Guess the media's eating their words now...

he's still an idiot and a terrible human being

Uhm...wow, that is a bit extreme.

He wants to bring back the gold standard, ban abortion, and destroy what little welfare the US has. **** him.
Merry Christmas

I would but then I might need an abortion.

He wants to treat externalities as a physical trespass, leaving the punishment for large polluters (rich people with good lawyers) up to civil suits filed by the people who own property near industrial sites (poor people who cannot afford lawyers.)

He supports American freedoms outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wants to limit government power and involvement in our lives, promotes lower taxes, and non-interventionism (ie. get our troops out of the Middle East and everywhere else, stop warmongering and focus instead on defending direct attacks on our nation). He's also pro marijuana-legalization.. Yeah what a dick.

He wants to reduce government revenue at a time when the United States government has a debt/revenue ratio of 3.6.

If you think Ron Paul isn't terrible you are either misinformed or a giant idiot.

If elected, he would be the oldest U.S. president in history. There's a decent chance he'd kick the bucket during his term.

EDIT:
The problem with him is that while his positives are good, his negatives are very bad. As Jon`C pointed out, and as a result of his inevitable push to deregulate everything, the rich and poor would polarize at an accelerating rate. Not to mention he's only for government non-interference unless you're gay or want an abortion (and who knows what else). He's the exact opposite of what we need: he wants to control our personal lives but will let the rich run amok with their money.

He gets three things right: drug legalization, foreign policy, and auditing the federal reserve. Other than that, I have no faith in him. Just check out how he wants to 'fix' health care on his website, for example. I do think he's head and shoulders above the other candidates, though. He's the only person with any kind of passion at all. It's awesome to see.

@Jon`C: True, but he's also talking about cutting spending by so much that it will be worth it. (Consider all the money we've spent on our interventionist foreign policy, just as a start.)

@Freelancer: Yeah, I was thinking about that too.. But then he seems to be active and healthy... I'm actually kind of surprised the media hasn't tried to "dig up" dirt on his health.. Or maybe they've tried but can't find anything news worthy.

Anyway, I'm kinda up in the air about him still, to be honest (though I like him a lot more than any other candidates). But I mainly wanted to point out how jacked up our American media is. Everyone wants to claim to be neutral, but they're always putting spins on everything. (Remember the Jon Stewart video from a few months ago, about how he wasn't even being mentioned by the media?) CNN's still trying to bash him too, if you look at the recent interview with Borger where he supposedly "stormed off" then watch the uncut version, where in reality he took the mic off when the interview was over, even though the camera was still rolling, and that's what CNN decided to air. Also, during the interview, she kept asking him the same thing over and over, and then intentionally mis-quoting him to try and get him to mis-speak.

Oh he's still unelectable. If that's the Republican party front runner, the Democrats have just been handed a victory.

McDonalds gives free food to employees. If I quit my full-time job to work at McDonalds, I'll save a lot of money on food, so I'll be able to pay off my credit card faster.

It's fun to watch you guys run around desperately looking for anyone but Paul to go up against Romney. I think it's because you can't understand how a republican can be more liberal than the sitting democrat president.

every person currently running for GOP nomination, or president (Obama is a dick too!) is a terrible person, I'm not singling anyone out they are all ****.
Ron Paul is just an even bigger ****.

Hey, Tibby, you already said that a bunch of times. Maybe you could try, you know, supporting what you say with something other than ad hominems.

Hey look it's John'C and Tibby: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm

Actually McDonalds only gives a 50% discount...

Do you understand the point, at least?

nah im just going to keep insulting terrible people, it brings me joy

Ron Paul is still unelectable. They're already talking about how if he wins in Iowa, Iowa will be considered irrelevant in the elections. No one cares about Ron Paul because he's an idiot with a few good ideas, and a ton of bad ones.

Still sticking with my vote of no confidence for ANY current candidates, even Obama.

I'm just imagining the headline: Media Eating Words Now That Ron Paul Still Unelectable.

No kidding.

Our votes don't count anyway, so who gives a ****? U.S. politics is as real as professional wrestling. They're putting on a show for you.

Of course, but if there's one thing I've learned from arguing at Massassi it's that one should always latch on to and nit-pick any minor inconsistencies in their opponent's post, while completely ignoring the point... Am I doing it wrong?

In all seriousness though, I really don't know the actual numbers any more than you do, but I have to believe that smarter man than you have analyzed it, and I've yet to see any factual debunk. If you know of anything you'd like to link to prove your point, please do, and I will look at it.
That said, I know I'm arguing from a standpoint of ignorance here, but quite frankly, Dr. Paul's budget plans are not what draw me to him. What draws me is his foreign policy. I'm tired of seeing American troops die, or be injured (physically or emotionally) while politicians pull strings. As to his budget plans, he's made some amazingly accurate predictions regarding the American economy in the past, so I trust him to know what he's talking about. *shrug*

(Also, to those of you saying Ron Paul is *still* unelectable, I have 2 things to say. 1) I find it kind of funny how the Iowa Caucasus are a huge deal, and considered an incredibly important (if not always necessary) step towards the Presidency... Except not any more now that Ron Paul's expected to win. Funny how quickly people can shift their positions when they're on the losing side to convince themselves they've been right all along.

2) There are other articles and polls surfacing showing Dr. Paul winning in the 2012 election vs Pres. Obama. I didn't link any of them because I'm not sure of the sources, but they're not hard to find. While these are in no way a sure thing, they do demonstrate him to be a viable contender.)

The claim that Ron Paul will somehow magically produce a surplus by taking less money is so absurd, so fantastic and audacious (in a bad way) that there is absolutely no credible reason to claim that the burden of proof is on the person saying "No, it doesn't work that way."

No, Sarn, I'm not doing your work for you. You're going to have to learn about Ron Paul's ideas on your own. I encourage you to do so, because it's obvious that you do not understand him at all, and I do not believe you should be promoting a candidate when you know nothing about him.

I'll help you get started: The key argument Chicago and Austrian economists use to justify lowering taxes is that the United States tax rates are on the right side of the Laffer curve (i.e. decreasing taxes will actually increase revenues, because it will decrease the opportunity cost of additional labor.) However, there is overwhelming evidence against this. Many modern studies have concluded that the Laffer curve either doesn't exist, or is statistically insignificant - that is, the supply of labor is relatively inelastic. One study that I know about did show a bell-shaped Laffer curve is statistically significant, and it further proposed that the revenue-maximizing tax rate in the United States in 1991 was between 32.67% and 35.21%, compared to an average actual tax rate of 19.58% (Yu Hsing, Estimating the Laffer Curve and Policy Implications.) The previous implies that, no matter what, decreasing the tax rates will decrease government revenue.

If the above paragraph contains terms you don't understand, you have a lot of studying to do.

The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are professional soldiers who volunteered for service, not conscripts. Anybody who volunteers for military service has a personal responsibility to verify that the potential benefits of service outweigh the potential risks. B^U about professional soldiers getting hurt on a ****ing battlefield is like crying because a porn star gets herpes, or because a smoker gets lung cancer.

Sound the alarm! Risky decisions have consequences!

Accepting personal responsibility is a central tenet of Ron Paul's ideas (Libertarianism in general.) Your only informed reason for supporting Ron Paul is justified by basically the exact opposite of what he actually thinks. Congrats!

This is even worse than you know. The large numbers of deployed soldiers have been something of a mitigating factor in this recession, keeping a large number of minimally skilled workers employed (N.b. soldiers returning from Iraq have the worst unemployment rates.) Soldiers who aren't "dying or being injured while politicians pull strings" are dead weight, so they would be discharged ASAP under one of Ron Paul's budget cuts. Retiring foreign deployments would effectively dump 370,000 unemployable unskilled laborers on the US job market.

#1: a stopped clock is right twice a day.
#2: I'm sure the editors of The Economist would be happy to hear that you enjoy their work.

To clarify, I don't claim that the burden of proof lies elsewhere. I'm just pointing out that in the research I've done, I haven't seen much in the way of discounting Ron Paul's economic plan. (To be fair, I haven't seen much in the way to support it either.) I would like to make the following claim though: In politics, I think the burden of proof lies on everyone that wants to push any particular position, simply because political issues are a matter of public opinion. In my mind, Ron Paul should prove his plan to me in the same way that any other candidate should prove theirs. The first candidate that says "My plan is so obviously the right one, the burden of proof is on the other guys" will be the first candidate that I completely discount.

So in short, the bottom line comes down to where this mysterious revenue-maximizing tax rate is (assuming it exists at all) compared to where our taxes are currently. This was a very helpful explanation. Thank you. That being said, (and maybe I've just missed it, but) I don't believe I've ever heard Ron Paul claim that he wants to increase revenue. AFAIK, it's always been that he wants to cut spending. This, at least, I'm confident he can do. You're right though, that this is an area where I'm definitely lacking in understanding (not just Ron Paul's views, but in government economics in general). If anything, your explanation above has got me interested in learning more.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. As someone who's agreed to those risks myself, I wouldn't complain if I were ever called to face them, and wouldn't have any sympathy for any service members who did. My argument, though, is that our government is *wasting* their service and commitment on unnecessary wars while lying to the American people about what they're doing and why.
I see where you're coming from with this, but you're off base. See what I said above. To reiterate, I don't think service members are victims. They signed up to perform the duties that they are performing.

To be honest, I have not thought about this before, but I did run across an interesting statistic today, coincidentally that supports what you're saying: "Veterans in the 20-24 age bracket have an unemployment rate of nearly 30%, more than double the 14.5% unemployment rate of non-veterans in the same age group, and veterans of all ages have an unemployment rate of 11.8% compared with the civilian unemployment rate of nearly 9%" (Note: I'm not sure of the validity of these numbers, cause this was something I read off a friend's facebook). If this is true, it saddens me deeply. I wonder why this is the case, with so many programs available to veterans (from mandatory classes service members must take before they leave the military on job hunting, to USMAP, to the GI Bill).

Anyway, I'm gonna do some thinking about that.

Anyone who posts in this thread and thinks that a politician would not lie to convince you that their policies are totally thought through and don't have downsides is EXTREMELY naive. You don't get to be in a position to be leader in pretty much ANY existing form of government (be it any of the ways that democracies have been organized, or the dynastic dictatorship that is North Korea) without being an expert at manipulating public opinion. (in democracies, its because if you were totally honest about potential drawbacks of your policies, your opponents could just claim they could do it without the drawbacks, or with lesser drawbacks, and in dictatorships, well, you need to keep many different factions happy to stop people from overthrowing you, and your military people from trying to steal power from you)

TL;DR : politicians, do, have, and always will, lie if it is to their own personal advantage, especially if it means getting into/staying in power.

"Decreasing spending" isn't a plan, Sarn. It's something you can get behind, but it's not a plan. It's classic politics. And he SHOULD be providing the burden of proof to show that it would work.

I'm all for decreased spending. No one can convince me that the government is spending less or the exact amount they need to. Millions, if not billions, could be saved ending union contracts straight up (unions ARE a cartel, ARE a monopoly on the supply of labor, they cause unemployment by raising the wage past the natural rate, you will never convince me otherwise). BUT, even with my grand distaste of misallocated government spending, the government needs to spend. You cannot function without it. Governments that spend too much resemble Greece, Spain, etc. We are nowhere near those levels of chaos yet. What we really should be gunning for is yes, a MODERATE decrease in spending just to appease the market, but ALSO increased revenues. It's really the best of both worlds, and like Jon'C and I have pointed out numerous times in the past, there is absolutely no evidence that says the US needs to decrease marginal tax rates. If anything, optimal marginal tax rates not he rich should be closer to 50% (and some econometric evidence says for over developed countries, it should be closer to 70%).

But anyways, once again everyone ignores the elephant in the room, monetary policy. Everyone's talking bout decreased spending, increasing taxes, everything on the fiscal side. Unconventional monetary policy WOULD work here in a liquidity trap, even the Fed Reserve chairman himself says it would yet he now refuses to do it probably because of political pressure of the EVILS OF INFLATION GRAH GRAH!!!!!! You can thank the Republicans for effectively neutralizing any sort of monetary response to the crisis, because remember, inflation is treasonous.

So, mscbuck, I guess you would be perfectly happy with there being no mimimum wage, with people be forced to work 15 hour days, having unsafe working conditions, because all of those things were rectified by unions.

The minimum wage does absolutely nothing except drive inflation and increase the opportunity cost of staying in school.

I'm curious. If you were to vote for anyone, Jon`C, who would it be, and why?

Jon`C writes his name in and crosses his fingers

Actually that would probably work pretty well with class action suits if the court system weren't quite so screwed up.

Come on..
The reason they raise them is because it's not high enough to live on. If you leave the minimum wage alone, prices keep inflating, which is why they are forced to raise the minimum wage. You can't tell me that people wouldn't get burned if we just never raised it again.

The minimum wage very well could cause inflation, but your point is moot unless it's the only source. The moment you introduce another source of inflation, everyone making minimum wage gets burned. I'm sure flooding the world with funny money has nothing to do with inflation.

Ron Paul does not want to magically create a surplus. He want to spending even more than he decreases taxes.





The minimum wage is not FOR living on. Seriously, if you can't do better than that, you've really screwed up somewhere, or are a legitimate charity case. That's for temporary workers who are being supported by parents or other sources. When you raise the minimum wage, you screw over everyone who was just able the minimum wage. Basically everyone who was actually living on low wages.

Yeah man, not everyone deserves to live. Kill the poors!

Also. I would point out that the minimum wage laws affect more than just the people on minimum wage. I am quite sure that if they did not exists, people on jobs that make more than minimum wage would also be making a tiny pittance.

That's basically accurate. I am way too good at statistics and engineering to ignore the elephant in the room.

Except for the most common case, where combinations of major polluters are releasing large amounts of pollutants uniformly over a large area, i.e. air and water polluters. Any such court case would be decided as a plaintiff and defendant class action, encompassing all polluters and all victims. The award from this case would need to be extracted from the defendant class by the government, most likely on a proportional basis.

This is called a tax.

Not that it'll happen. If you're unhappy with how the EPA's been handling things, just wait until you see what your corporate-sponsored judges do about it.

No no no. You can't legislate away scarcity, Freelancer. Prices increase beyond the means of minimum-wage workers because there is not enough for everybody; no matter how much you raise the minimum wage, the clearing price will always be too much for them to afford.

The idea of inflated wages not being the primary driver of inflated household goods prices is predicated on the idea that all people buy proportional quantities of all goods, which is clearly false.

Consider the case of baby diapers. To simplify our model, assume there are an infinite number of minimum-wage households and one middle-class household which makes 10 times the minimum wage.
Suppose a minimum-wage household has to spend 10% of their income on diapers (because all babies use the same amounts of diapers, the middle class household spends 1%.) If you then double the minimum wage, the medium-term prices for diapers will also double, because the minimum-wage households can afford to pay twice as much now. The minimum-wage households are still paying 10%, but now the middle-class household is paying 2%.

My assumptions aren't unreasonable, I just added them to simplify the numbers. Poor people vastly outnumber rich people, so in spite of an abhorrent income gap the prices for most goods are still decided by what poor people can afford.

Ron Paul does not want to magically create a surplus. He wants to magically cut spending even more than he decreases taxes.