In addition, he is the only candidate who even has an interest in shrinking the National Debt. 1st year in office He will shrink 1 Trillion dollars off the debt. Everybody else talks about continuing to spend and make our money even more worthless than it already is. He is also one of the only candidates who isn't already bought and paid for from the big corporations.
He's got a plan. But the plan consists of the sort of cuts that would, as screwtape said, be pretty catastrophic if implemented. Luckily we'll never have to find out since these are also cuts that, in their totality, have no real support from any corner of Washington or from the public more broadly. With that in mind, I'm not sure that it's right to say that he's actually interested in shrinking our debt. At best, I think it would be fair to say that he's been interested in changing the way we talk about the issue, which is a step in the same direction but not quite the same thing.
See, people that are serious about changing things tend to actually build coalitions and get things passed, often times incrementally. Ron Paul hasn't been interested in that. It's no surprise then that he is one of the least accomplished legislaters in the House despite his long tenure. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that's even necessarily a knock against him. I think that he sees what he's been doing as sort of laying the necessary intellectual ground work to make it possible for current and future politicians to change things--his son in particular. And that's fine but it's not really the same as being the only one on the stage serious about debt reduction as you seem to want to frame it.
Like everyone else, he's only serious about the idea of debt reduction.
He wants them eliminated so they can be provided and ran at a state level. He is looking at weak federal government and a strong state government. With all the things the federal government has done, I think this is indeed a good thing.
I don't. As a person of color I look at this issue with a particular concern in mind. The states have proven historically and continue to prove that the notion that states rights will somehow translate into a freer citizenry is fundamentally flawed. You can see it when you look back at poll tests and taxes prior to the Voting Rights Act and you can see it in these new voter ID laws, which are aimed at supressing minority turn out in the name of fighting the almost non-existent crime of voter fraud. This is not to say that the federal government can't do bad things too. It does. I just don't buy the argument that we ought to leave everything to the states.
Not really. Some of them need to be done away with at a federal level, especially homeland security and foreign aid for examples. If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.
A couple of things here. To begin with, I just don't think that our national debt is the most important issue we're facing right now. It's an issue in the short term only insofar as creditors believe or don't believe that we'll eventually get our house in order. In the mean time, folks seem to think that US treasury bonds are a safe bet and are therefore willing to finance our debt for the time being. With that being the case, I just don't think you can justify treating our debt as our first priority. There are more pressing matters. And really, I think that if we're serious about reducing our debt, foreign aid is a bad place to start. It's a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. In the immediate term, reducing the unemployment rate would be perhaps the single most effective thing we could do to move our budget into balance. And if that's our goal, we'd do well to do a bit of deficit spending.
In any case, I think the concerns that we'll inevitably be reduced to a third world country by the weight of our debt are kind of overblown. We have a debt to GDP ratio of 102 percent. That's a little less than what Greece has. And while conservatives love pointing that out, they never mention that Greece doesn't have its own monitary policy. Furthermore, there was a time in this country's history, WW2, where the debt soared, eventually ballooning to over 250 percent of GDP. Japan is at around 200 right now. And while that's not exactly the best position to be in, I don't think I'd call Japan a third world country.
And here is a misconception of Ron Paul bashers. He is not going to be able to do this overnight. He is going to be trickling it down little by little, kind of like what Obama is doing with our Military and National Defense. If he does this overnight, of course it will be catastrophic, he’s not stupid. He’s not going from one extreme to the other. He’s going to wean us off, which will be a good thing.
If he doesn't think that he is going to be able to do this overnight, why is he advertising his plan to do this overnight as a selling point? And if you know that he doesn't plan on doing this overnight, then why are you crediting him for saying that he has a plan to do this overnight?
Over and over again, the RP haters must play ring around the Rosie with this stupid claim because it literally is all they have, other than personal insults.
To begin with, the fact that you felt the need to rebut screwtape's post demonstrates that this point is false. There are plenty of places where we dreaded Ron Paul haters can disagree with him pointedly. The long and short of it for me is this. Ron Paul seems to want to live in a pre-New Deal, pre-Civil Rights legislation America. I don't want to live in that America. My black ass couldn't vote in that America.
More importantly, I really fail to see how this is a "stupid claim." What exactly is stupid about the claim? Is it untrue?
I'll take one racist claim in a magazine that He didn't even write well over 20 years ago and that's it as opposed to a theocrat, a Barack Obama version 2 with flip-flops added in, or a man who lies to our face about his many wives in addition thinks it's better to fire us so we can have 30 children working our jobs for .25 per hour and saying that helps the economy, or a man who has signed in The Patriot Act and the new NDAA bills despite promising to veto them.
It wasn't one racist claim in a magazine. It was a series of racist magazines. It was years and years worth of bile preaching impending race wars, misinformation about homosexuals, AIDs, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories etc. And Ron Paul made a hefty profit from it. The idea that I should excuse it or ignore it because it was written by someone else just doesn't make a lot of sense as a defense. Going back to my previous post, that just means that he either 1.) approved of this or he 2.) was unable to control what went out under his name. Neither possibility really makes me pine for a Ron Paul presidency.
On a side note, Obama promised to veto a version of the NDAA because of a provision in the bill that would have forced his administration to turn terrorism supsects over to military custody. The language of the bill was changed to accomidate this. He signed the bill. You can debate whether or not he should have signed the bill, which everyone should remember funded the entire military, but on this one, I don't think it's right to say he flip flopped.
Peace and Love