Ron Paul, alas, is the Only choice.

Thunder said:

and what if I'm right?

rich people don't spend more money because their taxes go down...and they don't spend less money because their taxes go up.

returning our tax-rates to Clinton-levels will not effect investment by the wealthy one single bit.

Click to expand...

What about the working class and small businesses? They're taxes will go up, too.

iguanaman said:

Calling the middle class the "beggar class" is the attitude that will get the Dems back in power forever so keep it up. The GOP is a dead party with no ideas that will work anyway.
America was built by your " beggar class" and we wil not give it up to a bunch of greedy swindlers or an archaic old man

Click to expand...

He wasn't talking about the middle class. He was talking about the welfare class.

mbig said:

No other candidate from either party will cut spending enough to save this economy/country.

Click to expand...

Neither will Ron Paul. Congress won't let him. You would need a significant number of Ron Paul devotees in Congress for his policies to be passed, and that's just not going to happen.

donsutherland1 said:

IMO, Mbig raises the right issues concerning the need for taking on the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances. The challenge is of a magnitude that spending reductions and revenue increases will be needed.

Click to expand...

First and foremost, thanks for the sincere reply.
There was a string in Feedback I cited/linked earlier about too much trolling going on. Perhaps that poster was exaggerating, but there is Plenty of what I call.. 'drive-by-posting'/wise-cracks, if not outright flaming.

However, I do not believe Ron Paul is the candidate who would move the nation toward a fiscally sustainable course. In the hypothetical but completely unlikely scenario that Ron Paul would win the Presidency, those who elected him would likely be asking what happened to the bold plans to immediately slash $1 trillion in spending in Year 1. That the federal deficit remained large, perhaps even grew, would be a source of disillusionment for many who supported him. The question of the hour would be why did Paul's rhetoric and the reality of a Paul Presidency diverge so sharply?

Click to expand...

He would perhaps Propose that much of a cut, but as we all realize (and thanks to Ikari for pointing it out in any case), he wouldn't get it.

Of course for those who think we don't need his axe/who don't understand how big the problem is. A $1 trillion cut would still leave us with... a $400 billion deficit in, say, this fiscal year! About what I consider livable for now.
The 'regulars' in both parties just failed after months, then agreed to 1 trillion over 10 years of 'soft'/technical 'cuts', IOW, 100 billion a year. Inadequate beyond belief.

The answer would lie both in the nature of his proposals and the leadership capacity of the man himself. If one examines his proposals, he would eliminate five Cabinet-level departments immediately. Among those would be the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Interior. If so, what would happen to the Pell Grants on which account for more than a quarter of all grants received by the nation's undergraduate students even as U.S. college degree attainment has flatlined and is falling relative to its OECD peers? With the elimination of the Commerce Department, the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center would disappear. With the elimination of the Interior Department, who would manage the America's national parks? There is no likelihood Congress would accept such cuts, especially in areas that impact public safety. Foreign aid would also disappear, stripping the nation of a non-military foreign policy tool. Medicaid would be block granted to the states, even as no health care reform is pursued. With medical costs rising, that would translate into higher costs for State governments--in effect, a shifting of costs from the federal government to the states--and governors would strongly oppose such a move. No macroeconomic assumptions are provided, so many estimates are more speculative than usual.

Click to expand...

as a generally progressive poster here, I don't agree with Most of his programs.
But, I don't think most here grasp how deep a hole we're in.
I have no problem, say Combining some of the Depts that he would cut altogether or, ie, merely Halving them.
His $1 Trillion would more likely come out of congress/any congress with cuts of Maybe 300-400 bil in year one.
Enough to put a true dent in the OUR Greek tragedy of a budget.
Anyone else, we'd be lucky to get an [Insignificant] fraction of that.
Beyond any recession, we have a Structural problem.
Unnoticed during our 4 year crisis, the boomers are starting to retire and go on medicare too.

.....As a result, he would likely relegate himself to vetoing spending bills. However, unlike the current situation where Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided on vision, both Parties would have a common stake in overcoming the Paul vetoes. To do so, given past precedent, each side would get something it wants to bring about the 2/3 votes to override the vetoes and rather than leading to fiscal discipline, the bias would lean toward fiscal excess. That would mean more debt and its associated financial and macroeconomic costs. With foreign rivals exploiting Paul's weakness, national security expenditures could actually wind up higher than they would otherwise be.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course there would be stalemate on many issues.
The Proverbial congress/President Zugzwang.
But instead of being gridlocked between deficit increases and larger deficit increases.. the fight would be over how much TO cut, or not.

All said, a Paul Presidency would not mark the beginning of a course toward fiscal sustainability. It would mark more of the same, and perhaps even worse on account of the radical nature of his program (dead on arrival for the most part) and his weak leadership abilities.

Click to expand...

I disagree, see the part of my reply immediately above.
In the unlikely case the American people were to elect Paul, it WOULD [finally] be a sign we Were ready for fiscal responsibility and the whole dynamic would change to... how much we were going to cut. Congress would have to defend the Budget from a Trillion... Again leading to perhaps a third of that in yr one.

And as someone mainly liberal here (see economic section and my posts in this one for that matter), I did have the luxury of knowing it 99% wouldn't happen.
It's as much a statement of how screwed we are with any/all of the basically status quo candidates.
And All of the others are either Lying, or more likely, don't know how big a problem we have.

apdst said:

He wasn't talking about the middle class. He was talking about the welfare class.

Click to expand...

Really? I thought he meant those of us who depend on Social Security and Medicare and don't want them cut so the rich can have more tax cuts.

iguanaman said:

Really? I thought he meant those of us who depend on Social Security and Medicare and don't want them cut so the rich can have more tax cuts.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps the estimated 40%+ who don't pay federal income taxes.

we could ask him who he meant exactly

Simon W. Moon said:

Or perhaps the estimated 40%+ who don't pay federal income taxes.

we could ask him who he meant exactly

Click to expand...

Yea that's just what I thought and sadly that is mostly the middle class after 30 years of Voodoo economics. Why are wages so bad that so many can't afford to pay income taxes? Is that our fault too?

apdst said:

It's not incorrect. What if raising taxes kills jobs? What's been accomplished?

And, there's no way you can say that it won't happen.

Click to expand...

What jobs? Our unemployment has been sustained 9% + for some time, and that's not even the actual unemployment. Tax breaks and friendly laws and loopholes got us to this place. Why would more drive us out of it?

mbig said:

No other candidate from either party will cut spending enough to save this economy/country.
Neither Obama, nor the other GOP candidates has the inclination nor balls to take the Dramatic spending cuts that are needed.
Paul's position used to be cuts for smaller govt, now we need them just to stay afloat and keep the bare social essentials.
We're on our way to completely busted.
So, IMO, it's Paul or the dollar becomes Monopoly money in 3-5 years.

Kyle Bass has characterized the idiotic activity of both parties as (paraphrasing)...
"Two golfers looking at each other across large green... with 100' puts, with 20' breaks, in 30 mph winds..
Saying to each other 'good/good', giving each other puts/You don't touch my entitlements, I won't touch your spending".
And that's over a 'soft' $1 trillion reduction over 10 years when we need, IMO, 5x that.

Of course, he's going to have to let the Bush tax cuts expire as part low-deficit budget as well. That's where we might have a problem with RP. That, along with cutting some muscle as well as fat.
We need to throw the kitchen sink at this deficit and Revenues as well as spending cuts are needed.

sincerely and shockingly,
mostly progressive, but realistic and desperate citizen

Click to expand...

ron paul is just a Neocon trying to masquerade as a Libertarian.

We need the genuine article. . .

Tiffany Briscoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

solletica said:

ron paul is just a Neocon trying to masquerade as a Libertarian.

We need the genuine article. . .

Tiffany Briscoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

solletica said:

ron paul is just a Neocon trying to masquerade as a Libertarian.

We need the genuine article. . .

Tiffany Briscoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

You don't even know what a neoconservative is.

Fiddytree said:

You don't even know what a neoconservative is.

Click to expand...

Indeed, Paul is about as close to being the polar opposite of a neocon as you can get.

Last night, I was watching C-SPAN as they were talking about the Iowa Caucuses. Some guy got on the phone discussing his love for his savior, Ron Paul. He discussed how all the other politicians are slaves to AIPAC, Israel, the Jews, the 6 million, etc etc etc. Then, he was cut off.

I'm sorry, but anyone who gets such support, has lost mine. See ya in Texas, RP.

megaprogman said:

:lol: yeah, there always seems to be a "the sky is falling" type of fear with most of the ron paul supporters I know.

Click to expand...

A 76-year-old Chicken Little seeking hens to follow him to their universal truism of "the sky is falling!"

mbig said:

No other candidate from either party will cut spending enough to save this economy/country.
Neither Obama, nor the other GOP candidates has the inclination nor balls to take the Dramatic spending cuts that are needed.
Paul's position used to be cuts for smaller govt, now we need them just to stay afloat and keep the bare social essentials.
We're on our way to completely busted.
So, IMO, it's Paul or the dollar becomes Monopoly money in 3-5 years.

Kyle Bass has characterized the idiotic activity of both parties as (paraphrasing)...
"Two golfers looking at each other across large green... with 100' puts, with 20' breaks, in 30 mph winds..
Saying to each other 'good/good', giving each other puts/You don't touch my entitlements, I won't touch your spending".
And that's over a 'soft' $1 trillion reduction over 10 years when we need, IMO, 5x that.

Of course, he's going to have to let the Bush tax cuts expire as part low-deficit budget as well. That's where we might have a problem with RP. That, along with cutting some muscle as well as fat.
We need to throw the kitchen sink at this deficit and Revenues as well as spending cuts are needed.

sincerely and shockingly,
mostly progressive, but realistic and desperate citizen

Click to expand...

I find it quite funny that people are talking about a Romney administration as if it would be different from the Obama administration.

It won't be.

Obama is no longer about hope and change that he campaigned for and was elected on. Rather, Obama is about the establishment that he and the Congressmen and Senators are paid by lobbyists to legislate for.

And Romney isn't about overturning Obama's policies. Rather, Romney is about the establishment that he and the Congressmen and Senators are paid by lobbyists to legislate for.

And no matter which of them are elected President, the corporations are going to continue to use lobby money to bribe legislators to write laws that favor them.

That's why, no matter what happens this year, I'm voting for Ron Paul for President.

Because voting for anybody else doesn't matter because everybody else is the same.

samsmart said:

I find it quite funny that people are talking about a Romney administration as if it would be different from the Obama administration.

It won't be.

Click to expand...

The biggest campaign weapon for Obama will be Obamacare IS Romneycare, with the same drafters.
This will sting mightily in the GOP camp and many don't like Romney for that reason already.

Obama is no longer about hope and change that he campaigned for and was elected on. Rather, Obama is about the establishment that he and the Congressmen and Senators are paid by lobbyists to legislate for.

Click to expand...

Whatever Obama thought his Presidency was going to be about didn't matter; he stepped into 1929.

And Romney isn't about overturning Obama's policies. Rather, Romney is about the establishment that he and the Congressmen and Senators are paid by lobbyists to legislate for.

And no matter which of them are elected President, the corporations are going to continue to use lobby money to bribe legislators to write laws that favor them.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

That's why, no matter what happens this year, I'm voting for Ron Paul for President.
Because voting for anybody else doesn't matter because everybody else is the same.

Click to expand...

That's the thing.
No one else will change anything significantly enough to alter our rendezvous with Bankruptcy.
Paul wouldn't get everything he wanted if elected, but even 1/3 would help/be about right for now and change the DC dynamic.

j-mac said:

Paul, will not win the nomination largely because he is simply not electable. If you are voting for this arrogant jack ass, you may as well vote for Obama.


j-mac

Click to expand...

How prophetic. Nearly all Ron Paul supporters will be voting for Obama unless Paul goes 3rd party. Either way, the majority of Ron Paul supporters ultimately are anti-Republician Obama supporters.

If Ron Paul somehow became the Republican nominee, Republicans would lose thousands of elections at the local, county, state and federal level, and Obama would have both Houses of Congress to get 100% of whatever he really wants.

Reversing the Civil War outcome to instead have the Constitution of the Confederacy with the King James Bible circumventing even that constitution is not a viable option.

AdamT said:

Indeed, Paul is about as close to being the polar opposite of a neocon as you can get.

Click to expand...

Which would be a rather attractive quality.

joko104 said:

How prophetic. Nearly all Ron Paul supporters will be voting for Obama unless Paul goes 3rd party. Either way, the majority of Ron Paul supporters ultimately are anti-Republician Obama supporters.

Click to expand...

Wow... I'd sure like to see the proof behind that allegation.

mbig said:

No other candidate from either party will cut spending enough to save this economy/country.
Neither Obama, nor the other GOP candidates has the inclination nor balls to take the Dramatic spending cuts that are needed.
Paul's position used to be cuts for smaller govt, now we need them just to stay afloat and keep the bare social essentials.
We're on our way to completely busted.
So, IMO, it's Paul or the dollar becomes Monopoly money in 3-5 years .....

Of course, he's going to have to let the Bush tax cuts expire as part low-deficit budget as well. That's where we might have a problem with RP. That, along with cutting some muscle as well as fat.
We need to throw the kitchen sink at this deficit and Revenues as well as spending cuts are needed.

sincerely and shockingly,
mostly progressive, but realistic and desperate citizen

Click to expand...

Whatever chance Paul had evaporated with the revelations about "racism" in his newsletters and on his web site.

Paul will continue to "fight the good fight" in the hopes of widening his base for when his son takes his place in the 2016.

poweRob said:

Wow... I'd sure like to see the proof behind that allegation.

Click to expand...

Extreeeamly unlikely that the majority of Paul supporters would vote for Obama. Recent PPP poll shows that a third party run by Gary Johnson -- the other libertarian -- would swing the election about 3 points in favor of Obama vs. no Johnson candidacy.

Hatuey said:

Ron Paul, the Messiah, will bring salvation.

Click to expand...

He ain't no messiah, and none of his supporters would think so. Just an honest man not afraid to tell the cameras and the People what his real political platform is.

AdamT said:

We don't need dramatic spending cuts. We need significant spending cuts and significant tax hikes. Trying to tackle the debt problem through spending cuts alone is idiotic.

Click to expand...

But to raise taxes in this economic situation is suicide.

Historical evidence has shown that when economies lack you cut taxes. When the economy picks back up you raise taxes. Its worked over and over again.

As far as spending, we can cut out everything the Fed doesnt have the power or authority to spend on per the Constitution (politicians HATE that word) and eliminate it. Eliminate duplicate agencies, the CBO found we could cut $400B a year just by doing that.

Ron Paul is also right when he says bring home all our troops from all over the world. That alone will save us billions more. Reopen and update the closed bases here. It will create jobs and help build local economies, it will also create more revenue through income tax from those new people working again.

Ron Paul is also right that we need a complete and through audit of the Reserve.
Ron Paul is also right about non-interventionism, what other countries do in their own country is their own business, not ours and it becomes our business once it adversely effects us and not before.
Ron Paul is also right that we need to utilize our own resources, efficiently and with regard to the environment and not rely on other countries for our energy.

I agree Ron Paul, is the only man willing to make it a priority to save the U.S. economy and bring our brave soldiers home, the rest are sellouts. Do not trust internet posters who call themselves American but do not stand up for the American people

Imnukingfutz said:

But to raise taxes in this economic situation is suicide.

Historical evidence has shown that when economies lack you cut taxes. When the economy picks back up you raise taxes. Its worked over and over again.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's not a good idea to raise taxes when the economy is sucking wind. It's also not a good idea to cut spending when the economy is sucking wind, for the same reason. But when the economy is on a more solid footing we will need to do both.