Was Ron Paul Right All Along?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul told us long ago. And so did the supporters of this one-time Libertarian presidential candidate.

Maybe you remember about 16 months ago the 11-term Texas Republican representative, who's now organized a new Campaign for Liberty, was raking in more political contributions each month than most other GOP presidential candidates, relying on his hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters staging their money bomb days of online donations and -- oh, yes – tea parties.

Was Ron Paul, tea party re-inventor, right all along? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

 

[jillian]

No. he wasn't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. he wasn't.

Well, can't ask for a more direct answer than that lol.

 

[editec]

He's definitely right about one thing, Jill...the sham that we call the Federal Reserve needs to be fixed.

I think his solutions are straight out of a Dickens novel, (like most libertarians' solutions tend to be) but his complaints about what the masters aren't without merit.

Seriously, Jill, if you were designing a society, would what we have (and are attempting to keep going) now be your solution?

I rather doubt it.

Good ideas, and valid complaints are worth reconizing even if you can't get entirely on board with everything people say.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

 

[Peejay]

He's definitely right about one thing, Jill...the sham that we call the Federal Reserve need to be fixed.

I think his solutions are straight out of a Dicken novel, but his complaints about what the masters aren't without merit.

I like Ron Paul but he's probably too late for his cause.

The fundamnetal ailments we have are the core of our economic system. As much as these tax day protest are about high taxes and what is seen as an assault on the rich, you haven't seen an assault on the rich until you take a look at Pauls ideas. When Paul goes after the rich, he goes after the rich. The kind of people that Paul's ideas are aimed at don't show up for protest. They buy and sell public office. Politics the old fashioned way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

I've noticed that he is no longer portrayed in the media as a "kook," but I wish this welcome change would have come during his actual campaign.

 

[eots]

He's definitely right about one thing, Jill...the sham that we call the Federal Reserve need to be fixed.

I think his solutions are straight out of a Dicken novel, but his complaints about what the masters aren't without merit.

I like Ron Paul but he's probably too late for his cause.

The fundamnetal ailments we have are the core of our economic system. As much as these tax day protest are about high taxes and what is seen as an assault on the rich, you haven't seen an assault on the rich until you take a look at Pauls ideas. When Paul goes after the rich, he goes after the rich. The kind of people that Paul's ideas are aimed at don't show up for protest. They buy and sell public office. Politics the old fashioned way.

Ron paul's words should be ringing in everyone's ears right now..and his cause was a great success..the globalist didnt erode your sovereignty and civil rights over night or implode the economy overnight ...it was done in increments and the fight against it will be won the same way..the Ron Paul revolution was just a first step in the process..tea parties another

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8[/ame]

 

[Iriemon]

He's definitely right about one thing, Jill...the sham that we call the Federal Reserve needs to be fixed.

I think his solutions are straight out of a Dickens novel, (like most libertarians' solutions tend to be) but his complaints about what the masters aren't without merit.

Seriously, Jill, if you were designing a society, would what we have (and are attempting to keep going) now be your solution?

I rather doubt it.

Good ideas, and valid complaints are worth reconizing even if you can't get entirely on board with everything people say.

So what is wrong with the Fed system and how would you fix it.

 

[sealybobo]

No. he wasn't.

Well, can't ask for a more direct answer than that lol.

Jillian is a great person who just can't seem to see the truth on this issue, YET.

I have asked her to watch Freedom to Facism.

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8[/ame]

 

[Yurt]

No. he wasn't.

idiot!

 

[xsited1]

No. he wasn't.

I would just like to go on the record and say, "Yes, he was."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. he wasn't.

I would just like to go on the record and say, "Yes, he was."

Even better!

 

[Peejay]

Paul makes a good argument. However, he tip toes around usury. He mentions, almost as a side note, that people will be hurt. That's what people don't often REALLY consider. If you think Democrats are after the rich, you really haven't listened to Paul. Do what Paul says and your interest money is history. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for earning what you have. But I have a distinct notion that hoards of people who support Paul's ideas would be very upset when they had to leave the devastated fininacial industry and actually start producing for a living. No more free money. That's the Paul plan. If you standardize currency to product, you must produce to get it. No more interest dollars. Investments pay tiny fractions of what SO MANY people have come to expect. Money for nothing goes out the window. No more investing and loaning your way to wealth. Everyone gets to have a job and produce. Money has a hard value. It's not just a floating piece of paper anymore.

So, again, if you think the Democrats are after the rich, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Iriemon]

Right about what? I read the article, what was Paul supposedly right about? [/quote]

From the article:

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck.

America in 1913? There were no social support systems. No SS. If you were lucky enough to live beyond working age, and didn't have your own savings, you begged. If you were disabled you begged. If you lost your job your family was on the street. People worked 14 hour days and so did kids. There was no workplace safety rules, when you had was chopped off too bad.

And let's throw up some tarrifs and start some trade wars while we are at it. That'll be good for the economy. And how about the gold standard he wants? The Govt would probably have to be raising interest rates to maintain the standard now. That also would be great for the economy, eh?

That's Paul's utopia? No thanks. Yeah if you were among the rich it was good. Always is.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process.

The US has since 1913 had in general wonderful economic growth, we've become the world's powerhouse and policeman, won two world wars, and created a society in which the disabled, elderly and temporarily out of luck don't have to live under freeways. We are by far the economically strongest nation on earth, miliarily strongest nation on earth, and with a per capita income among the highest on earth.

Not perfect, but pretty damned good performance America.

And all that despite an income tax that according to Paul has "obvious" harmful effects.

Like what, Mr. Paul?

It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior.

Until the mortgage meltdown, we had 4-5% unemployment, historically low and just about as low as it can get. In the 90s, the economy created 22 million jobs. Even with higher tax rates.

So how much better do you say employment could have been, Mr. Paul?

The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses.

No that I can agree with. Obama has just recently assigned a commission headed by Warren Buffet to overhaul the tax code, so that is being addressed.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress.

I can see why really wealthy folks, trust fund babies, and others who'd like to keep more of their assets would support Paul and eliminate income tax at the expense of destroying the safety nets we have in society. But that is why his popularity never exceeded 10% and was usually in the low single digits.

Good luck tho.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul wasn't saying tariffs were a good idea, he was just mentioning that that's one way the government got their revenue before the income tax. He supports free trade.

Also, I wouldn't brag about how we're so powerful we've become the policemen of the world, it's nothing to be proud of.

 

[Iriemon]

Paul wasn't saying tariffs were a good idea, he was just mentioning that that's one way the government got their revenue before the income tax. He supports free trade.

Also, I wouldn't brag about how we're so powerful we've become the policemen of the world, it's nothing to be proud of.

Good on no tariffs. But then where do revenues come from.

Being the policeman may or may not be something to be proud of depending upon how you conduct yourself, but I was just listing it as an accomplishment off the top of my head.

 

[Peejay]

You're dead on Iremon. A lot of these Paul supporters don't get that with the system he advocates, you get to work yourself into the grave. A tiny few will remain among the wealthy but their would be a mass of poverty. People who think they are wealthy now, would quickly find themselves with a shovel in their hand.

Now, it's not that I don't think that Pauls ideas have merit. They do. But I don't think people understand what it would mean for them. Your wealth would be gone. You would have to produce or die. No more free rides. It would actually be cool to expose just who is getting a free ride. I'll give you a hint: the welfare folks aren't a drop in the bucket. If you make a living that is connected to finance, well, welcome to the poor house. No more monopoly money. No more fractional reserve policy. No more pay check for you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul wasn't saying tariffs were a good idea, he was just mentioning that that's one way the government got their revenue before the income tax. He supports free trade.

Also, I wouldn't brag about how we're so powerful we've become the policemen of the world, it's nothing to be proud of.

Good on no tariffs. But then where do revenues come from.

Being the policeman may or may not be something to be proud of depending upon how you conduct yourself, but I was just listing it as an accomplishment off the top of my head.

There are more taxes than simply income tax, and drastically cutting spending would be a part of Ron Paul's policy as well.