turdburglar (50.53)

turdburglar's CAPS Blog

Ron Paul

Recs

25

Report

November 15, 2011 – Comments (12)

I always make fun of people who think Ron Paul will win or that people who don't vote for him are fools. He won't win. And people who vote just for the heck of it are fools as far as I'm concerned.

Elections should be bet on, not voted in, for the most part. If you already know who is going to win, you don't go stand in line at the polls to vote. You stand in line at the bookie to bet. That's the only sensible thing to do. If you can't predict the election then you need to get down to the polls and do your part.

Oh sure, I'll hear the usual arguments that if everyone did what I do the system wouldn't work and all that. Fine, I'll give you that. But I'll also give you that most people are stupid, and if you can't concede that point then you probably don't belong in any attempt at an intelligent discussion.

I (and others like me) live in a symbiotic relationship with the masses of morons. If everyone was like me, then I wouldn't have anything to bet on in elections. But everyone is not like me, so there are morons who line up at the polls and there are a**holes like me who line up at the bookie to predict what they will do.

I say Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and anyone who dares to disagree would be better off to head to the voting booth to try to prove me wrong because at least that way he's only wasting his time and not losing his money.

That said, I'm impressed with Ron Paul. He understands the concept of limited government. The government is not the answer to all problems. Abortion is legal. Okay, so it is. The government isn't going to do anything about it. Babies will get killed and that's just not really a problem for the government. Fine. It's a different approach from the typical right-left battle, and it's refreshing.

The Tea Party started off with an interest in limited government, but it was hijacked by the right. We don't like taxes. We want smaller government. Then the right joined in and said "Yeah. Smaller government, but let's outlaw abortion and drugs too while we're at it." Hell, then Hermain Cain came along and said "Let's outlaw mosques too." So at this point I think it's safe to say that the limited government part of the movement has been drowned out. Other than Ron Paul anyway. He thinks for himself and doesn't seem to be worried about electability.

Ron Paul gave an awesome answer a while back in one of the debates. Some question about that border fence between the US and Mexico came up, and he said it might be used to keep people in some day. Let's face it, he has a point. It's totally ineffictive in keeping Mexicans out, but at some later time it would be pretty good for keeping Americans in - kinda like the Berlin Wall. It probably did a pretty good job of keeping West Germans out, but it did a real good job of keeping East Germans in.

I had a Ron Paul moment the other day. We were talking about a guy who buried his dog in his backyard. My neighbor said that was illegal. I am thinking why in the heck is that illegal. I mean what else are you supposed to do with a dead dog? Well the answer sort of caught me off guard. You are supposed to pay a fee and the city will take your dead dog to be cremated along with lots of others dead animals in a mass-cremation. A what? Yes, a mass-cremation. So that means that our country has a bunch of mass-cremation facilities already built and operating. Of course they're only intended for animals. We need them. Otherwise people might just bury their dead pets in their back yards. See? There's nothing sinister going on there. It's illegal to bury your pet in your back yard because that might not be sanitary or something. Back in olden times like when I was a kid I can hardly bare to think of all the danger my father put our family in when he buried our dead dog in our back yard. I am very thankful that the government has used my tax dollars to construct mass-crematoriums all over the country to that these dead animals can be incinerated safely and so that jobs can be created in the mass-cremation industry. I shouldn't worry that these facilities could one-day be used for some other inappropriate purpose. I can trust the government, right?

Ron Paul won't win. But if he plays his cards right he can get the idea of limited government into the national debate. There's a wide are for moderates in between the OWS and the Tea Party. They actually agree on a lot of things - the bank bailouts weren't fair, the government sells out to special interests and big businesses with lots of lobbyists, and these actions have exascerbated the shortage of jobs. But they also disagree on things like drugs, abortion, gays, etc. Neither side is going to be willing to accept the other's positions on these things, but if you apply the principle of limited government you can probably reach some sort of compromise. You have the original Tea Party before it was hijacked by the right, and it includes the OWS people or at least a good portion of them, especially if he removed the label "Republican" from next to his name.

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM, VolkOseba (< 20) wrote:

Simply getting the ideas out there isn't enough at this point... if the Federal Reserve isn't abolished or if the next Fed chairman continues targeting a 0% interest rate with open market operations, we're screwed, and let's face it, if people don't vote for the only guy who will solve that problem, they deserve to get screwed.

Report this comment

#2) On November 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM, whereaminow (77.51) wrote:

A very good post. I'm obviously as passionate as just about anyone when it comes to him personally. I have a hot crush on a 74 year old. Sue me. I'd let him Sandusky all over my lower back.

In private conversation with the people that are close to me, I stress the exact same point as Volk. It's the education that matters. The older generations, taken as a group, are overwhelmingly addicted to the largesse generated through redistribution. They call it safety nets, but it's just plain old redistribution. Medicare, pensions, unemployment comp, social security, Rx drug benefits, a big army, and a giant American flag to top it all off.

The message has to go the younger generation. It has to be a generational movement that makes a big impact twenty years from now. They key is that young people have to really take message to heart, so they don't get hooked on redistribution when they get old. If they do, we'll never get anywhere.

(Ron is at 19% in Iowa with almost zero media coverage, btw. It's not impossible. We already know he'd be far ahead with fair media treatment. We just need to reach out more. - And do it better than I do.)

David

Report this comment

#3) On November 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, turdburglar (50.53) wrote:

I'm not going to vote for him (I am very unlikely to vote in this election. I already declared Obama the winner nationally and whatever Republican candidate the winner in Texas where I live, and I'm right, so I see no reason to waste my time.) Voting for him isn't enough - it isn't even worthwhile. That's the point.

The reason Ron Paul gets his message out is that he's not willing to be hijacked by the typical right or left. If he wants to get anywhere he needs to leave behind a movement toward limited government. I think that's a lot more likely than him getting elected in this or any other presidential election.

There are problems with the Fed, but I haven't heard much in the way of useful alternatives. Abolishing it and going to the gold standard means "we're screwed". I don't support that plan at all. However, I do appreciate that Ron Paul see the problem with the Fed and has at least brought it to the country's attention. I do support beginning to study alternatives.

Report this comment

#4) On November 15, 2011 at 5:46 PM, turdburglar (50.53) wrote:

The big army backs the currency among other things. That's one thing I don't care for is that dovish foreign policy. History teaches us that a strong military is important and necessary.

I agree that "education" is the key function of Ron Paul. He's got some good ideas, but as a candidate for President, he's sorta half-baked. (Pun intended.) Hopefully some future candidate will take on SOME of his ideas and get elected and get the country moving in the right direction again.

It's not just redistribution that is the problem. You have to have some sort of "redistribution" in capitalism or it doesn't work. See the Widow's Mite Conundrum (if you invest 2 cents for about 2000 years at 2%, you get $2 quadrillion) and the Relatively Fixed-Size Pie Theory. Basically a progressive income tax structure or a progressive asset tax can prevent that, and yes, it is redistribution.

I think the problem is more making promises of future benefits using future dollars. We'll have 5% growth for next 25 years, so we can pay you X amount of dollars each year, and we'll run a deficit from now until 2025 and at that point we'll start running a surplus and at the end of 25 years we're back to even. That stuff is a more of a problem.

Getting rid of the Fed is an interesting mental exercise. I'm not sure getting rid of it is a good idea, but trying to figure out how to do it is interesting. I'd probably be less in favor of getting rid of the Fed than of getting rid of the big banks. You just raise the overnight rate to ten thousand percent, and walah! the banks all fail. The the next morning, you lower it back down to 1% and start the game over and someone takes over the dead banks and injects capital and borrows from the Fed and the game continues. I would have done that in 2008 rather than bailing them out. Remember when Wamu failed? The next morning it opened up and no one blinked.

Report this comment

#5) On November 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, leohaas (93.17) wrote:

You are hilarious!

A bit cynical, but hilarious nevertheless. +1 rec!

PS, how did you get your name through the Fool's profanity filter? I was not allowed to use it!

Report this comment

#6) On November 15, 2011 at 6:38 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

I have two cents to bet you that you are wrong. ;-) Back when the FED first took over that was a dollar. Time will tell.

Report this comment

#7) On November 15, 2011 at 9:02 PM, MyunderratedLife (82.71) wrote:

This was entertaining!

+1

Report this comment

#8) On November 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM, BillyTG (32.21) wrote:

"He's got some good ideas, but as a candidate for President, he's sorta half-baked. (Pun intended.)"

I like a good pun as much as the next guy, but I'm not seeing it. Where is the pun? Someone please explain it out to me.

Report this comment

#9) On November 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Zanibel17 (98.36) wrote:

You say Ron Paul's ideas on limited government are legitimate, but you won't help him win election by voting for him, because he can't win. ???

Report this comment

#10) On November 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM, DJoshuaRubin (98.00) wrote:

David -I have a hot crush on a 74 year old. Sue me. I'd let him Sandusky all over my lower back.

You have lowered the bar for us all. Seriously. Thank you. Big laugh.

Report this comment

#11) On November 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM, turdburglar (50.53) wrote:

Zanibel - yes because he can't win. Voting for him is just a protest vote. Me voting for him wouldn't make him win. Also, I never said I thought he'd make the best President. I just like some of his ideas on limited government. I'm not a fan of his dovish foreign policy. I'm not a fan of making radical moves to get rid of the Fed or to go to the gold standard. I just like some of his ideas on limited government and I admire him for sticking to his principles rather than going along with the right-wing hijacking of the Tea Party movement. I think a lot of the early Tea Party people have probably dropped out of the movement now that it is symbolized by people like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. Outlawing mosques was just not the purpose of the original movement. If you look at the OWS movement, they share a lot of the same ideas as the original Rick Santelli inspired Tea Party. Both protests were born of the bank bailouts, and if someone can join the two together it would make a legitimate third party challenge to the traditional two-party system, and I think that would be a good thing. I think Ron Paul could play an important part in forming the third party, but I just don't think he's ready for prime time as far as winning the presidency. However, someone later on down the line could take the movement to the next level.

Report this comment

#12) On November 17, 2011 at 10:23 AM, turdburglar (50.53) wrote:

Iquadland - Don't get caught up with the idea that we should eliminate the Fed because a dollar from 1913 is now worth 2 cents. That doesn't really mean much. Currency is backed by power, not the other way around. Look at the balance of power among nations and how it has changed since the Fed was formed. Look at the standard of living. You can poo-poo the Fed if you like, but the system has been wildly successful and it is a mistake to take our nation's position and wealth for granted.

One way to look at it is that holding cash for 100 years is probably not a good bet. You'd be just fine though if you'd invested in stocks, as you'd be enjoying the profits of the Americans' spectacular rise to power. Stocks also beat out gold by a mile. That said, if you want to hold value for 100 years, you'd be better off to hold it in gold rather than currency. Just don't call it investing.

Report this comment