The Plan to Restore America

Eddie Braverman's picture
Rank: The Pro | 21,104

It's no secret that I'm a big Ron Paul fan. I actually had the pleasure of voting for him in the 2008 presidential election (to my knowledge, he was only on the ballot in Louisiana and Montana, but I could be wrong about that). So I'm hardly impartial. But I consider most presidential elections to be more of a national IQ test than anything else, so that explains my support for Dr. Paul.

He recently released his Plan to Restore America, and I'll be damned if it isn't an old-school conservative's wet dream (neo-cons can skip to the next post now - the American war machine is about to be dismantled). My favorite part of the plan? He'll only accept a salary of $39,336 a year as President. Why? Because that's the median personal income of the American worker. That's public service.

His plan purports to balance the budget in the third year of his presidency. That sounds like a bold projection, but when the first twelve months are spent abolishing the Departments of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education - thus saving $1 Trillion and cutting the federal government workforce by 10 percent - it appears doable. Also, if I were a young person in my first ten years in the workforce, wild horses couldn't keep me from voting for him for the simple reason that he'd let me opt out of Social Security.

Additionally, he plans to lower the corporate tax rate to a flat 15 percent, and in the process repatriate a bunch of overseas corporate profits (okay, that's probably wishful thinking). On top of that, his plan abolishes the Estate Tax and eliminates taxes on personal savings.

But are you ready for the best part? This is buried in the plan and only gets one sentence, but speaks volumes:

Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency (emphasis mine) legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

I believe he means to bring back real money. Maybe gold based. Maybe silver based. Maybe oil based, come to that. But real money you could exchange for something tangible. And if that happens, the fiat currency of the Federal Reserve is done. He might not be able to do away with the Fed, but if he can introduce a competing currency (which is the duty of Congress as specified in the Constitution) that is asset-backed, that could be a world changer.

I know detractors will be quick to point out that a 10 percent reduction in government workers will send unemployment through the roof. They're right. But we need to take some bitter medicine if we want to get well. Let's face it: the Department of Education hasn't done anyone in this country any favors over the past, oh, five decades or so.

So what do you guys think? All this and the guy's willing to work for $40,000 a year, right? Or is he completely off his rocker?

Comments (76)

Nov 9, 2011

The only reason I have a non-zero level of optimism in the future of this country is the existence of Ron Paul.

Nov 9, 2011

Personally, I think politicians should be paid by the hour at the national average rate. That way we get to see how long they work, since if they misdeclare it at any point they'd get crucified.

Add in a bonus related to performance of course, with a very good higher end possible so that it would attract some good candidates.

Nov 9, 2011

If Ron Paul got elected and brought his revolution about, my faith in humanity (especially Americans) would be lifted from the gutter. It would undoubtedly be the most inspiring thing I've ever witnessed.

Nov 9, 2011

Although, when I'm not carried away by Ron Paul fever, I still think Obama will win. Hopefully this only embeds libertarianism in the GOP.

Nov 9, 2011

Been a RP supporter for a long time. The only level headed and truth telling candidate as seen by his past voting record. His ideas are old school conservative ideas and people call him crazy....

ON a side note, he's the only politician to EVER get a political donation from me.

Nov 9, 2011

I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. This man is a rare, rare breed indeed, from the Austrian school. Look in the dictionary under consistent and you'll see his picture. He doesn't deliver false hope, he delivers real hope because his views are backed by sound economics, unlike most of the candidates(and that joke of a socialist, evil president). Ron Paul is America's only chance at a future.....

Nov 9, 2011

Yeah of course he is a rare, rare breed. I swear that i think that some of you guys make the dumbest comments.
People hate talking about raising taxes and supporting government measures but then no one speaks about how
our greatest years followed measures put in place by Clinton and (omg) Reagan. Yes austerity measures are good but paying higher taxes is a privilege when you live in America and not a burden. There is a reason why people talk shit about America but those same people would die to be a citizen here. Please remember that when you bash the taxes you pay, Its a privilege to support the growth of our nation. But!! I will say we do need to streamline some things within our government and our tax code... I will admit that.

Nov 9, 2011
Angelus99:

Yeah of course he is a rare, rare breed. I swear that i think that some of you guys make the dumbest comments.
People hate talking about raising taxes and supporting government measures but then no one speaks about how
our greatest years followed measures put in place by Clinton and (omg) Reagan. Yes austerity measures are good but paying higher taxes is a privilege when you live in America and not a burden. There is a reason why people talk shit about America but those same people would die to be a citizen here. Please remember that when you bash the taxes you pay, Its a privilege to support the growth of our nation. But!! I will say we do need to streamline some things within our government and our tax code... I will admit that.

paying higher taxes in a capitalist society is surely not a privilege....higher taxes on business hinder growth.

Nov 9, 2011
mfoste1:

paying higher taxes in a capitalist society is surely not a privilege....higher taxes on business hinder growth.

Yeah what you just said is basically bulshit.

Nov 10, 2011
Angelus99:

Yeah of course he is a rare, rare breed. I swear that i think that some of you guys make the dumbest comments.
People hate talking about raising taxes and supporting government measures but then no one speaks about how
our greatest years followed measures put in place by Clinton and (omg) Reagan. Yes austerity measures are good but paying higher taxes is a privilege when you live in America and not a burden. There is a reason why people talk shit about America but those same people would die to be a citizen here. Please remember that when you bash the taxes you pay, Its a privilege to support the growth of our nation. But!! I will say we do need to streamline some things within our government and our tax code... I will admit that.

if you let me spend 120 for every 100 i make i can throw a hell of a party too. but the fun ends one day. RP was warning about this fiscal course decades before this.

Nov 9, 2011

I like Ron Paul- would be nice to see more of a mix of Malthusianism with Austrianism in his policies. We need to make sure we keep protecting the environment as we otherwise reduce the scope of the federal government.

I still like my idea of cash + domestic beer for vasectomies the best.

As a reminder, if you work for any bank, any donations to any political candidate need to be cleared through compliance first.

Ron Paul is the libertarian version of Obama.

Nov 9, 2011

Can anyone actually explain to my why introducing a gold or silver backed competing currency would be a good idea? It seems unbelievably idiotic to me at face value.

Nov 10, 2011
duffmt6:

Can anyone actually explain to my why introducing a gold or silver backed competing currency would be a good idea? It seems unbelievably idiotic to me at face value.

i'll try.

put $1000 in the bank, wait 30 years, and tell me how much it buys when you cash out.

Nov 9, 2011
ivoteforthatguy:
duffmt6:

Can anyone actually explain to my why introducing a gold or silver backed competing currency would be a good idea? It seems unbelievably idiotic to me at face value.

i'll try.

put $1000 in the bank, wait 30 years, and tell me how much it buys when you cash out.

Moderate and stable inflation isn't bad. That was extremely unconvincing. We aren't fucking Zimbabwe.

Nov 9, 2011

Have you ever had airline miles? Remember how the airline changed the rules on you by instituting blackout dates and then offering you the privilege of paying more to get the same seats? It's the same deal with fiat currency. The federal reserve can print whatever it wants, give it to banks, and devalue the currency.

If you could have fiat currency or currency that couldn't be printed, which would you take? I'd take gold- or better yet, grain.

Nov 9, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:

Have you ever had airline miles? Remember how the airline changed the rules on you by instituting blackout dates and then offering you the privilege of paying more to get the same seats? It's the same deal with fiat currency. The federal reserve can print whatever it wants, give it to banks, and devalue the currency.

If you could have fiat currency or currency that couldn't be printed, which would you take? I'd take gold- or better yet, grain.

If my cash savings were devaluing at 5%+ per year, I might think this was an issue. But they aren't. Fiat currencies are simply an economic reality- real people simply don't give a shit if their currency is backed with gold, grain, or simply the reputation of the US government. The economic pain and inflexibility caused by switching to a commodity backed currency don't seem worth it. It's reactionary.

Nov 9, 2011

I respect Ron Paul because he's being ideologically consistent for decades. He has his convictions and principles and sticks to them. When every other politician has eventually folded and sold out in someway or another because of political expediency, he has never wavered.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that he's batshit crazy.

He wants to revert our system of government to what it was in 1782. He wants to abolish the FDA (food and drug companies can regulate themselves!) and the Fed. He wants to revert to a gold standard. A Ron Paul America would be a dystopia with rampant unemployment, uncontrollable recessions (or do people forget that one of the benefits of a Fiat currency is the ability to control the money supply?), and no social services to speak of. It would be a version of America torn form the pages of Sinclar's "The Jungle".

Edmundo do you really, honestly support the man? Do you really want ever department of the white house abolished? Do you support everything I've stated in the previous paragraph?

I gotta say though, I'm all for his position on ending the War on Drugs. Bong Rips for Ron Paul!

Nov 9, 2011
HFDreamer:

I respect Ron Paul because he's being ideologically consistent for decades. He has his convictions and principles and sticks to them. When every other politician has eventually folded and sold out in someway or another because of political expediency, he has never wavered.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that he's batshit crazy.

He wants to revert our system of government to what it was in 1782. He wants to abolish the FDA (food and drug companies can regulate themselves!) and the Fed. He wants to revert to a gold standard. A Ron Paul America would be a dystopia with rampant unemployment, uncontrollable recessions (or do people forget that one of the benefits of a Fiat currency is the ability to control the money supply?), and no social services to speak of. It would be a version of America torn form the pages of Sinclar's "The Jungle".

Edmundo do you really, honestly support the man? Do you really want ever department of the white house abolished? Do you support everything I've stated in the previous paragraph?

I gotta say though, I'm all for his position on ending the War on Drugs. Bong Rips for Ron Paul!

Great post.

Nov 9, 2011
HFDreamer:

Edmundo do you really, honestly support the man? Do you really want ever department of the white house abolished? Do you support everything I've stated in the previous paragraph?

I have and I do. What I want and what has any realistic chance of happening are two entirely different things. If it were up to me, I'd probably dismantle even more than the good doctor. There is very little I care about outside of money and property rights, and I care about those things primarily for the amusement of keeping score before I die someplace warm.

Nov 9, 2011
HFDreamer:

I respect Ron Paul because he's being ideologically consistent for decades. He has his convictions and principles and sticks to them. When every other politician has eventually folded and sold out in someway or another because of political expediency, he has never wavered.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that he's batshit crazy.

He wants to revert our system of government to what it was in 1782. He wants to abolish the FDA (food and drug companies can regulate themselves!) and the Fed. He wants to revert to a gold standard. A Ron Paul America would be a dystopia with rampant unemployment, uncontrollable recessions (or do people forget that one of the benefits of a Fiat currency is the ability to control the money supply?), and no social services to speak of. It would be a version of America torn form the pages of Sinclar's "The Jungle".

Edmundo do you really, honestly support the man? Do you really want ever department of the white house abolished? Do you support everything I've stated in the previous paragraph?

I gotta say though, I'm all for his position on ending the War on Drugs. Bong Rips for Ron Paul!

You highlighted a lot of what I like and dislike about Ron Paul. Every time he speaks it is like a sermon for the church of Libertarianism. I just wish he would focus the tenants that could gain support in congress and show some willingness to compromise every once in a while.

The reason why I support him is because I believe he is the only voice leading us in the right direction which the mainstream parties have to pay attention to. The strength of Ron Paul's support gives him influence, and I think that influence is important for the country. However, I would be hesitant to give him the reigns of power as president because his ideological passion would probably lead full-blown gridlock.

Nov 9, 2011

Every department Ron Paul wants to abolish was on the chopping block for the Republican Party for abolition until 1996. These aren't radical ideas. Have you ever analyzed what value these departments actually provide to society over and beyond what the market has been able to accomplish in the past?

Nov 9, 2011

I had the pleasure of making my first political donation earlier this year, and of course it was to Ron Paul.

Nov 9, 2011
Nobama88:

I had the pleasure of making my first political donation earlier this year, and of course it was to Ron Paul.

Really? I thought for sure it would have gone to Obama.

Nov 9, 2011
Nobama88:

I had the pleasure of making my first political donation earlier this year, and of course it was to Ron Paul.

Same here, and I will be donating again on 11/11/11.

"There are only two opinions in this world: Mine and the wrong one." -Jeremy Clarkson

Nov 9, 2011

Well, Ron Paul's plan doesn't include the abolition of the FDA.

I want to see a return to the Lochner Court era between ~1905 and 1930. Where the government had to justify how someone else was otherwise being unfairly hurt when the federal government forced people and businesses to do things they didn't want to do. I also don't think we can afford Medicare as it currently is over the long-term . But I think there's a place for the FDA, EPA (within reason- the Endangered Species Act is a disaster and we should be trying to protect them through the National Park Service and Forest Service), and basic workplace safety.

There is very little I care about outside of money and property rights, and I care about those things primarily for the amusement of keeping score before I die someplace warm.

I think our kids deserve a healthy environment. You can regulate a lot of stuff on the state level, but there's a lot of things (like SO2, Mercury, and NOx) that crosses state lines. I think it's also part of the American tradition to set aside a park every once in a while. There are some things that are so unique- like Yellowstone- that EVERYONE in the country benefits from them. And somehow, the Grand Canyon without development is a lot more valuable than Niagara falls is with it.

There should be a role for a libertarian government to do a few populist things to enhance freedom besides maintain order and enforce contracts.

Nov 9, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:

Well, Ron Paul's plan doesn't include the abolition of the FDA.

I want to see a return to the Lochner Court era between ~1905 and 1930. Where the government had to justify how someone else was otherwise being unfairly hurt when the federal government forced people and businesses to do things they didn't want to do. I also don't think we can afford Medicare as it currently is over the long-term . But I think there's a place for the FDA, EPA (within reason- the Endangered Species Act is a disaster and we should be trying to protect them through the National Park Service and Forest Service), and basic workplace safety.

There is very little I care about outside of money and property rights, and I care about those things primarily for the amusement of keeping score before I die someplace warm.

I think our kids deserve a healthy environment. You can regulate a lot of stuff on the state level, but there's a lot of things (like SO2, Mercury, and NOx) that crosses state lines. I think it's also part of the American tradition to set aside a park every once in a while. There are some things that are so unique- like Yellowstone- that EVERYONE in the country benefits from them. And somehow, the Grand Canyon without development is a lot more valuable than Niagara falls is with it.

There should be a role for a libertarian government to do a few populist things to enhance freedom besides maintain order and enforce contracts.

Environmentalism is a concern of mine as well. However, I think that a good case can be made for environmental regulations. I think the reason why, recently at least, there has been much more opposition to the EPA is because it is now seen as just more regulation. Whereas, if the mostly meaningless regulations were destroyed, there would be more than enough room for environmental regulation (even if they are fairly costly, it will be more than offset).

Nov 9, 2011

Businesses don't pay taxes. They simply collect them for the government.

Nov 9, 2011

Aid growth = government manipulation.

Please tell me who has this magic crystal ball that gives them the omnipotent power to take money and decide where it should go because "they know best".

Business taxes simply feed the cash addicted government and make our goods and services less competitive.

Nov 9, 2011
ANT:

Aid growth = government manipulation.

Please tell me who has this magic crystal ball that gives them the omnipotent power to take money and decide where it should go because "they know best".

Business taxes simply feed the cash addicted government and make our goods and services less competitive.

What if they are used to pay down debt (which can't just magically disappear) and lower the future interest burden?

Nov 9, 2011
duffmt6:
ANT:

Aid growth = government manipulation.

Please tell me who has this magic crystal ball that gives them the omnipotent power to take money and decide where it should go because "they know best".

Business taxes simply feed the cash addicted government and make our goods and services less competitive.

What if they are used to pay down debt (which can't just magically disappear) and lower the future interest burden?

If you think that a tax increase, unless by law, will go ONLY to paying down debt, you are a better person than I am.

Why is it that increasing taxes is always the first answer. Are you telling me there is no waste or inefficiency that we can't cut BEFORE you take more money?

Dept of Education could be eliminated, saving nearly $1 Trillion over 10 years. That is 1/3rd the super committees goal right there. Zero tax increase, zero entitlement cuts.

Nov 9, 2011

oooooo......get it duff....get it in!!

Nov 9, 2011

Duff, if for one second you think the spend drunk government will use additional taxes to pay down our debt/deficit you are out of your fucking mind. They'll blow it like a drunken sailor.

Nov 9, 2011
txjustin:

Duff, if for one second you think the spend drunk government will use additional taxes to pay down our debt/deficit you are out of your fucking mind. They'll blow it like a drunken sailor.

Clinton raised taxes, achieved a budget surplus, and applied it to the national debt despite pressure from both Democrats and Republicans to spend the money.

Nov 9, 2011

I will never be in favor of raising ANY taxes unless it is mandated that it go 100% to paying down debt.

Nov 9, 2011

Misplaced your faith in the government may be.

Nov 9, 2011

I feel that Dr. Paul is the most honest, most genuine guy in politics today, and so I'm definitely supporting him.

But, imo, it'd be great to have another Clinton-like presidential candidate. A true moderate who understands both foreign and domestic policy really well, and has a good grasp on economics. The US did better under Clinton than even under Reagan.

Nov 9, 2011

LOL at people thinking taxes don't hinder business growth.

Nov 9, 2011

That wasn't what people were saying. The point was that this isnt the formula (stagnated business=higher taxes)
Their isn't a full a correlation between the two. In some circumstances (clinton, reagan) they can be positive and in others it will deter growth.

Nov 10, 2011

What made the U.S. the wealthiest nation in human history?
Tiny governement, no income tax and low regulations.

What bankrupted and turned the U.S. into the most indebted nation in human history?

Big governement, high taxes, tons of regulations.

Remember, the Constitution is a social contract that allows individuals with different opinions to live together.

Now if you think the Constitution is crazy, then move to another country.

Ron Paul = Constitution and if you're anti-ron paul = you're anti-constitution = you're not an american or you're a traitor.

Nov 10, 2011

Romney/Paul 2012

^^It would be nice seeing that ticket on the ballot come next November.

Nov 9, 2011

HAHAHAHA, get real. RINO Romney and Apostle Paul could never be on the same ticket. A pragmatist and an ideologue would get along like oil and water.

Nov 9, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:

HAHAHAHA, get real. RINO Romney and Apostle Paul could never be on the same ticket. A pragmatist and an ideologue would get along like oil and water.

Which one's the pragmatist and which one's the ideologue, in your view?

Nov 9, 2011
Edmundo Braverman:
IlliniProgrammer:

HAHAHAHA, get real. RINO Romney and Apostle Paul could never be on the same ticket. A pragmatist and an ideologue would get along like oil and water.

Which one's the pragmatist and which one's the ideologue, in your view?

I think I can answer that:

Romney- pragmatist.
Paul- ideologue

What do I win?

Nov 10, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:

HAHAHAHA, get real. RINO Romney and Apostle Paul could never be on the same ticket. A pragmatist and an ideologue would get along like oil and water.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

Nov 10, 2011

Knowing that this website caters to people working on wall street, how is there so much Ron Paul support? His ideas don't seem to be in the best interest of your typical wall streeter. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

Nov 9, 2011
cplpayne:

Knowing that this website caters to people working on wall street, how is there so much Ron Paul support? His ideas don't seem to be in the best interest of your typical wall streeter. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong

It's the "don't tread on me" mindset.

Wall Street is an extremely Darwinian environment where the individual tends to fend for himself and the markets are king. Ron Paul is Dr. Liberty(arianism) which essentially advocates a smaller govt., less of a social safety net, and decisions guided by free markets.

Nov 10, 2011

i enjoyed ron paul's wiping the floor with maria bartiromo last night. seems like without the producer whispering through her earphone she can't really keep up a conversation on the markets.

RP is the only guy who is serious about ending the warfare/welfare state. my next choice is kucinich because i'm a one-issue voter: who will end statism?

Nov 9, 2011
ivoteforthatguy:

i enjoyed ron paul's wiping the floor with maria bartiromo last night. seems like without the producer whispering through her earphone she can't really keep up a conversation on the markets.

RP is the only guy who is serious about ending the warfare/welfare state. my next choice is kucinich because i'm a one-issue voter: who will end statism?

Well, it's not just statism; it's also paternalism and corporatism too.

An RP/DK ticket would be hilarious and actually might just work. When Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich agree on something, I am generally for it. But honestly the problem is that Kucinich is a slightly more libertarian leaning version of Eugene Debs. Instead of getting the corporations' hands out of governments' pockets, he wants to stick the government's hand deeper into corporate pockets. And while socialism isn't quite as awful as fascism, it's not a good system either.

We do need to hit the resest button in Washington. Ron Paul needs to come out and say he will move the White House to Wichita, Kansas. This will add to the operating costs facing the corporate lobbyists currently taking the Acela from NYC to DC and shuttling between the POTUS and Congress and help him keep better tabs on how the country is doing.

Nov 10, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:
ivoteforthatguy:

i enjoyed ron paul's wiping the floor with maria bartiromo last night. seems like without the producer whispering through her earphone she can't really keep up a conversation on the markets.

RP is the only guy who is serious about ending the warfare/welfare state. my next choice is kucinich because i'm a one-issue voter: who will end statism?

Well, it's not just statism; it's also paternalism and corporatism too.

An RP/DK ticket would be hilarious and actually might just work. When Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich agree on something, I am generally for it. But honestly the problem is that Kucinich is a slightly more libertarian leaning version of Eugene Debs. Instead of getting the corporations' hands out of governments' pockets, he wants to stick the government's hand deeper into corporate pockets. And while socialism isn't quite as awful as fascism, it's not a good system either.

We do need to hit the resest button in Washington. Ron Paul needs to come out and say he will move the White House to Wichita, Kansas. This will add to the operating costs facing the corporate lobbyists currently taking the Acela from NYC to DC and shuttling between the POTUS and Congress and help him keep better tabs on how the country is doing.

agreed, DK would be a massive step down from RP because of all the socialism blended in there. it's sad that i have to look to the radical wing of the democratic party for the second best alternative to RP. that's the shape the GOP is in today.

Nov 9, 2011

Companies simply collect taxes. This ideal that Apple is a physical ogre that can be taxed is silly. Companies are just a collection of shareholders and employees. If you raise their costs you either steal from the customer, work or investor.

Higher taxes on people who have more than someone else make people "feel" better, but are counter productive. This countries endeavors have grown far past national defense and building roads, etc.

I continually repeat myself, but you could cut the Dept of Education, have zero negative effect on education and save $1 Trillion over 10 years. Bam. One cut, 1/3rd of the Super Committee's goal.

Nov 10, 2011

I like Paul a lot. As everybody has said, his ideological consistency is phenomenal. I am the first to cheer a president who admits he is wrong, but most changes in position are just pandering. I disagree with Paul on several issues, but I think we would be better off with him in the white house. Congress would moderate some of his more extreme ideas.

He's unelectable though. He's old, his politics would rile a ton of interest groups, and he has a lot of unfortunate sound bites that would come out in a campaign.

Still, I don't think Romney is by any means a sure ticket to getting Obama out of there. The mormon factor has yet to be tested, and he seems uncannily like a Republican Kerry. And how much better would Romney be anyways? I don't think he would push for much material change, at least not in term 1; that man wants to be a two-term President. The only plus of a Romney victory would be the repeal of the abomination that is Obamacare.

I hate to say it, but I think Perry might be the best pick for 2012. He needs to fix his debate performance post-haste if he wants a chance though.

Perry is at least different enough from the current establishment to affect some change. The man's control of his party in Texas is admirable. Again, I can't say I agree with his choices, but he will do something. The Republican party without a clear leader is absolutely ineffective. Sure, they'll exhibit party discipline...but nobody will break the line to, say, reform the tax code or slash entitlements.

Nov 9, 2011
West Coast rainmaker:

He's unelectable though. He's old, his politics would rile a ton of interest groups, and he has a lot of unfortunate sound bites that would come out in a campaign.

Sure, but people vote; interest groups don't.

Still, I don't think Romney is by any means a sure ticket to getting Obama out of there. The mormon factor has yet to be tested, and he seems uncannily like a Republican Kerry. And how much better would Romney be anyways? I don't think he would push for much material change, at least not in term 1; that man wants to be a two-term President. The only plus of a Romney victory would be the repeal of the abomination that is Obamacare.

I'm voting for Obama over Romney. The main difference between the two is that Obama won't start a war with Iran- he will leave that to Israel and save us about $500 Billion.

Perry is at least different enough from the current establishment to affect some change. The man's control of his party in Texas is admirable. Again, I can't say I agree with his choices, but he will do something. The Republican party without a clear leader is absolutely ineffective. Sure, they'll exhibit party discipline...but nobody will break the line to, say, reform the tax code or slash entitlements.

Folks said that about Obama and Bush. We need to elect a kook as president. The country may very well NEED to elect someone "unelectable" and if that's really what we need, the voters will figure it out eventually. I just hope he's unelectable because he's a kooky old man rather than someone who wants to get out the guillotine.

Nov 10, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:
West Coast rainmaker:

Still, I don't think Romney is by any means a sure ticket to getting Obama out of there. The mormon factor has yet to be tested, and he seems uncannily like a Republican Kerry. And how much better would Romney be anyways? I don't think he would push for much material change, at least not in term 1; that man wants to be a two-term President. The only plus of a Romney victory would be the repeal of the abomination that is Obamacare.

I'm voting for Obama over Romney. The main difference between the two is that Obama won't start a war with Iran- he will leave that to Israel and save us about $500 Billion.

Perry is at least different enough from the current establishment to affect some change. The man's control of his party in Texas is admirable. Again, I can't say I agree with his choices, but he will do something. The Republican party without a clear leader is absolutely ineffective. Sure, they'll exhibit party discipline...but nobody will break the line to, say, reform the tax code or slash entitlements.

Folks said that about Obama and Bush. We need to elect a kook as president. The country may very well NEED to elect someone "unelectable" and if that's really what we need, the voters will figure it out eventually. I just hope he's unelectable because he's a kooky old man rather than someone who wants to get out the guillotine.

I view the threat of Obamacare as greater than the possibility of a conflict with Iran. That piece of legislation is a financial time bomb...I also think Iran is not quite crazy enough to ensure its own destruction.

But you are right about the "kook" issue. I would only put Perry in there if I knew the Dems could filibuster anything too insane.

I doubt the voters will wise up though. Most just don't pay attention to the economic views of politicians, instead focusing on comparatively minor issues like stances on abortion or gay marriage. We almost need a somebody to sit down and deliver a Reagan-esque Econ-101 lecture to America.

Nov 9, 2011

ANT, how would cutting the Dept of Education have zero negative effect on society? That $1 trillion over 10 years includes hundreds of billions that go to schools as part of the No Child Left Behind Act (a shitty program, but still better than nothing).

Or is education on those endeavors that's beyond the scope of government?

Nov 9, 2011
HFDreamer:

ANT, how would cutting the Dept of Education have zero negative effect on society? That $1 trillion over 10 years includes hundreds of billions that go to schools as part of the No Child Left Behind Act (a shitty program, but still better than nothing).

Or is education on those endeavors that's beyond the scope of government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
I really don't think standardized tests is a good use of a Trillion bucks.

Nov 10, 2011
ANT:
HFDreamer:

ANT, how would cutting the Dept of Education have zero negative effect on society? That $1 trillion over 10 years includes hundreds of billions that go to schools as part of the No Child Left Behind Act (a shitty program, but still better than nothing).

Or is education on those endeavors that's beyond the scope of government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
I really don't think standardized tests is a good use of a Trillion bucks.

i can start a cabinet department called the Department of Decent Moral Values. we will give it a budget of $50 BB a year, and it will grow as a sprawling self-serving bureacracy expands. of course the bureacrats are a pack of useless, surly idiots who could not possibly find work in the private sector, but that's par for the course in govt work.

one day, someone will say, "why the fuck are we wasting $150BB a year on a bunch of government idlers sitting around scratching their assholes? what the fuck does the DMV do anyways?"

i can reply: "with our societal decline in decent moral values, how dare you suggest that we cut the Department of Decent Moral Values! quite outrageous, sir!"

Nov 10, 2011

^the main appeal is several fold.

  1. it will restrain the govt from getting into wars and starting stupid social programs because they will have to find ways to pay for it that are transparent to the public. i am all for fewer stupid wars and stupid social programs.
  2. it is indeed archaic, but that's not such a bad thing. gold has been money for 5000 years, interrupted by few hundreds-years (at best) experiments in paper money. historically, gold is normal; paper is abnormal.
  3. money is a commodity like anything else. there is a supply of it (saved capital) and a demand (people who need to borrow to fund business or consumption). the price is the interest rate. we wouldn't tolerate the goverment fixing prices for cars. we most definitely wouldn't tolerate the government letting a PRIVATE monopolistic company fix prices for cars. but that is exactly what the fed is. a private company with stock held by the biggest financial bankster entities, conspiring the fix the price for money. imagine the chaos if such a government-private syndicate tried to tell us what price we should pay for cars, or anything. actually, you don't need to imagine because if you have seen all the bubbles, malinvestment implosions, and economic chaos of the past 15 years alone, you can see with your own eyes what such a syndicate is capable of.

thank you for keeping an open mind.

Nov 9, 2011

I would NEVER EVER EVER vote for Romney. Neither will a lot of likeminded Libertarians like myself.

Nov 11, 2011

i admire ron paul and his ideological consistency. i mostly agree w/ his platform; however, his views seem too wonky to be relevant to most voters.

Nov 9, 2011
bloomburger:

i admire ron paul and his ideological consistency. i mostly agree w/ his platform; however, his views seem too wonky to be relevant to most voters.

Guarantee you don't even know what the Dept. of Education does. NO one fucking does.

Nov 12, 2011

I've always voted for him. In the pres debate here in florida they asked why the iraq war was good and he was the only candidate to say no no no, it wasnt good at all lol he got a standing ovation and they quickly cut to commercial...

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

Nov 9, 2011

Hmmm. I could go for Gingrich. I'm not sure he's quite un-corporate enough, but he's an improvement over Perry, Cain, and Romney.

Nov 10, 2011
IlliniProgrammer:

Hmmm. I could go for Gingrich. I'm not sure he's quite un-corporate enough, but he's an improvement over Perry, Cain, and Romney.

Gingrich is a solid choice, but I have gotten the impression that he has a rather interventionist view of foreign policy. Overall though, he is a vast improvement over Perry, Cain and Romney.

I guess I am just concerned about the status of his campaign's finances. Even at the primary level, money can grab votes...

Nov 9, 2011

^ Apart from debate gaffes, what's wrong with Perry?

Nov 9, 2011
seedy underbelly:

^ Apart from debate gaffes, what's wrong with Perry?

lol

Nov 9, 2011
Comment
Nov 9, 2011
Comment
Nov 10, 2011
Comment
Nov 9, 2011
Comment

Pages