mulberryman
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,401
^^The beef here is the words Twenty Dollars, and $20, and USA. If they removed one of these 2 things, it'd be ok.
The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread
- Thread starter yummy22
- Start date
^^The beef here is the words Twenty Dollars, and $20, and USA. If they removed one of these 2 things, it'd be ok.
bingalpaws
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,671
ya if it says dollars that doesn't seem right anymore, although I was sure that this guy's company had a different name than 'dollar' for his currency, which I of course cannot remember now!
If he calls them something besides a dollar I don't see any issue with him issuing them (regardless of whether they're silver/gold backed or not, althoug we all know which is preferable), nor do I see an issue with places deciding they'll accept his currency.
If he calls them something besides a dollar I don't see any issue with him issuing them (regardless of whether they're silver/gold backed or not, althoug we all know which is preferable), nor do I see an issue with places deciding they'll accept his currency.
bingalpaws
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,671
that's lame he didn't take 'god' off the coin either...
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
Hon. Ron Paul
November 8, 2007
Mr. Chairman, our economy finds itself in a precarious state. Oil prices are rising, gold is nearing all-time highs, and the dollar is nearing all-time lows. The root of this crisis, as with past financial and economic crises, results from federal government intervention into the economy, not to anything endemic to the market, nor to the the actions of market participants.
The collapse of the housing market has served as a catalyst for the economy's latest bust. For years the federal government has made it one of its prime aims to encourage homeownership among people who otherwise would not be able to afford homes. Various federal mortgage programs through the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have distorted the normal workings of the housing market.
The implicit government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provides investors an incentive to provide funds to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been put to use in other sectors of the economy. It was this flood of investor capital that helped to fuel the housing bubble.
Legislation such as the Zero Downpayment Act and the misnamed American Dream Downpayment Act made it possible for people who could not afford down payments on houses to receive assistance from the federal government, or even to pay no down payment at all, courtesy of the taxpayers. The requirement of a down payment has always helped to ascertain the ability of a buyer to pay off a mortgage. It requires the buyer to show hard work and thrift, the ability to delay present consumption in order to make a larger acquisition in the future.
When this requirement is minimized or eliminated, you introduce a new class of homebuyers, people who are unable to budget and save for the purchase of a home, or who should wait for a few years until they have saved enough to purchase a home. Federal policies have encouraged investors, lenders, and brokers to cater to these people, so it is no surprise that market actors came up with ever more sophisticated means of bringing these people into the real estate market.
Finally, the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy and lowering of interest rates were a major spur to the housing boom. Low interest rates influence marginal buyers, those who are sitting on the fence, and encourage them to take on a mortgage that they otherwise would not. Even when interest rates are raised, no one expects them to stay high for long, as there is always pressure from politicians and investors to keep rates low, as no one wants the cheap credit to end.
Thinking that interest rates will cycle from low to higher, back to low, lenders begin to offer adjustable rate mortgages, 2/28's, 3/27's, and other sophisticated mortgages that may trap many unsavvy buyers. Buyers go short, lenders go long, and many people have been burned as a result.
It is time that the federal government get out of the housing business. Through our interventionist legislation we have caused the boom and bust, and any attempts at reform that fail to address the causes of our current problem will only sow the seeds for the next bubble.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr110807h.htm
Hon. Ron Paul
November 8, 2007
Mr. Chairman, our economy finds itself in a precarious state. Oil prices are rising, gold is nearing all-time highs, and the dollar is nearing all-time lows. The root of this crisis, as with past financial and economic crises, results from federal government intervention into the economy, not to anything endemic to the market, nor to the the actions of market participants.
The collapse of the housing market has served as a catalyst for the economy's latest bust. For years the federal government has made it one of its prime aims to encourage homeownership among people who otherwise would not be able to afford homes. Various federal mortgage programs through the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have distorted the normal workings of the housing market.
The implicit government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provides investors an incentive to provide funds to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been put to use in other sectors of the economy. It was this flood of investor capital that helped to fuel the housing bubble.
Legislation such as the Zero Downpayment Act and the misnamed American Dream Downpayment Act made it possible for people who could not afford down payments on houses to receive assistance from the federal government, or even to pay no down payment at all, courtesy of the taxpayers. The requirement of a down payment has always helped to ascertain the ability of a buyer to pay off a mortgage. It requires the buyer to show hard work and thrift, the ability to delay present consumption in order to make a larger acquisition in the future.
When this requirement is minimized or eliminated, you introduce a new class of homebuyers, people who are unable to budget and save for the purchase of a home, or who should wait for a few years until they have saved enough to purchase a home. Federal policies have encouraged investors, lenders, and brokers to cater to these people, so it is no surprise that market actors came up with ever more sophisticated means of bringing these people into the real estate market.
Finally, the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy and lowering of interest rates were a major spur to the housing boom. Low interest rates influence marginal buyers, those who are sitting on the fence, and encourage them to take on a mortgage that they otherwise would not. Even when interest rates are raised, no one expects them to stay high for long, as there is always pressure from politicians and investors to keep rates low, as no one wants the cheap credit to end.
Thinking that interest rates will cycle from low to higher, back to low, lenders begin to offer adjustable rate mortgages, 2/28's, 3/27's, and other sophisticated mortgages that may trap many unsavvy buyers. Buyers go short, lenders go long, and many people have been burned as a result.
It is time that the federal government get out of the housing business. Through our interventionist legislation we have caused the boom and bust, and any attempts at reform that fail to address the causes of our current problem will only sow the seeds for the next bubble.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr110807h.htm
The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
Ron Paul
November 18, 2007
Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.
Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.
One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.
If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.
What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.
But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq , where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.
The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas . That's 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq , but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose.
Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get.
Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst111807.htm
Ron Paul
November 18, 2007
Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.
Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.
One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.
If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.
What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.
But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq , where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.
The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas . That's 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq , but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose.
Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get.
Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst111807.htm
e1evene1even
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,504
Maybe its cause I'm a sucker for John Lennon and what he stood for, but I think this is a fantastic video.
Ron Paul: Strange Days Indeed
Ron Paul: Strange Days Indeed
Kalash
Bluelighter
e1evene1even
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,504
Kalash said:Ya'll hear about the BLIMP!!!
It'll be in Boston on the 15th/16th for the TeaParty!
Our support's growing!
That's fucking awesome!
$474,175 pledged as of 10:42 am 11/29/07
Please continue to pledge as some may find they cannot fulfill their full amounts when collections start. Thank you!
^WOW
I'm curious, since the the blimp is not part of the 'official' Ron Paul campaign, does that mean its exempt from the rules that prohibits non-US citizens from contributing funds?
I'd gladly chip in some gas money.
foodisgood
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 285
the donations are going into a political action committee so im assuming its only america citizens, though I dont really know how it all works
Jeebus Mic
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 738
The thing that really kills it for Ron Paul is his stance on Iraq. You think we should cut and run and give the insurgents victory by bolstering their confidence through bailing out U.S. troops??
mulberryman
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,401
3 out of 4 Americans want the war over now. Continuing the war is not democratic at this point and truly hypocritical, if out intentions are for Iraq to be a truly free deomcracy. We need to focus on restoring democracy at home first before we can insist it upon other nations.
kong
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,496
Jeebus Mic said:
People don't blow themselves up on a whim. There isn't a finite amount of people who will to blow themselves up either, you can't just wait for the last one to explode. Furthermore, given the number of substances necessary for daily life that are explosive, there is little that can be done to prevent people from exploding.
Face it, unless we stay *FOREVER* the "insurgents" will "win". If keeping people from exploding is the goal than leaving the country removes much of the reason they explode in the first place.
This cut-and-run idea is nonsense. We have been hanging out in their country for several years now. Aside from isolated acts of violence by a suicidal minority we have met little opposition. What are we cutting and running from?
America has the arrogant idea that because we're #1 we can get everyone to do what we want. Guess what, even the all mighty america cannot make everyone get along. Especially when we project our wishes with weapons. I get the idea that the neo-cons won't want to leave until every Iraqi eats taco bell, reads the bible, and the government asks to become a U.S. state.
Jeebus Mic said:
So what do you propose we stay till we are bankrupt like the soviets did in Afghanistan? The fact is we are losing money and lives fighting a pointless war over an increasingly obselete resource win in Iraq or not oil will be gone in the next 60 years.
WASHINGTON - Republican Ron Paul said Sunday his upstart presidential campaign is on track to raise more than $12 million this quarter, boldly predicting the Iowa polls "are going to continue to shift" once he's finished spending it all.
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," Paul said he had raised roughly $10.4 million so far in the quarter beginning Oct. 1, an amount that is already double the $5.2 million he pulled in during the third quarter. A big online fundraising effort planned for Dec. 16 could push the fourth quarter's total higher by several million, he said.
"We are going to be way over our goal of $12 million," said the 10-term Texas congressman. "And, I mean, at this rate, it could be, you know, maybe $14 million or $15 million. It just is astounding."
"People are ready for some changes," Paul said. "It really tells me that although I had a great deal of concerns about the country, the American people were equally concerned and they are willing to put their money with a candidate who is willing to state these positions, all of these concerns, whether it is the foreign policy and coming home, or the irresponsible spending here."
Paul, a former Libertarian who stands apart from the other GOP presidential contenders by opposing the Iraq war, was running fourth in Iowa in a recent Des Moines Register poll behind rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee, and tied with John McCain.
Citing the Constitution as his guide, Paul opposes law enforcement or anti-terrorism measures that he believes encroach on civil liberties. His views on small government extend to reducing if not eliminating the Education Department and the Department of Homeland Security. And he favors limiting immigration and strengthening border security.
Kent Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said in a telephone interview that Paul's strong fundraising numbers demonstrate how grass-roots efforts via the Internet can help lesser known candidates compete on a more equal footing to higher profile contenders.
"It's a model for other candidates on how to get on the radar and meet the basic threshold of moving beyond being a niche or vanity candidate," he said. "But he'll have to show in New Hampshire and in the caucuses that he can build on that."
Paul said he expects his poll numbers to move up. He has devoted a significant amount of resources on ad buys in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa.
"People are just starting to think about how they are going to vote in these primaries," Paul said. "The people are really annoyed with conventional politics and we are spending this money. We are spending it in Iowa. So I think those polls are going to continue to shift. Our numbers are going up."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_on_el_pr/paul_fundraising_1;_ylt=AlYLyULIHWnWdWmL_w9pghXubuRF
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," Paul said he had raised roughly $10.4 million so far in the quarter beginning Oct. 1, an amount that is already double the $5.2 million he pulled in during the third quarter. A big online fundraising effort planned for Dec. 16 could push the fourth quarter's total higher by several million, he said.
"We are going to be way over our goal of $12 million," said the 10-term Texas congressman. "And, I mean, at this rate, it could be, you know, maybe $14 million or $15 million. It just is astounding."
"People are ready for some changes," Paul said. "It really tells me that although I had a great deal of concerns about the country, the American people were equally concerned and they are willing to put their money with a candidate who is willing to state these positions, all of these concerns, whether it is the foreign policy and coming home, or the irresponsible spending here."
Paul, a former Libertarian who stands apart from the other GOP presidential contenders by opposing the Iraq war, was running fourth in Iowa in a recent Des Moines Register poll behind rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee, and tied with John McCain.
Citing the Constitution as his guide, Paul opposes law enforcement or anti-terrorism measures that he believes encroach on civil liberties. His views on small government extend to reducing if not eliminating the Education Department and the Department of Homeland Security. And he favors limiting immigration and strengthening border security.
Kent Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said in a telephone interview that Paul's strong fundraising numbers demonstrate how grass-roots efforts via the Internet can help lesser known candidates compete on a more equal footing to higher profile contenders.
"It's a model for other candidates on how to get on the radar and meet the basic threshold of moving beyond being a niche or vanity candidate," he said. "But he'll have to show in New Hampshire and in the caucuses that he can build on that."
Paul said he expects his poll numbers to move up. He has devoted a significant amount of resources on ad buys in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa.
"People are just starting to think about how they are going to vote in these primaries," Paul said. "The people are really annoyed with conventional politics and we are spending this money. We are spending it in Iowa. So I think those polls are going to continue to shift. Our numbers are going up."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_on_el_pr/paul_fundraising_1;_ylt=AlYLyULIHWnWdWmL_w9pghXubuRF
icecreamtrepan
Bluelighter
Fuck Ron Paul. Look at his voting record, he's nothing more than a Republican Texan congressman who is fronting like he's a libertarian yet is opposed to abortion, he's opposed to public education (the system is fucked up but everyone has at least the right to have an illusion of education for free), he's for the privatization of everything, and you know if he gets in power, he really won't do anything for the legalization of weed debate, he'll lose too much face to the Republican choir he preaches to. He's only a business libertarian.
But he does get that "I'm going to pretend like I'm opposing the system" dollar of confused left-wing people who don't realize his strong right-wing views on almost everything. His "Ron Paul Revolution" is a crock of shit, don't believe this scumbag's lies or any other puppet in the US presidential race, they're all lying pieces of shit that won't do anything positive unless curbing civil liberties and public trusts is considered positive. The only person I'd vote for is Kuccinich even though I know he'll lose.
But he does get that "I'm going to pretend like I'm opposing the system" dollar of confused left-wing people who don't realize his strong right-wing views on almost everything. His "Ron Paul Revolution" is a crock of shit, don't believe this scumbag's lies or any other puppet in the US presidential race, they're all lying pieces of shit that won't do anything positive unless curbing civil liberties and public trusts is considered positive. The only person I'd vote for is Kuccinich even though I know he'll lose.
Here are the reasons I would vote for Ron Paul:
--He will bring our military home and save a lot of money. This is a very big issue for me because it seems like our whole system is going to collapse soon if the government doesn't stop borrowing money. We need to give up our empire and he has promised to do that.
--He will restore civil liberties and he will veto almost any bill that violates the B.O.R.. He will get rid of all the unconstitutional executive orders and he will work to get rid of the unconstitutional laws that congress has passed (patriot act, military commissions act, protect america act) and close the KBR concentration camps, the black sites and Guantanamo. He will get rid of the CIA and reinvestigate 9/11. This is very important to me because I belong to many groups that would probably end up in one of those camps if the US turned in to a fascist dictatorship. I'm afraid that is what is going to happen eventually and Ron Paul would stop it.
-- He will lower taxes and let young people get out of social security. I know I can be much more responsible with that money than the government would be. I think he will also veto any free trade agreements..
I just don't think those things matter so much, at least not compared to the things I listed. You are not going to care about abortion if your dollars are worthless or if you are in a concentration camp.
I also like Dennis Kucinich the best, if the election were between him and Ron Paul I'd vote for DK. The problem is that I don't think he really has a chance, and I think Ron Paul does.
--He will bring our military home and save a lot of money. This is a very big issue for me because it seems like our whole system is going to collapse soon if the government doesn't stop borrowing money. We need to give up our empire and he has promised to do that.
--He will restore civil liberties and he will veto almost any bill that violates the B.O.R.. He will get rid of all the unconstitutional executive orders and he will work to get rid of the unconstitutional laws that congress has passed (patriot act, military commissions act, protect america act) and close the KBR concentration camps, the black sites and Guantanamo. He will get rid of the CIA and reinvestigate 9/11. This is very important to me because I belong to many groups that would probably end up in one of those camps if the US turned in to a fascist dictatorship. I'm afraid that is what is going to happen eventually and Ron Paul would stop it.
-- He will lower taxes and let young people get out of social security. I know I can be much more responsible with that money than the government would be. I think he will also veto any free trade agreements..
Yeah, he is definitely not perfect. He also doesn't believe in separation of church and state...
I just don't think those things matter so much, at least not compared to the things I listed. You are not going to care about abortion if your dollars are worthless or if you are in a concentration camp.
I disagree. He has promised that he won't use the federal government against drug users. That means there won't be any DEA or any similar agencies any more. He would also appoint judges to supreme court who are more libertarian-ish and that will increase the chances that drugs will be legalized.
I also like Dennis Kucinich the best, if the election were between him and Ron Paul I'd vote for DK. The problem is that I don't think he really has a chance, and I think Ron Paul does.
icecreamtrepan
Bluelighter
Oh yeah, because we all know that politicians keep their promises, especially to get rid of federal bureaucracies such as the DEA and CIA and risk getting flak for cutting federal jobs.
Separation of Church and State = HUGE ISSUE
Social security is going to collapse, yes, but should we get rid of a public trust surrounding socialized retirement for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, just so middle and upper class people can put more money into their fucking 401ks and IRAs? No. I am opposed to a lot of taxes but in the case where at least there's some illusion of public oversight over helping the lowest among us, I'll take that over privatization and even more dog-eat-dog capitalism in our society.
Ron Paul even if president couldn't get rid of Congressionally passed laws, he could veto new ones and veto renewals but the Presidency is not a Kingship in America, I mean, he's not Bush.
I will care about abortion because to me, it's a woman's human right of control over her own body, along with caring about being in a concentration camp - which we're already in and no one fucking recognizes it - think about it, can you go anywhere without being bombarded with advertising (read: the plasticization and destruction of culture), or hell, go anywhere without being encouraged to spend money. Shit, people don't go to parks anymore, they go to the mall, people don't read books, they watch TV. It's fucking terrifying how much the consumerist concentration camp permeates every aspect of life.
Separation of Church and State = HUGE ISSUE
Social security is going to collapse, yes, but should we get rid of a public trust surrounding socialized retirement for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, just so middle and upper class people can put more money into their fucking 401ks and IRAs? No. I am opposed to a lot of taxes but in the case where at least there's some illusion of public oversight over helping the lowest among us, I'll take that over privatization and even more dog-eat-dog capitalism in our society.
Ron Paul even if president couldn't get rid of Congressionally passed laws, he could veto new ones and veto renewals but the Presidency is not a Kingship in America, I mean, he's not Bush.
I will care about abortion because to me, it's a woman's human right of control over her own body, along with caring about being in a concentration camp - which we're already in and no one fucking recognizes it - think about it, can you go anywhere without being bombarded with advertising (read: the plasticization and destruction of culture), or hell, go anywhere without being encouraged to spend money. Shit, people don't go to parks anymore, they go to the mall, people don't read books, they watch TV. It's fucking terrifying how much the consumerist concentration camp permeates every aspect of life.
bingalpaws
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,671
being in a concentration camp - which we're already in and no one fucking recognizes it - think about it, can you go anywhere without being bombarded with advertising (read: the plasticization and destruction of culture), or hell, go anywhere without being encouraged to spend money.
fucking rofl
fucking rofl