Ron Paul, alas, is the Only choice.

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

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.

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...

Who are you responding to?
I said we need 'dramatic' cuts and revenue/tax raising.
you said....... 'significant' cuts and revenue/tax raising.

You 'disagreed' with whom I don't know. But your nearly incoherent repetition, posed as strawman 'opposition' to my post got two 'likes' from those who 'understood' just as poorly as you.
I have always found your posts disingenuous.. and here we are Again.

So what politician do you imagine is going to make those 'significant' [enough] cuts? NONE but Paul I posted has shown any penchant for such.
Aside from not replying straightforwardly, there's a more than 'significant' chance you have little idea of how deep a hole we're in.

Ron Paul, the Messiah, will bring salvation.

mbig said:

Who are you responding to?
I said we need 'dramatic' cuts and revenue/tax raising.
you said....... 'significant' cuts and revenue/tax raising.

You 'disagreed' with whom I don't know. But your nearly incoherent repetition, posed as strawman 'opposition' to my post got two 'likes' from those who 'understood' just as poorly as you.
I have always found your posts disingenuous.. and here we are Again.

So what politician do you imagine is going to make those 'significant' [enough] cuts? NONE but Paul I posted has shown any penchant for such.
Aside from not replying straightforwardly, there's a more than 'significant' chance you have little idea of how deep a hole we're in.

Click to expand...

I disagree with Paul's platforms, I think many of his economic policies are things of the past, like the gold standard. But I liked you're post because that one speaks the good truth.

Hatuey said:

Ron Paul, the Messiah, will bring salvation.

Click to expand...

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

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

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...

Taking more money away from successful people to spend on the beggar class and fund the runaway bloated federal government is idiotic unless your only objective is to make the class envious tools feel better about their miserable stations in life......which is also an idiotic objective.

While not a fan of Ron Paul, I would crawl through broken glass covered in acid to vote for him over BO.

Last I checked the President needs Congress to pass his economic plans, and if Ron Paul becomes President Congress won't pass his plans. Many members of his own party dislike him or think he's crazy. He has some allies in congress, his son and some other tea partiers. But he will get nowhere near the 50% approval needed to pass his economic plans. So even if he were to become President he would be a failure.

So guys do you think anyone except Paul would do anything about the Patriot act or the law that allows the government to treat American citizens like terrorists and hold them without trial? I can't think of one.

Considering that he won't be able to do his economic goals, it seems like you have nothing to fear, imho.

Paul is the only choice...if you hate America,
Paul is the only choice...if you want to repeal the 20th and 19th century.
Paul is the only choice...except for all the other choices.

Henrin said:

Considering that he won't be able to do his economic goals, it seems like you have nothing to fear, imho.

Click to expand...

There is still his foreign policy.

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...

I've always despised the "If you vote for X, your're really voting for Y" argument, mostly due to its innate stupidity and dishonesty. Voting for Ron Paul is not equivalent to voting for Obama, it's equivalent to voting for Ron Paul. He's the only one out there honest about his political platform and philosophy and has the integrity to stand by it. He's the only GOP candidate I could vote for. If not him, then I'll be voting 3rd party.

Redress said:

Paul is the only choice...if you hate America,
Paul is the only choice...if you want to repeal the 20th and 19th century.
Paul is the only choice...except for all the other choices.

Click to expand...

Your propaganda is terrible! "If you hate America", come on, that's over done. Let's see some effort in your smear propaganda. If you're going to engage in it you may as well do it right.

Redress said:

Paul is the only choice...if you hate America,
Paul is the only choice...if you want to repeal the 20th and 19th century.
Paul is the only choice...except for all the other choices.

Click to expand...

wow, that's some hyperbole there.

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.

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?

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.

The nature of the Paul proposal would require strong leadership to implement even a few of its core elements. It's easy to offer easy formulas or bold slogans. It's far more difficult to translate vision into policy. During his tenure in Congress, Paul has not demonstrated the kind of leadership that brings people together. He has had just one piece of legislation adopted into law. On macroeconomic policy, foreign policy, national security policy, he has found himself in a tiny minority. During the financial crisis, he had an opportunity to distinguish himself as a bold leader. He opposed TARP and could then have offered a substitute. He had nothing to offer even as he has cast himself as a leader on economic policy. In recent discussions concerning the Strait of Hormuz, he indicated, consistent with his neo-isolationist policy, that he would not use military force to overcome an Iranian blockade, even as a third of the world's oil exports pass through the Strait. Instead, he indicated that he would meekly report to Congress and leave the policy making to Congress. Both examples point to an exceptionally weak leader. Weakness is exploited.

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.

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.

Ikari said:

Your propaganda is terrible! "If you hate America", come on, that's over done. Let's see some effort in your smear propaganda. If you're going to engage in it you may as well do it right.

Click to expand...

\

It's no worse than Paul propaganda, and not nearly as bad as the Paul backers. I mean, unless we elect Paul we are told the US will spy on all of us, will be at war with everyone and go bankrupt.

Thunder said:

wow, that's some hyperbole there.

Click to expand...

No kidding? Really?

The above was said with heavy sarcasm. Of course it was hyperbole. It was designed that way.

I'd rather have Angelia Jolie...at least we'd have something nice to look at while we were screwed.

donsutherland1 said:

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...

You do hit on one of the main points, many of his ideals are dramatic and much of what would be required for Congress to pass would be a hard battle. He will try for it, he said he would and unlike the rest of the GOP contenders, that means he's going to do it if given the opportunity. How much will he accomplish? Not as much as he wants, there will need to be compromise. Now does it mean that it will be more of the same? No I don't. I think that he has the ability to directly affect a lot and he would take those steps. I don't think that with Ron Paul, for instance, we'd see the continuation of our foreign wars. He may want to end the Fed and go the gold standard; but that won't happen. But what it could do is stir actual talk and debate about it and get people perhaps interested in what the Fed is doing. It could result in new regulations for the Fed and better oversight; which would be a good thing.

In the end, Dr. Paul does take an extreme stance on a lot of what he wants to do. But this is a democratic Republic, not some monarchy. So even if Paul wants to take these huge steps, he must be tempered with compromise. It won't be more of the same, but it will be a step in the right direction. A direction we haven't taken for quite some time.

Redress said:

\

It's no worse than Paul propaganda, and not nearly as bad as the Paul backers. I mean, unless we elect Paul we are told the US will spy on all of us, will be at war with everyone and go bankrupt.

Click to expand...

They're already spying, we are already at war, and we're already bankrupt. If that's what they are saying, then they need to get with the times.

partier9 said:

Last I checked the President needs Congress to pass his economic plans, and if Ron Paul becomes President Congress won't pass his plans. Many members of his own party dislike him or think he's crazy. He has some allies in congress, his son and some other tea partiers. But he will get nowhere near the 50% approval needed to pass his economic plans. So even if he were to become President he would be a failure.

Click to expand...

I think this would leave us better off than our other choices. Better off in the sense of not as bad off as we would be otherwise. I think a Paul presidency would do us the least harm.

Wiseone said:

I disagree with Paul's platforms, I think many of his economic policies are things of the past, like the gold standard.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I agree with Paul when it comes to foreign policy and his analysis of some of our social issues, such as the War on Drugs,/Terror. But he is outdated and ideologically dogmatic when it comes to fiscal policy, is pretty strongly pro-life and we do not see eye to eye on gay rights. I can't abide by that, so no vote.

Sorry.

Simon W. Moon said:

I think this would leave us better off than our other choices. Better off in the sense of not as bad off as we would be otherwise. I think a Paul presidency would do us the least harm.

Click to expand...

Generally I would agree with you that having nothing happen is better than the solutions that Washington comes up with. However I feel that we have come to the point where we actually need someone to do somthing because four more years of gridlock might seriously hurt this country. We need someone who can get both parties to work together and come up with an almost workable solution, not someone who will futher alienate both sides like Paul will. Thats why in the NH primary im voting for Huntsman.