A couple of things you might want to check out before supporting Ron Paul

[pbrinton]

I know candidates cannot always control who their supporters are or what they say, but it is clear that these people strongly approve of Ron Paul's message, and want to get him elected.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t836078/

And then this is from 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4ArUoyuDd74

There is much fair criticism one could level at the United Nations, but this is crazy talk.

I know he is right about the wars and about the Federal Reserve and a couple of other hot button issues, but you have to consider the whole man and all of his views. A quick and incomplete overview:

Do you agree with him on health policy (he is against any kind of universal health plan), on deregulation of corporations (he would eliminate all federal regulatory bodies), on immigration (he would end birthright citizenship, amnesty programs, the DREAM act etc.)? He says he would eliminate HUD, which would instantly end Section 8 housing subsidies, (resulting in a large increase in homelessness) and on and on. I know government departments come in for a lot of criticism, much of it justified, but things like food safety (for instance) do not come for free. The solution is to run government properly, not eliminate it. Government, properly run, is our bulwark against the power of the wealthy and their paid minions. Ron Paul would throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.

Patrick Brinton

["Mad" Miles]

Patrick, overall I agree with your concerns about Ron Paul.

One exception, you write that Paul is, "right about the Fed". This is one of his big issues and one of the primary messages his acolytes trumpet. But he's very, very wrong.

In looking for accessible discussions over the past two years, on this matter, this is the best I've found, otherwise one must wade through pages and pages of internet comment discussions, to get this perspective.

I have a feeling, without being in their circles, that mainstream professional economists don't really engage with the Libertarians, at least not in public, because they see little advantage to giving credence to archaic and impracticable theories.

You have to skip past the OWS section to get to the part about the Fed and Ron Paul:

https://lbo-news.com/2011/10/13/on-ows-and-the-fed/

[Hotspring 44]

My biggest issue with Ron Paul regarding the Federal Reserve is the fact that he wants to go back to the gold standard.
Going back to the gold standard would be absolutely ruinous!

I also think that it is kind of dicey to audit the Fed and the amount of gold in Fort Knox. What if there is not enough gold in Fort Knox to cover what is promised? What then? That could be absolutely internationally disastrous!

The problem I see with Ron Paul is the fact that he says that he wants to completely eliminate so many agencies that I know are vitally important to keep intact; that’s the Ron Paul, rogue elephant in the room!.
What most of those agencies Ron Paul referred to that he says he would eliminate actually need is to be properly regulated by way of making sane and reasonable adjustments to the existing ones to make them reasonably Worthy of our trust.
then there is fractional lending; which brings us back to the issue of the Fed And the need for a reasonable amount of transparency , because after all, it's all of our effort that happens to be what bails them out when things go terribly wrong and causes the system to crash.

However I do agree with the basic principle of more transparency which the Fed will never ever in 1 million years ever do voluntarily!.... .... that's why we need... ...(drum-roll from the band)... ...thoughtful and correct federal regulation...(a big giant cymbal clash from the band!).
So to keep that lack of transparency the way it is now is to eliminate any possibility of transparency.
That is the issue of main concern with the Fed as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with the final statement in the article that you linked to: https://lbo-news.com/2011/10/13/on-ows-and-the-fed/ that said:

We need to democratize the Fed, open it up, and subject money to more humane and less upper-class-friendly regulation. But let’s not sign on with Ron Paul, please. And let’s not join with the simple-minded right-wing critique that blames all of capitalism’s systemic problems on government institutions.

...
... And of course also about what was said in the article about (Or at least implied in so much as;) going (back) to the gold standard and how much real substantial rise in suffering and austere it would be for the most of us.

Patrick, overall I agree with your concerns about Ron Paul.

One exception, you write that Paul is, "right about the Fed". This is one of his big issues and one of the primary messages his acolytes trumpet. But he's very, very wrong.

In looking for accessible discussions over the past two years, on this matter, this is the best I've found, otherwise one must wade through pages and pages of internet comment discussions, to get this perspective.

I have a feeling, without being in their circles, that mainstream professional economists don't really engage with the Libertarians, at least not in public, because they see little advantage to giving credence to archaic and impracticable theories.

You have to skip past the OWS section to get to the part about the Fed and Ron Paul:

https://lbo-news.com/2011/10/13/on-ows-and-the-fed/

[jbox]

I know candidates cannot always control who their supporters are or what they say, but it is clear that these people strongly approve of Ron Paul's message, and want to get him elected.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t836078/

And then this is from 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4ArUoyuDd74

There is much fair criticism one could level at the United Nations, but this is crazy talk.

I know he is right about the wars and about the Federal Reserve and a couple of other hot button issues, but you have to consider the whole man and all of his views. A quick and incomplete overview:

Do you agree with him on health policy (he is against any kind of universal health plan), on deregulation of corporations (he would eliminate all federal regulatory bodies), on immigration (he would end birthright citizenship, amnesty programs, the DREAM act etc.)? He says he would eliminate HUD, which would instantly end Section 8 housing subsidies, (resulting in a large increase in homelessness) and on and on. I know government departments come in for a lot of criticism, much of it justified, but things like food safety (for instance) do not come for free. The solution is to run government properly, not eliminate it. Government, properly run, is our bulwark against the power of the wealthy and their paid minions. Ron Paul would throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.


Patrick Brinton

Patrick, As I'm sure you and most waccoons are well aware, just because someone (Ron Paul?) is elected President it doesn't mean that with the snap of a finger all federal regulatory agencies and half the Cabinet will cease to exist, and the American political landscape and society itself is instantly and irrevocably transformed. The ship of state has loads of built up institutional inertia and it doesn't just turn on a dime, and all change is going to take time as the inexorable political processes slowly happen. Remember Obama's message of change? Here's the new boss, just like the old boss. Ron Paul cannot just eliminate the monetary system, or the EPA, or HUD. The Constitution guarantees the president is is not a dictator. What is important is that someone like Ron Paul can come in and have a new way of looking at the political establishment. He really isn't mainstream. If elected President his ideas will have to stand the test of political scrutiny and debate. I kind of like this idea and it could actually lead to some good things. The ideas he espouses that are not acceptable to the people get discarded. The alternative is to vote for some version of the mainstream party and its more of the same old tired nonsense. I, for one, am so sick of the democrats and the republicans that I have to look at the alternative.

[Hotspring 44]

...The ideas he espouses that are not acceptable to the people get discarded. The alternative is to vote for some version of the mainstream party and its more of the same old tired nonsense. I, for one, am so sick of the democrats and the republicans that I have to look at the alternative.

Since Ron Paul is a "Republican" who is running for office as a "Republican", what kind of "alternative" that you "have to look at", are you thinking about; or, who would that "alternative" be?... ...Certainly not Ron Paul the "Republican", right?

[Hotspring 44]

Patrick, As I'm sure you and most waccoons are well aware, just because someone (Ron Paul?) is elected President it doesn't mean that with the snap of a finger all federal regulatory agencies and half the Cabinet will cease to exist,...

I think of it in terms of who is running the house and how big of a majority that have the house.
When it comes to approving a budget for the agency's, the house can essentially cripple any agency by not allocating enough money or by simply not approving the president's appointees when the term of the last head of whatever agency It is that they want to get rid of; which is basically a decapitation of the agency that they want to kill.
In other words, if Ron Paul gets elected as president and the Republicans maintain control of the House then the agencies that Ron Paul and the Republicans don't like would be in essence disemboweled financially and or decapitated by not affirming the Presidents appointee, no matter who it is to be the head that particular agency they want to kill.
And we all know what those agencies are; HUD, EPA, FDA, AFDC, the Department of Interior, etc the list goes on.


So in my mind it's comparable to a horribly bad and tumultuous marriage, where the husband won't overtly and outright, kill is wife's cat that he thoroughly hates, no instead he will just intentionally neglect and essentially, starve the cat instead of killing it outright; the end result is still very close to being the same and has the exact same intent; the death of the cat, and at the same time, for it to be socially more acceptable, in this case with politicians; politically acceptable enough to maintain and maybe even enhance their political positions.

[jbox]

Since Ron Paul is a "Republican" who is running for office as a "Republican", what kind of "alternative" that you "have to look at", are you thinking about; or, who would that "alternative" be?... ...Certainly not Ron Paul the "Republican", right?

I thought it was Ron Paul, the heartless Libertarian, as so many on this forum seem to believe. The reason Paul gets such short shrift from mainstream Republicans is he is against the stupid wars we have been involved in and wants to revamp the defense budget and foreign policy. Hence he is never mentioned by the dopes at Fox News. He's closer to Kucinich than to Boehner IMHO. Look, what we got isn't working for the country, why not look at someone who isn't marching to the same drummer the rest of them are. By the way, I haven't decided whether to support Paul, I'm not a registered Republican, but he is a sight more intriguing than the rest of the clowns running, including Mr. Obama.

[jbox]

I think of it in terms of who is running the house and how big of a majority that have the house.
When it comes to approving a budget for the agency's, the house can essentially cripple any agency by not allocating enough money or by simply not approving the president's appointees when the term of the last head of whatever agency It is that they want to get rid of; which is basically a decapitation of the agency that they want to kill.
In other words, if Ron Paul gets elected as president and the Republicans maintain control of the House then the agencies that Ron Paul and the Republicans don't like would be in essence disemboweled financially and or decapitated by not affirming the Presidents appointee, no matter who it is to be the head that particular agency they want to kill.
And we all know what those agencies are; HUD, EPA, FDA, AFDC, the Department of Interior, etc the list goes on.




So in my mind it's comparable to a horribly bad and tumultuous marriage, where the husband won't overtly and outright, kill is wife's cat that he thoroughly hates, no instead he will just intentionally neglect and essentially, starve the cat instead of killing it outright; the end result is still very close to being the same and has the exact same intent; the death of the cat, and at the same time, for it to be socially more acceptable, in this case with politicians; politically acceptable enough to maintain and maybe even enhance their political positions.

Yeah, ain't politics funny?

[Hotspring 44]

Yeah, ain't politics funny?

In a sarcastic way I guess so, but, really; it is no joke.

[Hotspring 44]

RE: “no joke”; I will elaborate some: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell stated; .... “Our top priority over the next 2 years should be to deny president Obama a second term”...


...(is) “to be a “political goal”,

Of course it is true that he also stated about the year 2011: “Our biggest goal for this year is get this country straightened out and we can’t get this country straightened out if we don’t do something about spending, about deficit, about debt and get the economy moving again. So our goal is to have a robust vibrant economy to benefit all Americans.”... ... but none the less, it set the stage for the current state of brinkmanship and virtual gridlock in congress which is causing major issues to be effectively sidelined and neglected for the sake of what in large part is a (as stated) “political goal”.

Meanwhile, for example, while we (the USA) bicker, the Chinese are producing massive quantities of solar panels and have a high speed rail system that rivals all others world wide.

Lets just imagine that Ron Paul gets elected in 2012 and the budget cuts wish list gets put to the republican majority house either with a sweeping bill or individually, whatever would increase chances of passing cuts and decommissioning, or, what I think would occur; centralizing certain agencies.

There would inevitably be huge cuts to most social safety nets; not just “welfare” but also to agencies that keep us safe and the infrastructure sound but, of course, cuts to the military will, with a republican house, be minimal if any at all... ...the so-called "military cuts" would be more like re-adjustments than actual "cuts".

So jbox, you are correct in saying that:

“The ship of state has loads of built up institutional inertia and it doesn't just turn on a dime, and all change is going to take time as the inexorable political processes slowly happen.”

Meanwhile, with all the political “bickering” going on, which is wasting energy causing us to use up vital time to make what will be inevitably necessary to do anyway, which will be; (Federal) governmental “investments” to strengthen our position to rebound the economy and maintain security here at home (in other words, no tax cuts for the really rich). (having functional infrastructure food and shelter is what security I am primarily talking about).

Those opportunities are lingering behind and have been going by the wayside while we are eating the dust of other country’s vast, fast moving, and highly competitive race to outpace us.