Ron Paul Questions and Concerns Well

[bearishgurl]

Thanks for posting that to clarify, markmax. After you stated you weren’t a “local” McMillin, I figured you were from OH, PA, MD or even the South.

There aren’t any HS’s in SD county that are “95% black.” I’m not sure but don’t think LA County or the SF Bay area has any either.

I’ve been to MD many times and have driven through your county to our Nation’s Capitol a few times but never stopped there.

Just keep persevering as you are. You’re doing fine here 🙂

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
NO! Ron Paul’s belief is that it is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government for which he is running for President. States have their own constitutions. The point of the federal GOV’s constitution was to limit the power of the Federal GOV. The federal GOV is SO FAR past what was written in the constitution, such as the patriot act, etc it is a big enough problem for him to deal with on that level solely. The founding fathers saw the failed English empire, roman empire, etc and that’s why they wrote it that way! Why do you disregard the set of lessons learned so easily and question them?[/quote]

Sorry there, it was a trick question.

I think you exaggerate a bit when you say the point of the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. It was to codify them. And then the bill of rights, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments elaborated on those powers not codified.

I’m quite sure that Ron Paul does not believe that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to the states. He believes that it doesn’t apply to women’s uteruses, and therefore the states are free (and in his view, encouraged) to legally violate the 4th amendment. Libertarian principles only apply to the office he’s running for.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
NO! Ron Paul’s belief is that it is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government for which he is running for President. States have their own constitutions. The point of the federal GOV’s constitution was to limit the power of the Federal GOV. The federal GOV is SO FAR past what was written in the constitution, such as the patriot act, etc it is a big enough problem for him to deal with on that level solely. The founding fathers saw the failed English empire, roman empire, etc and that’s why they wrote it that way! Why do you disregard the set of lessons learned so easily and question them?[/quote]

Sorry there, it was a trick question.

I think you exaggerate a bit when you say the point of the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. It was to codify them. And then the bill of rights, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments elaborated on those powers not codified.

I’m quite sure that Ron Paul does not believe that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to the states. He believes that it doesn’t apply to women’s uteruses, and therefore the states are free (and in his view, encouraged) to legally violate the 4th amendment. Libertarian principles only apply to the office he’s running for.[/quote]

That was the intent. Allow the states to handle as much as possible and limit the GOV’s power as much as possible.

[Anonymous]

Mark,

I’ve had some fun in this debate and I hope I haven’t been too much a jerk. As others have said, your passion and persistence is admirable. I’m going to step away from this thread, but I’d like to leave you with some final thoughts to ponder.

Here is a summary of the issues I have with Ron Paul:

He never addresses the tradeoffs: The Fed is not perfect but neither is any of the alternatives. Any monetary system will have pros and cons, but Ron Paul only describes his alternative as if it were flawless.

During the century years the Fed has existed, the US has grown into the most powerful and prosperous nation that has ever existed. The United States was not the world’s superpower in 1900 – we grew into role for a number of reasons. The only reason we talk about the risk of the “decline” of the US is because we grew to be so successful in the first place. All of this growth could not have happened without a functioning economic system – and The Fed was part of that system. The Fed has both positive and negative influences, but the most basic evidence – the American success story – supports the idea that the positives outweigh the negatives.

He ignores much of US history: There was a time before the Fed and the nation had plenty of problems. During the industrial revolution, there were depressions, wars, and massive wealth inequality. By just about every economic measure, life was not better during the time of smaller federal government. Ron Paul simplifies and romanticizes the past. In the 21st century we have foreclosures during economic downturns, in the 19th century we had starvation.

Why was the Fed created in the first place? It wasn’t to make bankers rich – there were plenty of rich bankers before the Fed. The Fed was created to address problems in the economy – we must understand what those problems were before we can dismiss the current solution as a failure. Ron Paul ignores much of the economic history that existed before the Fed and he ignores the problems that existed when we were on the gold standard. He’s asking us to ignore that history as well.

He ignores the relationship between technological advancement and the economy: Why do we have computers, airplanes, cell phones, and immunizations in the 21st century when we did not have them in the 19th century? How is it that almost all of these things were developed here in the US in the past 100 years? Why did it happen here and not in other countries?

The reason is that we had an economic system that encouraged productive investment and rewarded innovation. The federal government is part of that system. They don’t always get it right, but just look out the window or in your living room to see the evidence that the system has worked well. All of this stuff was invented here or in a country similar to ours. Ron Paul speaks about the Fed and “GOV” (as you call it) as some kind of destructive force in our economy, as if it were somehow an obstacle to progress. And yet we have had enormous progress – more than anybody.

In an earlier post someone mentioned Moore’s Law. Moore’s law does not apply everywhere; it doesn’t apply in Somalia or North Korea. In fact, the only place where Moore’s law has held true are the US, Japan, and Western Europe – all countries with central bank. It’s not just a coincidence that democracies with strong federal governments are the innovation centers of the world. Technological advancement at the pace of Moore’s law requires a stable capitalist environment where the right investments can yield the rewards of innovation.

He defers too easily the state and local governments: I understand that he believes the Constitution calls for a limited federal government, but the idea that state and local governments are somehow “better” doesn’t hold water. San Diego and Sacramento aren’t managing their finances any better than Washington. People don’t spend their whole lives in their hometown anymore. Is it really better to have 50 different versions of laws? (Ask a gun owner who travels to different states what a mess that can be.)

His solutions for pollution and safety are naive: I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the Bald Eagle thing, but it does raise a point. Trying to manage environmental resources without a federal government would be a disaster. Which state controls the water in the Colorado river? If Utah says people can dump toxins in the water is that just tough luck for the Californians living downstream? It just doesn’t work to say “the states will work it out.” The fact is they did work it out – when they ratified the Constitution and created a government that had to power to manage these issues.

Do we really wan’t 50 different versions of product safety laws? Imagine building a car that had to comply with 50 different versions of safety standards. And I can’t accept that we would simply let market forces dictate safety regulations. I don’t want choosing my airline to be a process of trial and error as I figure out what airlines are not crashing their planes.

Ron Paul is important because he raises awareness about key issues, but in the end he is far too simplistic and inflexible. No solution is perfect but he is convinced that his solutions are, even though many of them have never been attempted, or those that have produced poor results. We’ve had small, hands-off federal government before, and it was not a utopia.

Nothing I’ve heard about Ron Paul convinces me he really has more than a superficial understanding of the issues he dwells upon. He cites a lot of statistics, facts, and references, but ultimately just doesn’t get it. His plan to essentially dismantle our entire economic system is desperate and ill-conceived. If our government was as broken as he claims it is, we would never have become the most powerful nation on earth. We do need policy changes in some areas of government: we need to end the wars, we need to reduce the debt. But there is no reason to go to the drastic measures that Paul advocates in an attempt to fix something that is fundamentally not broken.

Good luck with your campaign.

[scaredyclassic]

http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1347/ron-pauls-newsletters-bite-his-backside

will this stuff be an issue at election?

not sure…

Creepy creepy stuff, not the best denial

[scaredyclassic]

What about transferring the energy to Gary Johnson. He’s a hipper younger libertarian who loves bicycles and is pretty smart, will legalize drugs and is not an arrogant doctor.

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1347/ron-pauls-newsletters-bite-his-backside

will this stuff be an issue at election?

not sure…[/quote]

Probably not, but only because (and my apologies here to markmax) Ron Paul isn’t an issue. But one of the comments just cracked me up.

I don’t want someone in the White House who is ‘better than Ron Paul’. Fact is, apart from John Edwards, the candidates are either corrupt puppets in bed with lobbyists, candidates with no real imagination who steal sound bites from other candidates and quote Lincoln too much or….like most of today’s rock groups….lack real talent that comes from hard work…..just nice faces to appeal to the youth….someone higher up will feed them the lines eventually.

snip

Ron Paul and John Edwards are the only ones I hear that actually want to change the GOVERNMENT rather than just want to be the new Big Wig Puppet of an already corrupted government.

Ron Paul and John Edwards. Nuff said.

(confession here, I would have voted for John Edwards. I thought, and still think, he had an important message. And while I don’t think the personal sexcapades of elected office holders is all that important, it was, or at least could have been for John Edwards, had he been nominated and then forced to effectively withdraw from the race. He’s a disgraceful man, for a whole lot of reasons.)

[scaredyclassic]

I just love Gary Johnson. I’m pretty sure he’s cool with gays and Jews. I understand why it’s difficult for the elderly to be comfortable with same sex sex, because yknow, it was illegal when they were younger and socially acceptable to kick the living shit out of them, but it’s sort of embarrassing. I remember telling my parents I didn’t think being gay was a big deal in the 70s and they seemed uncomfortable … Maybe I’m misremembering.

[markmax33]

[quote=walterwhite]http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1347/ron-pauls-newsletters-bite-his-backside

will this stuff be an issue at election?

not sure…[/quote]

Not at all. Read the whole newsletters and see if he really wrote them. He attacked all issues so I’m sure you can pull random 3 sentence blurbs out of context over 40 years of writing. He was quoted in the Bruno as get that queer away from me, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t stand for gay rights. I probably would have said the same thing if I was being attacked.

He has said that he didn’t approve of all of the things MLK stood for. I haven’t researched them all but he was far from a God as the media would have you believe. He does stand for repealing slavery.

[markmax33]

[quote=walterwhite]I just love Gary Johnson. I’m pretty sure he’s cool with gays and Jews. I understand why it’s difficult for the elderly to be comfortable with same sex sex, because yknow, it was illegal when they were younger and socially acceptable to kick the living shit out of them, but it’s sort of embarrassing. I remember telling my parents I didn’t think being gay was a big deal in the 70s and they seemed uncomfortable … Maybe I’m misremembering.[/quote]

Gary Johnson wants to be Ron Paul 2.0

[aldante]

[quote=walterwhite]Yes have fun it’s nice to see people excited politically. I can’t relate but it seems like it could be fun. Hint about persuading people, though, best to stick to the arguments and not imply that the persuader is blind, dumb or overlooking the glaringly obvious.

Paul Ron in 2012! Or wait is it Ron Paul. Dammit I’m getting old I cannot remember[/quote]

I did not forget that you said you would vote for him!

[scaredyclassic]

Oh man I forgot about Bruno! I loved that movie. And Ron Paul in it. God I was howling.

I don’t blame him for the queer comment just for his obliviousness as Bruno put the moves on him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
He has said that he didn’t approve of all of the things MLK stood for. I haven’t researched them all but he was far from a God as the media would have you believe. He does stand for repealing slavery.[/quote]

That’s good about the slavery thing. Because he was born 70 years after the Civil War ended. And if he had waffled on slavery I might have to look at him a little differently.

[markmax33]

[quote=pri_dk]
Mark,

I’ve had some fun in this debate and I hope I haven’t been too much a jerk. As others have said, your passion and persistence is admirable. I’m going to step away from this thread, but I’d like to leave you with some final thoughts to ponder.
[/quote]

I’m glad you like to debate. You give me a position from which I can convince others fairly easily. Thank you for the support!

[quote=pri_dk]
Here is a summary of the issues I have with Ron Paul:

He never addresses the tradeoffs: The Fed is not perfect but neither is any of the alternatives. Any monetary system will have pros and cons, but Ron Paul only describes his alternative as if it were flawless.
[/quote]

You obviously haven’t read his book or watched a single video. For the rest of people that would like to learn Ron Paul’s position I’ll include a video. This is why it is so hard to deal with your posts. You are basically typing lies on a blog.

His books his interviews all go in depth about how Austrian Economics will allow parts of the market to fail. There will be larger short term failures, but no long term debt and smaller bubbles.

How would any person in this world listen to Greenspan and Bernanke? They made the bubbles and didn’t do anything about it. Ron Paul PREDICTED the bubbles in SEVERAL videos. To me the ONLY ECONOMIST you should ever listen to is the one who got the last trends correct. If I were to rewrite the constitution I would have a clause and fire all economists that get it wrong and deport them immediately! Why do you still listen to these idiots?

[quote=pri_dk]
During the century years the Fed has existed, the US has grown into the most powerful and prosperous nation that has ever existed. The United States was not the world’s superpower in 1900 – we grew into role for a number of reasons. The only reason we talk about the risk of the “decline” of the US is because we grew to be so successful in the first place. All of this growth could not have happened without a functioning economic system – and The Fed was part of that system. The Fed has both positive and negative influences, but the most basic evidence – the American success story – supports the idea that the positives outweigh the negatives.
[/quote]

This argument is not correct. Many people freely immigrated from Europe in the 1700s-early 1900s. There was no welfare, no bailouts, nothing was free. They flocked here. Growth in economy is like a freight train with momentum. The momentum from the 1800s carried through the 1970s until the end of the gold standard. Now the currency is in major trouble. How is a 14.9 Trillion dollar debt success? If you answer 1 question for me answer that one!!!!! WE ARE BANKRUPT!

[quote=pri_dk]
He ignores much of US history: There was a time before the Fed and the nation had plenty of problems. During the industrial revolution, there were depressions, wars, and massive wealth inequality. By just about every economic measure, life was not better during the time of smaller federal government. Ron Paul simplifies and romanticizes the past. In the 21st century we have foreclosures during economic downturns, in the 19th century we had starvation.
[/quote]

Every single fiat currency in history has failed! How has he not read history or ignored? You are correct we have been stealing from the future with our $14.9T in debt and it makes us LOOK prosperous. All loans come due. Inflation is going to hit us like EVERY OTHER CURRENCY! How are we different? Please explain!

Food technology has come along like every other technology and now we can feed everyone. If our currency fails that may be in jeopardy when we import so much from other countries that won’t take our dollars.

[quote=pri_dk]
Why was the Fed created in the first place? It wasn’t to make bankers rich – there were plenty of rich bankers before the Fed. The Fed was created to address problems in the economy – we must understand what those problems were before we can dismiss the current solution as a failure. Ron Paul ignores much of the economic history that existed before the Fed and he ignores the problems that existed when we were on the gold standard. He’s asking us to ignore that history as well.
[/quote]

Obviously you should look at the history of the FED. It wasn’t legally passed in congress. The bankers got MUCH RICHER, in fact the bankers caused the calamity knowing the FED would be the answer. Everyone should watch this if you trust the FED:

[quote=pri_dk]
He ignores the relationship between technological advancement and the economy: Why do we have computers, airplanes, cell phones, and immunizations in the 21st century when we did not have them in the 19th century? How is it that almost all of these things were developed here in the US in the past 100 years? Why did it happen here and not in other countries?
[/quote]

This is a MOOT point. The constitution is independent of technology and can be extended to it. It is called an amendment if you want to clarify it!

[quote=pri_dk]
The reason is that we had an economic system that encouraged productive investment and rewarded innovation. The federal government is part of that system. They don’t always get it right, but just look out the window or in your living room to see the evidence that the system has worked well. All of this stuff was invented here or in a country similar to ours. Ron Paul speaks about the Fed and “GOV” (as you call it) as some kind of destructive force in our economy, as if it were somehow an obstacle to progress. And yet we have had enormous progress – more than anybody.
[/quote]

Obviously it is destructive. We spend 3/4 of our tax money overseas last year on National offense. Bankruptcy is not progress.

[quote=pri_dk]
In an earlier post someone mentioned Moore’s Law. Moore’s law does not apply everywhere; it doesn’t apply in Somalia or North Korea. In fact, the only place where Moore’s law has held true are the US, Japan, and Western Europe – all countries with central bank. It’s not just a coincidence that democracies with strong federal governments are the innovation centers of the world. Technological advancement at the pace of Moore’s law requires a stable capitalist environment where the right investments can yield the rewards of innovation.
[/quote]

Wow…that’s a stretch sir! It is an industry with a small amount of GOV regulation VS something like healthcare. You completely missed the point.

[quote=pri_dk]
He defers too easily the state and local governments: I understand that he believes the Constitution calls for a limited federal government, but the idea that state and local governments are somehow “better” doesn’t hold water. San Diego and Sacramento aren’t managing their finances any better than Washington. People don’t spend their whole lives in their hometown anymore. Is it really better to have 50 different versions of laws? (Ask a gun owner who travels to different states what a mess that can be.)
[/quote]

You have more influence on your local politicians than on a national level. Don’t you agree with that? You have more power the more local the regulations are. You also get better regulations that are not one size fits all of the country! We are much different here in California than in DC.

[quote=pri_dk]
His solutions for pollution and safety are naive: I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the Bald Eagle thing, but it does raise a point. Trying to manage environmental resources without a federal government would be a disaster. Which state controls the water in the Colorado river? If Utah says people can dump toxins in the water is that just tough luck for the Californians living downstream? It just doesn’t work to say “the states will work it out.” The fact is they did work it out – when they ratified the Constitution and created a government that had to power to manage these issues.
[/quote]

I still don’t know how you support 4 or 5 levels of government environmental controls. This is a crazy concept. I don’t want to pay for anything twice, let alone 4 times.

[quote=pri_dk]
Do we really wan’t 50 different versions of product safety laws? Imagine building a car that had to comply with 50 different versions of safety standards. And I can’t accept that we would simply let market forces dictate safety regulations. I don’t want choosing my airline to be a process of trial and error as I figure out what airlines are not crashing their planes.
[/quote]

Safety will be managed by the market place. OBVIOUSLY cars were new and needed innovation. It would have happened without the GOV. Have you heard of UL? They test and rate products. Have you heard of CNET for electronics? The private marketplace does just fine!

[quote=pri_dk]
Ron Paul is important because he raises awareness about key issues, but in the end he is far too simplistic and inflexible. No solution is perfect but he is convinced that his solutions are, even though many of them have never been attempted, or those that have produced poor results. We’ve had small, hands-off federal government before, and it was not a utopia.
[/quote]

All of his solutions were part of the constitution and carried us through our most prosperous time in history! We need market failures to keep things in check. I’m sorry you are so narrow minded!

[quote=pri_dk]
Nothing I’ve heard about Ron Paul convinces me he really has more than a superficial understanding of the issues he dwells upon. He cites a lot of statistics, facts, and references, but ultimately just doesn’t get it. His plan to essentially dismantle our entire economic system is desperate and ill-conceived. If our government was as broken as he claims it is, we would never have become the most powerful nation on earth. We do need policy changes in some areas of government: we need to end the wars, we need to reduce the debt. But there is no reason to go to the drastic measures that Paul advocates in an attempt to fix something that is fundamentally not broken.
[/quote]

Your economic system is doomed. Don’t you care about your children? How about your grandchildren? You realize our currency will fail like every other one right? Are you that greedy?

[quote=pri_dk]
Good luck with your campaign.
[/quote]
Thanks you’ve helped prove my point more than you know!

[scaredyclassic]

this is kinda weird, but i can see im now an old conservative white guy who kind of wants things to continue the way they are, and it just seems odd that the radical upstart is an even older white doctor from texas, and the staid, conservative, wall street loving, business-as-usual candidate is barack obama. man, I’m over 30, don’t trust me.

probably if I was younger I’d be into the older white guy.

[Author]

Posts