Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
>>Also, idealism is often shot down when one gets into the Oval office. Remember Clinton in 1992? He had all these ideas that he wanted to implement but no dice.

That's because he got kicked in the 'nads by the '94 Congressional Elections, aka The Republican Revolution. There was a lesson in those election results, and he took it to heart.
 
And what happens when people reach retirement age and can't live above the poverty line on whatever they've saved or can't afford to see a doctor?

Here's the bleeding heart in me, but we are our brothers' keepers. I see nothing wrong in ensuring that people have access to institutions that ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit.

If you offered 21 year olds the chance to opt out of social security, they're all going to do it. Guess how many of them will have any substantial amount saved for retirement?

Heck, I put in 401k contributions and I'm going to start a max contribution Roth next year and I still worry about my future. What happens if the scheisters on Wall St. take all our money Enron style?

Again, there has to be a medium.
 
Personally, I am huge fan of the idea of the "social contract".

The question is what the contract should cover? Should society pay for everything or should it pay for nothing? Like Jwbrown said, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I too believe that we are our "brother's keeper" In fact, helping those less fortunate not only benefits the receipients, it benefits the givers and the country in general. Aside for the pleasure of helping another individual (which for me is priceless), it help society practically. Take health insurance for example, insuring everyone prevents the flooding of emergency rooms (which everyone agrees is the most expensive type of medicine), driving up medical costs, and preventing others from getting help when they need it.

Now, opponents of the free healthcare say that 1) the system would stymie competition and growth, 2) lead to abuse of the medical system, and 3) create big government. I disagree. First, competition can still be had if we tier the free health system. Give everyone a basic level of health insurance and allow others to pay for more coverage. Additionally, we can take the savings from the system and give it to healthcare research so that advancements can continue. Wecan also allow for the creation of several non-profit health care insurance companies that compete with each other. Second, abuse of the system occurs anyways and would decrease if people realize that they have less to benefit from it (i.e. insurance fraud). Third, you can have the system run by non-governmental agencies and would lead to no more (and probably less) bureaucracy than now. This is just one issue but I think that helping other do better will benefit the country in general. This is a lesson the China does not get and will suffer the consequences for in the future (so ironic that China is supposed to be a "communist" country.

With that said, there is a limit. I do not give money to every homeless guy that I see on the street because I do not believe it truly benefits that person. There is an issue of economic inertia. You can give the guy a buck and help him get a burger (or something more nefarious) but it will not help him beyond that meal. You are better off giving the buck to a well-run organization and let them use it to really help those in need. It is the old "teach a man how to fish" routine. That is exactly what Buffett said when they asked him why he gave his money to the Gates foundation.
 
Exactly right IrvineCommuter, I couldn't agree more.

I'm not saying we should start paying people 100k a year to watch Springer, but at the same time I can't bring myself to accept a system where the people who busted their asses to build this country can't afford to see a doctor.

And like you pointed out, the healthcare thing is as much an economic issue as a humanitarian one. We're all hurting with the system that's in place, including everyone that pays for their own insurance and the companies that subsidize it.

If we used the purchasing power of the government to drive down health and prescription costs, we can free up that wasted money (and all the needless bankruptcies associated with catastrophic injury or illness) for much better things. Frankly, having this system makes us less competitive globally.
 
>>Now, opponents of the free healthcare say that . . . the system would . . . 3) create big government.

IIRC, the government is the largest health insurer right now if you total the number of insureds under Medicare, active military, and vets. I'm all for removing the middlemen and the profit incentive out of the system. If one looks at the medical industrial complex, can you imagine how much money would be removed from the system if one took the insurance billing paperwork out? Unfortunately, the only sector of the nation's economy that is growing is MIC.
 
Please folks....stay on topic. If you want to debate healthcare or anything else not "Ron Paul Candidacy" related , start a new thread.
 
jw - We are our brother's keeper. The government is not. It is important that we choose to help others. Making the government responsible for those in need is just the opposite of helping someone. It is making the "other guy" responsible and steals from him.
 
"Choose" is the relevant word awgee. How many would "choose" not to be greedy and self-centered? Heck, to be perfectly fair, how many would normally want to help but simply can't afford it because their freed up money is now making ends meet?

No program is perfect, but if you asked your grandparents what they thought of SSI and Medicare they'd probably tell you their SSI check always comes on time and they hardly ever have to fight with Medicare to get medical care done.

These programs can be improved and streamlined though. In fact, I think the position I never hear any presidential candidate take is trying to optimize and streamline worthwhile institutions rather than "throw more money at it" or "get rid of it."
 
Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say about all that.

Back to the original question, although there are so many things I feel very strongly about that he seems to oppose, I can't deny he's the only candidate that genuinely cares about the economy.
 
"If you offered 21 year olds the chance to opt out of social security, they're all going to do it. Guess how many of them will have any substantial amount saved for retirement?"

@ jwbrown77: Would the number of people be about the same or maybe even fewer over time? The money is essentially gone. Social security is insolvent and even the folks on social security today are having great difficulty trying making ends meet with such paltry checks. Since the younger generation is already being informed no money will be available by the time they benefit, then those who are worried will pump money into savings and investment vehicles just as you are doing today and those who aren't worried won't.

Honestly, I do not believe this type of personal accountability should be driven by the government and certainly not at the federal level. If the states end up doing something like requiring some sort of "personal savings account" that can not be tapped until retirement age where employees are mandated to set aside 10% of their annual salary and dump that money into some index fund or what have you, then that will work. Dollar for dollar, we will receive what we put in plus some investment gains to stay ahead of inflation. Maybe then you can find your middle ground in there somewhere as long as I have the ability to steer my investments as I please. This is just a quick stab at a solution. I don't have all the answers and I'm not running for President, however, this sort of proposal seems fair to me because none of the burden is held on society but rather driving accountability to the individual. Let's leave government out of it.

For those people even less fortunate, society will still have charitable organizations that you can donate to and will help provide basic human needs. I do not see how this system is any worse off than it is today. In fact, I might argue that it sounds better.

Phasing out of social security is just fine by me since the money isn't there anyway. I absolutely agree with awgee's sentiments.
 
Awgee - if this were pre-1850 and our society was less integrated than it is, I might concur. Unfortunately, everything is so intertwined. After all, if the Fed will bail out the big boys, why can't the gov help out the little guy? Also, on the whole, people are uncomfortable seeing, and tripping over, the destitute. Thirteen million unemployed persons is more than all the churches and other charities can handle.
 
I've read that one of the main problems with Social Security isn't it's solvency in and of itself, but that the politicians keep raiding it's coffers for other budgetary concerns.

If we stopped accounting for 50% of the world's defense spending I think it would be surprising what we could afford.
 
@ EvaLSeraphim: By definition, the unemployed are simply folks who are without a job, capable of work, and actively seeking. The U.S. Department of Labor says the unemployed for 2006 is seven million. People who are destitute are something else entirely different than simply unemployed and no country has a solution for dealing with people who are unwilling to help themselves.

No candidate is suggesting these folks be tossed into the bin. But at least one candidate is suggesting America take a neutral foreign policy for the meantime and focus that spending on resolving our issues here at home as a priority to resolving the world's issues. Let's bring all the troops back home from around the world, let's secure our borders, let's fix our immigration processes so people will prefer to enter the country legally, let's promote education, free trade, etc., etc...

The idea that income tax receipts account for only one third of the government's spending means there's no such thing as a balanced budget. So, as a people we should pick one of two options: Either we run the government like a business where it spends only what it brings in (a terrible option and heavy burden upon society) or we choose a small government that prints it's own money (not unlike today) and returns income taxes to the people. A smaller nimbler government will free up an unbelievable amount of resources and greatly improve our national productivity.

By doing so, I feel we can help each other out more efficiently and effectively than we do today.

Edit: Made updates per No_Such_Reality so my thoughts are not lost due to technicalities. Thanks for helping to clarify this.
 
By definition, the unemployed are simply folks who are capable of work but do not have a job.

Actually that is not correct. To be considered unemployed you must be capable of work and actively seeking.
 
"It sometimes seems as if someone is playing a cruel practical joke on Ron Paul. He goes to a college and delivers the same speech he's given for the past 30 years of his political career, the one espousing the Austrian school of economics. Only now the audience is packed with hundreds of kids in RON PAUL REVOLUTION T-shirts who go nuts - giving standing ovations when he drones on about getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard." Linky
 
After a speech at Iowa State last month, when nearly half the crowd had to stand because there were only 400 seats, a hipster-looking student worked his way through the half-hour-long line to shake Paul's hand. This was surely it - the moment when the straight faces would break and Paul would be wedgied up the flagpole. "When you see Bernanke," the kid said, "will you tell him to stop cutting rates when gold hits 1,000?"

I'm slowly warming to Generation Y.

A little.

Paul is such a strict constructionist that he autographs pocket Constitutions more often than Tommy Lee signs breasts.
 
As far as I can tell Ron Paul is the best choice for the country. That is not to say he is the choice the country will choose. Lets discuss Investment planning based on the 2008 presidential election first:

Hillary will win. What does this mean?

1) Capital gains tax rises to 20%: Remember most hedge fund managers, venture fund managers, and real estate syndicators get nearly all their income from capital gains. Will the average guy be greatly affected? Absolutely not. Check Federal Reserve statistics stock holding only a small number of people are greatly affected by this. Raising the Capital gains tax to 20% and the dividend tax to even 35% will largely affect the top 1% of households by wealth. Even if the estate tax was reinstated in full in 2011 again this affects a miniscule number of people (mainly in the Bay Area, Napa Valley (over 80% of "farmers" affected by the estate tax reside there), and New York). Consider taking gains in 2007 or 2008. This is why Meg Whitman has $80M palace for residency in Las Vegas.

2) Higher income people will pay higher social security taxes. This should mean you should consider NOT contributing to your deferred compensation account for 2007 or not contributing to your pension/401k/457 accounts above your employer match level.

3) Government will likely shrink in size with her plan to put 500k military contractors (this is a fairly substantial cut). This will be partially offset by a civil service institute and increased hiring at nonmilitary government agencies. This affects companies that have substantial defense contracting work.

Okay so now we know what to do to our portfolios lets discuss Ron Paul:

1) Social Security. We cannot afford current social security benefits without imposing absolutely ridiculous taxation of young people like 70% income taxes or a 30% national sales tax. We need to cut benefits, allow people to switch to a defined contribution plan of some sort, and raise the retirement age. Switching to investing the funds elsewhere than government IOUs is likely to raise returns. We need to be careful to choose something that is not a fee mill for Wall Street with people blowing up their retirement accounts through active trading. Only Ron Paul is talking about this issue. The Democrats are boxed into "saving social security" which is impossible.

2) Inflation. Ron Paul notes that the Fed has maintained a consistent policy of inflation. There are arguments that the Federal Reserve should be limited to increasing money supply at the GDP growth rate. The main disadvantage of actually adopting a Gold Standard is it is deflationary since the supply growth of gold is less than population and GDP growth. So fiat money may not actually be the problem so much as allowing the Federal Reserve to create bubbles using monetary policy tools. Remember there were bubbles such as the Roaring 20s/Great Depression when we were on the gold standard and remember the Tulip bubble in Holland.

3) Lender financing. We are not saving enough because Americans collectively went out and spent their housing equity through HELOCs. China, other Asian Countries, and the Gulf Coast Cooperation countries e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar have been saving to offset the negative savings of American homeowners. Eventually if the US dollar is sufficiently unaccepted for world commerce or is expected to drop sharply these countries may consider moving to a currency basket and/or allowing their currencies to inflate against the dollar. As I mentioned before the US is in the same position as Thailand in 1997. Our currency is fancifully overvalued but pegged, we have had enormous investment in real estate, our taxes are too low, and our trade balance is negative. Thailand thanks to the IMF raised interest rates, increased taxes, and devalued their currency...the US should be doing the same. We are not taking the medicine we prescribed to Asia in 1997.

4) War in Iraq. I think most of us now know that the neoconservatives planned the war on Iraq before W was elected and that 9/11 was merely an excuse for its execution. We are now on track to spend $2.4T on a war that has benefited US oil companies, Iran, and China. Are we somehow more secure with $94/barrel oil and a chaotic oil rich state south of Iran ready for them to conquer when we withdraw? Voting for any other Republican candidate is basically voting for a draft. Let us be honest and accept that a war with Iran will happen if a Republican other than than Ron Paul is elected, is possible if Hillary is elected, and is a certainty if Obama is elected.

5) Right to life. Ron Paul is actually a moderate on this issue on the Republican side. He favors the Federal government not being involved and Roe v Wade being repealed. This would mean states would decide so abortion would be legal in California and illegal in South Dakota. Other Republican candidates favor having no abortions in any state. Roe v Wade is almost certainly unconstitutional but is generally accepted. Ron Paul is a ob/gyn and he has spoken passionately about his feelings on this issue but his actual position is somewhere to the left of Brownback for example.

6) Immigration. Ron Paul has fairly strong beliefs on this issue. I'm not sure what would come in lieu of birthright citizenship. Maybe both parents have to be legally in the country or citizens for the child to be a US citizen?

Obviously Ron Paul would be my favored candidate but be realistic and invest based on his not becoming President is my advise.
 
Adam, I'll try to respond to your points one by one.

>>By definition, the unemployed are simply folks who are without a job, capable of work, and actively seeking. The U.S. Department of Labor says the unemployed for 2006 is seven million.

I think you didn't click on either of the links. Had you done so, you would see that I was talking about the Great Depression. Moreover, unemployment insurance didn't exist in the US until the mid-1930's.

>>People who are destitute are something else entirely different than simply unemployed and no country has a solution for dealing with people who are unwilling to help themselves.

Perhaps I am reading your comment wrong, but are you saying that poor people are poor because they are lazy?



>>No candidate is suggesting these folks be tossed into the bin. But at least one candidate is suggesting America take a neutral foreign policy for the meantime and focus that spending on resolving our issues here at home as a priority to resolving the world's issues. Let's bring all the troops back home from around the world . . .



First, I understand intervention fatigue. It was the right thing to do in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Second, what’s a “neutral foreign policy?” Is that akin to Switzerland’s foreign policy? I’m not sure greater Miami would allow for neutrality in relation to Cuba (although I wish they would), or that the situation in Afghanistan is stable enough to allow for withdrawal. I would also note that in his first national election GWB also called for no more interventions abroad. Events required scrapping that theory in one respect (Iraq was by choice). I would also suggest that we are spending money in countries that it is wise to make deposits in (e.g., Egypt and Jordan). I would also posit that by solving some problems in foreign countries will help resolve problems in our own (Israel / Palestine would be one, and improving the economy and government of Mexico would be another).

>>let's secure our borders, let's fix our immigration processes so people will prefer to enter the country legally



Other than potential terrorists and other criminals who want to stay below the radar, who prefers to enter the country illegally? Do you have any idea what a pain it is to live life in the shadows? The only reason most people enter the country illegally is because that is the only way they can. I would really encourage you to brush up on immigration law, particularly the caps for each country, because that might help you understand more. When people risk a lot of money and their lives just to secure a “good” job – and picking lettuce is not a good job to most of us -- to send money back home so your family can have what we would consider a hovel and some food to eat, that provides a clue into the utter desperation that many immigrants face.

>>let's promote education,



Who is against education?

>>The idea that income tax receipts account for only one third of the government's spending means there's no such thing as a balanced budget. So, as a people we should pick one of two options: Either we run the government like a business where it spends only what it brings in (a terrible option and heavy burden upon society) or we choose a small government that prints it's own money (not unlike today) and returns income taxes to the people. A smaller nimbler government will free up an unbelievable amount of resources and greatly improve our national productivity.

OK, you lost me here. Refresh my memory, aside from fees and income taxes, what are the other revenue sources for the federal government? Also, your two options, as I read them, are the same thing.

>>A smaller nimbler government will free up an unbelievable amount of resources and greatly improve our national productivity.

Just curious, what 10 ten things would you cut from the federal budget? Also, are you familiar with the chart on taxes as a percentage of GDP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top