Ron Paul ends White House bid

[MdKnightR]

I know, I know, you guys have seen it coming for a long while, but tonight Ron Paul officially announced an end to his campaign for the presidency. He said he will not follow other former Republican hopefuls in endorsing John McCain. Instead, he has given a nod to Bob Barr.

 

He also took a little jab at Barack Obama by saying, “We’re talking about change, but real change." He also added that he supported getting rid of the income tax and the federal reserve system.

 

Well, I guess it's time to do a little research on who to vote for come November. Of course, I will be checking out Bob Barr first since Mr. Paul gave him kudos.

[tk102]

He also added that he supported getting rid of the income tax and the federal reserve system.

Fixed!

 

Really, how is this that supposed to work without bankrupting the government?

[MdKnightR]

Go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com and read his stance on the issues.

[tk102]

Cut the spending... cut the spending. Reduce the government, reduce the government.

 

Good bye roads! Good bye teachers! Good bye social security!

 

Good bye Ron Paul.

[MdKnightR]

You're being extreme.

[tk102]

More extreme than eliminating income taxes and the Federal Reserve? Just trying to hear from you on why you find Paul's proposals reasonable and desirable.

[mimartin]

He also took a little jab at Barack Obama by saying, “We’re talking about change, but real change." He also added that he supported getting rid of the income tax and the federal reserve system. [/Quote] He also supports going back to the gold standard. Maybe now he can get some rest because he looked terrible the last time I saw him.

[EnderWiggin]

MdKnightR, did you cry a little bit when you heard this?

 

But it definitely was time.

 

_EW_

[MdKnightR]

He also supports going back to the gold standard.

 

Yes, and I support going back to the gold standard as well. If we were still on it, we wouldn't have such rampant inflation. The federal reserve does nothing more than print more and more money that isn't worth the paper its printed on.

 

As for getting rid of the income tax...that is also a sound proposition. We need to go to a usage based system and stop allowing the federal government to rob our paychecks before we even see the money ourselves.

[General LiWar]

I was never that supportive of RP, but he had some good ideas,

 

the gold standard, like MdKnightR said, is important for dealing with inflation.

 

the income tax wasn't put to use until WWII, the govt could survive without it. The nation has also been without a federal reserve a few time in history. With more money in our pockets, we could help ourselves instead of the govt helping those it deems need help.

 

reliance on govt spending can lead to dictatorship. democracy wont last if people continue voting for the person who will spend the most. this was e-mailed to me and i believe it to be true

[Totenkopf]

No offense, but Ron Paul would only have ended up being a spoiler of sorts. I don't believe he'd have garnered a much bigger slice of the vote in November than Perot managed in '92. Guess you're flying your flag at half-staff.

[MdKnightR]

No offense, but Ron Paul would only have ended up being a spoiler of sorts. I don't believe he'd have garnered a much bigger slice of the vote in November than Perot managed in '92. Guess you're flying your flag at half-staff.

 

You could be right. However, I'm hoping that one day (maybe this election) the number of people voting independent/3rd party will outweigh those voting Democrat or Republican. That's not to say that all those people would agree on one candidate to vote for, but just the fact that they voted against the status quo. It would be a slap in the face of the powers that be to let them know that we're fed up with business as usual.

[General LiWar]

You could be right. However, I'm hoping that one day (maybe this election) the number of people voting independent/3rd party will outweigh those voting Democrat or Republican. That's not to say that all those people would agree on one candidate to vote for, but just the fact that they voted against the status quo. It would be a slap in the face of the powers that be to let them know that we're fed up with business as usual.

 

unfortunately, i think that day is when people stop "[voting] themselves generous gifts from the public treasury" and realize they're better off by not doing so

[Totenkopf]

You could be right. However, I'm hoping that one day (maybe this election) the number of people voting independent/3rd party will outweigh those voting Democrat or Republican. That's not to say that all those people would agree on one candidate to vote for, but just the fact that they voted against the status quo. It would be a slap in the face of the powers that be to let them know that we're fed up with business as usual.

 

I'm just cynical enough to figure that if that day ever came, one or both of the other parties would have found away to rig the votes to reflect their reality and not the truth. I suspect it will take the collapse of the US in its present form to motivate enough people to finally throw the b@st@rds out on their collective arses.

[MdKnightR]

... one or both of the other parties would have found away to rig the votes to reflect their reality and not the truth.

 

Oh, they have. Its called the "electoral college."

[mimartin]

the gold standard, like MdKnightR said, is important for dealing with inflation.

Depends on who is in control of the world market of gold.

[tk102]

Yes, and I support going back to the gold standard as well. If we were still on it, we wouldn't have such rampant inflation. The federal reserve does nothing more than print more and more money that isn't worth the paper its printed on.

 

By not having hard currency, the Federal Reserve is able to control the buying power of the dollar and keep prices stable, allowing for better predictability for future investments and comparative returns. Yes this means that inflation is something must be dealt with but that is because we have the ability to control it. The buck stops here so to speak. This is done by raising interest rates to encourage or discourage new credit, selling of government bonds, and even giving out stimulus checks (aka printing of new money).

 

Let's look the alternative. To better illustrate the point, let's imagine the dollar is backed by a commodity that's on everyone's minds at the moment: oil. Congress passes a law that fixes the dollar so that $100 = 1 barrel of oil. Now what happens if there is a spike in demand due to a burgeoning economy like China or India? What if supplies run dry? The value of oil goes up and the fixed dollar goes along with it, driving prices in dollar terms down. Now what happens if new supplies are found or can be produced with new technology. Or maybe some substitute for oil can be made cheaply or cars are made that can run on 300 mpg. The value of oil plummets and prices of everything in terms of dollars rise. Either way, our economy is outside of our control and we have no way of predicting what's going to happen in a couple years. Why invest in a company if you think your dollar is going to be more precious sitting in your piggy bank? Gold is no different than oil in terms uncertain supply and demand on a world stage.

 

 

As for getting rid of the income tax...that is also a sound proposition. We need to go to a usage based system and stop allowing the federal government to rob our paychecks before we even see the money ourselves.

Do you mean going to sales tax system of revenue (aka: Fair Tax)? In many of Ron Paul's speeches, he seems to be concerned about the poor working class and those on fixed incomes, yet with regressive taxes like sales taxes, these people are the ones paying the highest percentage of their income. Seems a contradiction to me. What is fair about that? Maybe you meant something else by "usage based system"? Problem is that unless income is a factor in determining the amount of tax a person pays, the poor people who need to "use" something are going to feel the burden much more than the wealthy.

[Totenkopf]

Oh, they have. Its called the "electoral college."

 

Actually, was thinking something underhanded, like massive manipulation of the vote (especially if/when it goes electronic), but hard enough to trace to give them culpable deniability. There will always be charges of voter fraud at some level/degree (Americans hate to lose).

 

I'd say that the biggest problem any third party movement faces in this country is a certain degree of voter apathy and the fact that their issues are often co-opted by either of 2 major parties (at least w/in their rhetoric ).

[EnderWiggin]

Everyone hates to lose.

 

Corrected your stereotype

 

this was e-mailed to me and i believe it to be true

 

Oh. Right. I believe everything I see online too.

 

In fact, this is my homepage.

 

_EW_

[Litofsky]

Actually, was thinking something underhanded, like massive manipulation of the vote (especially if/when it goes electronic), but hard enough to trace to give them culpable deniability. There will always be charges of voter fraud at some level/degree (Americans hate to lose).

 

Yeah. I seem to remember that, in the 2000 Election in Florida, Al Gore received -16,000 votes. Of course, that didn't stop any counties or states from halting the purchase of more electronic voting machines.

 

I'd say that the biggest problem any third party movement faces in this country is a certain degree of voter apathy and the fact that their issues are often co-opted by either of 2 major parties (at least w/in their rhetoric ).

 

That sounds a lot like the Populist Party. They supported abolishing the gold standard, only to have the Democrats pick up that same belief. Needless to say that it siphoned quite a few votes that would have otherwise been Populist.

[Totenkopf]

Corrected your stereotype

 

_EW_

 

Well......just an expression, not looking to exclude anyone.

 

Yeah. I seem to remember that, in the 2000 Election in Florida, Al Gore received -16,000 votes. Of course, that didn't stop any counties or states from halting the purchase of more electronic voting machines.

 

Seeing as how the dems and reps pretty much run the election scene, does that surprise you? Electronic votes don't really leave a paper trail and may prove more susceptible to massive manipulation. Frankly, I think there's a kind of bread and circuses mentality that plagues the American voter. Throw in a generous dollop of cynicism and you can see why things might not change anytime soon.

[DarthJebus05]

And this is why I am never going to the USA.

[EnderWiggin]

And this is why I am never going to the USA.

 

...because Ron Paul is no longer in the running?

 

Or because we have political discussions?

 

_EW_

[Totenkopf]

And this is why I am never going to the USA.

 

That's a bit premature. I don't agree with some of the leftward leanings in your country, but I've been there at least once and wouldn't mind going again. I found that many Aussies seemed to be about as friendly as Americans.

[MdKnightR]

By not having hard currency, the Federal Reserve is able to control the buying power of the dollar and keep prices stable, allowing for better predictability for future investments and comparative returns. Yes this means that inflation is something must be dealt with but that is because we have the ability to control it. The buck stops here so to speak. This is done by raising interest rates to encourage or discourage new credit, selling of government bonds, and even giving out stimulus checks (aka printing of new money).

 

 

And we all know what a wonderful job they've been doing to keep prices stable and control inflation. If you really want a good idea about inflation and the gold standard, read WHAT'S INFLATION? by Walter Williams

 

All that "printing of new money" is basically legalized counterfeiting by the Federal Reserve.

 

Do you mean going to sales tax system of revenue (aka: Fair Tax)? In many of Ron Paul's speeches, he seems to be concerned about the poor working class and those on fixed incomes, yet with regressive taxes like sales taxes, these people are the ones paying the highest percentage of their income. Seems a contradiction to me. What is fair about that? Maybe you meant something else by "usage based system"? Problem is that unless income is a factor in determining the amount of tax a person pays, the poor people who need to "use" something are going to feel the burden much more than the wealthy.

 

Actually, yes I am for the FairTax. There is obviously a lot about it that you don't understand if you believe it will be a burden on the poor. Read up on it at their website.