It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why don't Obama or McCain even come close to Ron Paul on the economy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:58 AM
Seriously, many of you know I am an Obama fan. But Why the heck isn't he, or McCain for that matter, speaking about the economy as plainly as Ron Paul is in thisATS Link?

Don't they realize they have got to start speaking about the reality of this problem? Or do they seriously think that we will just absorb the inflation and adapt. And who knows, maybe we will, but at least be honest with people about it!

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:23 AM
Ron Paul is a student of the Austrian school. Obama's plan is more Keynesian and McCain is...I don't even know, Bushian or something.

As such it's important to look at the differences in terms of economic philosophy. There are many people who disagree but I believe a Keynesian viewpoint works far better for a nation like the United States, the obvious caveat being the current necessity for a fiat currency due to inflation caused by loss of the gold standard (thanks Richard Nixon...).

Ron Paul's ideas are idealist to the extreme - and in the age of giant corporations, when a Wal-Mart can move in to a small town and force every small business out, a completely unregulated free market literally assures itself that individualism will fail. One man opening a small business cannot compete with an unregulated giant.

An example - It's was the failure of the government and the Federal Reserve to regulate the mortgage market that essentially led to the economic downturn we face today. Now, Bernake's continuation of Greenspan's low interest policy has contributed as well, but that's a different story. Had subprime mortgages been regulated IndyMac would never have failed, nor Bear Stearns.

The strength of Ron Paul's economics come from his vision of a small government. If we reduce government spending while downscaling taxes and the size of the government, we can help the private sector grow while keeping the government on a balanced budget. However the problem with this comes from the two things I mentioned above - how the private sector is no longer even free market capitalism and how the government and private sector are so entwined that the failure of one to check the other leads to failure.

The weakness with the Bush-McCain policy is cutting taxes and funneling money into the private sector at the same time as INCREASING the size of the government and government spending. It's ridiculous, and why we have such a huge national debt.

So, until the damage done by the past 8 years is fixed, there is no place for people like Ron Paul. Coming in and immediately abolishing the Federal Reserve and IRS would have disastrous consequences, not to mention attempting a return to the gold standard when inflation is comparatively so high. Kick out Bernake, curb inflation, end the needless spending in Iraq, return tax brackets to their 1992-2000 levels, close torture facilities and FEMA camps (if they exist like Alex Jones says), stop giving no-bid contracts to cutthroats like Blackwater and Haliburton, and then maybe we can elect someone like Ron Paul.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by evanmontegarde

Thanks for that valuable contribution. Especially the part about how the damage from the last 8 years needs to be fixed before the radically idealistic transformation Ron Paul is talking about could even be feasible.

new topics

log in