I'm talking about the effects of these cuts in their totality. So I'm not sure how commenting on the relative newness of the Federal Reserve or the Department of Homeland Security relates to this point. (And besides, in his 2013 budget, Ron Paul only proposes auditing the Fed, which I'm not in principle opposed to.)
Well, the newness comment is about how devastating such and such will be if even the thought of removing it will cause, despite the fact that at least 75% of the history of the USA never had it or needed it. A ton of stuff we have today is because of the Great Depression. I wonder what USA would be like had that never happened. By the end of the night though, it’s all about budgeting, which Paul’s the only person who’s even bringing that up.
As far as my claim that Ron Paul is not really interested in attacking our debt, I guess I should clarify. I don't doubt that he sincerely wants the debt to be reduced. I don't even doubt that he believes in the budget he's been campaiging on. But believing in something isn't the same as doing something. And Ron Paul has, thus far, not been doing something. Point me to the legislation he's passed to deal with our debt and I will reconsider my position. So yeah, you ask what part of his record I'm referencing. That's it right there. I'm talking about his legislative record. As far as I can tell, the evidence would suggest that he's only interested in talking about our debt.
I admit that this is something I’m researching on. I know that Paul has a bad legislative record only in terms of bills being passed, so it’s not what’s passed, but what he has supported that needs to be looked at. In that term, he has a pretty great record for the people.
Here are quite a few bills from links that state what he has supported:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paulhttp://ronpaulcountry.com/content/legislation-ron-paul-tried-passhttp://www.dailypaul.com/81920/a-list-of-ron-paul-legislation-question-have-any-of-rons-bills-been-passedhttp://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-02/ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-cancel-americas-ficticious-1-6-trillion-debt-to-the-federal-reserve-lower-the-debt-limit-by-the-same-amount/
This one bill up above, directly deals with what you are asking, and it indeed is recent and new, but it’s still there. The other 3 however, are bills that he has pushed but were rejected, however, they were for exactly what we are discussing about among other areas. I apologize that I go well beyond the debt and post the entire history, but at the same time, it seems anything and everything we do is going to be related to the debt in some way, shape, or form so it makes sense to post everything.
If needs be, we can talk about individual bills that he personally supported or tried to pass to get a better understanding of such.
And a video that is interesting to me is predictions that Ron Paul made based off of his observations to what we were doing:
Again, this isn't a knock against him. He's proposing a vision of governance that is different from what the major parties are promoting. You can't just hop from the status quo to that vision without first persuading the public to make that jump with you.
Very true. I am going to also say that even if you don’t like Paul himself, the media is helping him in persuading the public to join him, because he’s the only candidate who is being bullied by the big corporations and by the mainstream media. Even when he was non-existent in 2008, he still had the strongest internet support, which at the time was his only support. Now that they have to show him, notice the huge impact he has been making.
It is what you said, different governance from the majority parties, that makes me support him, because I personally despise the current form of government. If you wish, I’ll make a rant that has nothing to do with Ron Paul or candidates as to why I said such.
That being said, I just don't think that a person like this should get to be held up as the only "consistent" person or whatever you like.
Consistency is a sign of character, honesty, and trustworthiness. At this point, Obama and Paul are the only trustworthy ones for Presidency. Obama and Paul both have a couple skeletons under their closets, but in comparison to Pope Santorum, Polyamorous Gingrinch, and 1% Romney, those 2 are pretty much “saints” compared to the rest of Presidential candidates.
President Obama and Paul's opponents in the Republican primary are people that, for better or worse, were actually interested in passing and implimenting legislation. That means that these people have had to sacrifice ideological purity on the alter of legislative and electoral success from time to time.
However, just because those can pass legislation, doesn’t mean that is a good thing. The proof is in the paper and ink. Some of the things that our govt want to pass will indeed have devastating effects. The Keystone Pipeline is a huge example for today. The whole anti-environment status the current Repubs represent will eventually have us breathing smog instead of air, drinking tar instead of water, and will be broke because we are having to go to their doctors all the time, because our environment in no longer habitable.
Sometimes, stagnation is better than heading in a downward spiral. Sometimes, it’s better than no legislation to pass, than to have negative legislation pass. It all depends on what is on that paper with the ink, and the signatures.
You do and you don't. I mean, yes, you have an easier time influencing the race for the governor of your state than you do the president of the United States. But that also means that interest groups and corporations are that much more influential as well.
Is that any less true at the state level? I mean right now, the governor of Wisconson is facing a recall because he and the Republicans in the legislature chose to make attacking public sector unions one of their primary goals. This despite the fact that it was something that they did not campaign on.
Couldn't we say the same thing about expecting better results from the states? We've tried that before too. And it didn't work out too well.
And as I've already pointed out, even under the current system, state capitals are working at things like suppressing minority turn out through voter ID laws. Then there's the new immigration laws of states like Arizona and Alabama. I just don't see any reason to believe that things would be better if only we gave people like Jan Brewer more power.
Very True, but what does that tell you about the current state of government? This is why I feel that the remarks about RP’s government to be of the 1800s not necessarily a bad thing.
The fact that this happens on both a state and federal level is just sickening. This is the reasons for the downward spiral and the whole 1% vs. 99% that’s going on today, since it’s the 1% who control everything.
All this talk about bribes and such, let us check out guys like George Washington. How much was his pay as the 1st President of the US? What kind of bribes did he accept?
Point being the question: What does that tell you about today’s government?
Forgive me, but as a black man, I'm immediately suspicious of claims that power needs to be returned back to the states.
I don’t blame you neither. Certain states are still filled with racists who look down on minorities, and our govt. is still not favorable towards minorities. However though, it is a game of risk, but the question is, are you willing to take the risk?
Not really. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all in favor of savaging the social safety net. They support the Ryan budget. And they, like Ron Paul, are opposed to a woman's right to choose. The idea that they're more of the same, as if there's complete continuity between Republican and Democratic administrations is just nonsensical.
Of course you are going to see some forms of similarities between everybody, a big one Santorum is using lately is Obamacare vs. Romneycare, which as Santorum says, is the same thing!
Despite Paul’s stance on abortion, he feels that it should be up to the states and not him to accept, reject, support, or abolish abortion. He is not letting his beliefs get in the way of the states. He is probably the closest pro-choice candidate of the 4 repubs, since Gingrinch, Santorum, and Romney oppose abortion on all fronts, and want’s a national abortion ban pretty much. If abortion alone is the subject, Obama is the best choice since he’s the pro-choice candidate.
Is that really even true though? In this country, we have all sorts of programs ranging from Medicaid and section 8 housing to the earned income tax credit and Pell Grants designed to help the lower middle and lower classes. With this in mind, I'm not sure how using a little under one percent of our budget to assist other nations constitutes shunning our people.
This is True. We do have federal programs that help us out as well. What the shunning that I’m thinking of is the whole “welfare” thing. It’s pretty imbalanced at the moment. Right now, we are at the extremes, either live off of the govt free and clear, or let them starve and die. Our govt atm is the live free and clear, which is costing us money. The ideal is in the right place, but the expense is not on the corporations, but on those who are trying to make it to live. Pretty much the ones who should take care of these people are the ones sucking up the money, while those who should not be taking care of them, are, which in turn, is turning us into the exact same people that we are trying to take care of whether we were asked to or not.
Right here I suppose it's worth pointing out that Ron Paul supports abolishing the minimum wage and that he contends that this would actually lower unemployment.
Personally, I would disagree with Paul here. In my opinion, the Minimum wage means the minimum amount needed to live a decent life without excess. In my opinion, the Minimum Wage would be at least $10 per hour, not the current $7.25 like today. But, this is a double edged sword here.
To begin with, Ron Paul demanding or getting rid of minimum wage of it’s own does nothing. It is the corporations who deem it worthy to give you $2 an hour or $20 an hour. If Paul rids minimum wage, and the corporations start paying you $3.25, it’s the corporation’s fault not Pauls.
In addition though, this goes in line with us opting out of Social Security, no Taxes at all, no requirement for insurance etc. Every job I have ever gotten that pays taxes, with all the benefits I have to pay into, I get around $100-$200 taken out of my paycheck every single paycheck. I get paid bi-weekly so you are talking about $200-$400 that I have earned, I have taken away from me. It does not matter whether I was at minimum wage McDonalds or where I’m making a decent paycheck now at my current job. So, depending on what goes on, if everything is abolished the way Paul wants it, you could actually be making more money than the current standard.
This is the problem though, this is merely a game of risk with the corporations holding all the cards, but your life on the line. What Minimum wage is, is a safety net, but with most middle-poor class people and they’ll tell you, the safety net isn’t so much a safety net, as they still have to get food stamps to be able to even get to eat a meal. Many of our people have to make a choice, either pay the rent for a roof over the head, or pay a few bucks for a meal so you won’t starve.
Although I’m trying to see the benefit of what Paul’s talking about if EVERYTHING is cut and not just minimum wage, I ultimately think we do need a minimum wage and should be at least $10 an hour.
This will be one of those things that I disagree with Ron Paul on, as it will not help the poor as he claims.
Bold mine. You've answered your own question. The cuts that we were calling "catestrophic," that 1 trillion you're referencing here, are the cuts in Ron Paul's 2013 budget. While I suppose cutting 1 trillion dollars over 1 fiscal year isn't technically overnight, I'd hope that you would excuse the colloquialism.
Very True. However, after doing some research that you asked me to do, I now see what you meant, and it actually may be literally overnight, and is shown by that one bill in the link above, that I will re-post here.http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-02/ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-cancel-americas-ficticious-1-6-trillion-debt-to-the-federal-reserve-lower-the-debt-limit-by-the-same-amount/
Given his high praise of and association with the Birchers, I'm not sure that titles like "quack" or "odd-ball" are unearned. And nah, when Ron Paul talks about the Civil War he tends to talk about it as if it were avoidable and/or the result of overzealousness on Lincoln's part. But I don't want to get into that. If you're interested in some discussion of how Ron Paul's views of the Civil War square with reality, I'd suggest heading over to Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog at the Atlantic.
I haven’t had the time, but I’ll look into it. Thank you.
And now we're getting silly. To begin with, no, Ron Paul does not have most of the military behind him. I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that he has raised the most money from people who work for the military of any candidate. But that's not quite the same thing as having a majority of military support. If you're aware of a poll that suggests that Ron Paul has majority support, I'd love to see it.
Looking, I can’t find any polls on anything. But it is True though about the raised the most money from the people who work for the military. It looks like I was mixing the 2, so I concede.
But moving on, if I'm following you're argument, you're saying that Ron Paul enjoys support from the armed services and in the armed services blacks are overrepresented, so there are black people support Ron Paul? Okay. But you didn't need to mention the military for me to concede this point. One of my best friends from college is a very strong, black Ron Paul supporter. In his case, he, like you, simply brushes off the issue when we've discussed the issue of these newsletters. Like you, he thinks that this was settled some time ago.
Well, I brought military into it to not pigeon-hole the argument into a certain sect. Perhaps I shouldn’t have done such. My bad.
I don't think that any of that makes him, or for that matter you, racist against anyone. There's nothing in Ron Paul's curent platform that's racist. In fact, he's the only major political figure that's speaking out against one of the greatest ongoing racial injustices in this country--our drug war.
I agree. But every time somebody mentions racism, he points to the drug war, which is correct. Watching all these prison shows like Jail, Police Women of ___ County, Beyond Scared Straight, you are talking about a HUGE black people population, and helps show there is something up with the racism in our govt. system. Even if he comes from a racist past, he is wanting to do something about the racism today within our government.
This statement here, I agree with you.
On a side note, to go back to Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'd recommend this piece:
It's kind of where I'm coming from with Ron Paul.
I’ll look into it eventually. Thank you.
I don't know man, I doubt Ron Paul wants to do anything to specifically target blacks but he's pretty staunchly anti-choice.
How so? His campaign, and records show the opposite.
And for me, that's one of those disqualifying issues. Furthermore, I don't trust the states to protect the rights of homosexuals or religious and/or ethnic minorities.
But then what is your opinion on the Federal level? Do you think the Feds are doing a better job protecting your rights than the possibility of the states?
Both the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind enjoyed overwhelming, bipartisan support when they were initially enacted. Both pieces of legislation had more than enough support to overcome a veto, so I'm not sure how Ron Paul was going to save us from ourselves there. In the case of SOPA/PIPA, there isn't enough support to pass either measure as they're currently written. And the new NDAA doesn't really do as much to change existing law as its opponents would like to suggest.
Knowledge is power. What needs to be done, is to have an unbiased media that is about the facts alone, kind of like how we filter the bullshit of religion. We need to be up-to-date with the facts and Truth, and not with these political agendas. That is the only way we can save us from ourselves so that way we look at things with logic and reason rather than emotions. Had we not been so emotionally attached to Patriot when it was enacted, it wouldn’t have passed. Fear was the leader when it passed, not reason.
That's really not how things happened. To begin with, Paul has never answered these claims "boldly and honestly." He's been pretty inconsistant and sometimes downright cowardly and dishonest on this topic.
In 1996, he defended his newsletters against attacks from a Democratic challanger. He claimed that quotes were being taken out of context and argued that the claim that ""Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" is something like a cold statistical fact. You can read more about that here:
By 2008 he was going on CNN claiming to have had no knowledge of who wrote those newsletters--a strange claim given his previous defense of the newsletters and this old bit from the Dallas Morning News, which is referenced in that Matt Welch piece above:
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.
This fits with more recent reporting from the Washington Post that has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that Ron Paul was very much aware of what was going on with those newsletters:
You have given me much to look into, so I’ll back off on the racism till I can get this answered. If I bring this up, just re-post this or re-direct me.
Yeah the one about rioting only stopping because the blacks had to pick up their welfare checks.
To be honest, I didn’t see that as a racism quote towards blacks. I think that was more attacking the corporations that despite we have laws forbidding racism when it comes to employment, many companies are still very racist against blacks in hiring them, so since the companies won’t hire blacks, they have to go on welfare and eventually seeing this.
I think that was a knock on the racism towards blacks by the corporations than saying black people cause riots. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting it, so I won’t say this is what he meant. I’ll have to look more into it.
That's the most frequently cited quote. But it's just one of many examples. If you're interested, I'd check out the piece that sparked this whole thing again back in 2008:
It was behind a pay wall but now it looks like they're letting everyone check it out, probably since it's in the news again. And here's an update with links to pdf files of the original newsletters themselves:
Giving me to much stuff to look into. Thank you!
C'mon dude. To begin with, you've proven in this post that you're in no position to judge the claim of racism if all you know about the letters was that they once said something bad about black people in Los Angeles. That's just the tip of the ice berg. Again, there are years and years of this stuff. So no, this is not a guilt by association argument. This is about what we should take away from the fact that Ron Paul put this garbage out in his name for so many years.
Perhaps, but I’m only going off the info the racist claims are coming from. The only one I hear about at all is the LA blacks one. It would be a much easier argument for you to post multiple sources, as you did. So now I got to take a break, step back and look at what you have presented.
It may be a correct statement, but the side claiming racism is only using 1 little source, instead of many differing sources.
Those just aren't valid comparisons. To begin with, it was Ron Paul's company. These newsletters went out under his name. I see no reason to think that he did not have the final say, whether or not he actually exercised that level of control. The people that wrote these things were his employees. Secondly, we're not talking about one oversight here and there. We're talking about years and years of inflamatory material being put out for years. The newsletters cited in that TNR piece I link span from 1978 to 1994. (Though most of the really nasty stuff is in the ones from after 1985.)
Anyway, all that said, I don't know that any of this makes Ron Paul a racist. But it does show that he was willing to traffic in racism for his own financial gain. This really isn't a problem for me. Ron Paul's politics are not mine. I feel no need to defend him. But I think I can understand what grappling with this issue must be like for someone who does share Paul's views. It's tough.
It’s about stating the facts. By the end of the night though, it’s all speculation since we weren’t there printing articles for the RP newsletter. We will need to look into Paul’s history during this time to see if he was really overseeing things, or if he demanded they be placed, or if it was only allowed for monetary gain.
Although I do share most of Paul’s views, I am no Ron Paul. I am simply myself, so I do know I am going to have differing views from him at times.
It does make you think however. But in the worst case scenario, if Paul’s actually a KKK member for example, the majority of what he says does need to be heard. It is difficult though because of the racism being involved however.
Not ignoring MadBunny. I’ll get to his next.