Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

I freely admit that I am Right of center when it comes to Federal government, and perhaps slightly less so relative to State and Local government, although I might be seen as a little Left of center when it comes to my immediate family, friends and neighbors.

 

As an aside, Balbus, what are we to do with those responsible for stealing that fifteen trillion dollars, not to mention those who were complicit in the crime? I'm interested in getting your input on that, provided you are willing to call it a theft, that is.

 

Why believe Ron Paul can or will end the fed as president since he was incapable of doing it as chairman of domestic monetary policy as a legislator?

 

First, don't you have some questions you need to answer regarding some earlier statements you've made? But that's water under the bridge, ain't it?

Funny that you would claim that a president wouldn't be able to do this, but you believe that the Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy could. I was unaware that the Domestic Monetary Policy Chairman could sign Executive Orders. Nevertheless, there's this:

Paul Subcommittee to Tackle Federal Reserve Reform

Washington, DC – Congressman Ron Paul, Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, announced today that the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the topic of "The Federal Reserve System: Mend It or End It?" The hearing will examine a number of legislative proposals to reform, replace, or abolish the Federal Reserve System.

"More and more people are beginning to understand just how destructive the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has been," said Chairman Paul. "I hope that this hearing will kickstart a serious discussion on the need to rein in the Fed. 100 years is far too long for Congress to have taken a hands-off approach," Paul continued. "The Fed continues to reward Wall Street banks while destroying the dollar's purchasing power and driving up the cost of living for average Americans. This reckless behavior must come to an end."

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 8th, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

 

Yeah i remember seeing this, good job op. At least he's trying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3EkmeQw_KI"]Congressman Paul Subcommittee Hearing "The Federal Reserve System: Mend It or End It?" PART 1 - YouTube

Uploaded today: Watch it kids

 

Indie

This isn’t explanation just more assertions – my public statements are, I would say, left wing in character and that’s fine with me because I’d happily call myself a leftie.

However your public statements seem to be right wing but you seem to be claiming that you are not exclusively right wing. So I’ll ask again please explain which of your views you see as not being right wing, what ideas and policies do you support that you believe are not based on right wing views?

*

Anyway the assertions you do make are interesting in themselves. Here are some musings on them.

Most people are more tolerant, understanding and kinder to their family, friends and neighbours than they are to strangers – and you seem to associate those things with ‘left wing’ thinking - that in your head ‘left wing’ is associated with being kinder, more tolerant and more understanding.

That would imply that for you right wing ideas are therefore associated with more intolerant, bigoted and cruel ideas and the thing is that you would wish to impose these intolerant, bigoted and cruel right wing ideas on others?

Also interesting that you think your rather extreme right wing ideas – giving much greater power to wealth, increasing the likelihood of greater exploitation and pollution, believing that people who fall into hardship through no fault should be allowed to die of want etc etc – are in your view only mildly right wing, it seems to me that some type of denial is going on.

Anyway I look forward to you explanations rather than your assertions.

 

Storch

So let’s see your idea is that, well like Americans should you know kinda set up like their own reserve bank or whatever but one that like, you know, doesn’t charge interest….

As I say you don’t seem to have thought through any type of plan, your supposed solutions all seems vague or unrealistic.

I mean compare your rather muddy minded statements on what you’d do with this clear, coherent and thought through plan put forward by the US Green Party -

Nationalize the Federal Reserve Banks, reconstituting them and the Federal Reserve Systems Washington Board of Governors under a new Monetary Authority Board within the U.S. Treasury. The private creation of money or credit, which substitutes for money, will cease and with it the reckless and fraudulent practices that have led to the present financial and economic crisis.

The Monetary Authority, with assistance from the FDIC, the SEC, the U.S. Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, and others will redefine bank lending rules and procedures to end the privilege banks now have to create money when they extend their credit, by ending what‚s known as the fractional reserve system in an elegant, non disruptive manner. Banks will be encouraged to continue as profit making companies, extending loans of real money at interest; acting as intermediaries between those clients seeking a return on their savings and those clients ready and able to pay for borrowing the money; but banks will no longer be creators of what we are using for money.

The new money that must be regularly added to an improving system as population and commerce grow will be created and spent into circulation by the U. S. Government for infrastructure, including the „human infrastructure‰ of education and health care. This begins with the $2.2 trillion the American Society of Civil Engineers warns us is needed to bring existing infrastructure to safe levels over the next 5 years. Per capita guidelines will assure a fair distribution of such expenditures across the United States, creating good jobs, re-invigorating the local economies and re-funding government at all levels. As this money is paid out to various contractors, they in turn pay their suppliers and laborers who in turn pay for their living expenses and ultimately this money gets deposited into banks, which are then in a position to make loans of this money, according to the new regulations.

 

Storch

Oh but that’s how your opposition to it comes across, I mean you seem disturbingly obsessed by it, like some kind of malevolent stalker.

Because it is not my hate filled obsession maybe?

You think it a ‘crime’ and that’s fine and I gave you your own thread in which to obsess about it – but the question is what would you want to do about it, I agree that it needs reform, but that the US needs a central bank but you…well I’m still unsure I mean you seem to have implied that you’d just get rid of it, that you’d set up some kind of rival, and that you’d have thousands of different currencies as replacements for the dollar, all vague ideas that you don’t seem to have thought through in the slightest.

That is because few questions in politics are a simple yes or no. People that think that political issues are that straightforward are usually thinking too simplistically or haven’t thought things through at all.

Maybe if you stopped your obsessive grumbling and instead looked at things calmly and objectively you might come up with some rational and thought through solutions.

 

Storch

I think I’ve made it perfectly clear that I wouldn’t give my support to anyone in the US’s major parties, because as I’ve explained many times, to me, they both seem right wing.

And as I’ve also explained I think the two party hegemony is one of the problem with the present US political system because it means people often vote for something they don’t support only because they want to keep something they see as worse from gaining power.

Now you on the other hand are actively supporting and promoting one of the most right wing candidates in the presidential race with many views that you are totally unable to defend from criticism.

In the light of this statement I thought I might repeat the question you have repeatedly ignored - Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing (other than just denying you are that is)?

 

So Balbus, you see Obama as being right wing? Could you please explain?

 

Balb:

You are quite adept in twisting others words to suit your purpose.

Tolerance, understanding, and kindness are not qualities that I would call Left or Right wing, but simply human qualities regardless of political leanings.

You refuse to recognize the fact that wealth can only exercise power from where power exists and can be forced upon people. The more power government, especially a Central government is able to acquire, the more it can be imposed effectively upon all.

When people encounter hardship, it's not a death sentence as you have implied quite often. You seem to ignore the fact that life itself is a terminal disease. Although I could present an extremely long list of wants, which are beyond my means of acquiring, none of them are life threatening. Needs, of course are another matter, and the basic needs of life are not so difficult to acquire the means for anyone to obtain.

Your continual "rich vs poor" rant makes no sense at all to me as the further government moves towards the Left the more wealth is accumulated by the rich. The problem is that both political parties of the American 2 party system have made use of Socialist maneuvers to appeal to voters, who greatly outnumber the rich, in our democratic election process by promising to give them something the government does not possess, or to produce and impose laws upon others or corporations who have been made to appear as the cause of their individual shortcomings.

Since this thread is based upon the question "Would you vote for Ron Paul?", I still would answer a firm "YES", and although I do not think that he alone could bring about the changes needed, at least he might present them to the public in general and excite the voters to begin to take the actions necessary in bringing them about.

 

There are those on the Left who would view Karl Marx as a Right wing extremest.

 

Letlovin

This is another of the problems with American politics you see individuals not parties.

As I’ve explained on many occasions the Democratic Party as a group seems to be right of centre, oh it might contain some factions that are to the left of that position but as a group they’re a liberal right of centre party.

As I explain here –

Political liberals once supported economic liberalism because they believed it undermined the political authority of the few. Then many political liberals realised that economic liberalism had led to a economic authority that curtailed ‘liberty’ as much as political authority did and began to turn against economic liberalism just at the point when wealth began to realise that economic liberalism granted them more power in the shape of economic authority.

So political liberals became seen by those on the right as ‘left-wing’ opponents because they wished to undermine the power and wealth of the few. But many on the left see ‘liberals’ as being right leaning as they are still great champions of capitalism.

In the UK at the moment we have a right wing government made up of Liberals and Conservatives.

In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as left wing only because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years.

This is why many outside the US believe that Americans have two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and are more right wing Republican Party.

As pointed out in the below article David Cameron the leader of the right wing British Conservative Party (Tory’s), “all but endorsed Mr Obama’s claim to a second term. Thumbing his nose at the Tory party’s American cousins he declined to meet Republican leaders”

Obama gets the conservative vote
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4941666-738d-11e1-94ba-00144feab49a.html#axzz1uSkZGjgi

 

Indie

But I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed that you don’t put up an argument that refutes what I said.

You said - although I might be seen as a little Left of center when it comes to my immediate family, friends and neighbors

I pointed out that most people are more tolerant, understanding and kinder to their family, friends and neighbours than they are to strangers – and that you seemed to associate those things with ‘left wing’ thinking - that in your head ‘left wing’ is associated with being kinder, more tolerant and more understanding.

If you think that incorrect then please explain your thinking what ideas, actions and policies that you see as being ‘left wing’ do you practice toward your family and friends?

 

Well, Balbus, I hope the plan you posted includes first weeding out the corrupt Congressmen and those connected to the Treasury who have thus far looked the other way and failed to do anything about this fraud. You have such a child-like trust in crooks. And yes, Balbus, I am a stalker; that is, I stalk the stalkers.
________________________________


ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP.
________________________________

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share--the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud.
__________________________________

Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest (Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public.

Currently all we do is exchange FED money (interest attached) for real U.S. money (interest-free) dollar for dollar as Kennedy tried to do. We should not be required to pay interest on our own currency. According to Benjamin Franklin, this was one of the primary reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. Today we are still fighting the same family of bankers (Reference 4, Reference 1, P. 211, 212).

The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on our money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $4 trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non-interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand. According to the Constitution, Congress is to control the creation of money, keeping the amount of inflation or deflation in check. If Congress isn't doing their job, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, voters can't vote the FED or its Chairman out of office.

If the government has a deficit, we could handle it as Lincoln and Kennedy did. Print money and circulate it into the economy, but this time interest-free. Today the FED, through foreign banks, owns much of our debt and therefore controls us. The FED will cease to exist as taxpayers become informed and tell other taxpayers. The news media and Congress will have no choice but to meet the demands of grass roots America.

http://www.lovethetruth.com/government/federal_reserve/federal_reserve.htm


__________________________________________________________________
This is not hard to understand. Point out the parts that are giving you difficulty, and I will try to explain it in a more focused manner.

 

Indie

In a money based system the origins of wealth’s power is wealth and it has been pointed out that the neoliberal ideas you’d like in place would seem to vastly increase the riches and therefore the power of wealth.

Criticism of your ideas that you refuse to address, let alone refute.

How about medical care?

But if circumstances beyond a persons control meant that they couldn’t obtain such means and no help was forthcoming you have declared that you’d be happy to see such a person die because that is the kind of society you’d want.

You seem to be saying that in your view the US and its main political parties are too left wing?

 

Storch

LOL – so once more you ignore all the questions asked of you and refuse to address any of the issues raised.

You’re a hypocrite, you demand all others answer every one of your questions then refuse to answer things yourself even when asked many times.

 

No, Balbus, I demand nothing. Just a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question. I don't know why you're obssessed with not answering with a simple yes or no. When you say that nothing is so simple or straightforward in politics, I think that this particular issue of criminal activity is pretty straightforward.

What is not so simple and straightforward is the way to get you to give a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not a crime has been committed. If you wouldn't so obssessively avoid answering that question, perhaps I wouldn't so obssessively ask. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

I mean, like, is this some kind of tit for tat game you're playing? Like, if you feel a question of yours has not been answered, you like--you know, refuse to answer a question that's been put to you?

So, you don't support or endorse any of the candidtates? Is this correct?

 

"So, you don't support or endorse any of the candidtates? Is this correct?"


Balbus is from the UK... Why should he?

 

For the same reason that he has decided to stand opposed to, and speak out against, one of the U.S. candidates.

Why indeed? You should probably ask him.