Republican Ron Paul

[SWiTCH]

I will register as republican to get him as a candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8&mode=related&search=

[Beefynick]

I like his view on foreign policy, but I am not sure if abolishing the IRS is a good idea.

[Quadros]

I hope he wins, I'd love to see america collapse economically.

[Audioslave]

I don't think he's that insane. Personally I'm a Socialist, so I support everything he's against, but I figure it's better to be economically radical in either direction than to be wishywashy and shit away all your money.

[buckfan]

I'm pretty sure the president doesn't have the power to abolish the IRS. Congress would never allow it.

[The Pirate]

To be honest, I'm starting to want him to win. Seriously, he may be clueless, but at least he knows what's right and wrong, something which few presidents have the right to say.

[SWiTCH]

Oh I didn't realize there were so many experienced economists on this forum...

"Paul served on the House Banking Committee during this time, where he spoke against the inflation he saw as being caused by the Federal Reserve. He also spoke against the deregulation of banking rules that allowed for the Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The US Gold Commission created by Congress in 1982 was his idea, and his conclusions from the commission were published by the Cato Institute as the book The Case for Gold."

[Quadros]

''Tim Ledwitch is a run of the mill guy with no economic knowledge last an AS level in Economics. Even he knows that if America abolishes the IRS then they'll be completely unable to repay the $200 billion they currently owe to the world bank. Also by assuming an isolationist policy that they would be forced into by doing so they will effectively make the 'defence' industry and much of the military redundant, leading to massive unemployment and in some areas of the country. These people will not be assisted because the government would no longer have the funds to provide social welfare for them. young people from the poorest areas with limited options will have even fewer once more factories close and the military reduces recruitment programs. He also notes that Paul has no problem with giving these desperate people guns. He sumarises that this radical policy can only lead to first localised, then increasingly widespread economic disaster, especially to the very poorest and to the middle class.''

So what? The president has more military experiance than I do. I still know Iraq was a fucking mistake.

[TinyPinkNinja]

After watching Rep. Paul on the GOP Debate the other night, I was actually pretty impressed with what he had to say, but disappointed in how little he got to say. They sat there and mentally jerked off Mitt Romney for a good 5/6questions before any candidate got to speak.

Back on topic, I think he's finally a No B.S. candidate who's not afraid to say what he really thinks should be done. Whether some of it is feasible or not leaves room for debate, but ultimately it's the fact that he's not saying something just to try and be the first to say it or the most agreeable candidate stands tall with me.

It's also about time someone got back to pushing the constitution back into play. After all, it was written for a kind of important reason. The fact that in that debate he mentioned the constitution several times meant he's at least done his research and knows his case, and isn't just trying to win caucuses as a game.

Basically, of the republican candidates, he's the least full of shit, though Duncan Hunter was an absolute laugh riot.

[green rubber bands]

He kinda looks like the Republican version of Mike Gravel- both know that they won't win, so it frees them up to say whatever they want... kinda like AL Sharpton in 2004.

[Andy L]

''Tim Ledwitch is a run of the mill guy with no economic knowledge last an AS level in Economics. Even he knows that if America abolishes the IRS then they'll be completely unable to repay the $200 billion they currently owe to the world bank. . . ."

That depends entirely on how much they cut expenditures. According to Paul, personal income tax only accounts for about a third of the American government's revenues, so if government spending was also reduced by a third, the income tax could be eliminated without the need of going into further debt. Also, according to Paul, cutting government spending by one third would set it back to the level it was at in the year 2000: hardly an unrealistic goal. Of course, those are Paul's own figures, and they might be skewed (I haven't done any research on them personally), but it's fair to say that he's not explicitly planning to default on the American government's debt.

Also by assuming an isolationist policy that they would be forced into by doing so they will effectively make the 'defence' industry and much of the military redundant, leading to massive unemployment and in some areas of the country.

So, you think it would be in America's best interest to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely for the sake of not causing short-term unemployment? Undoubtedly, if America pulled out overnight, there would be major economic repercussions, but Paul has explicitly said that he plans to pull out gradually. Assuming that this was handled competently, it would lead to greater economic prosperity in the long-run, since the billions of dollars worth of labour and materials that are currently going into bombs and bullets could instead be put toward infrastructure, technology research, education etc.

These people will not be assisted because the government would no longer have the funds to provide social welfare for them. young people from the poorest areas with limited options will have even fewer once more factories close and the military reduces recruitment programs. He also notes that Paul has no problem with giving these desperate people guns. He sumarises that this radical policy can only lead to first localised, then increasingly widespread economic disaster, especially to the very poorest and to the middle class.''

I'm really rather disturbed by the cynicism in your line of reasoning. It seems like you're saying that welfare and military service should be viewed as ways of keeping the commoners satisfied and occupied so that they won't rock the boat. Kind of reminiscent of the old idea of "bread and circuses", only in this case the common people are not just the spectators in the arena but also the gladiators.

As to the gun issue, from what I understand it would already be quite possible for disillusioned proles to obtain firearms in the US. They may have to go through some red tape and pay a few administrative fees, but if they really wanted to start a rebellion, stocking up on weapons wouldn't be a particularly big problem. I've also heard that it's quite possible to make some pretty lethal explosives out of items available at a grocery store, so America can pretty much count on having an armed populace regardless of what their gun laws are.

So what? The president has more military experiance than I do. I still know Iraq was a fucking mistake.

Then why are you bashing the only republican candidate who supports withdrawing the troops?

[Infammo]

I agree with most of his ideas concerning Citizens rights and the Federal Reserve, but he lost my vote with his attitude towards foreign policy. Pulling out of Iraq after everything we've done is extremely unethical. Not to mention he wants us to severe ties with the United Nations and NATO. That's just stupid.

[I am homosexual]

I actually like Ron Paul a lot more than the other GOP candidates. He seems to know that politics isn't just a lot of rhetoric and catchphrases, which is, sadly, what most candidates' campaigns have evolved into. I've actually seen a LOT of support for him where I live, which is North-Central Indiana. Indiana is the reddest state in the Union, (Texas and Alabama bleed blue compared to us) so this is really odd.

If he gets the nod and someone other than John Edwards gets the Democratic nomination, I'll be assured that the country's going to be better off than it is.

[Quadros]

stuff

All I'm saying is that the USA is heavily in debt, and the isolationist policy Paul suggests involves not only pulling out of Iraq, but all of its international military commitments. That means stop funding Israel, policing Afganistan and pakistan, close the airbases and barracks in Germany and Eastern Europe. The entire weapon manufacturing industry would have to be drastically downsized. And the military is one of very few options as a career for young people in poor inner city areas. So Unemployment would increase expedentially, and the welfare state would be unable to help these people. I'm not some high nosed conservative, I'm a far left socialist (infact borderline communist) and I hate the idea of these people facing real, abject poverty. I think withdrawing from her role as self appointed world police is a real and noble goal for the USA to follow, but they can't remove the IRS if they pursue it.