Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul

reply to post by neo96

I grew up with I.O.U.s being issued from pikers.

I also look back to Dumb and Dumber. Their I.O.U. for the car.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by gorgi
Look before there was a federal reserve in 1913, we had a lot more economic problems on our hands. Since then they have been less, and not has bad.
centeral bank independence

Ummk... what's the national debt now like 7 billion or something...in 1913 you could have purchased all the land in the world for that amount of money. That's definately not "HAS" bad.

NO the national debt is not 7 billion. Its Higher. Debt isnt a bad thing really. Too much can be. The revolutionary was financed on debt.

Yes i do have a grammar and spelling problem, thanks for pointing that out.

Debt is not a bad thing???
What school of economics did you go to?
What kind of crap is this?

You misunderstand, too much debt is bad. Countries that run debt doesnt mean all that much. Jackson paid off the debt and the economy crashed. Also when countries run debts it gives incentives for other countries to help them.

Oh For econ I went to U of O if you really care

For those of you who are wanting to talk "numbers"

US Debt Clock

The "banking cartel" has been attacking the US since it's inception... until they bought the political system last century ... and the "new" royalty was officially "born."

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by gorgi
Look before there was a federal reserve in 1913, we had a lot more economic problems on our hands. Since then they have been less, and not has bad.
centeral bank independence

Ummk... what's the national debt now like 7 billion or something...in 1913 you could have purchased all the land in the world for that amount of money. That's definately not "HAS" bad.

NO the national debt is not 7 billion. Its Higher. Debt isnt a bad thing really. Too much can be. The revolutionary was financed on debt.

Yes i do have a grammar and spelling problem, thanks for pointing that out.

Debt is not a bad thing???
What school of economics did you go to?
What kind of crap is this?

You misunderstand, too much debt is bad. Countries that run debt doesnt mean all that much. Jackson paid off the debt and the economy crashed. Also when countries run debts it gives incentives for other countries to help them.

Oh For econ I went to U of O if you really care

Debt makes you a slave. Whether is be personal debt, company debt or Govt debt. He who owns the debt, owns you.

I would ask U of O for my money back.

Originally posted by Cuervo
To be fair, I don't think the OP is a "shill". I've been in his position. He's probably working on his finals for a conventional macro-economics course and is running on one publisher's opinion of the more recent events in our fiscal history. That's fine. I did (and still do) fall into that trap sometimes; it helps keep you interested in the course.

He is also very biased towards Ron Paul and believes a few lies about him (wants to run the government solely on tariffs?) that he's heard from one source or another.

I've come to the conclusive perspective of leaning towards Ron Paul after extensive independent research. You can't go to commentary blogs or opinion sites and start hating somebody without looking at facts. And you can't have "facts" about speculated alternate histories that never happened like you do when you say "he would ruin America" or that "without qe, we'd be screwed"... you can't know that. Nobody can. Without qe, we'd survive, then brush ourselves off, and then be more prosperous than before. How do you think we did things before? Microeconomics translates quite beautifully into macroeconomics. Many economics professors are split pretty evenly on that.

No I finished regular econ years ago. Its research and stuff I have learned that made me believe that he is wrong
I should have been more clear. When i mean he will destroy America, I meant the America as we know it, a great country.
He wants to get rid of a bunch of government agencies. I dont want lead paint on toys, I really dont want random bits of crap in my food because Ron Paul got rid of the oversight.

reply to post by Maxmars


what is income security uder the largest budget items on the left underneath the national debt?

what is that money being spent on?

Originally posted by gorgi
I dont want lead paint on toys

Yes very true, I can see you've had enough.

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by gorgi
Look before there was a federal reserve in 1913, we had a lot more economic problems on our hands. Since then they have been less, and not has bad.
centeral bank independence

Ummk... what's the national debt now like 7 billion or something...in 1913 you could have purchased all the land in the world for that amount of money. That's definately not "HAS" bad.

NO the national debt is not 7 billion. Its Higher. Debt isnt a bad thing really. Too much can be. The revolutionary was financed on debt.

Yes i do have a grammar and spelling problem, thanks for pointing that out.

Debt is not a bad thing???
What school of economics did you go to?
What kind of crap is this?

You misunderstand, too much debt is bad. Countries that run debt doesnt mean all that much. Jackson paid off the debt and the economy crashed. Also when countries run debts it gives incentives for other countries to help them.

Oh For econ I went to U of O if you really care

Wow, where are you getting your facts from now????

The recession you are referring to was PAYBACK by the banking system for paying off the national debt and not renewing the charter for a Central Bank that is exactly the same as the Federal Reserve.... I don't know what you are reading, but here is one of your own sources, directly contradicting your claim:

To force Jackson to accept a re-charter bill, Biddle decided to shrink the money supply and cause a recession in 1834.

Wikipedia

Biddle, in case you are unaware, was a BANKER. Who does it say decided to shrink the money supply and create a recession???

Look, you are wrong on so many levels it isn't humorous anymore, it's starting to become a flat out insult.

For that reason, as much as I'd love to enlighten you to the facts, your arrogance and ignorance of the facts has forced me to use the imaginary ATS ignore button and I will not reply to your nonsense anymore.

I bid you farewell my ignorant friend... good luck to you!

~Namaste

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by gorgi
Look before there was a federal reserve in 1913, we had a lot more economic problems on our hands. Since then they have been less, and not has bad.
centeral bank independence

Ummk... what's the national debt now like 7 billion or something...in 1913 you could have purchased all the land in the world for that amount of money. That's definately not "HAS" bad.

NO the national debt is not 7 billion. Its Higher. Debt isnt a bad thing really. Too much can be. The revolutionary was financed on debt.

Yes i do have a grammar and spelling problem, thanks for pointing that out.

Debt is not a bad thing???
What school of economics did you go to?
What kind of crap is this?

You misunderstand, too much debt is bad. Countries that run debt doesnt mean all that much. Jackson paid off the debt and the economy crashed. Also when countries run debts it gives incentives for other countries to help them.

Oh For econ I went to U of O if you really care

Debt makes you a slave. Whether is be person debt, company debt or Govt debt. He who owns the debt, owns you.

I would ask U of O for my money back.

Countries do not operate like individuals have to .
You should ask glen beck to give back the money you gave him. It wasn't worth it

Originally posted by gorgi
Ron Paul has been constantly wrong on most stuff relating to the economy. His ideas of what he wants to do to the country will destroy it.

Ron Paul says he wants a smaller government. I suppose he doesnt realize what his actions will do to the country. He says he wants to get rid of many government agencies including the DOE, DHS, IRS, FEMA, DHHS, and the federal reserve.. What is he thinking? These are horrible ideas. The DOE oversees the US energy, inspections, research ect. The DHS keeps us safe. FEMA responds to disasters.

I agree with you on this. People believe simply cutting agencies will partly solve the problem but this is not the case. Take into mind though, I do believe that if Ron Paul were to become president and remove an agency like the IRS, he'd just have it replaced and he'd different folks handling taxes the next day.

People don't like the tax man, so its politically appealing to say you'd remove him from government (and then sneak a replacement afterwards).

The federal reserve is a very important body of the government. Doesnt he realize that by abolishing this he will destroy the country?

I don't believe abolishing the federal reserve will destroy the country. I do believe that it is pointless to abolish it, it'll just be replaced again, and by Ron Paul if he were president.

Ron Paul is likable because his ideas reflect a fantasy world and people like that. Realistically, they don't follow reality and if he were to win the presidency, i'd assure you that he'd presidency would end up not much different from others (only this time the majority of ATSers would be covering for him). Considering Ron Paul's support to maintain the religious institution of marriage in government, to oppose gay marriage outright, to support government intrusion on a woman's body (abortion), and his almost borderline support for the right of states to maintain racial segregation, he's no good in my opinion. By the least he'd end up one in the same, like much of Obama's presidency, only with minor differences.

Ron Paul in my opinion is the diet coke of the Republican party, he effectively brings in libertarian and ATS voters to support the republicans without them either realizing it or admitting it. Maybe he's unaware that he is just another flavour of republican? Maybe he's caught onto something, either way, he's views are not really supported by the general population, hence the fact he receivers 5% or less of the vote come election time.

Ron Paul receiver around 48,000 votes in the 2008 elections.
Far cry from his 432,000 vote win in 1988, and ironically he was far more recognized and advertised in 2008. What happened to all those voters that claimed they supported him? Why did he loose so many?

Being a Libertarian is great on a political forum, not in life though.

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by gorgi
Look before there was a federal reserve in 1913, we had a lot more economic problems on our hands. Since then they have been less, and not has bad.
centeral bank independence

Ummk... what's the national debt now like 7 billion or something...in 1913 you could have purchased all the land in the world for that amount of money. That's definately not "HAS" bad.

NO the national debt is not 7 billion. Its Higher. Debt isnt a bad thing really. Too much can be. The revolutionary was financed on debt.

Yes i do have a grammar and spelling problem, thanks for pointing that out.

Debt is not a bad thing???
What school of economics did you go to?
What kind of crap is this?

You misunderstand, too much debt is bad. Countries that run debt doesnt mean all that much. Jackson paid off the debt and the economy crashed. Also when countries run debts it gives incentives for other countries to help them.

Oh For econ I went to U of O if you really care

Debt makes you a slave. Whether is be person debt, company debt or Govt debt. He who owns the debt, owns you.

I would ask U of O for my money back.

Countries do not operate like individuals have to .
You should ask glen beck to give back the money you gave him. It wasn't worth it

What money to Glen Beck??
Your uneducated assumptions are shadowed only by your blind ignorance.
Vice President Biden, is that you??

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Cuervo
To be fair, I don't think the OP is a "shill". I've been in his position. He's probably working on his finals for a conventional macro-economics course and is running on one publisher's opinion of the more recent events in our fiscal history. That's fine. I did (and still do) fall into that trap sometimes; it helps keep you interested in the course.

He is also very biased towards Ron Paul and believes a few lies about him (wants to run the government solely on tariffs?) that he's heard from one source or another.

I've come to the conclusive perspective of leaning towards Ron Paul after extensive independent research. You can't go to commentary blogs or opinion sites and start hating somebody without looking at facts. And you can't have "facts" about speculated alternate histories that never happened like you do when you say "he would ruin America" or that "without qe, we'd be screwed"... you can't know that. Nobody can. Without qe, we'd survive, then brush ourselves off, and then be more prosperous than before. How do you think we did things before? Microeconomics translates quite beautifully into macroeconomics. Many economics professors are split pretty evenly on that.

No I finished regular econ years ago. Its research and stuff I have learned that made me believe that he is wrong
I should have been more clear. When i mean he will destroy America, I meant the America as we know it, a great country.
He wants to get rid of a bunch of government agencies. I dont want lead paint on toys, I really dont want random bits of crap in my food because Ron Paul got rid of the oversight.

He wants to get rid of oversight and any of those other things he's talking about dismantling on a federal level. He simply wants to have that responsibility be a state-level issue.

His reasons for this are constitutionally motivated where as my reasons for wanting that have nothing to do with the constitution. I think all of those services he wants to tear down would be better ran by individual states. We are simply to large (geographically) to have such a controlling central government. I honestly believe that's why USSR collapsed. They were too large and you can't please such a large area with one set of policies. There are any other number of reasons you can point at for their collapse but I think they all stem from their size.

Think about it, you have blue states and red states. Every four years, half of those states are pissed and the other is dancing in the streets. Why do that?! If you don't like the way things are ran, you have to move to Canada. Imagine having only to move to a different state to see a set of policies you agree with! Everybody would be happy.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


You can ignore me if you want. Thats fine the truth is not for everyone.
Well jackson did cause the economy the crash after paying off the debt
jackson causes debt
Thats one reason for it among others. Slashing government spending was another.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Considering Ron Paul's support to maintain the religious institution of marriage in government, to oppose gay marriage outright, to support government intrusion on a woman's body (abortion), and his almost borderline support for the right of states to maintain racial segregation, he's no good in my opinion.

Who are you talking about?! He wants to legalize EVERYTHING you just talked about. He wants to legalize, on a federal level, gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, or any other thing that shouldn't be in the hands of the federal government. I think you are confusing him with that Santoro guy.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Considering Ron Paul's support to maintain the religious institution of marriage in government, to oppose gay marriage outright, to support government intrusion on a woman's body (abortion), and his almost borderline support for the right of states to maintain racial segregation, he's no good in my opinion.

Who are you talking about?! He wants to legalize EVERYTHING you just talked about. He wants to legalize, on a federal level, gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, or any other thing that shouldn't be in the hands of the federal government. I think you are confusing him with that Santoro guy.

Not necessarily legalize those things, but place the responsibility back to the State level.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Considering Ron Paul's support to maintain the religious institution of marriage in government, to oppose gay marriage outright, to support government intrusion on a woman's body (abortion), and his almost borderline support for the right of states to maintain racial segregation, he's no good in my opinion.

Who are you talking about?! He wants to legalize EVERYTHING you just talked about. He wants to legalize, on a federal level, gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, or any other thing that shouldn't be in the hands of the federal government. I think you are confusing him with that Santoro guy.

Not necessarily legalize those things, but place the responsibility back to the State level.

Exactly. Legalize them on a federal level.

ps - I see what you meant, nevermind. Yeah. What you said.

I had to log in just to say if this guy is being for real, he makes me sick. You have to be blind to not understand the USA is on the fast track to collapse. It needs to make some game changing decisions, which coincidentally Ron Paul has been doing for 40 years.

IMO this is a thread created to pick a fight, unfortunately for OP, Ron Paul supporters know their stuff.

Why? B/c anyone who has paid attention to Dr. Paul understands his form of politics promotes learning the issues, digging to the source, enlightening in a sense. You are never gonna win an argument with a Paul supporter under the terms you have begun this little battle. And you surely won't get the last word in on ATS with your generic political rhetoric.

You seriously sound very unintelligent.

Debt sounds like a good idea b/c you are told to think it's completely alright. Debt is ok, IMO, when other countries are willing to buy it up (Tbills). Guess what, countries don't want to buy out debt up anymore, they don't trust us and they don't trust the dollar. So instead the (privately owned) FED us using their power (to print money) to buy up US debt (tbills) from guess who... Goldman Sachs (every single member of the FED has worked for Goldman Sachs. So both parties benefit. Do the research, I know I don't have to explain this to the majority of open minds on here.

He wants to privatized those industries..

Problem?

We're too far gone.

Debt, itself may not necessarily make you a slave.

But, usury shure as heck does.

OP, explain to me how an economy can be less stable with gold being the currency than fiat currency from a fractional reserve banking system?
Precious metals are practically inflation/deflation(not to mention hyper-in/de) proof. The same cannot be said for what we have now.