Support NeoGAF

[Veezy]

Just so we're clear. The US government would sooner nuke France than willingly default on its debt obligations.

Then, there's this.

People need to understand there's a reason other countries, effectively, pay us to do nothing but hold there money. We almost make money by borrowing money and paying interest, when you look at rate of inflation, how our debt works, and interest rates. Since the world knows this, nobody is afraid of loaning us cash. Seriously, we have no reason to not pay our bills. Owning American debt is a smart bet.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

It's a social science, not an exact science. And if you fail to see the importance of the scientific method in social science then well, good luck to ya.

I can quote things too!

Economics is not a science.

If it is a science we have proven that we are really, really shitty economic scientists. With all the compounded experience from past economic depressions and failures, you'd think we'd have some progress by now on, you know, stopping that. Nope. It's virtually impossible to accurately account for the actions of billions of autonomous individual agents.

 

[dabig2]

Debt is a good thing because it means our government is spending it's currency. Being an import based economy, we need to have the American dollar out in the world. The less American's consume, the less our dollar goes out in the world. The less our dollar is out in the world, the less it's used as an international currency. The less it's used as an international currency the less it's held to back other currencies. The less it's held in other countries means that it's purchasing power around the world decrees, which causes all sorts of other problems.

Basically, America makes money by buying shit, which sounds weird but that's the deal. Somebody from our nation needs to be buying stuff. If we're not buying stuff, it's bad. So, our country runs debt so somebody is buying stuff. Then, when we, the citizens, make more money, we can get taxed more thus removing some of the created dollars out of the system while still allowing our dollar to flow out into the world.
.

To help put this into image form as we've been there done that:

And note that our total debt skyrockted because of the shittiest form of government spending there is (military spending) but yet the country was still okay after that.

 

[pigeon]

Correct, but those will be written off because everyone says he is crazy. He does have valid points, it doesn't matter if you agree with all of his points or not. There is validity in plenty of the questions he poses.

Well, that's the tricky thing about Ron Paul's philosophy -- it has a little something for everybody. I'm fully in agreement with Ron Paul that we should stop drone attacks on our erstwhile allies and legalize marijuana. I have more difficulty when he says we should let people die for lack of insurance while writing our monthly columns for Stormfront. On the whole it's probably better to isolate the specific arguments he makes that you agree with so that you don't spend the rest of your life saying "well, not that part" every fifteen minutes.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

No, that's not how it works. The assumption is not that everything is bad unless we show it's good -- if you think debt is bad you must point to negative consequences caused by it.



And a pretty easy one. When we start seeing negative consequences (or even just the run-up to negative consequences) caused by debt, then it'll be an issue. Until then, it won't be. Is it possible for rain to be an issue? Sure, but that doesn't mean every time it rains we should panic. There are metrics to consult to show when we're getting too much rain.

Is a bubble type situation possible? Where things seems fine and then the bubble pops all of a sudden inflation goes nuts and shit gets real?

There were certainly a lot of numerical indicators during the housing bubble, but no actual negatives until all of a sudden there were and they got out of control.

Again, honest questions here.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I can quote things too!

Economics is not a science.

If it is a science we have proven that we are really, really shitty economic scientists. With all the compounded experience from past economic depressions and failures, you'd think we'd have some progress by now on, you know, stopping that. Nope. It's virtually impossible to accurately account for the actions of billions of autonomous individual agents.

Keynes did exactly that. You should read his work and not rely on Austrian mumbo jumbo. Or pick up an economics textbook or take an econ class at uni or community college.
We have avoided the recession turning to depression by using Keynesian economics and past recession cycles too.
We have learned from our mistakes. Politicians choose to ignore them.

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

Well, that's the tricky thing about Ron Paul's philosophy -- it has a little something for everybody. I'm fully in agreement with Ron Paul that we should stop drone attacks on our erstwhile allies and legalize marijuana. I have more difficulty when he says we should let people die for lack of insurance while writing our monthly columns for Stormfront. On the whole it's probably better to isolate the specific arguments he makes that you agree with so that you don't spend the rest of your life saying "well, not that part" every fifteen minutes.

And it's the reason people vote for milquetoast centre-right politicians like Obama when you have people like Ron Paul who make sensible arguments and then come out with massive humdingers of policies that make you wonder about their sanity.

 

[Veezy]

Is a bubble type situation possible? Where things seems fine and then the bubble pops all of a sudden inflation goes nuts and shit gets real?

There were certainly a lot of numerical indicators during the housing bubble, but no actual negatives until all of a sudden there were and they got out of control.

Again, honest questions here.

A bubble could happen, but, as I explained earlier, as long as Americans are spending money, somewhere, there's not a problem.

Let's take the housing market for example. A bunch of regulations were dropped, due to both parties I might add, and some people made a lot of money. Americans were spending cash, people were getting hired, shit was good. But, a lot of money was tied up in all this shit. When it got bad, all of a sudden that money just disappeared. At that point, all those jobs, all those pension funds that were tied up in the market vanished too.

When that happened is when our economy took a dive. Note, it's not because of the housing market we got fucked, per se, it's because all of a sudden Americans weren't spending money since nobody had any money. All that disposable income for PlayStations and Nudie Jeans and Kindles and Laptops stopped, since people were stretching just to make ends meet. Note that Bush told everybody to go buy shit when we got that sweet $300 check from the government. That wasn't him being funny, that was him being serious.

America does well when it buys things. That's how we're set up. The world has to hold our currency and we have to buy stuff. One depends on the other and if one stops then the other becomes more difficult. Then, and only then, is the debt, and our financial stability, an issue.

Not that creating money out of thin air doesn't have consequences, but we can control that, quite easily, at the moment, because of our unique situation in the world. It's best we keep it that way.

 

[pigeon]

Is a bubble type situation possible? Where things seems fine and then the bubble pops all of a sudden inflation goes nuts and shit gets real?

There were certainly a lot of numerical indicators during the housing bubble, but no actual negatives until all of a sudden there were and they got out of control.

Again, honest questions here.

Bubble types situations are definitely plausible, but historically, they've all coincided with major outside events -- generally, they're the result of being beaten badly in a war. The Weimar Republic, for example, a favorite example of the Paul crowd, had the minor economic handicap of having their colonies stripped away and taking on an enormous debt, not matched by received considerations, and payable in a currency they had no control over. If America lost a war to China and they took Texas away and made us pay them a bunch of money in yuan, sure, I'd say hyperinflation was not merely possible but likely. But there's no reason to expect there to be a bubble situation now -- there's no "tipping point" where American debt suddenly becomes much less likely to be honored. Every extra dollar makes it more or less equally riskier (i.e., not much riskier at all).

edit:

America does well when it buys things. That's how we're set up. The world has to hold our currency and we have to buy stuff. One depends on the other and if one stops then the other becomes more difficult. Then, and only then, is the debt, and our financial stability, an issue.

While this is generally true it's worth noting that lots and lots of countries have run up huge piles of debt with no real consequences that didn't happen to be the reserve currency. While the dollar's status as most stable currency makes it, ironically, that much more stable, there's no reason to assume that if we stopped being the reserve currency we would suddenly be screwed. Only if we ended up with a bunch of foreign-denominated debt would we have serious issues, but that basically can't happen.

 

[The Technomancer]

Funny you mention that when liberalism is clearly the dominant mantra among college age kids, by far.



I agree we should take care of each other. I think everyone agrees. Do you feel like you are more compassionate and a better person than the person next to you? Probably no more than that person thinks of his/herself over you.

I think Ron Paul agrees with you also. That's the main source of RP's belief system. The idea that we can and will take care of each other, without the need for government force. Mankind by nature resists tyranny, force, etc. whatever you want to call it. People naturally don't want to be told "give this person $5, or else." It creates a disconnect between the giver and the receiver.

However if that same person said, "please give me $5, I can't feed myself or my family otherwise", the giver would be far more likely to give that $5 and feel better about himself for doing so. Likewise, the receiver would be more appreciative knowing that that person gave it for no other reason than compassion or sympathy.

That's what bothers me most about people hating on RP and/or libertarians is this main misunderstanding. It's not 'every man for himself'. It's the complete opposite.

So, to be clear, you believe that in the absence of various government programs providing healthcare and services and sustinence to those in need, charity would step up to such a proportional degree that there would be no significant negative impact on the population?

If I've accuratly represented you, why do you then think those programs were implemented in the first place? Why were food stamps created if charity was sufficient to feed the starving and needy?

Also Czigga, if you're still around I'd really like to dicuss this, since its where I think I most significantly diverge from the more hardcore "small government" crowd

 

[Czigga]

Also Czigga, if you're still around I'd really like to dicuss this, since its where I think I most significantly diverge from the more hardcore "small government" crowd

Overall, yes, I think that should be the case in the long term. Obviously it would not be an overnight thing. It would have to be a gradual, pragmatic approach. If you happened to notice (probably not though), Ron Paul's budget plan (in which he balanced by year 3) did not touch medicare or social security or other entitlement programs. He understands that right now people are dependent on these programs. But yes, I think the long term goal should be to phase them out as opposed to expand them.

If I've accuratly represented you, why do you then think those programs were implemented in the first place? Why were food stamps created if charity was sufficient to feed the starving and needy?

You know I'm not too sure. I do think it was a response to hard times, but also politicians took advantage of that strife for their own political gain. It is the politician's goal to have their constituents rely on them. The more the better; it solidifies their power and wealth. But I do think the idea that people used to be dying in the streets from starvation and lack of healthcare en mass is exaggerated. Ron Paul himself saw thousands of patients throughout his career without taking a dime in federal subsidies. However, the medical industry overall reacted to these guaranteed payments and subsidies by raising prices through the roof, far ahead of everything else, which is largely why the system is so bloated today.

You can also think of your food stamp example from the opposite perspective. Have food stamps and similar programs been expanded or contracted in the last 50yrs? They have been expanded by lots and lots. How has this affected the poverty level? It hasn't affected it much at all, especially when compared to the rate of spending increases. The poverty level was already dropping over the last 5 yrs when Johnson started the 'War on Poverty' in 64. Then spending dramatically increases every year since. So, we're expanding these programs, spending more and more money on them, more and more people become dependent on them, and no one is getting out of poverty. I would like to reiterate the point that the poverty rate has not improved much if at all, in spite of dramatically increased spending over the last 40-50 yrs. Is it your position that nothing is wrong with this pattern? Democrats in power love it because the more people on food stamps the more votes they get. But it's all just a ruse, there is no long term plan, or even goal, to actually fix their long term situation. It's almost to their benefit the worse off their constituents are. That's the saddest part.

 

[The Technomancer]

You can also think of your food stamp example from the opposite perspective. Have food stamps and similar programs been expanded or contracted in the last 50yrs? They have been expanded by lots and lots. How has this affected the poverty level? It hasn't affected it much at all, especially when compared to the rate of spending increases. The poverty level was already dropping over the last 5 yrs when Johnson started the 'War on Poverty' in 64. Then spending dramatically increases every year since. So, we're expanding these programs, spending more and more money on them, more and more people become dependent on them, and no one is getting out of poverty. I would like to reiterate the point that the poverty rate has not improved much if at all, in spite of dramatically increased spending over the last 40-50 yrs. Is it your position that nothing is wrong with this pattern? Democrats in power love it because the more people on food stamps the more votes they get. But it's all just a ruse, there is no long term plan, or even goal, to actually fix their long term situation. It's almost to their benefit the worse off their constituents are. That's the saddest part.

Ah, see, I think we view them differently. For me, food stamps aren't meant to raise anyone out of poverty, they're meant to increase standards of living for those in poverty. You're always going to have a "lower class", but at least that lower class can be not starving, not sick, and not uneducated. Do you think that other perspectives, such as libertarianism, do offer a "long term plan", or do you just think that we should recognize the current realities of wealth distribution and not worry about them?

I do, however, take issue with your idea of "dependency". Using food stamps as a specific example, the recent number was that only 2.6% of recipients lived off food stamps for an extended period, with most people getting off them within 18 months. (and that data wasn't anomalous) The data doesn't indicate that people come to depend on it, the data indicates that people use them as a safety net while they find their feet.

 

[Metrotab]

From what I can see, this guy was insanely popular with Internet demographics. I don't know anything about his policies but I've been told he often stuck to his own principles, and didn't blindly follow the party line. I can respect him for that.

 

[FlyinJ]

•Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?

What in the...

 

[Hari Seldon]

One of only a handful of politicians worth a damn. Coincidentally one of the few who was not a scumbag lawyer.

 

[marrec]

What in the...

YEH! FUCK LOW FLOW TOILETS!

 

[GaimeGuy]

Other questions Ron Paul asks but does not include in his farewell:

"Why do people think it is wrong to stand by and let the Rwanda and Darfur genocides happen?"

"Why provide humanitarian aid in response to natural disasters around the world?"

"Why not abolish the federalreserve and return to the gold standard?"

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Isn't Paul against the Civil Rights Act? That's probably why all those White supremacists like him.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Congress will be losing one of its most principled members, ever.
It's no coincidence that reactions to him are extremely polarizing, as he was one of a few who spoke his mind plainly with complete disregard for 'politics'.
No matter how you feel about him, there's no denying he always elevated the discussion.

 

[Omegasquash]

What in the...

Something...something...standards for ensuring shit is disposed of properly...something...something...safety.

 

[Polari]

Good fucking riddance.

 

[Stinkles]

Congress will be losing one of its most principled members, ever.
It's no coincidence that reactions to him are extremely polarizing, as he was one of a few who spoke his mind plainly with complete disregard for 'politics'.
No matter how you feel about him, there's no denying he always elevated the discussion.

He's racist
He's a homophobe
Uses States Rights obfuscation to deny gay marriage

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[190][191]

Is a Theist
Believes there's no separation of church and state in the constitution

In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION EVEN THOUGH HE'S A DOCTOR
Has naive ideas about international policy
Is an isolationist
Has absurdly naive economic ideas
Is a slightly crazy old man
Is VIRULENTLY anti abortion
Is a hypocrite

 

[FlashFlooder]

Good fucking riddance.

Just curious, what did he ever do to make you say this?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

If you live in a major city, you've probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months. In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob. What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

 

[Timedog]

I agree with almost all of those bullet points that aren't economic.

 

[Ixzion]

Thanks for your service, Ron! You lit the brushfire of freedom in my mind and I'll never forget it. How you put up with the level of vitriol you've had during all of your years as the lone voice in the wilderness, I will never know.

 

[FlashFlooder]

If you live in a major city, you've probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months. In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob. What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds,
for example).

I'm strictly talking about the issues he's pursued during his career. What actually matters when you're talking about a political representative. Not his personal life.

For example, a favorite is "He doesn't believe in evolution, LOL!" He also doesn't believe the government should have a say in pushing either theory, so why does it matter?

 

[Polari]

Just curious, what did he ever do to make you say this?

See the post above yours.

 

[Omegasquash]

For example, a favorite is "He doesn't believe in evolution, LOL!" He also doesn't believe the government should have a say in pushing either theory, so why does it matter?

I'd be OK with people making judgements on me if I didn't believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[FlashFlooder]

See the post above yours.

So you're mad at him for his personal beliefs? Because he never made a push to get the federal government involved on either side of most of those issues.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

As I've said before, I don't see how Ron Paul exists and yet Obama gets tagged as a "messiah" and whatnot. Ron Paul has his own cult.

 

[Stinkles]

So you're mad at him for his personal beliefs? Because he never made a push to get the federal government involved on either side of most of those issues.

We know about those incredibly toxic, racist, anti-science, conspiratorial beliefs because he has brought them into the public sphere and because we know about them, we know he is not fit for public service. And has no real business being a doctor either.

 

[Hari Seldon]

We know about those incredibly toxic, racist, anti-science, conspiratorial beliefs because he has brought them into the public sphere and because we know about them, we know he is not fit for public service. And has no real business being a doctor either.

Good thing "believing in evolution" doesn't matter for two shits when it comes to doctoring, nor does this belief matter in nearly every human activity except for writing a text book on evolution. As long he doesn't push the government to teach creationism that it does not matter what he believes in this regard.

 

[FlashFlooder]

We know about those incredibly toxic, racist, anti-science, conspiratorial beliefs because he has brought them into the public sphere and because we know about them, we know he is not fit for public service. And has no real business being a doctor either.

And you've also got nearly 3 decades worth of said public service to look at and draw conclusions from. Yet, all you can come up with are personal arguments.

He has no business being a doctor... I gotta admit, that makes me chuckle.

 

[Red Blaster]

One of only a handful of politicians worth a damn. Coincidentally one of the few who was not a scumbag lawyer.

a homophobic racist is so much better than a lawyer

 

[ChosenPredator]

damn neogaf despises this guy

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://newsone.com/444922/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-supremacist/

 

[Baraka in the White House]

damn neogaf despises this guy

Like others have said, he's a human broken clock with a really annoying bonger that goes off every half hour.

 

[Evlar]

Good thing "believing in evolution" doesn't matter for two shits when it comes to doctoring, nor does this belief matter in nearly every human activity except for writing a text book on evolution. As long he doesn't push the government to teach creationism that it does not matter what he believes in this regard.

Yeah, there are no practical applications of evolutionary processes. It doesn't impact on the pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industries, or informed discussion of biodiversity. Good point.

 

[Stinkles]

Good thing "believing in evolution" doesn't matter for two shits when it comes to doctoring, nor does this belief matter in nearly every human activity except for writing a text book on evolution. As long he doesn't push the government to teach creationism that it does not matter what he believes in this regard.

He doesn't believe in vaccines either. Would you take your family to a racist doctor who doesn't believe vaccines work? Good for you.

 

[Red Blaster]

damn neogaf despises this guy

anyone idolized by virginal white college freshmen is probably worth despising

 

[FlashFlooder]

anyone idolized by virginal white college freshmen is probably worth despising

Political hipsterism at its finest

 

[Snaku]

If he was willing to spend at least the next 4, if not 8, years as POTUS, why not carry on his work in the House?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

anyone idolized by virginal white college freshmen is probably worth despising

Let's not forget he's the go-to guy for White supremacists and paranoid schizophrenics

 

[Hari Seldon]

damn neogaf despises this guy

I think it is because she shames them for voting for people who create kill lists, puts black skinned people in jail disproportionately for victim-less crimes, and conducts endless wars for less of a justifiable cause than a Roman consul killing people simply for a parade.

I mean really who is the racist? The people who perpetuate the racist drug war or someone who may have private beliefs (he is an old man) but advocates ending racist policies?

 

[Deified Data]

There's nothing Ron Paul gets right that Ralph Nader or Rocky Anderson don't do better, and with sane fiscal stances to boot. There's absolutely nothing special about Paul besides A) his genuine earnestness, and B) his inexplicable cult of personality. People just see a politician who more or less sticks to his guns and they assume he's the only one on the planet, elevating him to messiah-status.

 

[Evlar]

If he was willing to spend at least the next 4, if not 8, years as POTUS, why not carry on his work in the House?

The Republican-run statehouse in Texas eliminated his safe district through gerrymandering.

 

[FlashFlooder]

He doesn't believe in vaccines either. Would you take your family to a racist doctor who doesn't believe vaccines work? Good for you.

wrong, he's a politican who doesn't think vaccines should federally mandated. There's a big difference.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I mean really who is the racist? The people who perpetuate the racist drug war or someone who is clearly a massive racist like Ron Paul?

Glad we could fix that.

 

[marrec]

wrong, he's a politican who doesn't think vaccines should federally mandated. There's a big difference.

Oh, so he couches his anti-science ideas behind a statement of individual liberty? That's even worse.