Posted on 06/07/2007 7:08:11 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man? Thursday, June 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.
The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).
FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336
Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.
“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”
And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”
At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.
To be sure such amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html
Sam Brownback cash-on-hand: $806,626
Jim Gilmore cash-on-hand: $90,107
Rudy Giuliani cash-on-hand: $11,949,735
Mike Huckabee cash-on-hand: $373,918
Duncan Hunter cash-on-hand: $272,552
John McCain cash-on-hand: $5,180,799
Ron Paul cash-on-hand: $524,919
Mitt Romney cash-on-hand: $11,863,653
Tom Tancredo cash-on-hand: $575,078
Tommy Thompson cash-on-hand: $139,723
Source: CNN
Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
This was brought on by the vengencre of France and others, to the Victor goes the spoils. This environment made a very proud people desperate for the return of German nationalism and strength and anyone who could bring that on was going to win out over the democratic government at the time... If this is a sample of your facts used to boost Ron Paul, well... And I am as conservative as any, no Rudy neocon as you put it, however like all true Conservatives I have a vested interest in protecting my family and country, even if it means going across the world to do so...
Just the tip of the iceberg. They’re going after every civilized country. We better wake up and realize Jihad is real. Dr. Demento’s 19th century approach to international affairs ain’t gonna work. The evil is already on our shores, just waiting for the order to be given to unleash its mass destruction.
Probably George Soros...
At first, yes. But in the absence of a countervailing force, capital tends to accrete. This is why our early decentralized industrialization had turned centralized by the 1850's.
Perhaps we could tax state treasuries, a sort of membership fee for being in the Union.
This was what the Constitution prescribed, but it wasn't followed. Once Andrew Jackson's appointees came to the Supreme Court, the Court was not willing to give the federal government the authority to collect from the states involuntarily. That made the constitutional provision moot.
The Progressives were not Jeffersonians using Hamiltonian ends. The Progressives were tihgly aligned with Big Business.
Later that was true, but not at first. The Progressives originated in eastern and midwestern Republicanism in the 1870's in reaction to robber baron capitalism. They took a Protestant view of the world and wanted to regulate business before more radical folk like the Populists (who originated in the Grange movement) could nationalize everything in sight. It was only after the government regulatory bureaucracies were created that Big Business suddenly discovered that once it controlled the agency, it controlled the marketplace. The Interstate Commerce Commission which regulated the railroads was created in 1887, and it was only by 1900 that the railroads gained control of its members and worked their will on the markets.
If Ron Paul is elected, the American people, at least half of them, would have to agree with Paul. He’d have a mandate for change.
Not necessarily true. He could be a minority president in a multiple-way race. He could even be elected by the House due to a deadlock in the Electoral College. A mandate isn't a given.
The first economy to go back on the gold standard will be the most successful.
The Swiss franc is the only gold-backed currency in the world -- at the ridiculously low price of $42.22 per ounce. The Swiss economy is doing well, but its strong currency (in a world of floating currencies) hurts it. You also have the problem of the IMF treaty banning a return to gold and requiring sanctions against nations that attempt it. You'd first need to destroy the IMF, its treaty and the major fiat currencies of the world. It's not as simple as you think.
I am actually concerned that the Chinese may use part of their massive reserves to go on a gold or silver standard, putting themselves at the head of the economic table for the next 100 years.
A Chinese return to gold would be a brilliant way of destroying the world's fiat currencies and economies. But it would be a doomsday option for the Chinese. We're their biggest buyer. And the rest of the world would treat it as an act of war.
If we pulled back in the world, we would be on par militarily with the EU, Russia, and China. We would have a multi-polar system and a true balance of Power. We had a similar setup in the 19th Century and we saw relative peace and the blossoming of international capitalism.
The Congress of Vienna put Europe back on the gold standard in 1815, thus ending France's (and others') experiments with paper. War is a matter of credit, and under a gold standard and an inflexible currency regime, you can't fight a world war. You can fight a quick war like Bismarck's mini-wars of conquest to create Germany, or a long brushfire war like the Crimean affair. But not a world war. Yes, the gold standard kept the peace in Europe for 99 years, but it took the Napoleonic Wars to create a situation where such a draconian measure was hailed as progress. As soon as the guns of August fired in 1914, the Brits went off the gold standard, followed by the rest of Europe.
The idea of a multi-polar world under gold has a nice ring to it. But that would require that the US be defeated in our current war. After watching what happened after Vietnam, I'd hate to see us humiliated by lesser men again. (Maybe that's the army veteran in me talking.)
And that reopens the Macchiavelli question -- what happens to the world after we come home and mind our own business?
(I'm headed off to bed, so take your time.)
Isolationism worked in a time when one could be isolated...
I am glad that most of us try to live in the real, very modern world of planes, trains, and WMDs in the hands of fanatics.
100+ years ago nuts could only bring about 100 or so cannons to bear on New York, if they could get the whole sailing thing down...
If we leave the world to fend for itself, there will be nothing but enemies of the USA in 10 years, and they would have a slightly larger force than us, but at least they would know where to find us. We would be at home, out of gas and sitting on our...
If Mr. Paul is concerned with what the UN considers illegal when our defense is involved, he’s not the conservative Libretarian I thought he was. And Saddam was hiding his weapons arsenal which was in violation of his agreement from the Gulf War; he was well aware of the consequences; he just didn’t think America would follow through.
It’s more that their enjoying the thorough butt-kissing that Paul has been giving them lately.
Must be a lot of DUers and moonbats sending him money.
The Paulbots have yet to recognize that Ron has become a prostitute for the left (and will be tossed aside after they have used him for their foul purposes.)
Are you on drugs?
The Germans had the most advanced military in 1939 — not at the end of WWI.
That’s the logic that the NeoCon Rudy Right practices.”
The statement was about the period after The Great War...
If your point is aligning Hitler with the current terrorist, you are right, the Islamic Radicals are much more dangerous. They have the potential to harness in just a few small packages more force than Hitler could dream of, advanced military or not...
He doesn’t care about the UN. I was just pointing out the clarity on the reasons which you brought up as to why we bombed Iraq for ten years.
He is not a Conservative.
Supporting terrorists is not a Conservative position.
— On the Swiss Franc, it is no longer on the Gold Standard, completely removed in 2000 via constitutional amendment. Before that time, and after the mid-1930s, it was only on a 40% Gold Standard, not a true gold standard. They amended due to all the “Nazi gold” stories, not because of any economic reasons.
The Swiss Economy has by no means been hurt by being on the Gold Standard; they had a so-so 1990s, but you have to remember that Federal spending there is 40% of GDP, and the Cantons have almost as much power as the federal government! The Swiss economy has been kicking ass since the dollar started going down in 2001/2, but even before that their unemployment rate was the lowest out of any OECD country, 3.4%.
Arguing that a strong currency in a fiat system is a weakness is a major fallacy. The stronger the currency, the better. Here’s why:
1. Most obviously, imports are cheaper. IF the dollar went up 100% in value, that $20,000 Honda Civic would only cost $10,000.
2. Cheaper imports lower business costs and helps exporters. Many of our raw materials needed to manufacture come from overseas and are re-exported with value added. This includes everything from Oil to Copper. This is what the Chinese are realizing on a smaller scale since they let the Yuan appreciate a bit.
3. The stronger the monetary policy is, the more efficiently resources are allocated within the economy. In a weak fiat monetary system, any fly-by-night operation can raise enough capital to increase operations, such as the dotcom companies. The stronger and more rigid the monetary policy is, the more efficient the allocation of resources. In a 100% gold dollar system, only companies that meet stringent feasibility requirements by lenders will get loans. This makes the economy much better off.
The Chinese have so much pent-up demand, with a purposely-depreciated currency, that they would have a billion new consumers as soon as they wanted to. The argument that the Chinese are dependent on US demand is another demand-side Keynesian fallacy. In the post-WWII 1950s, world economies outside of the US were quite poor, but we had a strong dollar and an amazing manufacturing sector.
Tight monetary policy industrializes and economy, while fiat policies de-industrialize. Of course, when everybody is fiat, it’s hard to notice.
— Before WWI even started, there were movements around the world to move to a fiat currency. After all, we set up the Federal Reserve in 1913, and Lincoln issued fiat paper during the Civil War. Hell, the pro-Fiat movement in the US achieved critical mass in William Jennings Bryan’s 1896 presidential campaign.
— We are too set on this paradigm of victory and defeat. The president himself, who is strongly disagree with on Middle East Policy, has said there will be no clear-cut victory—neither will there be a clear-cut loss.
In all honesty what matters in warfare is not who won or lost, but the actual outcomes, yes? Any other victory would be a Pyrrhic victory.
If we go home and mind our own business, he is what will happen: regional powers will assert themselves and provide regional security, while in the Middle East Arab and Persian power will return to historical norms. Samuel Huntington, Author of the Clash of Civilizations, has stated that this needs to happen (something in the Arab power vacuum). I foresee many Arab states completely collapsing, with city-states like we see in the UAE emerging to provide authority. Leagues of these city-states or micronations will provide security in the region and will provide centers of Commerce. Leading city-states will be Dubai, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, and an independent Mecca and Medina. This will especially be the case after oil ceases to be so important in a few decades as we move into other forms of energy.
DUmmies LOVE big government and foreign intervention, as long as it is in the interests of the global state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.