Ron Paul on war and foreign policy

[Corp]

Every sentence you just wrote is mistaken. Right vs. left is a useless contrast having nothing to do with anything I just said. Liberals support big government (the problem). You think that liberal means left? Democrat? The media is rife with liars who sling talking points at us like a meat processing plant slings wieners. You can't support big government and the Constitution at the same time. The Constitution forbids it by design. Have you read it? Republicans disgust me as much as anyone and they're no less liberal than many democrats. This isn't a left right or partisan issue at all. It's establishment vs. anti-establishment. The establishment is harming our economic system thus you should expect "ranting". The political system is already harmed so you're late trying to care for that. Returning to the rule of law will solve our problems not parroting the media messages you believe are true. But rather than acknowledge a single solution you only berate me and words you think you heard me say.

What needs to be perfect before you defend it? Jesus is holy not the Constitution, if that's what matters to you, why don't you listen to him? The Constitution isn't perfect but it's the best there is. Why not defend the best?

I didn't say I was defending the Constitution at every moment in my reply. My question is, why not defend it?

And yet you parrot Fox News with you're claims of "liberal media". Of course the brainwashing claim just drives your argument into crazy town. By throwing these buzz words into your argument you're drowning the points you're trying to make into partisan attacks.

The Constitution might be the best in your option but if you want to defend it hey go for it. But it is a living document that at times needs to change to match social changes. That's all that's all I've been saying. Not a single time did I say it shouldn't be defended. Not once.

[Yamato]

And yet you parrot Fox News with you're claims of "liberal media". Of course the brainwashing claim just drives your argument into crazy town. By throwing these buzz words into your argument you're drowning the points you're trying to make into partisan attacks.

The Constitution might be the best in your option but if you want to defend it hey go for it. But it is a living document that at times needs to change to match social changes. That's all that's all I've been saying. Not a single time did I say it shouldn't be defended. Not once.

Good grief stop trying to hard to disagree over nothing already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

[Yamato]

I had not heard of the "penny plan". I see nothing about raising taxes. You claim there was no plan but in fact, you are wrong. The whole shutdown the government thing that they keep doing over and over is because the democrats want to raise taxes and cut spending. The Republicans only want to cut spending.

No. Political parties platform plances are not the government. They are positions stated by each party. For instance check out www.dnc.org. I am not talking about government. Political parties have their own beliefs. Some don't even have a spot in government.

As for Marriage. That is a nebulous concept anyway that should be considered as it relates to government benefits. I "hate" to break it to you but hate crime laws already exist. IMO unborn are not children but fetuses without rights. You see not everyone agrees with everything. That's why we have political parties. And disagreements.

I don't know of a political party meter but the Obama meter I have posted many times here on UM shows remarkable achievement of Obama's promises over the last three years. Those results are real and are a direct of result of the political party process. I have faith in the process. However, I do not agree with the Citizens United decision.

Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.^[15] An example of a counter-cyclical policy is raising taxes to cool the economy and to prevent inflation when there is abundant demand-side growth, and engaging in deficit spending on labor-intensive infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and stabilize wages during economic downturns.source

Modern currency only has value by government order (fiat currency). But yes printing lots of money will drive down it's value. We were talking about bankruptcy which you claimed was possible for a country that prints it's own money. It could only be in "sovereign default" which could lead to other consequences.

I had not heard of the "penny plan". I see nothing about raising taxes. You claim there was no plan but in fact, you are wrong. The whole shutdown the government thing that they keep doing over and over is because the democrats want to raise taxes and cut spending. The Republicans only want to cut spending.

No, there is no proposal to cut one dollar of our debt from democrats. Zero. Democrats can't even put out a proposal to cut spending. You're talking about cutting increases. Democrats create additional spending in the hundreds of billions of dollars and then snip tens of billions off and call it "spending cuts". Democrat plans are spending growth, not spending cuts. They are lying to you, and doing a good job at it. Look at the debt already, the Democrats have no clue how to make that number shrink. It's growing by over $3 million a minute! Democrats don't care. You don't care. Keynesians (liberals) don't care.

No. Political parties platform plances are not the government. They are positions stated by each party. For instance check out www.dnc.org. I am not talking about government. Political parties have their own beliefs. Some don't even have a spot in government.

I'm talking about the government. It is policy that counts. You said there's a difference and I'm looking at the history of government and I see that there is no difference. Are there democratic party organizations that don't rely on the government to help in paying down the national debt that I wasn't aware of? If not, then this is inconsequential and my initial assessment is looking pretty accurate.

As for Marriage. That is a nebulous concept anyway that should be considered as it relates to government benefits. I "hate" to break it to you but hate crime laws already exist. IMO unborn are not children but fetuses without rights. You see not everyone agrees with everything. That's why we have political parties. And disagreements.

So do regulations and tax laws on marriage already exist. Republicans want to find another one size fits all from Washington DC so all you democrats learn the new definition by force of DC law. Hate crimes legislation too. Not everyone agrees with everything, and that's exactly why democrats (and republicans) who try to push their bankruptcy on the entire country instead of letting the states handle their own affairs (and balance their budgets in the process) are so wrong.

I don't know of a political party meter but the Obama meter I have posted many times here on UM shows remarkable achievement of Obama's promises over the last three years. Those results are real and are a direct of result of the political party process. I have faith in the process. However, I do not agree with the Citizens United decision.

I'd have fabulous results in my own life if I could borrow a million dollars a month for the rest of my life and make someone else's kids pay for it all. Democrats are immoral Keynesians who want to consume as much as possible, pad the 3rd quarter's GDP as much as possible and bankrupt this country as much as possible so they can get their temporary booze high and kick the hangover down the road as long as federally possible. There is nothing worth cheering about there. Honesty is paying for what you consume. By that standard Obama is the most dishonest President in US history.

Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.[15] An example of a counter-cyclical policy is raising taxes to cool the economy and to prevent inflation when there is abundant demand-side growth, and engaging in deficit spending on labor-intensive infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and stabilize wages during economic downturns.source

And after all that State-capitalism and control over the marketplace, it creates the business cycle and we suffer from gigantic booms and busts. The free market is like a pot of spaghetti sauce set to simmer. Millions of little bubbles without the gigantic government-created bubbles going bust and spilling out all over the stove (the American people). Keynesian economics is an artificial economy created by the force control of government, creating investments, demand, and value that would never exist if left to the free choice of people and that's why it's the most most dangerous enemy facing the US today. Not your bogeyman in Iran or your racist "Tea Partiers". I can't value these banks anymore after the bailouts we just had. I can't value General Motors or AIG or Goldman Sachs or Bank of America or Fannie Mae. I have no idea what those pieces of paper are worth and I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Ford is still up to their ear lobes in debt and GM isn't. Is that fair? That is not the federal government's business to be so far in bed with corporate America that it starts picking which company will get bailed out and which one won't. Government sponsored enterprise and other assorted Keynesian monsters like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bankrupt. It's time to put down someone else's money and admit it. If the free market had their way with economic performance as lousy as Obama's chosen corporate pets, they'd have been out of business long ago. Some of them already are. Enjoy your Solyndra hearings. And in all this, like every other major economic issue facing us today, neither party has got a clue. Companies die every day in the free market. It's not government's job to pick winners and losers. That promotes ethical violations in business of the worst kind. It is a moral hazard and it must stop.

Modern currency only has value by government order (fiat currency).But yes printing lots of money will drive down it's value. We were talking about bankruptcy which you claimed was possible for a country that prints it's own money. It could only be in "sovereign default" which could lead to other consequences.

"Only, but yes"? You contradict yourself. It doesn't only have value by fiat, it also has a relative value to other currencies and commodities and that relative value is determined by how large the supply of it is. This is inflation. You can't print value out of thin air. Every dollar printed that's added to the money supply borrows its value from the money already there. Prices always chase after the new money pumped into the economy in time. Of course bankruptcy is possible. If the bills were due we'd be bankrupt right now. We're going broke because we owe money and when there's no money to pay the debt what do you think happens? This whole economic house of cards is going to collapse like it would for any other country once we're no longer able to borrow from foreigners. China is very slow to figure out that we'e not going to pay them back. They will turn on the dollar eventually and it won't be long now. And when our credit dries up, you're going to learn along with all the rest of us just how painful your democratic party's economy really is. The punch bowl can't stay spiked forever. The drunk from the zero percent interest rates is coming to an end and it's not going to feel good when the hangover comes. If we swallowed the medicine four years ago we'd be recovered by now and enjoying a truly robust and sustainable economy. But the republocrats and their bipartisan Keyensian immorality is running things, and none of the inherent problems with our economy have been fixed.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Yamato

[preacherman76]

Whether we like it or not America has created a network of "friends" which we depend on in the world that help us with our foreign policy goals. If we don't pay them we can't depend on them. Israel is less likely to stop helping us than say, Pakistan but there are no guarantees. I would gladly see aid to Saudi Arabia, Yemen,Pakistan, Egypt to name a few - cut back or stopped. Israel has proven itself an ally over the decades and deserves our continued aid but more to the point Israel can also be a VERY complicated security issue for us. If left alone to fend for herself without a qualitative edge in weaponry Israel could face annihilation from her neighbors and that will lead to a nuclear exchange in the region.

If America tomorrow stopped all foreign aid it would mark the beginning of a serious decline in our power. While I have no problem with that in theory I do fear it in practice. A power vacuum would be quickly filled, probably by Europe or China. I don't care to be subservient to either of their world views.

Me either. Thats why I believe in a strong national defense. And if need be MAD is always on the table.

[Space Commander Travis]

Whether we like it or not America has created a network of "friends" which we depend on in the world that help us with our foreign policy goals. If we don't pay them we can't depend on them. Israel is less likely to stop helping us than say, Pakistan but there are no guarantees. I would gladly see aid to Saudi Arabia, Yemen,Pakistan, Egypt to name a few - cut back or stopped. Israel has proven itself an ally over the decades and deserves our continued aid but more to the point Israel can also be a VERY complicated security issue for us. If left alone to fend for herself without a qualitative edge in weaponry Israel could face annihilation from her neighbors and that will lead to a nuclear exchange in the region.

If America tomorrow stopped all foreign aid it would mark the beginning of a serious decline in our power. While I have no problem with that in theory I do fear it in practice. A power vacuum would be quickly filled, probably by Europe or China. I don't care to be subservient to either of their world views.

yes, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hardly make previous U.S. Adminstrations' attempts to claim that they want everyone in the world to enjoy freedom and Democracy stand up; but I don't think we need worry too much about Israel being left alone to fend for herself without a qualitative edge in weaponry; it seems very capable of designing whatever it needs for itself. How many countries that size have an independent aerospace industry? Indeed, perhaps dependence on the U.S. can be counteroductive?

The IAI Lavi (Hebrew: לביא, "Young Lion") was a combat aircraft developed in Israel in the 1980s. It was a multi-billion dollar fighter aircraft project that was disbanded when the Israeli government concluded it could not finance production on its own, could not achieve a consensus on the Lavi's cost-effectiveness and received political pressure from the US government to cancel a fighter that would compete with American exports.

[+and-then]

yes, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hardly make previous U.S. Adminstrations' attempts to claim that they want everyone in the world to enjoy freedom and Democracy stand up; but I don't think we need worry too much about Israel being left alone to fend for herself without a qualitative edge in weaponry; it seems very capable of designing whatever it needs for itself. How many countries that size have an independent aerospace industry? Indeed, perhaps dependence on the U.S. can be counteroductive?

This is a good point. I remember reading somewhere that when Israel took delivery of some F-4's in the 70's that they solved a problem we'd struggled to fix at great expense. Had to do with rearward visibility in a dogfight. We had engineers working on it while they installed rear view mirrors for $400.

I think my near paranoia about them being overrun has to do with the sheer numbers they could face in a sudden conflict. If we distance ourselves too far from them we might invite the very attack we've invested for years to keep at bay... For example, '73 was VERY close. I was only 12 but had some awareness what a change in defcon meant and it was scary when Nixon decided to but heads with the Soviets over the region. My biggest problem with the aid we "give" is the strings we attach to it.

[Just Dave]

Wikipedia just released a word that they are shutting down on 18th of January in protest to latest US gov. law, which is almost full control over internet and guess what in "War agaisn't piracy". In that protest many known companies are joining the fight like google,twitter,ebay,facebook,.. In my opinion your government went to far, and now tension will increase massively..

I can give you a link but it is in slovene language so if you want you can translate it. News is here.

I guess the states just made lots of enemies, don't even wanna know what hackers of this world will have to say...errr. hack about it. This information was given to our news media only soon everyone will be hearing and reading this world wide. I think Ron Paul will have full hands pretty soon.