Why I'm for Ron Paul instead of Mitt Romney (Latter-day Saint)

Connor's Conundrums ^ | March 14, 2007 | Connor Boyack

[Oberon]

Teh ytook a vote that gave Congressional authorization. Was he the only one who didnt notice that?

Typing errors aside, did that vote constitute an honest-to-God declaration of war?

If so, cite for me the resolution that passed, and cite it in a way that I can independently verify, and I'll apologize to you for my error.

[Dog Gone]

He's my congressman, and I had to hold my nose to vote for him last October in the general election.

To his credit, he did send me a nice form email when I yelled at him for voting with the Democrats to oppose the surge in Iraq.

He's not going to win the Texas primary next year. I predict he won't even carry his own district. We'll see how much guts he has and whether he'll be also running for re-election to his House seat at the same time.

[mnehring]

The dollar (US) is a unit of currency whose value comes from a relationship in the changing of a federal interest rate set by a central bank (Federal Reserve in our case). In other words, the dollar is now a currency that is valued based on the value of the entire American domestic product market (need more detail on how the Federal Reserve relates this to interest rates?)

Yes, I know your next question, the value of the dollar is an abstract. Technically, however, so is the value of Gold (or anything else for that matter.) in that the value is purely related to demand, demand comes from a perceived value.)

[Oberon]

The dollar (US) is a unit of currency whose value comes from a relationship in the changing of a federal interest rate set by a central bank (Federal Reserve in our case). In other words, the dollar is now a currency that is valued based on the value of the entire American domestic product market (need more detail on how the Federal Reserve relates this to interest rates?)

No, thank you. What your answer tells me that is of interest, however, is that the actual value of today's dollar is based on a number of complex factors and a set of information to which not everyone has access, very few people fully understand, and which nearly nobody can actually verify.

In other words, the average Joe has got to take somebody's word for it, even he's a pretty smart Joe with an MBA. That makes today's dollar different from the gold-standard dollar. Everybody in command of a good high-school education understands the straight market value of a simple commodity.

What your definition also does, incidentally, is make the modern dollar subject to manipulation on the part of those who determine its value. Do you suppose this power has never been used?

[WOSG]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, ON multiple resolutions and votes. Look it up.

He is posting now on left-wing sites telling people to defund the war in Iraq NOW:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10708

"Here's a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home."

[italianquaker]

Yeah but you might not get the code pink vote like he will

[LeGrande]

Actually, Ron Paul does not propose an immediate transition to the Gold Standard. He believes that a return to monetary solvency must be accomplished incrementally, and his opening salvo would simply be the elimination of all Sales or Capital Gains Taxes on Gold and allowing Payment in Gold as Legal Tender in Satisfaction of Debts. In other words, allowing Gold to (at least in a minimal way) compete with Federal Reserve Notes as "Money", and moving forward from there as appropriate UNTIL a full restoration of the Gold Standard is monetarily possible.

This is the problem. A gold standard is an idea whose time has come and gone. I know that it feels good to have money that is actually worth something, but as history has shown that is a bad idea. A little inflation (devaluation of the currency) is actually a very good idea. It promotes growth and investment. A currency that increases or maintains its value is very harmful to the economy, because hoarding becomes a viable option and the economy comes to a grinding halt.

And Ron Paul proposes NO restrictions on Trade. He's one of the most ardent Free-Traders in Congress. Rather, he proposes the abolition of Multinational Trade Authorities which infringe on US Sovereignty, and the reduction of Tax and Regulatory burdens on US Industry (so that American Workers can better compete).

That isn't what I got out of reading some of his stuff, but if that is the case, I agree 100%. Like I said, I am inclined to vote for him, bad fiscal policy and all.

[traviskicks]

"Mitt Romney wants to be President. Ron Paul doesn’t."

heh heh...

[WOSG]

"I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq."

If RON PAUL knew what he was voting against!
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html

Saying it was not a formal declaration of war is more a semantic argument about the process Congress should go through than an argument about the preferred policy. It is unquestionable that the Oct 2002 vote was an authorization for the President to use force; a declaration in all but name.

[Oberon]

It is unquestionable that the Oct 2002 vote was an authorization for the President to use force; a declaration in all but name.

Sorry. A declaration of war isn't just a formality.

[WOSG]

"In other words, the average Joe has got to take somebody's word for it,"

That's how any credit economy works, btw, even if the unit of money is based on gold.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I missed that. Do you know if it was "impractical" in that he would push as hard as he could but dems might not pass it, or "impractical" in that it might not allow for enough government spending?

"Impractical" in the sense that Giuliani thinks that "Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions" and so all Giuliani really wants is a Tax Code which "Kind of levelled out the rates a little so there weren't as many":

Here's Mr. Giuliani on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," Monday:

I think it [the federal tax code] needs a massive simplification. If we were doing income tax for the first time, in other words, we were starting off new back at the beginning of the last century, then probably we should go with a -- we probably should've gone with a flat tax, or maybe two levels of tax, but really simple. Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions and industries have grown up around that, and so I don't know exactly how much you can simplify it, but you sure have to make a stab at it. And I thought Reagan got it right. I thought that what Reagan did was -- I kind of think of it as, like, cleaning out the forest. You know, you got -- the tax code was this big, he got it down to a simple code, reduced the top rates. Kind of levelled out the rates a little so there weren't as many. The tax code needs a simplification, in addition to lowering your sum taxes.
http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/03/rudy-and-the-flat-tax.html

I love Steve Forbes... I mean, I really do. He was "my guy" in 2000.

But I'm sorry, Forbes has sold his endorsement to a guy who is so utterly WEAK (dare I say... disingenuous?) on the Flat Tax that he admits that, even if he could totally start the whole thing over, he still might have "maybe two levels of tax" (as in, a Higher Tax Rate to Punish the Productive).

WE CAN DO BETTER. Ron Paul has already stated his willingness to Vote for the NRST FairTax and the total abolition of the Income Tax; and, thanks to a little "OrthodoxPresbyterian" networking, Ron Paul's senior staffers will be talking to the FairTax folks over the next few days in order to co-ordinate our Total Opposition to Income Taxation.

The Flat Tax isn't good enough, and Giuliani's castratori "endorsement" of the Flat tax (or kinda Flat, or maybe a little Flatter, etc.) certainly isn't good enough.

This is no time to "settle".

This is when we go for the Brass Ring.

In 2008, I'm voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN. I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL!

"The greatest champion of conservative principles we have seen in Congress in the past quarter century."
(David T. Pyne, Esq., Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.)

[WOSG]

Again - It is unquestionable that the Oct 2002 vote was a Congressional authorization for the President to use force.
In simple terms, that is known as war.

[TheKidster]

true, I'm ashamed to say I've been caught up in this as well. Hopefully in the future I'll be able to practice more grace as some of the old timers here do. I just love my guns too much :>)

[logician2u]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, ON multiple resolutions and votes. Look it up.

I did.

Most recently, the supplementary spending on the war in Iraq vote of last Friday. Two Republicans joined the Democrats in support of the "timetable" for withdrawal - or what some call "defeat and retreat."

Congressman Paul voted in the minority, as he often does, joining 197 other Republicans in voting against the resolution.

He is posting now on left-wing sites . .

Antiwar.com?

LMAO

[New Perspective]

You're interested in Ru Paul? To each man his own desires, I guess...

Not only NO, but &#%* $NO!

[TheKidster]

I don't mean by the site itself but many of our FRiends posting and commenting on the site, who don't quite get that the return to a constitutional republic, i.e. a free republic is more important than the WOT.

[LeGrande]

So what's a dollar again? How is it defined? What determines its value?

I will jump to the chase :) A dollar has no intrinsic value. Its value is determined by supply and demand. The supply is determined by the reserve rate and the demand is determined by the GDP and interest rate.

Your analogy to units of temperature fails because those are measurements. Your analogy would be more appropriate to the interest rate determining the value.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This is the problem. A gold standard is an idea whose time has come and gone. I know that it feels good to have money that is actually worth something, but as history has shown that is a bad idea. A little inflation (devaluation of the currency) is actually a very good idea. It promotes growth and investment. A currency that increases or maintains its value is very harmful to the economy, because hoarding becomes a viable option and the economy comes to a grinding halt.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. Would you OBJECT to Ron's initial proposal for a total elimination of all Sales and Capital Gains Taxes on the exchange of Gold? If you're right, and Gold is no longer suitable as Money but only as an Investment -- he's proposing a 100% Tax-Free Investment Commodity. Surely a Savvy Trader could make use of that where appropriate.

That isn't what I got out of reading some of his stuff, but if that is the case, I agree 100%. Like I said, I am inclined to vote for him, bad fiscal policy and all.

Ron Paul has ALWAYS supported Free Trade, and openly declares himself a "Free Trader". He believes that US workers and industries are perfectly able to compete if tax and regulatory burdens are reduced domestically, and he opposes Protectionism. His beliefs are Constitutional; he opposes Multinational "Trade Authorities" which can infringe upon US Sovereignty. That is his position.

[mnehring]

What your definition also does, incidentally, is make the modern dollar subject to manipulation on the part of those who determine its value. Do you suppose this power has never been used?

Actually, I am confident this 'power' is used on a daily basis. The question is, what standard isn't effected by manipulation and what manipulation generally is the safest for our country.

The problem with with many pro-gold standard supporters is they believe that the price of gold isn't subject to (as greatly) manipulation. I would argue that because it is a single source base, it is far more prone to external manipulation. For example, if we had a gold standard, China could one day, bid for mass quantity on the market, radically inflating the price. The next day, they could dump their holdings at a radically deflated price- a new way to fight an economic war.

Our messy, overly complex standard spreads the weight of valuation across a lot of economic standards, thus creating somewhat of a hedge in valuation from a major shift in any one area. The federal reserve itself has a vested interest in the power and stability of the dollar. Sure, this is an artificial value setting agency, but it is internal, not external.

Sure, some may attempt to manipulate the market for short term gains (see how Soros attempts to effect elections around the world to make money in currency speculations.) With a highly diverse valuation, it lessens the impact of individual manipulation attempts.

Now, imagine if Soros took his entire capital value (and that of his companies, around 100 Billion US) and purchased gold at the current rate, and hedged it with a non-gold standard currency such as the Euro. Then he flooded the market back with this gold with puts at pennies on the dollar. He would successfully collapse the value of currency based on the gold standard while vastly increasing the value of his non-gold standard currency.