Ron Paul,The man America needs for President.

[Revoltingest]

Low taxes require reduced spending. What do you want to sacrifice?

High priority list:
Wars
Foreign aid
Bail-outs
Stimulus spending

Then you care about funding sources, since they tend to reveal a candidate's true loyalties.

Meh....dirtbags & saints donate to both sides.
I'll look at the candidates record & agenda instead.

Not so well. Relevance?

Obama illustrates that an accusation that Ron Paul would feather his own nest using public resources would apply to all politicians.
Mr Paul strikes me as a better risk in this regard than the guy who won the last time, & many current contenders.

That's just a scare tactic.

Jess say'n that a criticism of Mr Paul should be examined relative to his competition.
It reminds me of the criticism that Palin wasn't experienced enuf to become Prez.....& this criticism was leveled by Obama fans of all people.
The man had even less executive experience (zero, in fact) than she had.

 

[Oneatatime]

Wrongo pongo! "Low taxes" is a code word for low taxes.
There is sometimes confusion when scurrilous wags concoct a "parade of horribles" consequence scenario & claim that this is the real motive.
Of course, learned folk such as we are won't fall for such informal logical fallacies.

Uh huh....can't argue with that source.
Anyway, I don't worry about funding sources. I care about what I believe the candidate will do in office.
If funding source mattered, I wouldn't vote for anyone supported by trial lawyers, unions, or radical anti-bacon organizations.

I'd still pick R Paul over his competition.
How's that Obama flavored "Hope & Change" work'n for ya?
Maybe you prefer Palin?

Funding doesn't matter? I'm sorry but funding does matter because this has a significant influence on the decisions of the party which gets into power. The party isn't going to risk losing its funding by making decisions that aren't in the best interests of those funding them. Compared to the corporations the general public are pretty much easy marks when it comes to getting support which you have kindly demonstrated.

One of the reasons why I'm so disenchated with politics in my country is because the various mainstream parties have all been comprimised in this manner. When it comes to politicians its best to remember that they are first and foremost acting in their own self-interests.

The relative competency (And sanity in the case of Palin) means very little. Being the best out of a bad lot doesn't make you a good candidate for running a country.

 

[Storm]

Prioritized list:
Wars
Foreign aid
Bail-outs
Stimulus spending

Wars, sure. Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget. Bailouts... no opinion. Stimulus spending beats a second Great Depression.

Military spending is a good start, though.

Obama illustrates that an accusation that Ron Paul would feather his own nest using public resources would apply to all politicians.

Oh. Yeah, sad but true.

Mr Paul strikes me as a better risk in this regard than the guy who won the last time, & many current contenders.

Why?

I miss Potter. :sad4:

Jess say'n that a criticism of Mr Paul should be examined relative to his competition.

Misanthropic as I can be, I still have too much faith in the American people to believe Palin anyone's "competition."

I honestly believe McCain stood a chance until he picked her. Which makes me glad he did, but still....

 

[Mr.yadda yadda]

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
• He voted against the Iraq war.
• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year

Not a bad track record.:yes:

 

[Revoltingest]

Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget.

This is a significant expense to me. Budget negotiations would be greatly eased with such an amount.
A journey of a trillion miles begins with a single dollar.

Stimulus spending beats a second Great Depression.

Tis an unproven premise that stimulus spending did any good, but we have ample evidence that such massive spending (financed by taxation, borrowing & currency dilution) costs us.
Example: Flight from the dollar around the world.

Greenspan's take on stimulus spending....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43598606

Why?

Paul has a record of consistently libertarian & constitutional originalist values.
Never sent pix of his crotch to anyone that I know of, never tried to sell a senate seat, never appointed a tax cheat to run the IRS, etc, etc.

Misanthropic as I can be, I still have too much faith in the American people to believe Palin anyone's "competition."

Palin is not my cup of tea, but at least she had more managerial experience than any of the others in the Big Two.

I honestly believe McCain stood a chance until he picked her. Which makes me glad he did, but still....

Meh....I thought she was even more qualified than he was. At least she had run a state. Obama had never even run anything as complex as a hot dog cart.
McCain looked very definitely doomed without her. Her pick seemed to boost his odds. (If we're to be governed by ninnies, at least pick good looking experienced ninnies.)
McCain just had a longer record of executive inexperience than Obama.
This is all academic to me...McCain is just another neo-con (big government, high taxes, foreign adventurism, Israeli tool) so I'd never have voted for him.
And Palin appears to be a bit of a loose cannon & too socially conservative for me. I'm a libertine...er...libertarian, you know.

 

[Storm]

Don't have anything to add atm, but I wanted to let you know I'd read it.

 

[dust1n]

He is actually pretty low on business contributions, from what I could find:

1National Assn of Realtors $10,000 $0 $10,000
2Credit Union National Assn $7,500 $0$$7,500

3 Morning Star Co


$7,000$7,000$04New Spark Holdings


$6,200$6,200$05AFLAC Inc

$5,000$0$5,0006Beal Financial

$4,800$4,800$06Corriente Advisors

$4,800$4,800$06John Templeton Foundation


$4,800$4,800$09Bavarian Waste


$4,000$4,000$010BP

$3,000$3,000$010Aquent Inc


$3,000$3,000$012Property Casualty Insurers Assn/America

$2,900$0$2,90013Spinnaker


$2,400$2,400$013Biotech


$2,400$2,400$013Davis-Lynch Inc


$2,400$2,400$013Getko Holding


$2,400$2,400$013Herndon Oil


$2,400$2,400$013Huffines Communities


$2,400$2,400$013Sun Studio Entertainment


$2,400$2,400$020Stevens Find Homes


$2,300$2,300$0
Ron Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Representative 2010 | OpenSecrets

Strangely enough, I found seemingly counterproductive things about Ron Paul, on a body building forum, strangely enough. Kudos to "ZenBowman"

"http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...paign-finance/

Quote:
The so-called reform legislation being proposed is clearly unconstitutional. The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring. While some in the media have raised First amendment questions, few seem to understand that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to regulate campaigns at all.
Basically, he does not believe there should be any laws to prohibit corporations from influencing elections either through media or political donations.

Here are his votes on key issues:

# Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
# Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
# Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_pa...ernment_Reform"

In comparison, I found this data about Obama opensecrets.org, too:

Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:

Obama:
Goldman Sachs $739,521

UBS AG $419,550

Lehman Brothers $391,774

Citigroup Inc $492,548

Morgan Stanley $341,380

Latham & Watkins $328,879

Google Inc $487,355

JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112

Sidley Austin LLP $370,916

Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

McCain:
Merrill Lynch $349,170

Citigroup Inc $287,801

Morgan Stanley $249,377

Wachovia Corp $147,456

Goldman Sachs $220,045

Lehman Brothers $115,707

Bear Stearns $108,000

JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392

Bank of America $133,975

Credit Suisse Group $175,503




EDIT: I'm not going to fix that graph, just go to the link.

 

[dust1n]

Honestly, I would probably prefer any third party (minus the ones like the Nazi parties or what not) at this point.

 

[Engyo]

I still have Magneto flashbacks every time I see his photo........

 

[Mathematician]

I prefer former Governor Johnson. He's actually had administrative power before and used it pretty damn fairly. And anyone who is smart enough to see that the War on Drugs is one of the most tragic abuses of civil power gets my favor, generally. I know Ron Paul is on board with dismantling the War on Drugs, but Johnson wants to actively push legalization of soft drugs...

And I like less taxes/spending.

 

[Revoltingest]

Funding doesn't matter? I'm sorry but funding does matter...

Not to me. I vote for the person based upon what I believe he/she will accomplish.
The evils of a funding source seem to only matter to someone trying to disingenuously demonize a foe.
Blind eyes are cast towards unsavory contributors to one's own party.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

I think Paul loses a lot of credibility as a libertarian when he gets all wet over the War on Drugs and gay marriage but is a lot less bold when talking about the trillion dollar behemoths of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If all you can talk about is drug legalization and gay marriage then you are not a serious player on the national stage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps you're not listening.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Revolt,

Perhaps you're not listening.

I think I am. I hear a lot of Paul talking about how people wouldn't do heroin if it was legal but that it's hard to wean people off of the near bankrupt programs of Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems that we hear him saying different things.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Well, here Paul is talking about Medicare in the New Hampshire debate:

KING: Let's start with Dr. Paul on this one.

PAUL: Well, under these conditions, it's not solvent and won't be solvent. You know, if you're -- if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into -- into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much.

So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine.

And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.

And that's why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.

But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just -- you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?

CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what your point is.
I thought you were criticizing him for focusing on a few issues.
I disagreed only with that.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Revolt,

My point is, he dances around the Medicare issue (at least in this question). By saying, "I'll cut other stuff so we can keep Medicare around" smacks as an unserious point a libertarian should be making.

 

[Darkness]

Ron Paul to me looks like the only candidate worth voting for.His work towards a limited constitutional goverment,low taxes,free markets,and return to sound monetary policies are unparalleled by anyone else. He's the only candidate who is truely for the people and the only politician who's principles can't be compromised.This upcoming election looks good for Ron Paul,will he make it?Hopefully,but other politicians i'm sure aren't looking forward to losing any power. So voice your opinion if you think Ron Paul is the right man for president, or who you think is and why.

• I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul would actually favour a limited constitutional government. For instance, originally the second amendment (if it was ever interpreted as an individual right to gun ownership) never applied to states. Thus, individual states should be allowed to ban the private ownership of firearms. Expanding the second amendment to all of the U.S. is an example of judicial activism.

• Why are low taxes a good thing? Taxes provide positive services most of the time. Sweden spends half of its economy on the public sector and maintains a dynamic economy.

• Free markets are a good thing? When will people learn that unregulated markets led to the 2008 global financial crisis. Unfortunately, the answer is never. :no:

• What do you mean by "sound monetary policies"? Ron Paul is a moronic, five year old when it comes to economics. He actually subscribes to a masturbatory brand of heterodox economics that believes empirical data is irrelevant.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

• 
  
  Even though it is good to run a deficit during a prolonged recession.
  
  

  [*]He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

  Judicial activism if he does it at the state level!
  
  

  [*]He voted against regulating the Internet.

  
  Even though net neutrality protects us from service providers sectioning off the internet. :sarcastic
  
  

  Not a bad track record.:yes:

  
  Ron Paul is about as ape-**** out of touch with reality as a presidential candidate advocating the public ownership of all production. Though, to be fair, at least under a Communist government the poor would probably be fed enough to keep them alive, whereas Ron Paul would let them starve to death, because it would be immoral to take some of the rich people's money to save people from starvation. :banghead3

 

[Revoltingest]

• I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul would actually favour a limited constitutional government. For instance, originally the second amendment (if it was ever interpreted as an individual right to gun ownership) never applied to states. Thus, individual states should be allowed to ban the private ownership of firearms. Expanding the second amendment to all of the U.S. is an example of judicial activism.

That depends upon one's interpretation of the power & scope of the 14th Amendment. Certainly, amendments to the Constitution are legitimate altering of original intent.
It would've been nice though, if incorporation of the Bill of Rights had be clearly stated.

Why are low taxes a good thing? Taxes provide positive services most of the time. Sweden spends half of its economy on the public sector and maintains a dynamic economy.

That is Sweden. High taxes here are squandered on foreign adventurism & the propping up of failures, a counter-productive endeavor.
The US is not very good at socialism. Either we're too stupid, corrupt, lazy or incompetent.
Now, even the Chinese are better at free market economics than the US.

Free markets are a good thing? When will people learn that unregulated markets led to the 2008 global financial crisis. Unfortunately, the answer is never. :no:

The very failure you cite is also the direct result of regulation of real estate lending practices & tax policy, both of which encouraged borrowing to the hilt at inflated prices, creating an unstable market. Regulation per se is neither good nor bad, although it always has costs. The question is what kind of regulation should we have. I favor that which lets markets be as free as possible, while imposing sanctions against fraud, crime, & danger. Example - rather than CAFE standards imposed upon auto makers, a high fuel tax would also achieve efficiency gains, but companies & individuals would freely make their own choices about what to make & buy. We're gonna have to raise revenue somehow, so let's do it by a disincentive to foul the air & feed the coffers of overseas oil producers.

What do you mean by "sound monetary policies"? Ron Paul is a moronic, five year old when it comes to economics. He actually subscribes to a masturbatory brand of heterodox economics that believes empirical data is irrelevant.

Piffle! If Paul is a moron, what does the make the buffoons & cheats currently running the show?

Even though it is good to run a deficit during a prolonged recession.

This is something often said....like "Jesus saves". Tis a mere article of faith which serves those who love to spend.
They don't analyze the costs of having to pay back the taxed/borrowed/invented money which they carelessly cast about.

Even though net neutrality protects us from service providers sectioning off the internet. :sarcastic

You call it protection, but with the power to "protect" comes the power to restrict.

Ron Paul is about as ape-**** out of touch with reality as a presidential candidate advocating the public ownership of all production. Though, to be fair, at least under a Communist government the poor would probably be fed enough to keep them alive, whereas Ron Paul would let them starve to death, because it would be immoral to take some of the rich people's money to save people from starvation. :banghead3

But he's my kind of ape-**** crazy. It's time to try a different flavor after the failure of "Hope & Change" crazy.