundred K people who will be unemployed when you cut all these jobs?" with "well they'll find work in the private sector, corporations will have more money to hire since they'll be paying much lower taxes." GE made 5 BILLION last year and paid no income tax. And they're not alone, there's something like 16 large corporations that made big bucks and paid little to nothing in tax. If Paul's right and lowering the tax paid by large corporations will create jobs how come these companies aren't hiring right and left now? Or does the government need to give them money rather then just not tax them before that happens? If so wouldn't that be welfare too? Just a corporate welfare instead of a individual welfare.

He also talks about making these cuts, one trillion in the first years and balancing the budget in three years. When asked how that will work his answer sounds a lot like his "we leave Afghanistan by simply leaving" answer.

I'm not sold his ideas are workable. Would be great if they were but I have serious, serious doubts.

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.