Ron Paul Vs. Barack Obama - 51-49

[drebo]

No, you're wrong. It's isolationist, pure and simple.

I'd love to see Paul nominated by the GOP. Or Bachmann, Cain or any of the other certified loons.

Wonderfully persuasive post.

Sorry, but it's YOU who are wrong. The only "isolationist" policies I see bandied about here are those espouced by you and the other liberals in regards to multinational corporations.

Not getting involved in other nations' internal struggles is NOT an isolationist policy. Prohibiting business from expanding to other countries or from importing goods (raw or otherwise) from other countries IS, however, isolationist.

 

[drebo]

They've addressed every social and economic issue better than Paul's stances on social services, gold-backed currency, healthcare, et al.

By which you mean they've managed to adapt the policies to lessen the impact of the problems they've caused, right?

Cause there's no other possible way you could claim that our current government has done anything to help any situation in the past 30 years that wasn't caused by its own policies. And, let's face it, the goal and direction of government hasn't changed since the '70s.

 

[frostedflakes]

The rule of law is that the USSC gets to interpret the Constitution; if the USSC finds that the elastic clause allows for what it has found that it allows for, then we can see clearly that the rule of law has not been violated.

I understand that 'following the constitution' and respecting the 'rule of law' are emotively connected to what 'the founding fathers did'. But by bringing with them English common law they gave us the ability to re-interpret our democracy however we see fit. So, you see, if we follow what the USSC says is constitutional we can't help but be following the rule of law.

This argument, like that of 'states rights' is "a cover to destroy social protections; not an honest attempt to improve them. If he wants more old people to starve and the poor to die of diabetes (unless taken care of by a private entity) then he should be intellectually honest and just say so."

Please try to move past your emotional connection to this ephemeral 'proper' way to 'make America great again'. It's like looking toward re-establishing the dominance of the printing press in-order to improve the education of society today. Yeoman-farmer Jacksonian democracy worked for its time, but it doesn't even come close to a coherently reasonable system of governance today.

Well interpretation is the debate. I think it's pretty clear that the interstate commerce clause, general welfare clause, etc. were never intended to be used like they have. You can almost literally justify anything based on an elastic interpretation of the Constitution like that. Why even bother limiting Congress to 18 enumerated powers and relegating the rest to the states and the people if you intended to give them a loophole like that. But obviously in more recent times the courts disagree. I think a lot of people forget how many New Deal programs were thrown out back in the 1930s, though, and how many were very nearly ruled unconstitutional. But of course the longer any program is around the less people question it, so it's not surprising the people and the courts are more accepting of these programs and departments today. The public's opinion of the role of federal government (and the mental gymnastics they do to interpret the Constitution so that it fits that role) is always changing.

Wonderfully persuasive post.

Sorry, but it's YOU who are wrong. The only "isolationist" policies I see bandied about here are those espouced by you and the other liberals in regards to multinational corporations.

Not getting involved in other nations' internal struggles is NOT an isolationist policy. Prohibiting business from expanding to other countries or from importing goods (raw or otherwise) from other countries IS, however, isolationist.

It's not just a liberal thing. Isolationist tariffs to protect domestic industries, the isolationist trade embargo against Cuba, isolationist sanctions against countries like Iran and North Korea, etc. are supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle. So I always get a good laugh out of people who call Paul isolationist, because he's one of the only true free-traders in Washington and is probably the least isolationist candidate out there. He would want to talk and trade with any countries who are willing. Can the same be said of Barack Obama? Or Mitt Romney? Or any of the other candidates? So tell me who the real isolationists are here.

 

[First]

By which you mean they've managed to adapt the policies to lessen the impact of the problems they've caused, right?

Cause there's no other possible way you could claim that our current government has done anything to help any situation in the past 30 years that wasn't caused by its own policies. And, let's face it, the goal and direction of government hasn't changed since the '70s.

Well that's some interesting nonsense. Now prove how poor senior homelessness and senior health before SS/Medicare was caused by the gov't. This should be fun to hear.

 

[momeNt]

No, I know quite a bit more about Paul than you do, in fact. And fact is that you are making my point entirely when you unwittingly concede that Paul would allow for states to go years, decades or even never, if they so choose, provide medical care and retirement plans to their seniors. Except this was already tried for 160 years, and it failed. Since SS and Medicare, senior homelessness and health have vastly improved. These are statistically verifiable facts. Deal with it, Paul believes in ideas that have failed or are unproven.

If it's up to the state's, the electorate would eventually get around to voting someone in to provide these services, don't you think? Obviously it's easier to provide for on a national level because an entire nation and central bank can handle debt far more efficiently than a state, but then we open ourselves to a whole host of different problems, unemployment, offshored manufacturing, and the fact that some of these programs can't be funded without growing the debt.

How asinine.

If the right thing to do is to not allow old/poor people to starve/die of readily curable disease because they are poor: then why would making doing the right thing a states-rights issue be a better idea?*

It's a cover to destroy social protections; not an honest attempt to improve them. If he wants more old people to starve and the poor to die of diabetes (unless taken care of by a private entity) then he should be intellectually honest and just say so.

And so should you.


*The "constitution" is a ruse as well; as if this was truly a constitutional issue then Dr. Paul would be arguing for an amendment to allow for redistribution among the states so that the old/sick/poor and disabled would be taken care of.

Yep, you're right. I want the old and sick to die, so does Paul, but once they are all gone your taxes will go down, you can treat your guilt with a little shopping spree.

Seriously though is the only reason that these programs are funded at a federal level is to force all those that would otherwise try to avoid a state funded program by moving to a state that hasn't yet enacted these services? Also if only a few states were to enact it to avoid bankrupting those states by an outflow of rich righties and an inflow of poor oldies?

If that's a reason then we definitely have far too many people who don't believe in doing the "right thing" which would sadly be a reason to maybe not have these programs at all, if they aren't feasible on a state level for my reasons above.

 

[First]

If it's up to the state's, the electorate would eventually get around to voting someone in to provide these services, don't you think?

How many states provided a SS-equivalent before 1935? How many states provided a Medicare-equivalent before 1965? I know the answer, do you?

Obviously it's easier to provide for on a national level because an entire nation and central bank can handle debt far more efficiently than a state, but then we open ourselves to a whole host of different problems, unemployment, offshored manufacturing, and the fact that some of these programs can't be funded without growing the debt.

We can fund all of it without over-the-top debt if the right taxes are in place. Plenty of countries have proven this, quite successfully in fact.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

is the only reason that these programs are funded at a federal level is to force all those that would otherwise try to avoid a state funded program by moving to a state that hasn't yet enacted these services?

and to help everyone more equitably; as there's no reason that being from new-mexico should mean that you don't get needed help while being from main does.

we definitely have far too many people who don't believe in doing the "right thing" which would sadly be a reason to maybe not have these programs at all

So is the argument: welfare fraud means that the money that saves lives should not be spent at all?

Well interpretation is the debate.

No: Incredibly wide interpretative leeway vis a vis the constitution is something the founders gave us: right along with English common law. The law isn't just a document but precedent set on the document: if you don't like that then you should seek and amendment that abolishes precedent and delimits the elastic clause as interpreted.

You'll find that this is a hard sell: it moves the argument away from "following the constitution" (like its some wholly writ with only one/your right way to look at it) and realize that to follow the constitution we must accept that precedent defines the constitution.

 

[momeNt]

Ron Paul - The Ideologue - actual speaking on social security.

Answering a question from a woman on Social Security, Paul said the country has an obligation to put a high priority on programs “where we have taught people to be dependent,” including those for the elderly and children’s health care.

So even if he finds it unconstitutional, he understands that a baby whines when taken off the teat. Perhaps when Dr. Paul is in office and we move away from establishment economics that says inflation is the cure for everything, people can actually save for retirement reliably and gain some financial independence.

 

[First]

Ron Paul - The Ideologue - actual speaking on social security.



So even if he finds it unconstitutional, he understands that a baby whines when taken off the teat. Perhaps when Dr. Paul is in office and we move away from establishment economics that says inflation is the cure for everything, people can actually save for retirement reliably and gain some financial independence.

lmao.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

baby whining?

or the poor and elderly dying?

it's easy to be dismissive of a loss of human life when you degrade and are euphemistic about what you actually mean.

Here's a fact: a capitalism will always end in a totalitarian revolt if, as the wealthy natural do, a democratic redistribution of wealth does not occur.

I love democracy, I love capitalistic freedoms; I want to preserve them both. This is why I'm voting socialist for a while.

 

[momeNt]

baby whining?

or the poor and elderly dying?

it's easy to be dismissive of a loss of human life when you degrade and are euphemistic about what you actually mean.

Here's a fact: a capitalism will always end in a totalitarian revolt if, as the wealthy natural do, a democratic redistribution of wealth does not occur.

I love democracy, I love capitalistic freedoms; I want to preserve them both. This is why I'm voting socialist for a while.

Paul isn't being dismissive of a loss of human life, his quote is saying that he will honor the obligations that the government has made, he simply adds that those obligations have made people dependent. Would you disagree that it wouldn't be nice if people were more independent financially or do you like them having to depend on the government?

That isn't a fact, capitalistic freedom goes completely out the window when a country establishes themselves as the monopoly issuer of currency and gives banks the authority to lever themselves far more than they otherwise would. I would argue further that until banks honor money as property and only lend what is saved as opposed to lending credit, we will always arrive at times like we are at today, with rising income disparity in the midst of a recession and few profiting as opposed to many.

lmao.

I know it's hard to give up all your establishment economics views, but they are slowly crumbling away.

Money Multiplier Model? - Gone - http://pragcap.com/the-myth-of-the-money-multiplier-a-follow-up

The Neoclassical notion of Fractional Reserve Banking "Fiat" currency - Gone - http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

The economic establishment will figure it out, through less painful policy implementations resulting in mainstream economics stepping down from their posts or a severe depression resulting in an extreme overhaul - but they will come around eventually and finally put Keynes to rest.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

wouldn't be nice if people were more independent financially or do you like them having to depend on the government?

I would very much like to see greater self-reliance; this is indeed a cultural presupposition we share. I assume that, in the long run, we are all better off the fewer people we have supping from the government. No doubt he's right in that we decrease self reliance when we pay people to not be self reliant.

But I also value human life much more than I value my desire to see the old and impoverished starve and die as an "example to everyone else". More importantly, the economic argument falls flat when social mobility is degraded by a stagnant pooling of wealth at the top. Encouraging the top to legally try to obtain the wealth is a good thing, an essential thing; so essential that we can't allow them to ever actually reach that goal.

they will come around eventually and finally put Keynes to rest

Um... While I agree that Keynesian economic model is broken I think you've got just about the most worthless mindless drivel... You've over interpreted someone's over interpreted data.

If you want to make an argument you've got to bring-out the point you want to make and then defend it reasonably... not interpret as gospel-truth-to-live-your-life-by some poorly supported and highly couched statements.

 

[momeNt]

I would very much like to see greater self-reliance; this is indeed a cultural presupposition we share. I assume that, in the long run, we are all better off the fewer people we have supping from the government. No doubt he's right in that we decrease self reliance when we pay people to not be self reliant.

But I also value human life much more than I value my desire to see the old and impoverished starve and die as an "example to everyone else". More importantly, the economic argument falls flat when social mobility is degraded by a stagnant pooling of wealth at the top. Encouraging the top to legally try to obtain the wealth is a good thing, an essential thing; so essential that we can't allow them to ever actually reach that goal.

Um... While I agree that Keynesian economic model is broken I think you've got just about the most worthless mindless drivel... You've over interpreted someone's over interpreted data.

If you want to make an argument you've got to bring-out the point you want to make and then defend it reasonably... not interpret as gospel-truth-to-live-your-life-by some poorly supported and highly couched statements.

Thanks for your misrepresentations regarding Ron Paul and quoting "example to everyone else" not sure who you think said that but I don't see why you put the quotations as if it is something Dr. Paul or anybody here said. Also you continue to misrepresent Dr. Paul saying that he wants the elderly to die, he continually says the government should honor their obligations. The strawman industry is booming thanks to people like yourself.

Thanks also for your overall dismissive attitude towards the economic work of Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen. It'll continue to be "worthless mindless drivel" (see how I did that), until the rest of the establishment finally comes around, something you obviously have shown a failure to do.

 

[First]

I know it's hard to give up all your establishment economics views, but they are slowly crumbling away.

Money Multiplier Model? - Gone - http://pragcap.com/the-myth-of-the-money-multiplier-a-follow-up

The Neoclassical notion of Fractional Reserve Banking "Fiat" currency - Gone - http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

The economic establishment will figure it out, through less painful policy implementations resulting in mainstream economics stepping down from their posts or a severe depression resulting in an extreme overhaul - but they will come around eventually and finally put Keynes to rest.

None of this has anything to do with Paul being a ideologue with no practical solutions, so now that you've conceded that point.....


Money multiplier hasn't been proven bunk, cash reserves have resulted in far more lending since Q4 08, just not enough to bring the economy out of recession. No textbook has ever claimed bank lending brings a country out of recession by itself, especially with a huge sector of the economy (i.e. real estate) dragging everything down at less than 600,000 housing starts when 1M is the norm. The 2M starts at the peak of the housing bubble means there will be years of excess inventory to get rid of. In other words, Keynesian economics has nothing to do with fundamental weakness in real estate that's dragging down the rest of the economy.

 

[First]

What's even weirder about your economic tangent momeNt, is that Keynesian and monetarist have proven themselves the best predictor of market recessions and booms for nearly 80 years, so to claim they don't work anymore is interesting given that the alternative theories you posit are...what again? Austrian? lol, how are their models working out exactly again?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Thanks also for your overall dismissive attitude towards the economic work of Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen.

Taking the highly contextualized conclusions and then turning them into a one-word dismissal is win in your mind eh?

Enjoy!

see how I did that

I see you made no argument at all; but have simply appealed to authority in support of something the authority never said.

I wish I was simple minded, it would make life so... well simple. So much less thinking needed, so much less work... I could be a janitor, or maybe an ear nose and throat specialist...

 

[Rainsford]

...
Would you disagree that it wouldn't be nice if people were more independent financially or do you like them having to depend on the government?
...

I would agree that it would be nice if everyone was financially independent. I just don't think the libertarian approach to economics that Ron Paul encourages is likely to do that. His views originate from this idealized fantasy world that gains support based on the appeal of the idea rather than how realistic it is. In a lot of ways I think it oddly mirrors how politicians manage to talk people into communism (the actual kind, not the Obama bashing kind). "Boy, wouldn't it be nice if the world worked this way?" And the obvious response is, "Yeah...but it doesn't."

 

[First]

I would agree that it would be nice if everyone was financially independent. I just don't think the libertarian approach to economics that Ron Paul encourages is likely to do that. His views originate from this idealized fantasy world that gains support based on the appeal of the idea rather than how realistic it is. In a lot of ways I think it oddly mirrors how politicians manage to talk people into communism (the actual kind, not the Obama bashing kind). "Boy, wouldn't it be nice if the world worked this way?" And the obvious response is, "Yeah...but it doesn't."

I think the fundamental flaw in the Paul libertarian approach is the notion that Americans can somehow all be responsible with their money, lives, families, etc. when reality is far more complicated. The reality we live in where people have mental disorders, are born in poor and/or broken homes, are born with physical anomalies, they encounter bad luck or are simply irresponsible. All these qualities apply to millions of Americans who, without SS and/or Medicare, wouldn't be able to survive with nearly the same quality of living. That's just the reality. To leave SS/Medicare-type services up to churches or the whims of private individuals is not sensible, it's not realistic. That's not a reliable solution, it's not a dependable solution. You can't count on that.

 

[momeNt]

What's even weirder about your economic tangent momeNt, is that Keynesian and monetarist have proven themselves the best predictor of market recessions and booms for nearly 80 years, so to claim they don't work anymore is interesting given that the alternative theories you posit are...what again? Austrian? lol, how are their models working out exactly again?

My economic tangent was brought about by your "lmao" at Dr. Paul's generally austrian economic views on inflation.

Also it isn't about whether they work at predicting booms and recessions, they are the cause of both... It's about the fact that they are simply wrong.

I have Rothbardian austrian views on an ideal economic situation and I prefer to look at our current credit money system with the analysis of Minksy and the MMT school as well as Keen, peppered in with some Antal Fekete.

Quite a few austrian economists were very outspoken about the upcoming recession as early as 2004. Quite a few youtube videos showing Peter Schiff get laughed off CNN and MSNBC in 2005-6-7-8 by saying people should pull out of stocks they are heading for a crash.

How are Bernanke's models working out? Keen shows how they fail. Fekete explains the liquidity trap issue better than mainstream economists.

Edit: Going to just lay the economic stuff to rest and try not to continue derail the thread.

 

[First]

My economic tangent was brought about by your "lmao" at Dr. Paul's generally austrian economic views on inflation.

Also it isn't about whether they work at predicting booms and recessions, they are the cause of both... It's about the fact that they are simply wrong.

I have Rothbardian austrian views on an ideal economic situation and I prefer to look at our current credit money system with the analysis of Minksy and the MMT school as well as Keen, peppered in with some Antal Fekete.

Quite a few austrian economists were very outspoken about the upcoming recession as early as 2004. Quite a few youtube videos showing Peter Schiff get laughed off CNN and MSNBC in 2005-6-7-8 by saying people should pull out of stocks they are heading for a crash.

How are Bernanke's models working out? Keen shows how they fail. Fekete explains the liquidity trap issue better than mainstream economists.

1. Austrian's have no explanation for inflation or the consumer behavior that causes it. They literally concede their models have no predictive value because they can't quantify anything. They have no standing in any serious economics department because they have no econometricians.

2. Schiff has been wrong numerous times, something that is well documented on these forums; his greatly exaggerated price target on gold ($5000 by 2012), his greatly exaggerated claims of hyperinflation (obviously did and does not exist) and my favorite was his claim the U.S. dollar would decouple from the rest of the world's currencies. And fact is recessions occur roughly every decade, so mathematically he had to be right at some point since he has always predicted doom, going back to 2001. So it took him 7 yrs to be "right". Whoopdedoo.

3. Bernanke's models are working out just fine, thanks. Any evidence to the contrary?

Edit: Going to just lay the economic stuff to rest and try not to continue derail the thread.

Good, you should get back on topic and explain how U.S. states would magically start their own SS/Medicare programs when it has never been done in history, and then try to find an excuse for the very legitimate reasons why adding those programs at the state level has been so difficult/rare. Plus, the undeniable reality is that millions of Americans would lack coverage for years/decades even IF somehow these states eventually decided to implement these programs. Meanwhile generations of people go without coverage.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

they are the cause of both

The business cycle in the US predates the fed and was much more dramatic before the federal reserve.

I have Rothbardian austrian views on an ideal economic situation and I prefer to look at our current credit money system with the analysis of Minksy and the MMT school as well as Keen, peppered in with some Antal Fekete

Peppered you say? well, quite the argument there; surely a well founded set of belifes that make specific points for which you could be brought to task... OH wait! No! You've again appealed to some writers without ever bringing in an actual argument made by any of them!

Fekete explains the liquidity trap issue better than mainstream economists.

how and why in your opinion and how might this link to Dr. Paul's perspective?

economic stuff

Thank God you didn't call it an argument! I'd have to point out you have still to make one. The point, though, is that an economic argument is all that Dr. Paul has going for him, so your defense of his perspective is essential.

And woefully lacking.

 

[momeNt]

My only concern is why is the program feasible at a national level when apparently it isn't feasible at a state level. Saskatchewan provided a single payer system before Canada went the single payer route as a whole, so even accepting the premise that a single payer system is what we need (which obviously is not Dr. Paul's views on healthcare) we need to collectively think about and address why it doesn't work - or isn't wanted - on a state level.

As for Dr. Paul's views on healthcare - refer to his website.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My only concern is why is the program feasible at a national level when apparently it isn't feasible at a state level.

Because of the unequal distribution of the impoverished, the affluent and the added cost of providing services in states that have very low population density.

 

[momeNt]

Because of the unequal distribution of the impoverished, the affluent and the added cost of providing services in states that have very low population density.

So a state that can afford better overall care for their citizens must have its care standards lowered to meet the overall ability to pay for the entire USA?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So a state that can afford better overall care for their citizens must have its care standards lowered to meet the overall ability to pay for the entire USA?

So the state that can rise a better army is going to be worse defended because of the ones that only rise a crappy one?

The sate that can afford the best roads is going to have worse roads because of the one that can't afford any roads?

The selfish mindless perspective that what happens in one state doesn't directly impact the people of another state is something only a strong central government can overcome.