Ron Paul says he's all in for the presidency, won't run again for Congress

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by gorgi

 

I believe you and I have gotten into this discussion a bit before, and with your leave I wouldn't mind pursuing it further.

Would you say it is a fair statement that Keynesian economics sees a countries economy as a complex machine; which it is the role of government to "fine tune" per se?

Keynesian economics does not work for every country. I would not recommend south sudan follow keynes since they really do not have an economy. The USA should.

reply to post by gorgi


So you think you can find 1.5 trillion a year from the "rich and loopholes?"

At least be honest with your argument.

The numbers don't lie. Anyone who has seriously studied the numbers knows that in order to close the budget gap and begin to pay down the debt you must slash like hell or dramatically raise taxes on everyone. VAT tax on top of income has been proposed by liberals to reduce our debt because they know they cannot get it all from the "rich."

You down for a new VAT tax on top of Income, FICA, etc...?

You fail to recall in the Clinton years we had a "contract with America" congress that held the line on spending and cut taxes from the levels of Clinton and the previous congress. This was followed up by the dot com era boom…. if we have some game changing technological advance such as that who knows where the economy goes.

That said your sound bite arguments are the same ones Pelosi uses day in and day out. Great job that gal is doing.

reply to post by gorgi

All I can say is thank god he isn't running again after this. His crazy antics will finally be over.

Yeah I guess honesty, integrity, keeping your word, and following the constitution are pretty damn crazy amidst the liars, perverts, and criminals who infest congress and the government....

reply to post by gorgi


I'm inclined to agree, at least with the first part of your statement. Part of the difference in ideology I think, can be shown through Austrian economist's belief that the Austrian model can work for any country. All that it requires is for governments to uphold laws, not businesses. As it stands in todays economy, industry regulation is usually only lobbied for by large companies, because it is more profitable for them to take the hit by complying with said regulation, than to have to deal with dozens of small / start up competitors.

A good example I think of one true free market, is the manufacture of computer parts. Due to a lack of regulation, anyone with a soldering iron can start a company to produce these parts. Because of this, every year these parts become less expensive to produce, less expensive to purchase, and the quality is always rising. There is an expansive market for both high-end parts, as well as low-end parts.

If government were not in the business of trying to regulate which market does well, and over which competitor (i.e. subsidies and tax breaks) I think it stands to reason that every venue of our economy could be as well off as the computer industry.

Originally posted by sinderfield
reply to post by gorgi

 

So you think you can find 1.5 trillion a year from the "rich and loopholes?"

At least be honest with your argument.

The numbers don't lie. Anyone who has seriously studied the numbers knows that in order to close the budget gap and begin to pay down the debt you must slash like hell or dramatically raise taxes on everyone. VAT tax on top of income has been proposed by liberals to reduce our debt because they know they cannot get it all from the "rich."

You down for a new VAT tax on top of Income, FICA, etc...?

You fail to recall in the Clinton years we had a "contract with America" congress that held the line on spending and cut taxes from the levels of Clinton and the previous congress. This was followed up by the dot com era boom…. if we have some game changing technological advance such as that who knows where the economy goes.

That said your sound bite arguments are the same ones Pelosi uses day in and day out. Great job that gal is doing.

Numbers dont lie. I agree. But you can spin them, like you have. Taxing the rich at a higher rate and shutting down loop holes will raise a lot of money. A proper health care bill would work, the butchered one we have is a step in the right direction.

The republicans of the 1990's were just as insane as they are now. Newt shut down the government because clinton made him it in the back of the plane.

The dot com era helped, right now we could have another boom in alternate energy but the republicans wont allow that either. Ending the oil subsides would also help too. There are many little things that help fix it.

Gorgi and Kro 32 are shills, don't listen to them. They love their two parties system full of corrupt scum. They love the status quo of the FED, the big corporation and the big banks raping the people.

As for Ron Paul, I guess one of the few last good people in congress will be gone... No way the elite let Ron Paul win. Even if he were to be nominated as the republican candidate, they always have the electronic voting.

Ron Paul leaving congress when the country is about to collapse... quite a sign of the times.

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by gorgi

 

I'm inclined to agree, at least with the first part of your statement. Part of the difference in ideology I think, can be shown through Austrian economist's belief that the Austrian model can work for any country. All that it requires is for governments to uphold laws, not businesses. As it stands in todays economy, industry regulation is usually only lobbied for by large companies, because it is more profitable for them to take the hit by complying with said regulation, than to have to deal with dozens of small / start up competitors.

A good example I think of one true free market, is the manufacture of computer parts. Due to a lack of regulation, anyone with a soldering iron can start a company to produce these parts. Because of this, every year these parts become less expensive to produce, less expensive to purchase, and the quality is always rising. There is an expansive market for both high-end parts, as well as low-end parts.

If government were not in the business of trying to regulate which market does well, and over which competitor (i.e. subsidies and tax breaks) I think it stands to reason that every venue of our economy could be as well off as the computer industry.

I agree with some of what you said. Competition is good.
Austrian economics is all smoke and mirrors. Its not taken seriously by most economists because it doesnt work.
There does need to be regulation. Without government intervention we are screwed. The govt didnt do much when the big banks were giving out mortgages to people who shouldnt be getting them and look what happened.

I agree there do need to be some regulations where the possibility for fraud exists. At the same time, if fraud or injury occurs, there are already laws in place to deal with those responsible. I feel there needs to be more clarity of terms if the general populace is to become united in any way though, and this is a prime example.

When an austrain hears "we need more regulation" we tend to form in our minds an image of the revolving door that exists between multi-national corporations, lobbyists, and government regulators.

Whereas (and please correct me if I am wrong) a keynesian hears "we need less regulation" they form an image of multi-national corporations selling lead toys because it's profitable, and there is no regulation saying they cant.

I think, if my assumption is correct, that you and I can both clearly see we have a common enemy.

What we need in the regulatory process is not simply more or less; but rather equal, simple, and unbiased regulations. The issue with the banks and predatory lending practices has it's roots in the repeal of glass-steagall. However, this is not the root of the problem itself, which goes straight to the basis of our money, and where it comes from.

reply to post by blood0fheroes


Furthermore, on the issue of money and where it comes from- only two schools of thought are possible. Either the wealth of the nation belongs to those who produced it, or it belongs to the nation as a whole, and it's government as it's agent of distribution. This I think, is where we differ the greatest.

reply to post by kro32


um duuuuhhhhhhh. you dont see the irs or the big government as a problem. you have just answered a question i always wondered about. if crazy people find sane peoples views as crazy. well apparently you do. thanks for the education.

reply to post by blood0fheroes


I agree with what you said. I think that we would disagree on what the appropriate amount should be. There is always going to be an extreme on either side.

There does need to be regulation to prevent harm and exploitation and to keep things running in a smooth way and stopping before it causes a negative reaction.

Take this example. If we repeal all the traffic laws, will this improve driving ? Or what if we make too many laws ?
Neither will work. There is a balance. What that balance is, is a whole different thing.

Originally posted by sinderfield
reply to post by kro32

 

I would start with the departments . . . the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. . .”

.......SNIP

The IRS is the first thing that should be abolished. .............SNIP
A straight consumption based tax on goods and services is the choice for free men. No filling returns. No need for the gov to know what you make.

Wholeheartedly agree.
Department of Education? More like department of indoctrination. They have really done a great job of dumbing down the level of education in our schools over the decades. No child left behind? More like we'll pass you/bump you up to the next grade even if you don't know the basics of your current grade level.

IRS is just a big mess. Consumption tax would be great. Taxes on incomes should be abolished. The people who make the least get taxed the most, while passive income and corps are paying nothing in comparison.

RP 2012

Originally posted by gorgi
Without government intervention we are screwed. The govt didnt do much when the big banks were giving out mortgages to people who shouldnt be getting them and look what happened.

Do you even hear the words coming out of your mouth?

Government intervention is the ONLY reason we are screwed to begin with...

Maybe Vitchilo was right in his post above this one... :/

Originally posted by morder1

Originally posted by gorgi
Without government intervention we are screwed. The govt didnt do much when the big banks were giving out mortgages to people who shouldnt be getting them and look what happened.

Do you even hear the words coming out of your mouth?

Government intervention is the ONLY reason we are screwed to begin with...

Maybe Vitchilo was right in his post above this one... :/

I do know what I am saying.

Are you saying that no regulation is the best way to go? With no regulation we would be perpetually screwed.
I guess the education system is very bad if you think that.
I put this analogy in another thread. Here it is. If you repeal all the traffic laws, would that make everything better?
Think about that.

reply to post by Lightrule


Because he did not bow down to your new messiah, Dr.Paul?

Quit smelling your own farts long enough to realize that Ron Paul is one of them.

reply to post by Vitchilo


You say this now but elect Dr.Paul and you'll be one of the first complaining when he doesn't do whatever he said he would do.

It's the Obama syndrome.

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by kro32

 

You sure say a lot on the ATS forums... Without really saying anything at all.

Troll posts, 2000 and counting.


Like someone already pointed out, both those quotes are historically accurate. Back in the day of the founding fathers more focus was put on religion. I don't see Ron Paul backing up his words about the past by saying we need to return to rigid religious focus.

Without knowing the full context of those quotes it is extremely hard to judge the full meaning of them. Nice try tho.

-Lightrule

Hit the nail on the head. We need a universal rule to not listen to anything rude this guy says. Moving on to the actual topic though.

Hopefully this means he's gonna to win. I really really want to see Ron Paul in the white house. I want this country fixed.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

You say this now but elect Dr.Paul and you'll be one of the first complaining when he doesn't do whatever he said he would do.

It's the Obama syndrome.

Really? Ron Paul has been in office for 30 years and have never flip flopped. He's always been consistent, never lying.

Obama came out of nowhere, add all the usual corrupt scum behind him... it was obvious at least a year before he was even elected that he was a sell out...

Ron Paul is not an Obama.

Originally posted by gorgi
I put this analogy in another thread. Here it is. If you repeal all the traffic laws, would that make everything better?
Think about that.

That would depend on if the roads were left public or allowed to go private as well

RON PAUL is and has been commited to seeing that REAL CHANGE is made in the United States of America. In my opinion (hence...MINE) there has not been a GOOD Predident since JFK. You see what they did to him when he wanted and was going for a change. HA! He wanted the Federal Reserve outta here. You see who won the battle?

Obama and the like (Bush and the ones before him) are money hungry evil owl worshipping people.

GO RON!!!!!!! Whoooooo Hoooooooo~