Ron Paul "out-progressives" Obama?!

From our friends over at the Dissident Voice - a site I will definitely have to become more familiar with - we have their new article Ron Paul: A Lesser Evil?

It's an excellent summary of why progressives, liberals - what have you - should support Ron Paul instead of our incumbent president Obama in the upcoming election - if you're hungry for any meaningful, progressive change in the US. (first off, you've definitely got to get involved in the primary elections so we can end up with the right candidates!) Speaking just for myself, I'm tired of the wars, both home and abroad. I'm tired of double-speak, newspeak, and all the other Orwellianisms we've accepted as a nation for some time now.

Sure, DV admit he's got some warts (as they admit from a misconstrued standpoint). But they also offer meat and potatoes:

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

I think the author well sums up his very valid opinion here (inserting MY opinion for a moment, it's simply a fact that Obama has failed to fulfill almost all of his campaign promises as well as betrayed his progressive supporters - we have more war, no gain of lost civil liberties, a constantly-worsening economy he's fed all the wrong medicine trying to treat..it simply goes on and on):

But! I do have a problem with those who imagine themselves to be liberal-minded citizens of the world casting their vote for Barack Obama and propagating the notion that someone can bomb and/or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya and still earn more Progressive Points than the guy who would, you know, not do any of that.

Basically, there's so much truth in this article about how Ron Paul is in fact much more progressive than Obama that I'd like to post the whole thing, but I won't. I'll just say go read it, and then bookmark the site since it looks like they've got a lot more to offer - not all of it can I agree with, but good nonetheless. You can get some background on the site and its mission here.

OK, I can't resist - here's a great review of Paul's progressive qualifications that simply *trump* Obama's:

Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million – or one in 100 – Americans behind bars, the vast majority African-American and Hispanic. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.

Paul would also stop providing subsidies to corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels, while allowing class-action tort suits to proceed against oil and coal companies for the environmental damage they have wrought...

Just go read the article, and let's open the floor for discussion!

I really don;t know what is going to happen with this next election but I'm hoping Ron will win. To be honest I'm sick of these back to back 8 years in office presidents.

But Ron's biggest probloem will not be going agianst Obama It will be going up against the Republican machine and neo cons that love war

reply to post by American-philosopher


I'm strongly hoping that Mccain's nose getting rubbed in it last time will still be fresh enough in their memories that they remember they lost to the (perceived) anti-war candidate.

Maybe I shouldn't, but I'm feeling much more optimistic this time around. It's been Bush 2.0 with Obama in office, effectively - a continuation of the same failed policies that the nation elected Obama to fix in the first place. With the advent of the tea party, spending is an up-front issue this time and it seems like even the republicans are slowly starting to come around (OH so slowly) to remember that their roots are not neo-conservative - as one of their idols Reagan once said, libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.

We'll see, but I don't think they can get away with all the shenanigans they pulled last time, at least not anywhere near enough on the same level - and Ron Paul has much more recognition and vindication this time.

Thanks, and be well.

We'll see, but I don't think they can get away with all the shenanigans they pulled last time,

reply to post by Praetorius


Umm the tricks have already started You remember the failed shenanigan that fox news tried with the CPAC thing right? Ron I think is already Identified as the person the globalist don;t want to win. I mean your right that particuliar shenanigan didn;t work, but it speaks volumes to me that so far removed from the debates and everything they are already trying shenanigans.

I have a rather different take on this development so please hear me out.

The Republican Party from 1896-1932 was an alliance under a ‘big tent’ of Classical liberals, Fiscal conservatives, Social moderates, Isolationists, and Liberals. The Democratic Party was arguably more diverse but was more about control than anything else. In their ‘big tent’ sat Classical liberals, modern day ‘Neoconservatives’, Social conservatives, Internationalists, and big government Liberals.

In the GOP we had the three groups which defined the party in 1912; Conservative William H. Taft, Liberal Theodore Roosevelt, and Progressive Robert Lafollette, Sr. Generally they were able to agree and form a broad coalition which united itself around specific Republican ideals, with little dissent.

• Defense of civil rights, some sought to advance them further
• Support for business interests, most sought to destroy monopolies
• Support for protecting domestic industries, most sought to maintain or enlarge import tariffs
• Opposition to military intervention, most opposed entrance into WWI, WWII, League of Nations, and UN
• Opposition to regulations, most sought to limit regulations on business and people
• Opposition to high taxes, most sought to limit taxation on the poor and middle class first
• Support for business over unions, most sought a balance between the two

So who made up the Republican Party of 1896-1932? The Northeast and Midwest states. The Northeast provided the Fiscal conservatives, Social moderates, and Liberals while the Midwest provided the Classical liberals, and Isolationists. The party did a good job at striking a balance between the different groups of the party and while they supported more extensive civil rights they had a delicate situation on their hands. They did not want to be the party to cause a second civil war in this country so it was a fine line to walk. Many historians argue they sat on their hands in regards to civil rights, I would say they did a better job at keeping this country united and setting us on the path towards accepting each other.

No need for screaming about Christianity or Gays because with the Presidency of William McKinley they sought cultural pluralism, which means smaller groups within a society retain their distinct cultural identity and have their values and practices accepted by the wider culture.

Issues such as guns were never an issue because they thought the constitution answered all relative questions and whenever such issues come up for debate it is done at the state level.

Basically the party endorsed respecting different cultures, supporting business and investment, supporting domestic industries, enforcing strict law and order, strict interpretation of the constitution, respect of states’ rights, low taxes, individual responsibility, opposition to any military or foreign policy alliances, opposition to wars where a nation has not directly threatened our nation’s liberty, and balancing the budgets.

Now to the present day, I would like to see this coalition rebuilt on the ashes of this failed system we have had since 1932. Bring together Liberals, Libertarians, Fiscal conservatives, Social moderates, and non-interventionists back into the Republican Party to champion the issues of bringing our troops home, drastic cuts to the war budget, balancing the budget, reducing regulations on business and people, reducing taxes on all people rich and poor, cut the welfare state and begin it’s gradual phase-out, and reassert the constitution.

I believe it can be done. Chase all the statists back where they came from, the Democratic Party. Return the GOP to the party of Liassez-faire, individual responsibility, cultural diversity, and non-interventionism.

reply to post by Misoir


VERY well said, my friend. As Paul says, the republican party has lost its way.

I feel the winds of change blowing, though. Very much hoping it's not too late an hour to turn things around, but I really do believe people are starting to see the worth of these values and cooperation. It's a shame that so many have taken so readily to federal carrots that they're willing to take the stick instead of cutting the cord and remembering what it is to live according to actual american ideals and independence - they seem to have forgotten that liberty comes with such things, and forgotten what it actually is altogether it seems.

Much appreciated sir, have a fantastic evening.

reply to post by Praetorius


Glad to see I got a positive response to my post. I think I shall begin work on a thread about reconstructing the Old Right Republican Party’s coalition.

It doesn't matter who is in there we will be fed the same BS that we have for centuries... Besides, we all know the president is nothing more than a "yes man" and "do boy" anyways with a stick in his back controlling his every movement. It will only be a different face with the same ol' lies and promises. NOTHING is going to change until the COUNTRY declares bankruptcy and rebuilds from the ground up. First to go would be the laws of the land and have them rewritten attuned to the present day and time so we don't have stupid laws like you can't marry a pig in Hazard county. Ditch the IRS and the whole monetary system altogether. Rebuild the government so big companies and businesses have no power and only the people do. Get rid of congress and throw them out on their fleeces. The best thing for this country would be for it to be destroyed so it CAN be rebuilt. I mean think about it. If there ever were a strike on this country the first place would be DC where most the government is ran from. Take that whole area out of the equation and you pretty much would be forced to restructure. Just make sure it's on a day when 90% of the politicians are there...

reply to post by Praetorius


Ron Paul is a disaster for the country and will be even worse if president. His views on getting rid of the federal reserve is horrible. We need a strong central bank with a high degree of independence to keep the country moving and to have a modern economy. He wants to get rid of social security and medicare. Thats another disaster. His view on getting rid of the taxes would bankrupt the country. Im not sure if his intentions to destroy the country or if he just doesn't know better.

Federal reserve
Inflation rate and central bank independence..

reply to post by gorgi

Ron Paul is a disaster for the country and will be even worse if president.

It sounds like someone's been getting all their opinions either from the television or directly from one of the political parties...apologies if I assume incorrectly.

His views on getting rid of the federal reserve is horrible. We need a strong central bank with a high degree of independence to keep the country moving and to have a modern economy.

I disagree. The sole power that only the Fed itself has in the US it that to print money. This can be done without involving bankers and interest on said money. And the US was actually doing quite well for itself prior to the foundation of the Fed in 1913 as well as the other periods of time we didn't have a central bank. Since the Fed was instituted and government intervention in the business cycle has increased, recessions have lasted longer and/or been more severe. Also, their toying around with interest rates sends bad signals that leads more or less directly to investment bubbles in areas where such investment is not actually justified by the market - and this causes pain when the bubble pops.

Have you ever wondered WHY exactly the presidents who were so strongly opposed to the Fed were such? They realized that it centralized WAY TOO MUCH power in the hands of a few, robbed the prosperity of the people, enabled outrageous spending and caused too many other problems as well.

He wants to get rid of social security and medicare. Thats another disaster.

That's your opinion. What I personally think is a disaster is that the government thinks there is some justification for americans to have their time and effort wasted by their own money being taken through force and redistributed to others.

First off, you might want to think about what powers a president actually has - ending SSI and medicare are not on that list. Then you might want to actually get Ron Paul's thoughts and statements on the matter - he would work to address the ridiculous and wasteful spending on other fronts and then use those funds to cover any shortfalls in these systems while the kinks are being worked out. This would allow those who WANT OUT - like myself (who are you to tell me I CAN'T get out?) to do so - call me crazy, but I'd like to think I could manage that money better in my own interest than the government can, given our respective track records.

At the rate things are going, we simply *will not* be able to rely on those programs too much further into the future - but hey, good times now, so let's not worry about it until the wheels fall off!

His view on getting rid of the taxes would bankrupt the country. Im not sure if his intentions to destroy the country or if he just doesn't know better.

Actually, our existing taxes and entitlement programs are aiding in the bankrupting of US citizens, and wasteful federal spending and general idiocy such as our foreign policy as well as owing interest to the Federal Reserve for our own money ARE ALREADY bankrupting our country.

Let me clarify that. Do we have a surplus as a nation? Oh, you say we're actually over $14 trillion in debt with something approaching $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for SSI, medicare, and the like? How are we NOT already bankrupt, exactly? Ron Paul's lines of thought would:
a) let americans keep more of their own money
b) cut unnecessary government programs, spending, and waste to allow the nation to keep more of its own money that is rightfully generated through tariffs and other means.

I'm not sure how either of those lead more to bankruptcy than our current course does. It seems like they actually start working to dig us OUT of our bankruptcy, actually.

The simple fact is, bubbles aside, america has gone DOWNHILL in the last hundred years of Fed oversight and foreign policy stupidity. It seems like more of the same won't do much to change that. What was different 100 years ago? Oh...we weren't doing as many of the things that Ron Paul speaks against, and were doing things more along the lines that Ron Paul thinks we should try doing them again...

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by gorgi

 

Ron Paul is a disaster for the country and will be even worse if president.

It sounds like someone's been getting all their opinions either from the television or directly from one of the political parties...apologies if I assume incorrectly.

I accept your apology. I make the conclusion form the insane ideas he has put forth.

His views on getting rid of the federal reserve is horrible. We need a strong central bank with a high degree of independence to keep the country moving and to have a modern economy.

I disagree. The sole power that only the Fed itself has in the US it that to print money. This can be done without involving bankers and interest on said money. And the US was actually doing quite well for itself prior to the foundation of the Fed in 1913 as well as the other periods of time we didn't have a central bank. Since the Fed was instituted and government intervention in the business cycle has increased, recessions have lasted longer and/or been more severe. Also, their toying around with interest rates sends bad signals that leads more or less directly to investment bubbles in areas where such investment is not actually justified by the market - and this causes pain when the bubble pops.

Have you ever wondered WHY exactly the presidents who were so strongly opposed to the Fed were such? They realized that it centralized WAY TOO MUCH power in the hands of a few, robbed the prosperity of the people, enabled outrageous spending and caused too many other problems as well.

The Fed has other powers. They have a lot of other power. They have the power of money supply, discount rates, federal funds rate, bond selling, loaning to other banks.
We were not doing very well up until 1913. we were doing very bad. Since then the recessions have been smaller and less frequent and less severe. List of US recessions.Its a good thing that the Fed has more independence.

He wants to get rid of social security and medicare. Thats another disaster.

That's your opinion. What I personally think is a disaster is that the government thinks there is some justification for americans to have their time and effort wasted by their own money being taken through force and redistributed to others.

First off, you might want to think about what powers a president actually has - ending SSI and medicare are not on that list. Then you might want to actually get Ron Paul's thoughts and statements on the matter - he would work to address the ridiculous and wasteful spending on other fronts and then use those funds to cover any shortfalls in these systems while the kinks are being worked out. This would allow those who WANT OUT - like myself (who are you to tell me I CAN'T get out?) to do so - call me crazy, but I'd like to think I could manage that money better in my own interest than the government can, given our respective track records.

At the rate things are going, we simply *will not* be able to rely on those programs too much further into the future - but hey, good times now, so let's not worry about it until the wheels fall off!

His view on getting rid of the taxes would bankrupt the country. Im not sure if his intentions to destroy the country or if he just doesn't know better.

Actually, our existing taxes and entitlement programs are aiding in the bankrupting of US citizens, and wasteful federal spending and general idiocy such as our foreign policy as well as owing interest to the Federal Reserve for our own money ARE ALREADY bankrupting our country.

Let me clarify that. Do we have a surplus as a nation? Oh, you say we're actually over $14 trillion in debt with something approaching $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for SSI, medicare, and the like? How are we NOT already bankrupt, exactly? Ron Paul's lines of thought would:
a) let americans keep more of their own money
b) cut unnecessary government programs, spending, and waste to allow the nation to keep more of its own money that is rightfully generated through tariffs and other means.

I'm not sure how either of those lead more to bankruptcy than our current course does. It seems like they actually start working to dig us OUT of our bankruptcy, actually.

The simple fact is, bubbles aside, america has gone DOWNHILL in the last hundred years of Fed oversight and foreign policy stupidity. It seems like more of the same won't do much to change that. What was different 100 years ago? Oh...we weren't doing as many of the things that Ron Paul speaks against, and were doing things more along the lines that Ron Paul thinks we should try doing them again...

edit on 5/4/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

Not having SS or medicare ect.. will bankrupt the country. Thats a fact. If we raise the social security tax by just a few percent the problems would be fine. Tariffs are bad and they hurt the economy. Tariffs cut down on trade which causes less consumption and both countries will lose as a result. We dont have a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
www.factcheck.org...
Taxes are needed to fun the government. The Fed does know what its doing and its working very well. QE2 is doing very well right now.
www.businessweek.com... 011-04-01/gross-says-u-s-employment-gains-show-qe2-is-working-tom-keene.html
www.economist.com...

reply to post by gorgi

The Fed has other powers. They have a lot of other power. They have the power of money supply, discount rates, federal funds rate, bond selling, loaning to other banks.
We were not doing very well up until 1913. we were doing very bad. Since then the recessions have been smaller and less frequent and less severe.

They don't have other powers unique solely to them, though - regardless, I suppose we'll have to disagree on the US history of recessions as well as their causes - and honestly, I don't consider 19 recessions, including the great depression, to be much of a win for the Fed as compared to history prior to its inception. Also, you can take a decent number of the recessions out of the pre-Fed list as they took place at times the US had their former central banks.

Go central banking, you're doing a...well, I guess I've heard it said before that when you do something right, people won't be able to tell you've done anything at all? I'll just state I simply disagree with that last line, but it's all debatable so I won't bother.

I suppose an extremely-devalued dollar is also a good thing, somehow. $0.04 of what we used to call a dollar 100 years ago surely enables us to do something less money at full value wouldn't.

Not having SS or medicare ect.. will bankrupt the country. Thats a fact. If we raise the social security tax by just a few percent the problems would be fine. Tariffs are bad and they hurt the economy. Tariffs cut down on trade which causes less consumption and both countries will lose as a result. We dont have a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

No - SPENDING and unfunded liabilities will bankrupt this county. Sure, you can take more from the people to cover it, or you could just cut spending to allow a refund for people to opt out so they can secure their own futures, as well as cover the shortfalls remaining for those who want to stay in the system.

Under yours and other peoples' lines of thinking, heck, why don't we just let the government manage ALL our money for us, they can take everything required to see that all our needs are met, since we obviously aren't mature enough to take care of ourselves, and give us back a stipend for mad money.

I think you need to reconsider that view on tariffs, as well as examine realistic applications for them. There are also other VALID sources of governmental incomes - this does NOT include the income tax which is now being horrendously misused and treats all citizens as property of the government. They've got that bit backwards, there.

As far as $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities - you'll need to take that up with the Fed you're defending, then (I'll await your rebuttal to Richard Fischer, Dallas Fed Reserve president in his statements here - I won't dispute this directly myself as there are WAY too many rabbit holes in US governmental accounting, but I would like to assume he's done his homework):

Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the “infinite horizon discounted value” of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States...

...Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

Taxes are needed to fun the government.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it's a simple fact that a smaller government with less spending and less waste would also require less funding, taxes included. Our government is horribly oversized, overreaching, bloated, and inefficient. Fact.

The Fed does know what its doing and its working very well. QE2 is doing very well right now.

I suppose you're right. Then again, that depends on who you're looking at to judge the accomplishment. Wall Street and executives ARE certainly doing very well. Big banks ARE certainly doing very well.

The american people are certainly NOT doing very well. Food and fuel prices continue to be a big problem. Unemployment continues to be a big problem.

Do you have any idea what would have happened had the government just given all the TARP funds back to the people? Despite being a hit to the currency, THAT would have induced prosperity - let's see, pretty much all mortgages in the US could have been paid off...which satisfies the banks...which gives people more money to spend...which stimulates the economy...and so on.

What did they do instead? Bailout big business and big banks. They made the fatcats fatter and skipped helping out the rest of us. Hell, they even gave taxpayer money (granted, it's little more than monopoly money - but people REALLY like Monopoly!) to foreign entities.

The long and short of it is, the US is in a downward spiral. The Fed has failed. The government has failed. Change is needed as it's not sustainable, remain ignorant of that fact however long you will - just wait and see, if a significant change isn't made.

Be well, friend. No offense intended here or taken from you - but we are WAY off course and these paddles are broken.