Statements by Ron Paul: is he a quack?
20 Jun 2011, 1:11 pm
Holding a surplus for a rainy day fund seems okay except most of the time piles of money sitting around manage to get spent.
There are exceptions to this. I think Indiana made it a point to hold a rainy day fund and now they're in a better position to deal with this Recession. While the Federal Government likes to continue building more aircraft carriers we don't really need.
As for the Depression it seems a sad commentary to think waging world war is viewed as the solution. One thing I've considered is most of the industry across Europe and Japan was carpet bombed during the war while mainland America was intact. Our industry stepped in to fill that void. We could have Europe pay for American goods, or borrow from American lenders. We were in a position to become a creditor nation.
So after wards we go on a warpath getting mired in disasters like Vietnam. I will say to some extent we could justify a build up during the Cold War but we should have drawn down after the USSR imploded. Instead we kept building up a military industrial complex looking for more world conflicts to get involved in. We've really been involved with Iraq since Desert Storm which is like a 20 year military mission.
I feel we were a prosperous wealthy nation and we've blown it. We used to be a Creditor, then we went crazy with spending, then we started borrowing and printing money, now we're the world's biggest Debtor. I see the Debt Clock climbing and that doesn't seem like a positive thing for us and this country. And no I did not support George W. Bush or Al Gore or John Kerry.
21 Jun 2011, 1:30 am
pandabear wrote:
Without the massive government spending of World War II, we would probably still be in the Great Depression. It seems that he is just pining for the good old days of the Great Depression.
That is utter nonsense, sir.
Since you have been taken in by the absurd myth that wars are somehow beneficial for the economy, I will explain to you as best I can why this myth is abject nonsense.
First of all, by what metric are you measuring the 'economic prosperity' brought about by WW2? GDP and unemployment rates? This is what's known as the parable of the broken window. You aren't measuring actual economic growth, and it's pretty obvious why.
If I break a window, it's going to create a job for the window repair man. Great, so output is boosted and thus GDP is also boosted. However, was wealth actually created? No, if the window had not been broken, I would still have the money used to repair it, which I could then spend on other things. There is zero net economic growth. So we can see from this example that GDP and employment rates are not a valid measurement of economic growth and prosperity.
I can give you another example too, to demonstrate why mass government spending on arbitrary things like wars does not create economic growth. If the government decides to create jobs by building mud pie factories and employing everyone as mud pie bakers, and then buying all the mud pies, there is going to be a spike in employment rates and GDP output, isn't there? Well if you're a Keynesian economist, this is great news! However, does it create economic growth? Since there is no real demand for mud pies (only artificial demand created by the government), it's pretty obvious that it's not creating economic growth.
But wait, if unemployment is down to 0% and GDP is up, what's the problem? The problem is the government has to take on large amounts of debt in order to finance this whole scheme, since there is no actual economic growth. So it should be obvious why this can't work: If you're unemployed and in debt, you can't just take out another loan to pay it off. Sure, it will help for a little while, but you're going to be in even worse shape in the future. It's analogous to caffeine - When you start feeling tired you can drink caffeine, and then when you start crashing from the caffeine you can drink even more caffeine, but eventually you're going to crash and burn extremely hard. So there you are, that's a Keynesian bubble in a nutshell. Yes, WW2 lowered unemployment rates and boosted GDP, but it didn't help the economy, it just bolstered the Keynesian bubble.
Austrian economists accurately predict Keynesian bubble bursts all the time, too. Here's a video of Peter Schiff accurately predicting the 2008 recession:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw[/youtube]
21 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Here is an article relevant to repatriation of dollars, I think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/busin ... s&emc=tha2
Quote:
Apple has $12 billion waiting offshore, Google has $17 billion and Microsoft, $29 billion.
Under the proposal, known as a repatriation holiday, the federal income tax owed on such profits returned to the United States would fall to 5.25 percent for one year, from 35 percent. In the short term, the measure could generate tens of billions in tax revenues as companies transfer money that would otherwise remain abroad, and it could help ease the huge budget deficit.
Corporations and their lobbyists say the tax break could resuscitate the gasping recovery by inducing multinational corporations to inject $1 trillion or more into the economy, and they promoted the proposal as “the next stimulus” at a conference last Wednesday in Washington.
“For every billion dollars that we invest, that creates 15,000 to 20,000 jobs either directly or indirectly,” Jim Rogers, the chief of Duke Energy, said at the conference. Duke has $1.3 billion in profits overseas.
But that’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.
Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.
This money comes from overseas operations and in some cases accounting maneuvers that shift domestic profits to low-tax countries. The study concluded that the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”
Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to just 15 of the largest United States multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more of their profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.
Merck, the pharmaceutical giant based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., was one of those big winners. The company brought home $15.9 billion, second overall to Pfizer’s $37 billion. It used the money for “U.S.-based research and development spending, capital investments in U.S. plants, and salaries and wages for the U.S.,” a Merck spokesman, Steven Campanini, said last week.
According to regulatory filings, though, the company cut its work force and capital spending in this country in the three years that followed.
Merck used the cash infusion to continue paying dividends and buying back stock for the benefit of shareholders and executives — even as it was rocked by more than $8 billion in costs to settle a variety of disputes after executive missteps. Merck had to pay billions in back taxes to the I.R.S.; billions more to consumers suing because of the dangerous side effects of the painkiller Vioxx, and hundreds of millions to the Justice Department, which had accused the company of defrauding Medicare.
The tax break, part of the American Jobs Creation Act, lacked safeguards to ensure the companies used the money for investment and job creation in the United States, as Congress intended. “There were no direct tracing requirements,” said Jay B. Schwartz, head of Merck’s international tax unit until 2006. “So once the money came home, it gave you great flexibility.”
Finding Work-Arounds
Although the law forbade the use of repatriated funds directly for executive compensation or stock buybacks, companies found plenty of ways around it. “Fungibility is one of my favorite words,” Mr. Schwartz said.
As Congress was debating the tax cut in 2004, senior executives at Merck anxiously followed the battle through Congress. Some company officials were worried that the costs of the Vioxx lawsuits might top $10 billion and push the company to the brink of bankruptcy, Mr. Schwartz said. When the measure was finally signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2004, “there was a lot of excitement, a lot of cheering,” among senior management, he said. Merck executives declined to comment.
Merck brought back $15.9 billion in October 2005. The next month, it unveiled a restructuring plan to cut 7,000 jobs. Over the next three years, about half those cuts were made in the United States, where the company’s employment fell to 28,800 jobs, from 31,500.
How big the job cuts would have been without the tax break is unknown, though Mr. Schwartz said contingency plans called for painful reductions throughout the company.
That restructuring was harsh in places like Albany, Ga., one of the nation’s poorest communities, where Merck closed its Flint River manufacturing plant and shed more than 400 workers.
“It was like going through a sudden divorce,” said Connie McKissack, now 45, who had worked at the company for a dozen years as a systems analyst.
Under the proposal, known as a repatriation holiday, the federal income tax owed on such profits returned to the United States would fall to 5.25 percent for one year, from 35 percent. In the short term, the measure could generate tens of billions in tax revenues as companies transfer money that would otherwise remain abroad, and it could help ease the huge budget deficit.
Corporations and their lobbyists say the tax break could resuscitate the gasping recovery by inducing multinational corporations to inject $1 trillion or more into the economy, and they promoted the proposal as “the next stimulus” at a conference last Wednesday in Washington.
“For every billion dollars that we invest, that creates 15,000 to 20,000 jobs either directly or indirectly,” Jim Rogers, the chief of Duke Energy, said at the conference. Duke has $1.3 billion in profits overseas.
But that’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.
Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.
This money comes from overseas operations and in some cases accounting maneuvers that shift domestic profits to low-tax countries. The study concluded that the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”
Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to just 15 of the largest United States multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more of their profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.
Merck, the pharmaceutical giant based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., was one of those big winners. The company brought home $15.9 billion, second overall to Pfizer’s $37 billion. It used the money for “U.S.-based research and development spending, capital investments in U.S. plants, and salaries and wages for the U.S.,” a Merck spokesman, Steven Campanini, said last week.
According to regulatory filings, though, the company cut its work force and capital spending in this country in the three years that followed.
Merck used the cash infusion to continue paying dividends and buying back stock for the benefit of shareholders and executives — even as it was rocked by more than $8 billion in costs to settle a variety of disputes after executive missteps. Merck had to pay billions in back taxes to the I.R.S.; billions more to consumers suing because of the dangerous side effects of the painkiller Vioxx, and hundreds of millions to the Justice Department, which had accused the company of defrauding Medicare.
The tax break, part of the American Jobs Creation Act, lacked safeguards to ensure the companies used the money for investment and job creation in the United States, as Congress intended. “There were no direct tracing requirements,” said Jay B. Schwartz, head of Merck’s international tax unit until 2006. “So once the money came home, it gave you great flexibility.”
Finding Work-Arounds
Although the law forbade the use of repatriated funds directly for executive compensation or stock buybacks, companies found plenty of ways around it. “Fungibility is one of my favorite words,” Mr. Schwartz said.
As Congress was debating the tax cut in 2004, senior executives at Merck anxiously followed the battle through Congress. Some company officials were worried that the costs of the Vioxx lawsuits might top $10 billion and push the company to the brink of bankruptcy, Mr. Schwartz said. When the measure was finally signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2004, “there was a lot of excitement, a lot of cheering,” among senior management, he said. Merck executives declined to comment.
Merck brought back $15.9 billion in October 2005. The next month, it unveiled a restructuring plan to cut 7,000 jobs. Over the next three years, about half those cuts were made in the United States, where the company’s employment fell to 28,800 jobs, from 31,500.
How big the job cuts would have been without the tax break is unknown, though Mr. Schwartz said contingency plans called for painful reductions throughout the company.
That restructuring was harsh in places like Albany, Ga., one of the nation’s poorest communities, where Merck closed its Flint River manufacturing plant and shed more than 400 workers.
“It was like going through a sudden divorce,” said Connie McKissack, now 45, who had worked at the company for a dozen years as a systems analyst.
21 Jun 2011, 12:50 pm
Burzum wrote:
I can give you another example too, to demonstrate why mass government spending on arbitrary things like wars does not create economic growth. If the government decides to create jobs by building mud pie factories and employing everyone as mud pie bakers, and then buying all the mud pies, there is going to be a spike in employment rates and GDP output, isn't there? Well if you're a Keynesian economist, this is great news! However, does it create economic growth? Since there is no real demand for mud pies (only artificial demand created by the government), it's pretty obvious that it's not creating economic growth.
But wait, if unemployment is down to 0% and GDP is up, what's the problem? The problem is the government has to take on large amounts of debt in order to finance this whole scheme, since there is no actual economic growth. So it should be obvious why this can't work: If you're unemployed and in debt, you can't just take out another loan to pay it off. Sure, it will help for a little while, but you're going to be in even worse shape in the future. It's analogous to caffeine - When you start feeling tired you can drink caffeine, and then when you start crashing from the caffeine you can drink even more caffeine, but eventually you're going to crash and burn extremely hard. So there you are, that's a Keynesian bubble in a nutshell. Yes, WW2 lowered unemployment rates and boosted GDP, but it didn't help the economy, it just bolstered the Keynesian bubble.
But wait, if unemployment is down to 0% and GDP is up, what's the problem? The problem is the government has to take on large amounts of debt in order to finance this whole scheme, since there is no actual economic growth. So it should be obvious why this can't work: If you're unemployed and in debt, you can't just take out another loan to pay it off. Sure, it will help for a little while, but you're going to be in even worse shape in the future. It's analogous to caffeine - When you start feeling tired you can drink caffeine, and then when you start crashing from the caffeine you can drink even more caffeine, but eventually you're going to crash and burn extremely hard. So there you are, that's a Keynesian bubble in a nutshell. Yes, WW2 lowered unemployment rates and boosted GDP, but it didn't help the economy, it just bolstered the Keynesian bubble.
Suppose the government spends for things that are useful? Like roads, education, health care? And, suppose the government taxes appropriately to pay for it?
21 Jun 2011, 3:24 pm
pandabear wrote:
Suppose the government spends for things that are useful? Like roads, education, health care? And, suppose the government taxes appropriately to pay for it?
But it doesn't. It spends for things like three middle eastern wars, a bloated prison industry feeding off of an asinine "war" on drugs, ever increasing police powers to fight "terrorism", and so much bureaucratic red tape that the fastest sector for job growth is people who interface between corporations and the government. Take a flamethrower to all that (and much more), and maybe we can talk about an appropriate level of taxation.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
21 Jun 2011, 3:26 pm
Dox47 wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Suppose the government spends for things that are useful? Like roads, education, health care? And, suppose the government taxes appropriately to pay for it?
But it doesn't. It spends for things like three middle eastern wars, a bloated prison industry feeding off of an asinine "war" on drugs, ever increasing police powers to fight "terrorism", and so much bureaucratic red tape that the fastest sector for job growth is people who interface between corporations and the government. Take a flamethrower to all that (and much more), and maybe we can talk about an appropriate level of taxation.
The problem that "starving the beast" really doesn't get rid of all that, all it does is run up deficits in the mid-term.
21 Jun 2011, 3:41 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
The problem that "starving the beast" really doesn't get rid of all that, all it does is run up deficits in the mid-term.
I agree, the beast needs to be shot, not starved. I've seen that simply cutting taxes and hoping the state shrinks commensurately doesn't work, what I want to see are these policies and programs killed directly. My personal preferred bullets for the job would be putting the teeth back into the commerce clause, and a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy, between the two I think most of the worst policies (from a civil liberties standpoint) could be invalidated. I'm not even sure how to specifically go after the corporate welfare, that's so entrenched in both parties and I can't think of a clear legal way to bar the practice. For the record, I also consider anti-competitive regulations (of the market barrier type especially) to be corporate welfare, as they allow the entrenched to quash their competition through the state rather than through superior business.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
13 Oct 2012, 1:27 am
pandabear wrote:
In the most recent debate among Republican hopefuls, Ron Paul inserted quite a lot of jargon, which made him appear superficially smarter than everyone else.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... se.02.html
I thought that we should open up a debate specifically to examine his statements more closely. Is he really making sense? Or is he just a quack?
I am most interested in parsing out Ron Paul economic ideas. Ron Paul admirers will probably be spamming us, which is fine, but I would like people to evaluate primarily his economic ideas.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... se.02.html
I thought that we should open up a debate specifically to examine his statements more closely. Is he really making sense? Or is he just a quack?
Quote:
REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: I am Congressman Ron Paul. I've been elected to the Congress 12 times from Texas. Before I went into the Congress, I delivered babies for a living and delivered 4,000 babies. Now I would like to be known and defend the title that I am the champion of liberty and I defend the Constitution. Thank you.
Quote:
Let's continue the conversation. I want to come to Congressman Paul. You're all here saying the president of the United States is making the economy worse. Has he done one thing -- has he done one thing right when it comes to the economy in this country?
PAUL: Boy, that's a tough question.
(LAUGHTER)
No, no, I can't think of anything, but may I answer the question that you alluded to before about whether or not 5 percent is too optimistic? No, there's nothing wrong without -- without setting a goal of 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent, if you have a free- market economy.
We're trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years, and you're not going to touch this problem until you liquidate the bad debt and the mal-investment, go back to work. But you have to have sound money, and you have to recognize how we got in the trouble.
We got in the trouble because we had a financial bubble, and it's caused by the Federal Reserve. If you don't look at monetary policy, we will continue the trend of the last decade. We haven't even -- we haven't developed any new jobs in the last decade. Matter of fact, we've had 30 million new people and no new jobs, and it's because they don't -- the people don't understand monetary policy and central economic planning things.
Free markets will give you 10 percent or 15 percent growth or whatever (ph) and you will not have to turn it off because you think it's going to cause inflation. It doesn't work that way.
PAUL: Boy, that's a tough question.
(LAUGHTER)
No, no, I can't think of anything, but may I answer the question that you alluded to before about whether or not 5 percent is too optimistic? No, there's nothing wrong without -- without setting a goal of 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent, if you have a free- market economy.
We're trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years, and you're not going to touch this problem until you liquidate the bad debt and the mal-investment, go back to work. But you have to have sound money, and you have to recognize how we got in the trouble.
We got in the trouble because we had a financial bubble, and it's caused by the Federal Reserve. If you don't look at monetary policy, we will continue the trend of the last decade. We haven't even -- we haven't developed any new jobs in the last decade. Matter of fact, we've had 30 million new people and no new jobs, and it's because they don't -- the people don't understand monetary policy and central economic planning things.
Free markets will give you 10 percent or 15 percent growth or whatever (ph) and you will not have to turn it off because you think it's going to cause inflation. It doesn't work that way.
Quote:
MIKE PATINSKY, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, FRANKLIN PIERCE COLLEGE: Well, for the candidates I'd like to know how they plan on returning manufacturing jobs to the United States.
KING: Congressman Paul, why don't you start with that one?
PAUL: Pretty important because everything we've done in the last 20 or 30 years we've exported our jobs. And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money.
You have to invite capital. The way you get capital into a country, you have to have a strong currency, not a weak currency. Today it's a deliberate job of the Federal Reserve to weaken the currency. We should invite capital back.
First thing is, we have trillions of dollars, at least over a trillion dollars of U.S. money made overseas, but it stays over there because if you bring it home, they get taxed. If you want to, we need to get the Fed to quit printing the money and if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money and take the taxes office, set up a financial system, deregulate and de-tax to invite people to go back to work again.
But as long as we run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas, and that is what's happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade.
KING: Congressman Paul, why don't you start with that one?
PAUL: Pretty important because everything we've done in the last 20 or 30 years we've exported our jobs. And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money.
You have to invite capital. The way you get capital into a country, you have to have a strong currency, not a weak currency. Today it's a deliberate job of the Federal Reserve to weaken the currency. We should invite capital back.
First thing is, we have trillions of dollars, at least over a trillion dollars of U.S. money made overseas, but it stays over there because if you bring it home, they get taxed. If you want to, we need to get the Fed to quit printing the money and if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money and take the taxes office, set up a financial system, deregulate and de-tax to invite people to go back to work again.
But as long as we run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas, and that is what's happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade.
Quote:
PAUL: There shouldn't be any government assistance to private enterprise. It's not morally correct, it's legal, it's bad economics. It's not part of the constitution. If you allow an economy to thrive, they'll decide how R&D works or where they invest their monies.
But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get the malinvestment. They do the dumb things. They might build too many houses. And they might not direct their research to the right places. So no, it's a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn't happen.
But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get the malinvestment. They do the dumb things. They might build too many houses. And they might not direct their research to the right places. So no, it's a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn't happen.
Quote:
Congressman Paul, BlackBerry or iPhone?
PAUL: BlackBerry. KING: BlackBerry it is.
PAUL: BlackBerry. KING: BlackBerry it is.
Quote:
QUESTION: Yes, sir. As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I've been contributing to Medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. How do you propose to keep Medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond?
KING: Let's start with Dr. Paul on this one.
PAUL: Well, under these conditions, it's not solvent and won't be solvent. You know, if you're -- if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into -- into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much.
So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine.
And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.
And that's why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.
But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just -- you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?
KING: Let's start with Dr. Paul on this one.
PAUL: Well, under these conditions, it's not solvent and won't be solvent. You know, if you're -- if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into -- into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much.
So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine.
And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.
And that's why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.
But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just -- you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?
Quote:
KING: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?
PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality. You can't teach people how to be moral.
But the Constitution addresses this by saying -- literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn't talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws -- which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.
PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality. You can't teach people how to be moral.
But the Constitution addresses this by saying -- literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn't talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws -- which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.
Quote:
KING: All right, let me ask you another question. The Obama administration is in the process -- and Leon Panetta, who's the new defense secretary, will implement -- essentially, the repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" so gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. I want to ask each of you -- and, again, if we can be quickly, because then we want to get to the voters question -- if you were president -- if you become president of the United States, now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it, go back to "don't ask/don't tell," or something else? ...
PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
Quote:
QUESTION: As a naturalized American citizen who came here legally, I would like to know how you, as America -- as president, plan to prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, educational, or welfare systems?
PAUL: Well, first off, we shouldn't have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn't give them easy citizenship.
We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make any sense to me.
(APPLAUSE)
But on -- on coming in, you know, there was a time when government wasn't -- we didn't depend on government for everything. There was a time when the Catholic Church actually looked after...
KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
If we believed in our free society -- as a matter of fact, this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. People aren't coming over as much now because it's weak. When we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn't work (ph) and people flowed over here getting jobs. So there is an economic issue here, as well.
But, no, if you have an understanding and -- and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. You don't have to say, oh, you're not going to have care or there won't be any care and everybody is going to starve to death and -- and die on the streets without medical care. That's the implication of the question. That's just not true, and you shouldn't accept it.
PAUL: Well, first off, we shouldn't have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn't give them easy citizenship.
We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make any sense to me.
(APPLAUSE)
But on -- on coming in, you know, there was a time when government wasn't -- we didn't depend on government for everything. There was a time when the Catholic Church actually looked after...
KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
If we believed in our free society -- as a matter of fact, this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. People aren't coming over as much now because it's weak. When we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn't work (ph) and people flowed over here getting jobs. So there is an economic issue here, as well.
But, no, if you have an understanding and -- and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. You don't have to say, oh, you're not going to have care or there won't be any care and everybody is going to starve to death and -- and die on the streets without medical care. That's the implication of the question. That's just not true, and you shouldn't accept it.
Quote:
JOHN BROWN, VOTER: Osama bin Laden is dead. We've been in Afghanistan for ten years. Isn't it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan? ...
PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I've had a little experience. I've spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief.
I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.
I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well, because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you.
PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I've had a little experience. I've spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief.
I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.
I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well, because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you.
I am most interested in parsing out Ron Paul economic ideas. Ron Paul admirers will probably be spamming us, which is fine, but I would like people to evaluate primarily his economic ideas.
I will debate anyone who does not like or understand Ron Paul..Our country depends on exposing certain truths.
if one is indoctrinated with socialism from public school thinking.. I will try my best to free your mind..it is all a matter of perspective..I dont mind you being you.. but i do mind thinking that will violate our Constitution..and thus violate the liberty of me and those i love..
This long video is rich with Ron Paul speak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... qd7P3rHjk#!
Last edited by MayBitsu on 13 Oct 2012, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
13 Oct 2012, 1:35 am
simon_says wrote:
Whatever anyone thinks of him he's not going to win. He's saying the same Ron Paul things in the same Ron Paul way. We already saw that movie, he lost. If he's not trying to grow his share of voters, we're watching the same movie.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with the fact that when a man is consistent on what he stands for, nobody wants to vote for him?
13 Oct 2012, 1:45 am
pandabear wrote:
Okay, next point.
We're trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years,
70 years ago would be 1941--the start of US participation in World War II.
Did a "Keynesian bubble" start "winding up" during that year?
And, how is he going to "unwind" it?
Some insights, or even spam, from Mr. Paul's supporters would be most welcome.
Quote:
We're trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years,
70 years ago would be 1941--the start of US participation in World War II.
Did a "Keynesian bubble" start "winding up" during that year?
And, how is he going to "unwind" it?
Some insights, or even spam, from Mr. Paul's supporters would be most welcome.
ask a real question first..
your asking how we can fix inflation?
13 Oct 2012, 1:47 am
Master_Pedant wrote:
Ron Paul is a moron when it comes to one of the most central, unifying theories of biology:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw[/youtube]
"I thought it was a very inapproperiate question ... for the Presidency being decided on a scientific matter."
What a f*cking wilful idiot or liar.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw[/youtube]
"I thought it was a very inapproperiate question ... for the Presidency being decided on a scientific matter."
What a f*cking wilful idiot or liar.
I can argue the same point..
" most central, unifying theories of biology " ?? so says u
13 Oct 2012, 1:53 am
Philologos wrote:
What for use of "quack" here?
He is apparently an MD, which in slang usage is often labelled "quack", so in slang terms yes he is a quack just like Dr. Krosnick.
But more commonly "quack" is used for an incompetent doctor or charlatan. What do we know about his medical qualifications and practice?
If not one of these meanings, what possible sense is this?
He is apparently an MD, which in slang usage is often labelled "quack", so in slang terms yes he is a quack just like Dr. Krosnick.
But more commonly "quack" is used for an incompetent doctor or charlatan. What do we know about his medical qualifications and practice?
If not one of these meanings, what possible sense is this?
So what other candidate is a doctor ?
since there are none why even bring this up?
I read all the anti Ron Paul stuff everyday..
only to see it makes him stronger..
simply because the anti crowd has no argument..
I feel as though i am trying to teach a cage full of monkeys to build a house
