Ron Paul, at least on the internet, is massively popular. He seems to be the perfect candidate, although he is a Republican, he supports "States' Rights" and Libertarianism, ending the war in Iraq, as well as the war on Drugs These seem like terrific ideas, right? Well, yeah, but that they are coupled with a few horrible ideas and the right ideas come for the wrong reasons.
Those of you who have jumped on the bandwagon may be surprised to know a few things: Not only did Rep. Paul suggest pulling out of Iraq, but pulling our troops out of South Korea, Germany and all other overseas bases; Rep. Paul may support "States' Rights," but what he means is <strong>banning abortion</strong> over most of the country.
Rep. Paul is not a liberal, protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an <em>isolationist</em>, who seeks to keep America's business at home. In today's globalized world, this simply cannot be allowed to happen. While I support withdrawing our troops from Iraq, our troops in South Korea keep the region relatively stable and make sure Kim Jong Il is aware of the threat facing him should he decide to develop nuclear weapons. Without Korea, our nation's technology industry would suffer. Keeping troops in Germany allows America to have a rapid response to whatever happens, keeping our interests and those of others in mind.
Rep. Paul is not socially liberal, but economically conservative, as some have claimed. He is an old-style Conservative, through and through. He is known to take a firmly anti-choice stance, and seeks to have <em>Roe v. Wade</em> overturned via statute, and control over abortion "returned" to the states. What does this mean, pragmatically? It means that huge swaths of this nation will ban abortion, essentially chaining women to the "rights" of a week-old block of cells. Sure, women on the Pacific coast, in New England and in Rust Belt might get to have abortions, still, but what about the 15-year-old paternal rape victim in Mississippi? She surely has no way to travel to Ohio or New York to get an abortion. She's stuck, enslaved to her womb, stealing a year of her life and keeping her forever behind.
Rep. Paul supports returning the nation to a gold standard. This is really just a silly idea. It would reduce our nations money supply so greatly that other nations would have no choice but to use the Euro as the world standard, which would further reduce the value of the dollar. Yes, the dollar would be stable, but it would be almost worthless. Already, the Canadian Dollar is at parity or higher than the American Dollar.
Ron Paul's ideas, while they sound nice, are simply the few planks cherrypicked from his platform to sound appealing to libertarian netizen voters. All they are, in reality, are a ploy to get otherwise liberal Americans to vote for someone with an "R" after their name, while continuing to throw this country to the dogs.
Move America out of the dark ages of war by returning to our true north, self-government free of tyranny and oppression. Downsize to small, Constitutional government; return to the Spirit of '76. Our founder knew big government would always mean a gang of evildoers often hiding tyranny under the guise of good intentions.
http://mccoolportraits.com/Spirit.htm
http://mccoolportraits.com/TrueHistory.htm
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mccool
Colleen McCool is a portrait artist, poet and peace activist.
http://mccoolportraits.com/2007rebelwithjustcause.htm
Member - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc/
& Drug Policy Forum of Texas
Can you not understand his stance on abortion, though? I mean, as an OB/GYN he delivered hundreds of babies and due to this cannot see any reason that any woman should need an abortion. Now, I am ambivalent to the matter, only feeling that we shouldn't legislate it, but I can see where he's coming from. There are, however, a lot of democrats in Congress, so I doubt that he could get a law banning abortion to pass.
Also, have you looked at the other major candidates? Hilary wants to destroy medicine in the states through socialization. Obama is going to try and murder the second amendment while increasing the minimum wage (that's a bad thing, ask and I'll explain). Thompson is for the war. Romney was pro choice, flipped to pro life, flipped again to pro choice, and flipped yet again to pro life.
No, I still think Ron Paul is who needs to be in office. So he's against abortion and against embryonic stem cell research...He's better than the rest of them.
For more information on Ron Paul, or any of the candidates, I think 2decide.com did a great job with this table in describing all of the candidates views quickly and concisely.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I'd like an explanation on not raising the minimum wage. Does it have to do with the over all economy or tax system brackets?
One of the Mods wrote this over the summer...It's well written, articulate, and will answer your question better than I can.
http://www.progressiveu.org/144130-how-the-elimination-of-minimum-wage-w...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Romney changed his mind on the abortion topic once. His change of heart is very genuine. I've spoken with him on the topic before and I believe that he is truthful in his pro-life stance.
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/bamers
Then I retract the previous statement concerning Romney, I was misinformed. I instead substitue the following:
Romney wants to ban gay marriage, take away my guns, and put more troops into Iraq.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
You win one, Romney is working to making a Traditional Family Admendment to the Constitution, but that's where that ends.
Gun Control-Romney supports gun owning rights. He is a member of the NRA. He does however support a ban on assault weapons, which I think most people would support.
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/mitt-romney-on-gun-control/
The reasoning for putting more troops in Iraq is to strong arm the area into line so that we can leave quicker. Romney's belief is that if we suddenly pull out of Iraq, it's extremely likely that a civil war would break out between the Sunis and Shittes. Upon that, neighboring countries would get involved in the Civil War, causing a regional fall out. Then everyone would come calling on the United States and Britain for conflict resolution. We would be putting our soldiers into a even bigger battle, losing even more life. This was just a quick overview of his argument for more troops in Iraq.
I can't promise that his views are complete as I'm not Mitt Romney. I can just let you know what his current policies are.
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/bamers
Dr. Paul isn't against embryonic stem cell research, he just doesn't support government funding for it or many other morally controversial subjects. Big difference there, as the private sector is free to research on private money.
There's a brief article he wrote on the subject
the constitution doesn't allow the Federal government to make laws supporting that. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. Anything not given specifically to the Federal government is reserved for the states, therefore if the law isn't allowed by the Constitution, he won't vote for it.
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/bamers
Read the general welfare clause of the Constitution - this has been interpreted by the courts to allow the Federal government to, among other things, fund medical research.
There is no such thing as a general welfare clasue. The only mention of "general welfare" is in the preamble, a section of the constitution with no legal authority. It has never been interpretted in any court because it means nothing in law. Know your constitutional law before you post about it.
Since when did the preamble have no legal authority? It's been cited by the courts. Just one I found real quickly was Sabri v. US. Check it out - the Supremes cite the "general welfare clause"
Wild stab, but is this what you're reading?
If so, amgio, it's not citing the Preamble. It's citing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
Holy shit...look at that..."general welfare." Who'd of thunk it?!
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_Clause
Otherwise known as the "Taxing and Spending Clause." I guess this is why we need a Supreme Court to help us interpret what the intent actually is. They probably didn't mean runaway inflation and taxing income.
Oh noes!! My dollar was worth three cents more last year!
All "runaway inflation" does is encourages smart Americans to invest their savings in something other than straight dollars - stocks, bonds, anything. Keeping a savings account with much more than you really need is silly. The only people who suffer are those who are dumb and store their cash supplies under their mattress. That's their fault, not mine.
Would you endorse theoretical communism?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
To ...promote the general Welfare, as identified in the preamble of the constitution had nothing to do with the modern welfare state and everything to do with a consistent set of laws for all people. Back in the day of writing the constitution - if you were a friend of King George (a familiar theme?) then it was quite likely you got special preferential treatment from the government - and if you were on the outside of the kings friends and family circle then there was a good chance that your facing getting your property confiscated, higher taxes and other unpleasantnesses that the king and his surly band could reign down upon you because they were the law.
In modern parlance - the closer the government represents a kleptocracy - a band of thieving thugs - the more absolute the destitution of the masses, the more unjustice for all and the lower standard of living exists.
A just government respects the rights of all people equally and grants special favor to none
You might be suprised to here that Alan Greenspan is a lifetime proponent of the gold standard and even Bernanke is sympathetic. It is a serious monetary proposal that could provide immense practical benifits to modern America.
The essense of the gold standard is a currency peg to a fixed supply of a thing. By pegging the supply of money government would be prevented from printing money to pay debt (the primary cause of inflation) or printing money to inflate stock prices.
The printing of money to pay excess debt is one of the prime causes of the income desparity in America. Poor people who save their money in cash find their savings worthless as inflation exceeds the interest rate, while rich people who save their money in stocks are protected by the stock market subsidied.
And finally, the argument that there "wont be enough money" just goes to show how far people have been fooled by fiat currency. Economic transactions have utterly non-monetary values that are converted for the purpose of trade. The result of rapid developments in productivity in a fixed currency would simply be the reduction of prices, or things getting "cheaper".
The only people that need "more money" is the federal government that does not want to pay its bills like the rest of us. Instead of raising taxes or reducing spending, the government pays its debt by grabbing wet bills off the printing press and debasing our currency right in front of our eyes. The result is the most regressive tax in existence, one that preys specifically on the cash savings of the poor and the well being of people on the edges of poverty.
Free to Choose
A Personal Statement
The Classic Inquiry Into the Relationship between Freedom and Economics.
by Milton Friedman
Winner of the Nobel Prize
and Rose Friedman
The Case for Gold
by Ron Paul
Alan Greenspan hasn't publicly said anything in favor of the gold standard since 1966, at least nothing that a cursory google and wikipedia search would show. Forty years is quite a long time, over which Mr. Greenspan may have changed his opinion, for whatever reason.
Ben Bernanke, on the other hand, doesn't seem to support the gold standard at all. He blames the gold standard, in fact, for the Great Depression.
The gold standard might be great, just like most Libertarian policies, in theory. However, given the current state of the union, (massive amounts of dollars in circulation) it simply wouldn't work.
Of *course* the chairmen of the Federal Reserve don't favor the gold standard. How would they be able to create inflation and jack around with interest rates if we had sound, backed currency?
Then who does favor the gold standard? Someone with a degree in economics, please. Gynecologists study vaginas, not the economy.
Check out this article by an Econ prof at UCBerkeley to explain why the gold standard is a poor idea: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html . He can do a better job than I can, because I've only been studying econ since September... and my teacher isn't too good.
Milton Friedman for one:
http://www.progressiveu.org/162717-ron-paul-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing#co...
...that someone who has expertise in one field could not possibly understand basic concepts in another field?
Comparing Ron Paul to the other candidates and congressmen/women/senators, I would say he has more background in critical thinking than all of them combined due to his extensive training in medicine. God forbid he should take an interest in economics too and understand it! Has anyone else in congress actually read anything by Friedman and other economists and bothered to look past the platitudes and rhetoric to find root causes of problems?
Personally, I think doctors are the exact kind of person we need in office to fix our very real problems because they are trained to think critically and scientifically.
I always thought Wolves in Sheep's Clothing were unscrupulous people conciously misrepresenting themselves for nefarious purposes. I don't think even the most irrational among us would describe Dr. Paul in that fashion. I don't think anyone, except maybe Dick Cheny, believes that the President of the United States is supposed to have dictatorial power to make the country do anything. The President is supposed to persuade us, as a people, to follow a collective course of action. We never all agree with any president on any policy. So What? Dr. Paul is trying to persude the country that no goverment, anywhere, at any time; has or has had the power to guarantee Life, Liberty, or The Pursuit of Happiness. An idea that was the foundation of political thought in the United States for almost 200 years. What happened? Have we become a nation of sheep in sheep's clothing?
Paul represents himself to many on the internet, consciously or unconsciously, purposely or by accident, as a social liberal who is an economic conservative. In fact, he's not. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing to those of us who support liberal, progressive ideals.
So, you can't be consevative and still support progressive ideas?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Sure, just Rep. Paul isn't the one to do it. Banning abortion isn't progressive. Killing our economy by pegging the dollar to gold isn't progressive, its suicide.
I disagree with him on the abortion issue. HE doesn't exactly want to ban it, he wants to leave it up to the states, and I do disagree with that, although he is one of the few people who seem to have some justification for his beliefs on the issue. As for the gold standard, it's better than the faith in the government standard.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
You're exactly right, jsaj. "Leaving abortion up to the states" is a de facto ban, for all of us who don't live in New England or on the Pacific Coast.
However, the gold standard, while it might be have been nice in the past, frankly won't work for today's world. See my post below for the dollar figures for the amount of gold America owns and the number of dollars in circulation. There is by no means enough gold to convert our currency to a gold standard. (By tens, and tens of times.)
I'm quite active in Republican politics and have heard stories before of "the senator who doesn't vote". Dr. Paul votes nay on more resolutions than not. His first question before even reading the entire piece is "Does the Constitution allow me to pass this legislation?" If the Constitution doesn't allow it, Dr. Paul votes no. Only if the Constitution would allow him to pass the legistlation does he then consider what the legislation is about. The Constitution obviously doesn't allow for the Federal government to ban abortion, thereby leaving that up to the individual states to decide.
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/bamers
Reading bills with an eye towards constitutionality is all well and good. However, Dr. Paul's reading of the constitution is different than that of the SCOTUS, both now and historically. SCOTUS has long determined that the general welfare clause allows certain things which Rep. Paul opposes due to their perceived unconstitutionality and that certain "Implied rights," such as the right to make choices about ones own body are included, implicitly in the constitution, specifically in the 14th amendment.
Supporters of Rep. Paul's position on abortion would do well to read the decision in Roe v. Wade - the federal gov't didn't pass a law legalizing abortion, but SCOTUS ruled that the constitution forbade banning it.
Lets see: With the supreems - they need no more then how many people to end abortion in every single state of the union? Hint an integer greater then 4 less then 6.
Or maybe the question should be how many MORE justices do they need?
Kicking Abortion back to the states is constitutional - and it will engage literally thousands of legislators.
Personally my issue is not abortion (other then not forcing tax payers to pay for it) but a great concern of stopping people from having children via medical techniques like In-vetro Fertilizations because of stupid laws intended to stop other people from throwing away their potential offspring.
Frankly legislators are too stupid to be in control of such crucial and fundamental personal decisions.
==============================================================
A just government respects the rights of all people equally and grants special favor to none
"Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
-Alan Greenspan
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value.”
-Alan Greenspan
Paul is an isolationist? He's as much an isolationist as James Madison or Thomas Jefferson was. Listen to what he says. He's for trade and diplomacy. What you've done is mistaken non-interventionism with isolationism.
Maybe Paul supporters didn't know what? That he plans to drastically re-alocate the defense budget by pulling troops out from their many stations across the world? Who didn't know that? It's not a secret idea of his, he publicly talks about it all the time. Plus, I think that's a great idea, particularly on the Arabian Peninsula.
Personally anti-abortion but would like to leave it to the states. Leave it to the states means leave it to the states. What will this result in? Whatever the states want! Go read the 10th Amendment! It's short.
Finally, this idea that Ron Paul has somehow cherrypicked the most attractive platform—Do you have any idea how unpopular some of his stances are to republicans today? He's only saying now what's he's been saying since the 1970s when he first entered politics.
If you're coming across this site looking for the truth, please look elsewhere.
Again, maybe Paul's practices are great in theory. However, the transition from our current policies of stationing troops the world over would cause quite a bit of turmoil. How long do you think it would take for Kim Jong Il to take some sort of aggressive action towards South Korea if the US military weren't there? Kim has one of the larger armies in the world, and South Korea isn't exactly militarized.
In general, what the states decide is great. However, when it comes down to a womans' body, the rights of the states go out the window. If the state decides that it wants me to work as a male prostitute, is that OK? The 10th Amendment does grant the state that power right?
No. Just the same, being entitled to make decisions about one's own body is certainly a right to which all Americans are guaranteed. Regardless of what the majority in their state thinks about it. Democracy is about majority rule while protecting the right of the minority, who in this case is a rape victim who would suffer serious health effects from pregnancy, but who can't get an abortion because the nearest clinic is 1500 miles away from her home in Mississippi.
I would be surprised if states didn't have exclusions for rape victims or if the mother's life were in danger. If they did I would expect a mass exodus from those states by any woman that has a brain. Might be a good thing. Besides, both instances may not pass Constitutional muster. As for other reasons for abortion, a choice was made when the woman and man decided to have sex. Rape victims were denied their choice so they are exempt. Mother's life at stake boils down to the fetus being an agressor so mom wins. But when a woman and man have sex, even with protection, they know there is still a possibility she may become pregnant and are responsible for their actions as a result. I'm not arguing in favor or against Dr. Paul's position, I'm just saying that a blanket "all abortions, all the time" stance isn't necessarily the best either. This is another one of those issues where it was decided there are only two possible positions. I disagree with that. Also, what makes you think the 15 year old paternal rape victim will get an abortion? Her life is pretty hellish already. Does she even have the means to get to one of probably only a few clinics in her state? Who knows where she will end up? Maybe having that child is the only way anyone will be able to see that she needs help or see that she was abused. Scary but there are too many variables in this equation for YOU to decide for everyone.
According to Roe v. Wade, banning abortion at all doesn't pass constitutional muster.
there are too many variables in this equation for YOU to decide for everyone.
Damn right!! Nowhere do I support requiring anyone to get an abortion. I do support, however, the right of anyone to get an abortion. Maybe the 15-year-old wants to have the child. All the more power to her. That's her choice - I'm pro-choice.
I realize that the 15-year-old rape victim may not now even have the ability to get to a clinic. That's a problem too, which deserves a solution. However, it's easier for her, probably, to get across the state than to get across 8 states.
...but what about the rights of the unborn child? We go on about the mother's rights, but forgot about the baby. Ron Paul's stance on this is to define life at conception (this coming from a man who has delivered 4000 babies in his career as an obstetrician). This would mean that even unborn fetuses have the "right to life." The question is--do they now? If so, then this can explain why he feels that Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional.
I am a Ron Paul fan - but Conception is too early. For identical twins (natures clones) -- who is it - with a single cell it is too early to tell.
If genetics is the 'soul' determinant - can one adult twin kill the other and blithely claim -- I am the talking representative of this unique gene pool - no one died! - go away officer...If genetics is the sole criteria - that murdering swine would be legally (not morally) right.
If/when cloning is effective in humans - will every cell in a blood drop be deemed an independent life?
My blood drop is a human blood drop, but it is not a human. Humans are more then their genetics.
=================================================================
A just government respects the rights of all people equally and grants special favor to none
"If the state decides that it wants me to work as a male prostitute, is that OK? The 10th Amendment does grant the state that power right?"
No, its not okay, and not constitutional. States must uphold the constitution as well and forcing you to be a prostitute or any other profession is clearly unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and is to obeyed by all, a practice that was forgotten long ago. Im not sure what your stance on the selective service is but tell me, what is the philisophical difference between conscription and the senario you suggest?
"Democracy is about majority rule while protecting the right of the minority,"
Wrong, we fortunately dont live in a democracy, where there is "tyranny of the majority" as Thomas Jefferson put it. Our republican system allows for the protection of minorities' rights much better.
" rape victim who would suffer serious health effects from pregnancy"
Not that a statistitian wouldn't tear this to pieces, but one ob/gyn doctor reported that out of over 4000 pregancies, he has never seen a single life threatening case. Also, states could provide exclusions to laws to allow for such cases as rape and life threatening pregancies.
I am an American who spent a year studying in Germany. A reasonable person would be at pains to justify the continued presence of American troops in that country. I have seen firsthand that the Germans do not need us over there to change their diapers.
Though we may benevolently have "our interests and those of others in mind", our bases in Europe merely make it logistically easier to continue operations in the Middle East. Similarly, a South Korea without American troops will not crumble at the feet of Kim Jong Il's malnourished, ill-equipped, paleo-Soviet war juggernaut.
I find it amazing that "progressives" can support spending money and blood to maintain what amounts to a worldwide empire. America ought to disengage from places where military occupation does not immediately serve its crucial interests. The costs of maintaining this worldwide presence approach $1 trillion annually; money like this is much better spent at home.
Do the German's want us out? Go ask PM Angela Merkel. Do the Saudis want us out? Go ask King Abdullah.
We benefit from maintaining troops abroad - we can benefit our own interests, as well as those of the other nations.
However, I don't see the need to keep troops everywhere. I simply oppose a blanket withdrawal. America needs to stay mobile and stay worldwide. As the worlds' sole superpower and most globalized nation, we have a duty to the world and to ourselves to keep ourselves protected against whatever threat is present.
How can we benefit by spending billions of dollars to fund an overextended military whom then pumps that money into foreign economies and leaves our borders unprotected?
why can't South Korea pay for their own defense? If they want the knowledge and expertise of the US military, they should pay for it or they should defend themselves. The only reason they don't completely defend their own country now is because they get free defense from us, but we are paying for it with our tax dollars. Let them pay for it, or figure out a way to build their own defenses up. Ron Paul will not leave the peninsula over night. He would allow them time to restructure their own defenses against the North.
We benefit from a stable South Korea. Yes, it would be possible for S. Korea to defend itself. That might be a good idea, in the long run. However, we should avoid a blanket withdrawal from overseas bases as Rep. Paul is suggesting. Each situation should be evaluated separately and independently.
How do we benefit? Sure, I guess you could say everyone benefits from a stable (insert country name here) but isn't South Korea benefitting from our military position at the 38th parellel? They are wealthy enough and have enough people and resources to defend against North Korea, the only threat to them in the region. We need not be there, at least not once we've transitioned. Obviously, no one wants to leave the South as a sitting duck by just leaving without allowing them a buildup period IF the South Koreans want that. It is none of our business. Let's get out, and from Japan and Germany, too. They are not the threats they once were and there are no signs they would resume global tyranny. Unfortunately, we have embraced that role and we shouldn't.
I created this account to disagree with almost everything that has been written in this article. Let's go through some of your worst errors.
"Rep. Paul is not a liberal, protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America's business at home. In today's globalized world, this simply cannot be allowed to happen."
It seems you are mixing up non-interventionism with isolationism. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is an active proponent of free trade, whereby we end tariffs on imports and eliminate corporate subsidies, this of course would lower taxes and result in cheaper prices nationwide.
However, he is a proponent of non-interventionism, whereby our federal government does not concern itself with the internal affairs of other countries. Had we followed this approach, here is a list of things that never would have happened, the Vietnam War, 9-11, and the occupation of Iraq. This is the philosophy the founding fathers had, and believe me, they were very correct in taking this stance.
You also said, "Yes, the dollar would be stable, but it would be almost worthless. Already, the Canadian Dollar is at parity or higher than the American Dollar. "
Just to let you know, the dollar IS worthless now BECAUSE of the system that we have adopted where we artificially inflate our own currency through our monetary policy. This would not be the case had we stuck to a gold standard. The Canadian Dollar is basically equal to the American Dollar as a result of the government meddling with the economy.
I'm going to recommend a piece of literature to you. It's called the constitution, it basically says what our government can and cannot do. You should read it sometime. It's very interesting.
apc
I love the constitution, but the constitution says nothing about the gold standard. Congress, or its designee, has the power to set the value of the dollar.
Just to let you know, the dollar IS worthless now BECAUSE of the system that we have adopted where we artificially inflate our own currency through our monetary policy. This would not be the case had we stuck to a gold standard. The Canadian Dollar is basically equal to the American Dollar as a result of the government meddling with the economy.
That's a pretty interesting assertion. Care to back it up? (Really. I want to see you prove it. I would be very surprised if you can.)
Can I back up the worthless dollar? Yes. It's worth what the Canadian dollar is, and their money value didn't go up. And, seeing as we just endlessly print money, the value of it goes down. Supply up, demand down.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
There are more factors that affect the value of the dollar than just the supply.
Consider, for instance, what happened about the same time the dollar fell. Did inflation go up? No. What did happen? Massive, massive foreclosure on homes financed by Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Since houses cost less (more supply), the value of the equity of most Americans just fell in value. Since the mortgages on those homes were largely held by overseas firms, overseas companies were left with lots of dollars which they didn't want. So they sold those dollars, which caused a glut, and the dollar fell.
Nothing to do with monetary policy. Minting too many dollars was not the cause. The Fed is doing its best to keep the dollar up in the long run, but the stupid actions of Americans can't always be accounted for.
True, there is more to money than the supply, however, when the supply does go up, the value goes down because it becomes easier to attain.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Right, an increase in supply causes a decrease in price/value.
However, this increase in supply of US dollars came as a result of less money invested in home equity as a result of the foreclosure problem and as a result of dollar-buyers seeing the dollar as less valuable because they see a downturn in the US economy in the future selling their supplies of dollars. It had absolutely nothing to do with the government printing too many dollars.
The extra money in the us economy is not caused by the foreclosure mess we are in now. It is the result of it.
Our money is debt based. For every dollar that is in circulation, there is a debt somewhere in the banking system that created it. A great deal of the extra money running around right now is due to people borrowing money after the fed cut rates. The banks only have a fraction of the money on hand to make a loan, the rest is created by the bank out of thin air. The house buying craze from 2002 forward created a lot of new home loans, which in turn added money to the money supply. Now that credit is tightening, there is not enough new money (debt) being created to pay the principal and interest, so foreclosures are the result.
For all debts and interest to be paid in a fiat money system, the money supply must grow exponentially. When this does not happen, bankruptcies and foreclosures are the result.
So the problem is that the money supply is NOT growing? It seems that the less-mobile gold-standard currency would cause more problems and retard growth.
Your entire example above seems to suggest that the credit problems we have now derive from stupid decisions by businesses and individuals, not the FedRes.
The problem is that our fiat money supply is not growing. This a debt based system, not a capitol based system. You cannot look at cause and effect in one system and superimpose those rules on the other system. They work in totally different ways.
In a fiat money system, there must be debt. If all debts were paid off, there would be no money. Debt equals money. It is strange to get your head around, but that is the way a central banking system works. It is also important to understand that banks then charge interest on the loans, so the amount of money that needs to be repaid is equal to the principal plus the interest. All debts can never be paid off, because the central bank never created the money for the interest. That is what mandates the exponential increase in the amount of money. The next round of loans has to be big enough to cover the principal and the interest from the last round of loans. When this breaks down, there is not enough money to pay both principal and interest, so someone must default on a loan.
With a commodity money, the money itself has value. There is no debt attached to it, so all debts can be paid and there will still be money. There are fundamental differences between these two systems.
The businesses and individuals are not to blame for all of this. The true nature of a money system will manifest itself in the behavior of those who participate in it. With a debt based money system, the participants will be debtors. In a commodity based money system, the participants will be savers. The problem is the system, not those that participate in it.
I suggest that your learn about the history of paper money starting from goldsmiths in europe and following their evolution into the central banks that we have today. Doing so would improve your understanding of money and may just make you change your stance on fiat money.
@insert
The constitution states in Article 1, Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
The phrase "To coin money" means the process of taking metals and creating coins from them. It does not mandate gold, but it does mandate a commodity based money, created by the congress. It does not provide for "emitting bills of credit", which is what fiat money is. It also does not provide the congress with the power to delegate it's responsibility to an entity outside the government. The Federal Reserve is not a part of the government, it is a private bank that loans us our money at interest.
As far as the dollar becoming worth less over the years:
in 1900, $20.00 = 1 troy ounce
in 2007, $750.00 = 1 troy ounce
I would say that the United States Government and the Federal Reserve have devalued the dollar a little over the past 107 years.
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof,"
You seem to be saying that with a gold standard, the money coined would have a value determined by the market for precious metals. Since the government doesn't regulate the market for precious metals, then clearly the power of Congress to "regulate the value" of the money would be useless. Therefore we must conclude that the Founders meant for the value of currency to fluctuate by Congress or its agents. Because the Supreme Court has never overturned the Federal Reserve or its predecessors in any suit, ever since McCulloch v. Maryland.
the Founders expected the value of currency to be manipulated beyond a system of weights and measures of gold or other precious metals? They did not authorize a central bank in the Constitution, so even if some of them wanted one (Alexander Hamilton?) it was not agreed upon. Congress, not their agents or subsequently created central bank, was authorized to "regulate" the value of (for fairness and equity reasons so everyone would operate using the same value per ounce), not create its value out of thin air, or authorize anyone else to do it.
Congress regulates the value by determining the make up of the coins. I point you to "The Coinage Act of 1792" posted below. In that act, the congress sets up the denominations of the money and the composition of each denomination. That is the intrinsic value of the money and the mechanism by which congress can "regulate the value thereof".
Since I have provided you a mechanism by which the value can be regulated, we are not forced to conclude that the Founders meant for the congress to borrow fiat currency, at interest, from a third party.
Power of CONGress
Art I section 10...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Today we are to have fool faith and trust in the currency, rather then the currency having value unto its self. The big problem with a precious metal standard is that the government can't fabricate it at will like they can with script.
Why must they raise the minimum wage? Simple - the constant process of inflation ripps off even the poorest of the poor - making their meger dollars get less and less. Unlike wall street the poor are at the trailing edge of the curve, so even cost of living increases are always a day late and a dollar short.
A just government respects the rights of all people equally and grants special favor to none
This is the Constitutional law with regards to what is 'LAWFUL' money and how it is all set up. It had to be set up with in a few years of the Constitutions' ratification. This is our CONSTITUTIONAL money. NOT the petrol-dollar.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt
If we continue to allow unlawful, unconstitutional actions to occur, how can we ever expext that we would be lead down the right path. We keep fooling ourselves. If you have an addiction or dependancy, what is the first thing to do? ADMIT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. Otherwise you are lying to yourself and everyone around you, but you just don't believe you are. The truth does NOT require you to believe it to be true, it just is. Thank you for your time anyway, I hope this is informative for you. You are well on your way to learning how we are suppose to run our nation right, instead of right into the ground (LOL). May the light of truth shine on you always.
Dude. Laws can be changed. The coinage act of 1792 has obviously been changed over the past 215 years. The Federal Reserve is lawful and constitutional according to the Supreme Court. They are the ones who determine constitutionality, not a couple teenagers on the internet or even a Texan representative, and they have spoken.
Dude. Laws can be changed. The coinage act of 1792 has obviously been changed over the past 215 years. The Federal Reserve is lawful and constitutional according to the Supreme Court. They are the ones who determine constitutionality, not a couple teenagers on the internet or even a Texan representative, and they have spoken.
Who ever wrote this blog must obviously be a wolf. Obviously trying to mislead people about what Dr Paul actually stands for and his stance on the issues. Nothing written here is the truth do some real research about what he stands for then post that instead of this misleading tale.
This is obviously a liberal progressive blog...
Before you write something as falase and disgusting as this please educate your self on the truth about Dr. Paul. If you read his website ronpaul2008.com and watched him in the debates you would see that you are wrong.
He isnot an isolationist, but rather a non-interventionist. They are two totally different things. Isolationism is the idea of closing the nation down to others around the world. Non-interventionism is the idea to stop meddling in other countries affairs, but trade with them. Ron Paul is running on the idea that by not intervening in other countries they will like us more, instead of us forcing our "help" on them. For example, the Arabian countries would want to emulatue us if we stayed out of their business. OBL did not attack us because we were rich and free, but because we are over THERE.
YOU IDIOT!
Why should I respond to you in a respectful way when you call me an idiot?
Now I will not go as far as saying you are wrong, it is your right to free press , but this is my take on it.
Alright, so he wants to pull out of bases around the world, he wants to pull out of the UN completely, and just by saying that he is an isolationist?
But in contrast he also wants a free market society, which means there would be free trade with all nations, free travel for the US citizens abroad, and a better defended border, combine that with economic prosperity due to increasing markets in gold, which most invest in if they get married, and more would if the income tax was no longer taken out of our paychecks. The investment into real estate is lucrative for more people, investment into the future by owning gold, and the protection of the constitution to protect that investment for your children, along with the ability for people to own guns, so that protection is personal, a responsibility to protect ones family.
The fact that some still cannot see the fact that a society dependent on its Government breeds more and more of the ideas of Government to see how much control can be exerted on all of the citizens through violations of civil rights sickens me. Countries building nuclear weapons will not attack unless provoked, and if already provoked aggressive diplomacy from our appointed spokespeople will allow us to provide alternatives to war, using war as a congressional act, declaring it with a purpose, and using it only as a last option. With the information age, it is hard to see that anything save shear homicidal intentions would provoke such wars.
So the fact that he personally believes that abortion is wrong automatically means that he will, once he allows the states to choose, and who are you to speak for all 50 states, it’ll be just like marriage laws, some do DNA testing and some don’t. It will be up to the people of those states to choose those laws.
Do not try to distort the facts I am not the only one who can do research, that’s why Google has keyword searches. The so called “Dr. No.” factor is not what it seems; he knows the constitution and will not allow the US Federal Government to have its powers expanded without truthful good reasoning. Assuming you know about a candidate and allowing these scare tactics too continue is not helping the country. The America citizens have a right to not be misled into wars, not to be used as cattle and definitively not misled as to the truth of the candidates.
So the planks look cherry picked, hand picked platform under the party that has very little hope left, just so that a few people over the country maybe disillusioned into believing something that is not true, a coup that will disrupt there way of life and may harm them if they do not take stock in their own lives and stand up and take responsibility for their actions? Sounds a lot like personal responsibility to me, responsible to yourself, for the choices and actions you take, maybe people will wake up and start saving on their own for their futures through investments, even like gold, instead of depending on a flawed system that keeps getting worse.
I do not think so. If I am so disillusioned then so be it, it is what I believe and that is my right to speak it, as it is yours to speak your beliefs without fear of reprise against any.
So, I don't agree with the guy on everything, mainly abortion and I'm more for a happy medium concerning social services, but so what? You can't agree with everyone on everything.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
We need to do away with Social Security...It was a good idea in the 1930's, not so great today.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I don't condone any slow phase out of that, because then I'll pay, but I won't get! I think that people who payed social security should get it.
But, I definately think that the government's Social Services could be maintained and remain effective, if they were revised and even with a severe tax cut if a lot of waste was cut down on. i.e. gold plated toilets in the Senate House. (No, I don't think that actually happened)
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
You know, I can't think of a good way to just stop it though. It needs to be gone; it bleeds money like crazy. I'm not sure about how to do it though.
Like, I don't want to pay into it and I don't want to receive it. But, I'd have to pay into it to have people like my mom (40) receive it. I don't know...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
People under a certain age should be able to get out if they want to; whereas, the people over that certain age would continue to pay into Social Security because they would likely be eligible to receive money from the program.
As we know, the nature of the program is that people with an income pay for the people without an income; and people that stop generating an income, due to age or disability, draw funds from social security after retirement. People with high networth like Bill Gates or Malcolm Forbes will continue to generate massive incomes well over the age of retirement. Heck! Many congressmen make enough money to spare 1 Million dollars a year for this government-run charity... good luck getting them to cough up the money to help the system that they voted to break. Just look up what they spent it on: Congress has spent Social Security surpluses on pork barrel highway bills, a $500 billion omnibus budget, and two multibillion-dollar "emergency" spending bills. That was within a stretch of 18 months in 1999 during Clinton's second term.
For those who may not receive social security benefits, removing the requirement to pay is only fair because those people can invest that money into a private account that will be able to provide them with a retirement fund.
Like, I've not started to work for money yet (as in, I do work, i just don't get paid). I don't want any of my money going into the broken system. I'll set up my own accounts and pay into that.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Ten dollars a week... but hey, that's pretty good for a 'non-paying' internship.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
You could opt out and your mom could still receive benefits if other spending were cut and the taxes collected for those other agencies or programs were used to supplement Soc Sec until it is phased all the way out. Think about this. If corporate taxes continue to exist then all the investments, capital buildup, expansion of businesses because income taxes are eliminated, etc would create more corporate tax revenue without even raising the rate. If a company makes 100 million and is taxed at 15% they pay 15 million, but if they now make 200 million from all of their new found strength now they pay 30 million. So without even raising the rate but using free market expansion we've increased tax revenue to go towards saving Soc Sec for those that have paid in already and deserve to benefit from it. If the average American pays 10% social security taxes plus 30% income taxes and no longer had either burden they could invest, save, start a business, or spend back into society so in any event they all of a sudden have 38% of their income added to the cycle. The economy would take off like no ever imagined. I could spend 3% of that 38% on my own healthcare! I could contribute 10% of that 38% to charities I respect! I'd still have 25% left to invest, save, fix my house up increasing its value, go on a nice vacation spending money at others' businesses around the country and around the world! Let's end this madness! One of the other posters could spend his new resources to save peternal rape victims and drive them to NY for abortions! Oh wait. He wants the government to do that, because they've done such a bang up job so far.
Your article grossly misrepresents the facts about Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate in this election that will end the war in Iraq, repeal the unconstitutional Patriot Act, and save our economy from definite destruction. You don't have to believe me, there's millions of people that have woken up to these issues and aren't going to let media decide their values for them. Because his stances on the issues are against establishment ideals, they are ridiculed and misrepresented. This is because they cannot honestly debate the facts in these arenas without giving Ron Paul some credence on the issues. Do not fall for the right-left paradigm. It is designed to fail the American people. We must stand up to the tyranny that surrounds us and pounds into us the propaganda that we have to wade through every day. Ron Paul will announce, once again that he number one in donations from Military personnel, number one in grassroots organization, number one on myspace and youtube, number one in straw poll wins, but most importantly, he is number one in our hearts. This will not go away, they will continue to marginalize the wonderful Dr. Paul. The people and media outlets that do this are not doing it for your benefit, they are trying to maintain the status quo for the corporate elites. I am not fooled, and, sooner or later, you will not be fooled. Don't make that decision too late, for we all want to leave this great country to our children.
Yeah, you're exactly who I was talking about. How much do you really know about Rep. Paul?
I totally support ending the War in Iraq. I would give almost give up my left arm to get the Patriot Act repealed. However, I disagree with Rep. Paul's reasons for fighting these injustices, and I disagree with his "solutions" for the economy, for abortion, and for other issues. My overall stance leads me to a realist candidate such as John Edwards, who also seeks to fix those issues harming America, but in a way that would not involve destroying our economy - (see gold standard comment just one below)
As others have stated, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and not an isolationist. There is a world of difference. Go educate yourself.
So Ron Paul is pro-life. What's your point? He's never tried to hide this fact, nor his willingness to let states decide the issue for themselves. And yet you think state regulation is somehow worse than federal regulation? Would you rather have a pro-life majority in the future ban abortions nation-wide or allow citizens to at least seek out abortions in states that have allowed it?
Bringing up the current deflated dollar doesn't really support your criticism over Ron Paul's desire to abolish the Federal Reserve. I'm glad you have the gold standard thing all worked out. Maybe you could turn some of that brain power towards figuring out another way we can fix the Fed's continual mismanagement of the economy and the serious impact it's having on the standard of living for most Americans.
Non-interventionist? Isolationist?
Kinda like pro-choice v. anti-life, right?
It seems like you're arguing semantics. The end result is less American intervention abroad, which leads to less American influence abroad. Obviously, I would only support positive American influence, but it seems to me that "non-interventionism" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - positive relations with most of the world are severed simply to remove our negative presence in the middle east.
My issue with Rep. Paul's "pro-life" stance AND his states' rights view on abortion regulation is the effect it would have on the availability of medical procedures, often necessary to save lives, based on religious definitions of life, rather than scientific definitions.
Regarding the gold standard - the mobility of our currency is what has allowed our country to grow. Its simple, if dollars are scarce, overseas commodities will be sold in Euros. The more Euros floating around, the easier it is to buy European products, rather than American products, which causes a downturn in our economy. Plus, we don't have enough gold to value even a fraction of the US currency in circulation. According to the Treasury, we have $11,041,058,821.09 in gold. There was $760 billion in circulation, in 2005, according to Wikipedia.
Regarding a solution - well, monetary policy can only do so much. As a nation, we've got to avoid such issues such as the adjustable rate mortgage issue of a few weeks ago, as well as declining production, which cause the value of our currency to drop.
Pro Choice is not Anti-Life. It would seem that way, but it isn't. Pro-Life is Anti-Choice, but Pro-Choice is not Anti-Life. Why? Because being Pro-Choice doesn't mean that you're for abortions, it means that you don't feel that it is something the government should be fucking with. Besides, Ron Paul wants it left to the states...I can live with that.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I agree with about 90% of that comment. I'm pro-choice - I think that if a woman wants to get an abortion, all the more power to her. I also believe, however, that we should try to prevent pregnancy through better methods first - condom use, pills or choosing to abstain from sex.
My point here is that Ron Paul's "leave it to the states" plan is not "pro-choice" - it will de facto ban abortion for most of the United States. Imagine someone in Mississippi who doesn't have a car. Where are they going to go if they need an abortion? The nearest legal clinic is in Washington, DC. A pregnant 15-year-old isn't going to walk 1000 miles. The only option she has is, to put it bluntly, a coat-hanger. That's not choice.
Pro-choice means the right of each individual to choose about their own body. Not the right of the state to impose the will of the majority on the body of the minority.
There are ways besides car to travel. Ever hear of trains, planes or busses? Look, I disagree with him on this. And it's a big issue, but he offers a solution to leave it to the states, which actually goes AGAINST his personal feelings on the issue.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Our example, while it may be rare, is a poor child who doesn't have the money to travel via plane. While busses and trains are feasible if the child has the money, a 15-year-old travelling alone across the country is still a risky proposition. Besides, its doubtful that a young teenager would even have the money to afford a bus or train ticket.
This de facto ban on abortion could stop teen pregnancy by making it harder to get the kid out. My advice to 15 year old girls: STOP FUCKING. If this is your only issue with Dr. Paul, then you're argument is sorely lacking.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
While you're at it, tell water to stop being wet.
There's dry ice, why not dry water?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
...so your right to choose stops at a human life. Even if it is your body, you still have to weigh the rights of the child, and I agree with Ron Paul on this (I used to be "pro-choice" until I listened to his reasons). He was present at an abortion and he watched as the fetus was removed and tossed into a bucket while it started breathing and then started crying. That convinced him right there that abortion was nothing short of murder. To me it does seem more like killing a baby than "terminating a pregnancy," a convenient euphemism.
If Paul's bill were to pass, it would make Roe vs Wade null and void because it would define life at conception. But again, his bill would have to pass. As President, he could not make this policy on his own. However, he would obviously sign such a bill.
As far as the poor girl seeking an abortion, I think a solution would be in the private sector--a church or other organization could take her in and help bring her baby to term. Organize with couples that can't conceive on their own to adopt and you've solved the problem. Of course, none of this should be mandated by the federal government, but just allowed to happen by concerned individuals.
I have to comment on this. While this is true according to the current values, there's a flaw in using it as an argument against the gold standard. If the current quantity of gold in Ft. Knox (or wherever it is these days) is pinned directly to the number of dollars in circulation, the value of gold will adjust accordingly, due to the existing international value of the dollar. Edit: not that gold will just shoot up; part of it will be the dollar dropping further. But then it will be stable.
Of course, we could just wait until the dollar is so devalued that we have enough gold to back it anyway. (This is a joke, but I have my worries.)
That would require an absolutely massive shift in the value of either gold or the dollar. Since gold's value is usually pretty stable, in the long run, the dollar would end up way, way, way less valuable than it is now. We'd be screwing over everyone with any savings. The rich, of course, would weather this shift by buying overseas stocks and foreign currency. Its the rest of us with a nest egg saved for college, a home, or retirement who would be totally SOL.