Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (78.46)

Idiot of the day: Ron Paul



August 30, 2010 – Comments (24)

Kudos to Ron Paul for his campaign against deficits. Extending Bush's tax cuts forever is the sure way to have a balanced budget, just as devouring 15 cupcakes a day is how one should treat diabetes. Besides, what other tax cut could work better than the one signed into law by George W.? 

"He says the U.S. is technically bankrupt, should stop spending now, and extend the Bush tax cuts forever. He is also in favor of abolishing income taxes altogether, and minimizing the role of government."

24 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, TMFPencils (99.92) wrote:

If you look deeper into it, you'd realize that Ron Paul is pretty much the only statesman who fights to bring our troops home from around the world. Bring them back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, and the other 130+ countries that we occupy. That's $1 trillion a year saved.

Oh, he's also the only serious congressperson who wants to end the War on Drugs. $100 billion a year. 

He has legislation that would allow young people like myself to opt out of bankrupt programs such as Social Security. Let people provide their own financial security, what a dandy idea!

Ron Paul wants to slash taxes, but he's also saying you've got to cut spending, and that's what he's proposed every year that he's been a congressman. Problem is, pretty much everyone else in government and the majority of the people in the country love handouts, have no clue about the U.S.'s invasive and expensive foreign policy, and don't even understand the Austrian school of free market economics.

I almost forgot to mention the Federal Reserve, the unconstitutional central bank managed by seven unelected bankers that controls the flow of credit, interest rates, and finances the large majority of government activity. Not to mention that it isn't audited (Ron Paul is the one who introduced the bill to have Congress audit the Fed). 

And you're calling Ron Paul an idiot? He's the only one fighting for true liberty and freedom. He's knows more about economics than Obama, Bush, Pelosi, and McCain could forget. 

Report this comment
#2) On August 30, 2010 at 8:36 PM, portefeuille (98.92) wrote:

Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, and the other 130+ countries that we occupy.

doesn't feel very occupied over here ...

Report this comment
#3) On August 30, 2010 at 8:52 PM, starbucks4ever (78.46) wrote:


There's just one little trouble: the numbers don't add up. Balancing the budget requires both spending cuts AND tax increases.


Report this comment
#4) On August 30, 2010 at 8:53 PM, MegaEurope (< 20) wrote:

portefueille, that means our plan to invade via McDonald's and Starbucks is working perfectly.


pencils, Obama has actually withdrawn tens of thousands of troops from Iraq and outlined a plan to start withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2011.  As opposed to Paul just talking about it, while caucusing with pro-war Republicans.

Report this comment
#5) On August 30, 2010 at 9:06 PM, TMFPencils (99.92) wrote:


Right, while approximately 50,000 "troop advisers" remain indefinitely. Doesn't really spell withdrawal for me. Just like Obama flubbed on his promise to bring the troops home within his first six months of office, I don't necessarily trust what he has to say regarding his future time line. 

And let's not forget the increased drone bombings the U.S. has engaged in since Obama came into office. 

Ron Paul has proposed legislation consistently to withdraw our troops and return to a constitutional foreign policy, The dirty little secret is that both parties support an interventionist foreign policy, which is why nothing major has ever really changed. 

Report this comment
#6) On August 30, 2010 at 9:27 PM, ChrisGraley (28.48) wrote:

Cutting taxes is fine if you cut the spending more. Tax revenue increases if you cut either income tax or the corporate tax.


Cut borrowing and cut spending and I'll be fine with the current tax level in the short term.

Neither the right or the left want to cut borrowing or spending. 

Report this comment
#7) On August 30, 2010 at 10:17 PM, MegaEurope (< 20) wrote:

Tax revenue increases if you cut either income tax or the corporate tax.

I think you got lost on the wrong side of the Laffer curve buddy.

Report this comment
#8) On August 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I expected so much better from you.  He's voted against every budget since he entered office.  Tell me zloj, what more does he have to do to prove that wants to cut spending?  Does he have to hold the Treasury Secretary hostage?

Seriously, what more do you want him to do? 

It just gets really ridiculous.  I expect this kind of trash from partisans like devoish, ETFsRule, and TMFBent to name a few.

From you, I expect a reasonable discussion.  This is pathetic.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#9) On August 30, 2010 at 11:07 PM, starbucks4ever (78.46) wrote:


A simple unopinionated look at the budget will tell you the whole story. There is no room either for tax cuts or for spending increases. An honest politician must promise to tread on the toes on both sides of the isle, rather than tell voters fairy tales.

In any event, Ron Paul a) is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, b) is defending the most inefficient tax cut of all, and c) is putting the cart before the horse. Let him first cut the spending to match the existing revenue and then, when the ink is drying on the austerity bill, let him talk about drilling another hole in the hull. 

Report this comment
#10) On August 30, 2010 at 11:30 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


If you buy the laffer curve, or any other discredited macro-economic aggregator that tells as much as Soviet GDP, that's super.  But that's not what you posted here.

Who tells voters fairy tales?  The only people telling fairy tales talk of stimulus packages and quantitative easing.  Not the guy telling us to live within our means, tear down our destructive empire, stop the mindless drug war, and embrace Muslims in friendship.  You know that and I know that.  

Get real.  I'm just going to chalk this up to you still being a little brain-washed by the fake Left-Right paradigm.  You'll get it our of your system eventually.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On August 30, 2010 at 11:54 PM, lctycoon (< 20) wrote:

pencils2, how would bringing the troops home save $1 trillion a year?  That's more than the entire military budget.

Report this comment
#12) On August 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM, starbucks4ever (78.46) wrote:


You are right that the Left-right paradigm is fake. On this issue, I agree 100%. We disagree about the role of government spending in a market economy.

By the way, I've just thought of a more practical question. Which stock or stocks would you buy if Ron Paul got elected tomorrow? I can easily imagine which ones you would short, but which ones you would go long is much harder for me to guess. After all, one must always have a positive program, right?

Report this comment
#13) On August 31, 2010 at 1:08 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Good question:

To start, any company that doesn't rely on debt for growth would be ideal.  I'd be 100% in stocks if Ron was elected (though it depends on whether on not the voters brought like-minded people to power in Congress as well.)

But yes, I state unequivocally that if Ron Paul was elected, I would be deep into stocks - particulaly anything with high growth potential and low debt.

I would recommend selling stock in any company that had a government-granted monopoly should it look like Ron was going to be able to bring more competition to their market, particularly oil companies and utilities.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On August 31, 2010 at 1:17 AM, MyunderratedLife (95.07) wrote:


Just wait until the day you folks discover any economically viable amount of oil... heheh

Report this comment
#15) On August 31, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

US Military Bases in Germany- 18
US Air Force Bases:
Ramstein Air Base

US Army Bases:
Campbell Barracks, Heidelberg Conn Barracks, Ledward Barracks, Schweinfurt Vilseck Grafenwoehr Landstuhl Vogelweh Patrick Henry Village ROB Kapaun Stuttgart Bamberg Mannheim Baumholder
US Marine Corp
 All, is this really necessary? Only for our carreer soldiers and a few hand picked no-bid subcontractors/fuel suppliers,etc. Cut spending? No Brainer. $100 Billion/yr for the ruse "War on Drugs"? Abolish Social Security? Why not a new system, out of reach of political plunder to fund pet pork? C'mon. The Fed, Immigration, PERS, the $, banking, etc, all broken. Rocking the boat, sure, but an idiot? The idiots are the ones who think that more of what got us here will "fix" anything.

Report this comment
#16) On August 31, 2010 at 7:26 AM, fmahnke (67.12) wrote:

Ron Paul is prrobably the only honest congressman in terms of being free from special interest politics.

Although I don't agree with everything he says,  to me he is more of an idol than an idoit as I believe intergrity is key

Report this comment
#17) On August 31, 2010 at 10:10 AM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

I agree with zloj on this one. I really like Ron Paul, but advocating to keep the tax cuts is the cop-out - it's the easy part of the proposition. The hard part, spending reduction, would never get done.

If Ron Paul was the Emporer of the US, it might happen. But even as President, he couldn't get it done. He couldn't even reduce the pork component of Congress spending. No single man can.

Oh, but ha could get peoplt to keep the tax cuts! Job half-done, right? Better than nothing at all! That's the same kind of logic neo-Keynesians use to justify endless stimulus. With the same end-results.

Only one group of people can reign this thing in - bond vigilantes. Wish they'd get off their fat asses and start making some noise. Then maybe Ron Paul will be made more relevant.

Report this comment
#18) On August 31, 2010 at 10:11 AM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

...and the "g" in "reign" was a typo. If a slightly ironic one.

Report this comment
#19) On August 31, 2010 at 11:09 AM, TDRH (96.53) wrote:

His day will come, hopefully not too late.  Eventually the checks will start to bounce.

Report this comment
#20) On August 31, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Schmacko (91.54) wrote:

Pretty sure saying we have troops in 130+ countries is counting embassy guards.  Removing the guards would more or less close a lot of the embassies, which would only promote some kind of new US isolationism... which probably isn't a good idea.

You could make the argument that we "occupy" 2 countries.  Claiming we "occupy" more than that is really just sensationalism.

Report this comment
#21) On August 31, 2010 at 12:34 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Pretty sure saying we have troops in 130+ countries is counting embassy guards.

It doesn't. That's the number of countries with U.S. military bases.  Over 700 overseas bases in all - with about 600,000 troops and a million or so contractors.

That doesn't include the DC areas civilian contractor spying operation that has just been erected under Obama.

The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by Americans is fascinating.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On August 31, 2010 at 2:55 PM, leohaas (30.10) wrote:

OK, staying out of the "Ron Paul is idiot of the day" vs "no, he is a statesman" debate, or what he voted for and against. But if Ron Paul were elected, gold and gold miners (and by extention silver and silver miners) would be great buys! Isn't he in favor of restoring the gold standard?

Dividing the number of USD in circulation by the amount of gold in Fort Knox, the gold price will jump to about $6,000.

Report this comment
#23) On August 31, 2010 at 4:26 PM, eldemonio (97.57) wrote:

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Sounds like a really big idiot.  zloj - you're a douche bag.

Report this comment
#24) On September 03, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Dow3000 (< 20) wrote:

I just want to add one thing...your assumption that increasing tax rates inreases tax receipts is false...there is absolutely no evidence pointing to this logic being correct at current rates.

 What you fail to factor in is that economic output decreases as tax rates increase (this is common sense and proven over and over)

 Current taxes rates not only should not be raised but they are far too high...all current social and economic problems are the direct result of government intervention in the free market.

 It is actually very simple...cut government spending in all areas...especially war and subsidies of big business.  We also would be much more efficient without the ridiculously cumbersome income tax code...get rid of it and we will once again be the envy of the world.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners