Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman faced off for a televised debated on fiscal policy Monday afternoon in a battle likely to appeal to policy wonks on both sides of the political spectrum.

The two staked out positions that predictably offered sharp contrasts, with Paul emphasizing his belief in "very small government" during the appearance on Bloomberg TV.

In the past I have suggested that socialism, in any form, requires a massive bureaucracy and, as a result, requires massive government, which can only mean massive intervention on the part of that government.  This, in my view, also suggests that the system must restrict liberty to an unacceptable degree and rely on massive force to implement and maintain the system.  Further, due to the huge costs associated with such a system, and the tension between the governed and the governors, the system cannot last for any significant length of time. 

There are those who disagree with my analysis and suggest that I have focused on particular forms of socialism, while ignoring what others regard as “true” or “libertarian” socialism.  It has been further suggested that, in doing so, I have been blind to the benefits of socialism. In an attempt to address both those complaints, in the following article, I propose to focus on what I understand to be the principles and characteristics of “libertarian” socialism.  I will first attempt to define the term, after which I will examine how to implement and enforce such a system. 

One of the characteristics that “libertarian” socialism shares with other brands of socialism is how it allocates the ownership of property.  In fact, and I have discussed this before, it is that particular characteristic, in my view, which defines socialism itself.  Any definition, as it pertains to libertarian socialism would have to include, in my view, “the public ownership of the means of production”.   In the past there has been some opposition to this definition based on a perception problem as to the definition of “the public”.  There seems to be a nuance which some wish to suggest is present and differentiates “the public” from “the State”.  I don’t really see such a distinction to be of much relevance.   If the people are “the public”, and the people are “the State”, regardless of how large or how small the unit, it would seem to me that engaging in a battle over semantics is really of little use when considering the larger picture. 

In any event, one of the major problems I have with all socialistic theories, and this one is no exception, is the static nature of the analysis.  In other words, were we to wave a magic wand and suddenly be immersed in such a system, it is true that the system might be said to be working for that one moment in time.  It is the inability of the system to continue to work as advertised which causes problems for me.  The essence of the system is that the public owns the means of production which thus purportedly allows the individual worker to enjoy both the fruits of his labor, at differing rates depending on various factors, and to enjoy any profit generated by the entity he is associated with by virtue of the fact that he is also an owner.  This ownership could either be as a member of the State or as a member of the “public”, representing a sub-set more specifically aligned with the particular enterprise.  In this system all are not necessarily “equal”, as those who add more value to the particular good or service are compensated accordingly.  It would thus seem that those who are more highly compensated would become the ultimate consumer as there wouldn’t seem to be any investment opportunities available for any excess funds which may accrue.  This would further suggest that the greater the difference in compensation, the more visible the consumerism and, in all probability, the greater the level of “class envy” between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.  An interesting result, considering what one generally sees as one of the goals of a socialistic society.

  On the other hand, how well does the system do in allocating the means of production to the public who owns it?   I don’t know, as it would seem that the only way to determine who gets what would be for the state, or the public, to allocate those resources, using whatever system they may choose, none of which, in my opinion, would be free of corruption, bias, misallocations, or the defeat of the weak by the strong.  This doesn’t even address the question, which I have raised in the past, as to what constitutes the “means of production”.  Is a pair of scissors the means of production?  I would suggest that for a barber it is.  How about a car?  A good case could be made that a vehicle is an integral tool for a salesman, and thus it would also be included in the definition.  How about for a cab driver?  How about for a baby sitter who needs transportation to get to the residence of the child to be put into her charge?  Would this mean that the public would provide the baby sitter with a vehicle while preventing someone who is not a baby sitter from owning one at all?  The problem with socialism is that virtually every decision must be made by “the public” and thus, if for no other reason, it becomes obvious that socialism can only begin and end with a restriction of liberties, an imposing bureaucracy, and an interventionist government with absolutely no limits.

I do have a suggestion which I plan to cover more fully in the future, but here I will attempt to summarize the basic concept.  This is where the “banking” in the title becomes relevant, while some may even suggest it advocates the very system of socialism which I claim to oppose.  One might also suggest it advocates, and supports, a system of “free enterprise” , rather than one of “capitalism”.  It might best be described as a system where banking, as we know it, does not exist and “fiat money” is similarly legislated out of existence.   I am not suggesting there are not any problems with the suggestion, but I do present it for consideration.  The elimination of bank loans and fiat money could well result in a system providing many of the benefits which socialism purports to provide, without the corresponding need for “Big Government”.  This would be because anyone needing capital would need to go to “the market” to obtain it.  It’s true that “the rich” might have certain advantages under such a system, but I would suggest that, at least for truly large endeavors, the need for capital would provide a powerful incentive to include the less well off in the process, particularly if such behavior was the norm, and thus expected on the part of the working man.  Further, even in the case of smaller enterprises, maybe even particularly in the case of smaller enterprises, those wishing to start a new business might find they need to involve family, friends, neighbors, etc. in both the formation and the operation of the planned new business, resulting in community involvement both as producers and consumers of the product or service.  Aside from its other virtues, any funds which would have been consumed as interest would now be funds spread amongst the community at large.  Just a thought.

Thank you for your interest.

One woman asked who Paul feels should pay for birth control pills.

“That’s the big issue of the moment, isn’t it? The world is about to blow up, the economy is about to blow up, and the biggest discussion we have is on birth control,” he said.

“The people whom use birth control pills should pay for birth control pills,” Paul said. “If you mandate to an insurance company what they have to cover, it’s not insurance anymore. It’s an autocracy.”

Paul also responded to a question about Syria and Iran by saying he doesn’t believe in interfering in other countries.

“There is absolutely no rationalization for going to war against Iran at this time,” he said.

He said ending all foreign aid would not hurt Israel.

“Israel is worse off for our intervention,” he said. "We give seven times the foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than we do to Israel.”

An interfering foreign policy makes the United States less safe, not safer.

“People tend to get a little annoyed when we go in and bomb them,” he said.

“He gets it”

Those in the crowd were sold on Ron Paul.

“I’ve been a voter since Richard Nixon, and I’ve never had a candidate that has such a firm grasp on the Constitution,” said St. Louis County resident Phil R. Bales. “This is the first time in my life I chose to give money to a candidate.”

Much of Paul’s speech reflected his libertarian views, both in his economic message and in a message of getting government off people’s backs – well received by the audience, who represented a region of eastern Washington and northern Idaho that is known for its appeal to rugged individualists.

He criticized drug laws, adding: “We still have problems with race relations when you deal with the enforcement of the drug laws.” Paul did not elaborate on that statement, which seemed striking in light of controversy earlier in the campaign about support for his campaign by white supremacists.

Paul attracts an audience that is unlike that of any other Republican candidate, peppered with libertarians, disgruntled Democrats and Republicans who believe social issues have no place in a presidential campaign.

“I think he’s the best thing that’s happened in the last 100 years,” said Leah Madson, 27, who came with a group of friends from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. She said she supported no political party. “I’m voting for the person and the principles,” she said. And if, as expected, Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination? She’ll write in Ron Paul in November.

The Ron Paul phenomenon is perhaps the most interesting story to come out of the 2012 election to date, simply because he breaks all the stereotypes of a successful candidate or movement. Ron Paul is not handsome (like Mitt Romney). He’s not exciting (like Sarah Palin). He’s not charismatic (like a Reagan or JFK). He’s not super articulate (like Obama). And he’s sure not young. If I were to run for President in 2030, I would still be younger than Ron Paul is today.

So what’s the attraction? Why are so many Americans passionate fans of Ron Paul? And why in particular do so many young people who tune out of politics, tune in for Ron Paul?

Let me start with his #1 attribute. Ron Paul is RELENTLESS. He just never gives up. It has been said that if you keep your suits long enough, they’ll eventually come back in style. Ron Paul’s brand of Libertarianism and freedom is back in style – because of his dedication, persistence and tenacity.

The foundation of relentlessness is unshakable faith. Tim Tebow’s NFL season full of miracles proves the value of intense faith. Well, Ron Paul has that kind of intense faith in the old fashioned values of God, country, freedom, personal responsibility, and capitalism. And Paul’s enthusiasm and faith is genuine, not fake or manufactured. Voters can see that and they like it.

Secondly, while Ron Paul is not your traditional politician, and is painted by the media as extreme, the voters are starting to realize that it is the traditional status quo politicians that led us right into this economic Armageddon. Those “traditional” views about everything – debt, taxes, spending, entitlements, Social Security, bailouts for billionaire bankers, the Fed, wars – led to the insolvency and bankruptcy of this great country. Perhaps it’s time to think "out of the box."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/04/understanding-ron-paul-phenomenon/#content#ixzz1lWE6yhJ8

Sure it's embarrassing to have stood by Newt Gingrich, thinking all of his dirty laundry had already been aired, only to find out that there might be more.  I still think he's probably the most intelligent, the most knowledgeable, and, perhaps, even the most pragmatic of all the candidates.  He's also probably the candidate best suited to navigate the highways and byways of Washington in order to get things done and, frankly, there are certainly many areas on which we agree.  The problem is, there may be too many areas on which we disagree, and I'm not sure how many more pair of dirty socks and shorts I can take.  It is from this perspective that I take yet another look at Dr. Ron Paul.

The good news, and the bad news, is that a vote for Ron Paul should not be looked at as a wasted or "protest" vote.  At the moment, he certainly has a valid chance of winning the nomination for President of the United States.  As with the other candidates that find themselves in his position, the chance of victory propels him from a man with interesting ideas to a man whose negatives, as well as positives, need to be examined.  Much has been written about Dr. Paul, not always with the most positive of spin, but there is no doubt that as the viability of his candidacy has risen, so has the rhetoric. 

On the plus side, there is no doubt that Dr. Ron Paul actually personifies the "hope and change" promised by Barrack Obama, with Paul's emphasis on changing the government by limiting it and placing his hope in empowering the individual.  His views are well known, and few would argue that he is a favorite of the establishment.  He has the experience of being in private practice as a physician, is not an attorney, and, apparently, has served his constituency well since 1997.  Of particular interest to me is, unlike every President since Ronald Reagan,  he is not affiliated with either Harvard or Yale.  This also suggests that any Supreme Court vacancies which occur during his presidency might also have the chance of being filled by someone other than an alumnus of either of those two fine educational institutions.  He has stood up to the Federal Reserve, as well as Wall Street and the Big Banks and, finally, he claims to be for individual freedoms and the rights of the individual, sometimes disputed by those who wish to retain those freedoms only for themselves and thus they, in my opinion, misunderstand and misrepresent his positions.

Now, on the negative side, one has to wonder if he is up to the job, and I mean no disrespect, and not that I think he could do a poorer job then the present occupant.  There is always a difference between giving an opinion, and making a decision and thus being one of 435 House members is much different than being one President.  Further, when one looks at his performance in the House of Representatives, one wonders how many allies he would find should he be elected.  His foreign policy outlook is a bit naive, in an area where there are few, if any, "do-overs" or "take-backs" and thus radical changes would have, whether positive or negative, radical consequences.  Similarly, it's not necessarily a question of what the goal is domestically, but rather how to move in the right direction without capsizing the ship of state.

Obviously my thoughts above only scratch the surface, both negatively and positively, regarding Dr. Paul's candidacy but, having said that, I find I am beginning to lean once again in his favor.  There are problems, some of which may be below the surface with unexpected results.  For example, although I am for a return to "hard" money, we must be careful that in doing so, the status quo is not simply solidified at the present level of inequity.  Similarly, an "open-border" policy might be based on libertarian principles, but a massive increase in new immigrants can only keep wages low, while benefiting those with significant assets.  The question is whether he will be used, just as the present President has been, to implement policies which others might not be able to implement because of their perceived political views.  If Dr. Paul is truly a "constitutionalist" than our saving grace may be that he can impact those areas in a positive way, but be much less able to do so in other areas.

So, is Ron Paul our last chance?  I, personally, am beginning to think so, and thus, even with my concerns regarding some of the harm he might do, I have to wonder if changing the political paradigm isn't worth it.

As Paul encouraged his supporters to believe—to never give up on their vision for America, the crowd broke out into a spontaneous chant, a phrase made up of three monosyllables that the candidate had coined.

No, it wasn’t “Yes we can!” It was “End the Fed!” But you’d have to be blind to not to see the parallels between Paul’s 2012 campaign and the one Barack Obama launched in 2008.

What made Obama’s campaign historic was in part the momentous outpouring of support he received from the youth vote. A disproportionate number of young voters participated in the election, and voters 18 to 29 went for Obama 68% to 30%, a 38 point margin. While Romney won in New Hampshire with 39% of the vote, Paul took 47% of the 18 to 29 vote, beating Romney by 22 points.

"Ron Paul is unelectable". You hear it all the time from the mainstream media and "conservative" commentators. Ron Paul says the war on drugs is unconstitutional and a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that the Federal Reserve, the Communist Manifesto's central bank of the 5th plank, is a failure and should be abolished? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that Department of Education, which didn't even begin operation until the Reagan years, should be abolished in order to help balance the budget? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that we should withdraw troops from Afghanistan while Afghan President Karzai calls America a "main enemy", says that he would prefer the Taliban over America, and would take the side of Pakistan if war broke out with the United States? Unelectable!

But somehow the media, the pundits, and the blowhard commentators are very reluctant to call any other Republican 'unelectable', even if the truth is staring them right in the face. If they were to expose the other candidates' hypocrisy by comparing them to the Republican Party platform that supposedly espouses Constitutionally limited government, low taxes, and low spending, it might go a little something like this:

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who recently bolted the Republican Party and declared his intention to seek the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination next year, told the Daily Caller on Wednesday that he is urging his supporters to vote for the like-minded Rep. Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primaries.

When asked by the Daily Caller if Johnson believes that his Republican supporters should vote for Paul in the primary stage of the election, Johnson responded simply “yeah.”However, Johnson still wants committed libertarian voters to pull the lever for him next November

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has spent the last two weeks dealing with the political consequences of the reemergence of racist newsletters that went out under his name in the 1980s and ‘90s. During that same time period, however, Paul also laid out an historical analysis of the racist roots of the drug war that accurately and honestly reflects its origins.

In 1988 Paul made a presidential campaign stop at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws while running on the Libertarian Party ticket. "What was so bad about the period from 1776 to 1914?" Paul wondered, referring to a time in American history when drugs were legal on the federal, and, in many towns, local level. "In the 20th Century, the doctors, like all business people, decided that there ought to be a monopoly. ‘If you wanted a little bit of codeine in your cough medicine, it would be much better if you come to me so I can charge you $25 for a prescription.'

OccupyWashingtonDC.org seeks a major transformation to a participatory democracy in the economy as well as in government. For forty years, concentrated corporate interests have acted with intent to take over government and other institutions. We seek an end to the rule of concentrated wealth and corporate power by shifting control, wealth and ownership to the people.

Blah, blah, blah, Ron Paul is awesome.

As college students, we’ve all heard them –– Ron Paul supporters who rant and rave about how their libertarian savior is going to bring freedom back to the country, legalize pot and pull us out of Afghanistan. Allow my prickly beard to burst the idealistic bubble for you all: Ron Paul could never be president. And considering the circumstances, that’s probably the biggest compliment anyone could give him.

What Americans claim to crave from their politicians is honesty. We say we want the truth, but when it comes right down to it, the facts can be downright depressing. So instead we go for a candidate who tells us what we want to hear. We go for a candidate who claims their political party was doing it right all along. We vote for whomever can scream their pre-written talking points the loudest. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul isn’t that guy.

Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party’s nomination, but in many respects, it’s hard to see why. As a libertarian, Paul believes in a small government that doesn’t mess with America’s free-market economy (totally kosher for Republicans). But Paul also believes the federal government should keep it’s hands off same-sex marriage, get rid of torture and pull out of all foreign wars (all about as kosher as a roasted pig wrapped in bacon).

What’s worse, Ron Paul has held the same views on just about everything since he was elected to Congress in the 1970s. Compared to every single Republican front runner, Ron Paul is the only one who hasn’t been made a fool of by flip-flopping opinions. Michele Bachmann is pretty consistent as well, but being consistently crazy is rarely a positive attribute.

Ron Paul is the only choice for Republicans.   It is my personal belief that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  The others dont stand a chance.  For one on war....hell Obama is out killing and out warmongering the warmongers.....they cant beat him there.   Safety by taking away rights???  they cant beat him there.....as he has continued Bush's horrible and rights violating Patriot Act and EXPANDED upon it...now killing American citizens without due process.   He is out dictatoring(I know not a word) the dictators....how many executive orders has he done.???...He has already assumed the power that Bush and others have given the executive branch....and he is continued the expansion.   Social issues....well...people always want something for nothing....and there is no way in hell the republicans can beat Obama on this issue.

What we have left that they may get him on is the economy.   Considering they knew about as much as Obama did prior to the recession....well.....its a draw...Bush and the republican presidents before him also expanded government so its a draw I think with the economy.  I know, I know  some say that the dems and repubs are different on this...but history proves otherwise.

That leaves Ron Paul.  

He is the only one for change.   THE ONLY ONE.

Foreign policy would be greatly altered...he would end our warmongering worldwide...bring our troops home so they can spend their money here.....one up on the warmongers...and already one up on the economy.

Safety by taking away rights.....this is an interesting one....Ron Paul obviously believes that freedom should not be taken away for security....he would end the Patriot Act and coupled with a new foreign policy of trade and friendship.....we would be safer than ever before....now of course the authoritarian minded will think otherwise...but freedom will ring on this issue...again advantage Ron Paul.

Economy....Ron Paul would bury Obama on this issue...not even close...Ron Paul is an economic genius in comparison to the simpleton Obama.....advantage Ron Paul.

Corporations....again Ron Paul would not be for subsidies or bailouts of failed corporations...and the corporations know this...so they would support Obama...and this is were he will start to slip...as the media..which is a corporation, will support Obama.....now they will use fear to convince the public that bailing out corporations is a good thing.....but the OWS shows people are catching on...again advantage Ron Paul.

Social Issues   those with an education will see through the media bias and bull on this one...unfortunately many vote in this country and decide on issues after investing about 1 hr a year on politics....so although I believe freedom is the only way to go....tyranny will win out here....although Ron Paul wouldnt really be at a disadvantage here compared with other republicans although for different reasons.   advantage Obama

Constitution   again clear advantage for Ron Paul as he actually believes in the Constitution....all the good and bad.

One thing I almost forgot is the left wing vote.  I know of many progressives who have said that they will vote for Ron Paul if he wins the nomination....no other Republican can say that....advantage Ron Paul

Then of course you have that little thing called a third party...If Ron Paul decides to run as a third party he will destroy any chances the GOP would have of winning.....so Republicans, the choice is clear.

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

NATCHITOCHES, La., October 23, 2011—Ron Paul is a consistent man. He's been preaching the same economic gospel for two generations, a gospel based on the teachings of economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, leavened by the objectivism of Ayn Rand. He's been convinced for decades of the dangers of fiat money (money backed only by confidence in the government that creates it), the supreme importance of the individual, the primacy of personal liberty as a political principle, and a laissez faire approach to the economy.

Paul believes and says the same things now that he said 40 years ago, but that's a minor type of consistency. People learn and change over the decades, and that's usually praiseworthy, not a sign of moral weakness. If Paul came to political and economic principles 40 years ago that are as true and bright to him today as they were then, that's fine, but that's not what's admirable or important about his consistency.

What's important about Paul is that his ideas are ideologically consistent. They spring from a set of principles, and he's not afraid to let his ideas go where his principles take them.

Ron Paul has the courage of his convictions.

Republicans say that they oppose the growth of the federal government. They want federal power devolved to the states. If you believe them, ask them about same sex marriage, drug legalization, and abortion. Scarcely a Republican in Washington wants those issues left to the states. They want them federalized, just as they wanted to federalize medical decisions in the case of Terri Schiavo. Republicans like to talk about individual liberty, but they don't trust you to do the "right" thing with it any more than Democrats do.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats lies in which aspects of your life they want to control. They don't disagree that you need to be controlled.

Paul does. It isn't that he thinks we should have no laws - he favors a minimal government, not zero government - but rather that he thinks your sphere of personal autonomy should be as large as it can be without damaging the autonomy of others. What control there must be should be as local as possible. If there are to be laws against drug use, they should be state, not federal. There's no constitutional reason that you shouldn't be able to watch porn in your living room while smoking a joint. That your neighbors think it's sleazy is no excuse to create a DEA.

You're next.

That's the warning from Rep. Ron Paul, who said Wednesday that killing U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn in Yemen without a fair trial is the start of a slippery slope.

“They asked me if it is an impeachable offense. It is,” he told an audience at the National Press Club. “I mean just ignoring the 5th amendment and assassinating an American citizen without due process? They won’t even tell us what the rules are -- oh, but he is a threat. Can you imagine being put on a list because you’re a threat? What’s going to happen when they come to the media what if the media becomes a threat? Or a professor becomes a threat, someday that could well happen, this is the way it works it’s called incrementalism.”

The GOP presidential candidate said he felt “very pleased” about the progress he’s made on the campaign trail, revealing to the audience he’d raised over $8 million dollars in the third quarter from 100,000 unique donors, putting him third behind Rick Perry’s $17 million and Mitt Romney’s estimated $13-15 million.

Asked to compare his fundraising numbers to that of the frontrunner, Paul said, “If you raise 8 million, half as much, and you get it from small individual donors who are fervently engaged in campaigning for you, that's a lot different than getting money that…might have come for the other candidates from special interests. I don’t get that type of money, ”

His campaign was quick to point out that Ron Paul had five times the number of donors than Rick Perry in the third quarter.

"All donors are not equal, you know. I will take a much smaller donation with the enthusiasm of people who send me money," Paul added.

The Texas Congressman said that, in a few weeks, he plans to unveil a line-item proposal on how to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget

“We don't have a budgetary crisis, we have a crisis in our understanding about what the role of government ought to be. The budget is the symptom, the taxes are the symptom,” he said.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/10/05/ron-paul-issues-another-warning-erosion-civil-liberties#ixzz1a0tqngvI

Nothing more needs to be said

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

Respondents emphasize that Paul received only three questions during the debate, but “every time he was allowed to talk, he rocked it.”

More specifically, “Dr. Paul is the only one who has never wavered from his set goals which are truly in line with liberty and real conservative values,” a respondent wrote.

“Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library” has attained over 50 pages of comments from poll voters. And, those commenting have Ron Paul on their mind.

“Ron Paul is the only guy who understands what truly ails America,” the most recent posting reads. Another stated, “the cowardly media is despicable for ignoring him.”

How influential is Ron Paul?
For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”

Ron Paul supporters know he has little chance of becoming the next president, but they say his third bid for the job is about more than winning the GOP nomination or the White House — it’s about guiding the political landscape beyond the Republican-Democrat duopoly that’s controlled Washington for more than a century.

The man who in his 2008 bid was dismissed as a sideshow has emerged this year as the prophet of libertarian-leaning conservatives and tea-party supporters alike and has come to define the burgeoning coalition that preaches lower taxes, global retrenchment and more modest use of federal powers here at home.

Bush did this. Obama did that.  Overtaxing will bankrupt the nation.  Overspending will bankrupt the nation.  Republicans lie.  Democrats lie.  It's the fault of Big Government.  It's the fault of Big Business.  And on and on and on.  Does anyone else see a certain thread running through these accusations?  Isn't it possible that both sides have a point?  If both sides are correct, doesn't that lead to only one conclusion?  They are they, and we are we and we are being divided for the benefit of them?  Think about it.  If both sides are right about what they say about the other's leadership, then maybe we need to rethink where the division really is.

Whether it be about the debt "crisis", or the "wars", or the "banks", it's all the same.  Wake up America.  I'm not your enemy.

Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget

This article shows why the GOP and the rest of America needs to get behind Ron Paul.

he is for "human" rights....not just those sponsored by a certain party.

peace.

The latest new Tim Pawlenty is the born-again neoconservative moving to the far right on warmaking issues, destined to clash with Ron Paul in the presidential debates. Actually, Pawlenty is not a born-again neocon. This is his first birth as warmaker in his latest version of Pawlenty. By contrast with Ron Paul, who has always been Ron Paul.

Today, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, released a column titled “How Should Government Treat Energy Producers?” In his column, Paul explained why a good energy market is great for the economy and what the differences are between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions

When Ron Paul announced four years ago that he was running for president, the congressman from Texas had a tough time attracting attention.

Paul -- known for his calls for a significantly limited government, opposition to the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan conflicts and his drive to get rid of the Federal Reserve -- stayed in Washington to declare his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on C-Span, the cable television station devoted to government proceedings. His entry earned a one-sentence mention near the end of a Washington Post political story, and little notice elsewhere.

This man makes so much sense its scary......people need to wake up and vote for this man.

“As President, I will not be able to waive a magic wand and solve all of our problems overnight. I will have to work with Congress and build consensus from the American People."

The surprising poll results were revealed Saturday as several Republican presidential hopefuls made their way to New Orleans to appeal to southern conservatives. Paul (R-Texas) won nearly 40 percent of the vote while Huntsman, former governor of Utah, nabbed nearly a quarter of the vote.

"This win is just the latest indicator of how the majority of American opinion is turning in Ron Paul’s direction,” Jesse Benton, chairman of Paul's campaign, said in a statement.

NEW YORK (TheStreet ) -- If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there's a chance he wouldn't have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket.

Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host -- Andrew Napolitano -- as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet's Alix Steel in Washington this week.

Ron Paul’s followers’ passion is matched only by his detractors’ derision

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), known and celebrated for his Libertarian views, delivered a stunning critique of the American Republic on the House floor yesterday. Paul told congress that “the last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes.” Paul backed up his dismal outlook with the following reason: “the rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems.”

Ron Paul attacked a number of U.S. policies that he believes contribute to the crumbling of the American Republic. Paul called out welfarism as one of these programs. ‘Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class,” argued Paul. Paul also identified a number of presidential powers that he feels are unnecessary and unconstitutional.  Among the powers that Paul points to are: the ability to “order assassinations,” “engage in torture,” and “wage war at will.”

The case has been made....he deserves to be president and we need him more than we know.

And here we go.....................

Ron Paul 2012

Revolution

I've been getting pretty darned curious about why we just can't cut a few things and balance the "budget". Then I discovered there were things like "mandatory" spending - which is $2.109 TRILLION in 2012. Now, the entire projected income from all sources for 2012 is just $2.162 TRILLION so, "Houston, we've got a problem".

What's included in that mandatory spending? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP (? why?) Tax Credits, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Child Nutrition and Student loans.

Mandatory spending takes 57% of the budget - it totals three times more than military spending and 1.5 times more than discretionary spending.

These are things we can't cut. While SS is currently collecting more in taxes than is necessary to pay beneficiaries, Medicare is NOT. Medicare taxes only pay 57% of the cost of current benefits

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Mandatory.htm

OK, now let us talk about discretionay spending.

Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $491 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25 billion). (Source: OMB, Table S-11)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm

Now we're at $1.3 Tril for discretionary spending and $2.109 Tril Mandatory spending. That's already a $1.2 TRILLION deficit before we get to "off-budget" spending.

Now you can "google" it, or "bing" it, or stand on your head singing Yankee Doodle Dandy. What you CAN'T do is find a definitive source which tells you exactly what is included in "Off-budget" spending and how much we actually PAY for off budget items. I've found sources which say that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "off-budget" items and that some of Social Security is also "off-budget".

How much? I have no idea, and hope that somebody out there will have the answer to this $10,000 question.

So here's the deal. We will NEVER balance the budget because we're not being honest. We're not going to have a balanced budget as long as Congress has their hands tied on where they HAVE to spend money. So, even if we doubled taxes on everyone we are barely - BARELY covering the On-budget deficit - and not even touching the off-budget spending.

It's obvious that tax increases aren't the answer here. We need to re-evaluate the entire budget process and re-align what is MANDATORY spending and what is not. I hope somebody out there has answers because those who say "Cut 10% across the board" or "Cut the military in half" or "Raise taxes on the rich" - those aren't answers. They aren't even quick fixes at this point. We will probably wind up with some mixture of the two but I warn all of you Republicans and Democrats out there - it's not going to be done without SERIOUS cooperation from both sides of the aisle.

That means NPR will have to go, and Planned Parenthood will have to go, and subsidies for oil companies will have to go. You want to protect our seniors and our children? Then BACK OFF the ridiculous earmarks and unnecessary spending programs. Try setting some meaningful priorities and forget about your friggin re-election campaign.

If you don't have the Gonads to do your job, step aside and give someone else a chance.

The Federal Reserve Board has enacted new regulations on Mortgage Broker Compensation. As of 4/1/2011, mortgage brokers may be paid ONLY on a flat salary or hourly basis. No more commission.

This action will put many mortgage brokers and bankers completely out of business. It is virtually impossible to put someone on salary for placing mortgages unless you are a company the size of Wells Fargo. It is impossible to put them on hourly wages as well. They have also determined that brokers may not charge customers a processing fee - though most pay an outside firm to process their loans.

You can argue that brokers are overpaid, that they are foul, evil parasites, or anything else you want to argue. I don't care how you feel about mortgage brokers - it's completely irrelevant. My question is THIS:

What gives the Federal Reserve the right to tell a company how to pay their employees? Are they part of the Dept of Labor & Industry? NO. Do they have the ability to pass laws regarding employment practices? NO. Are they the appropriate entity to make such decisions? NO. The Federal Reserve is not even PART of our government.

And before you start celebrating more restriction on the Wall Street Banks, you need to be aware that this regulation does NOT apply to them. It's just for the little broker with a couple of employees trying to make a living. It's the few retail loan officers in regional banks (many of whom have laid off most of their loan officers because of this new regulation)

Isn't unemployment high enough? Isn't it bad enough that mortgages are harder and harder to get for the consumer? Why pass a regulation which is COMPLETELY outside your authority which only serves to eliminate competition for the consumer?

I'm disgusted. The Fed needs to be reigned in. They think they run this country.

Here's a snippet of an argument that's currently raging on a decidedly non-libertarian forum where intellectual property rights is a very hot topic:

"I'm a lot more interested in coming up with ways where it's more CONVENIENT for ordinary music listening people to go to an identifiable place (i.e. record stores, or some equivalent) where they know they can find and get the music they want, than it is for them to hunt down 'counterfeit versions' online."

Setting aside the fact that such places already exist and have for some time, this really is not the issue at all. While I accept the frustration and the desire for a short-term solution, I'm much more concerned for a long-term solution to the issue.

There are a lot of little things which would have a major impact. Here are the things I'd do first. It's just a partial list. Feel free to add your own

First I would disallow any legislation dealing with more than 1 issue. A bill on the VA should not have student loan funding provisions within it.

Along those lines, eliminate ALL earmarks. If they can't stand on their own as a bill in their own right, then they need to go.

The President needs a line item veto.

Congress should be in session for 2 months each year. That's it. The rest of the time they should go back to their "real" jobs. Since it's part-time at that point, we don't have to pay benefits because nobody with part time gets full benefits in America. Going along with that - their pay should be based on the average wage of their own home community. 100% of average wage for House and 125% of average wage for Senate. (Note that implementation of these would pretty much eliminate the need for term limits)

Allow taxpayers standing to sue the government (with class action suits) for what they feel is unconstitutional SPENDING.

Require the budget to be balanced and mandate 10% per year to be spent on paying down the national debt.

Require all tax increases be passed by a Supermajority of both houses and that they cannot go into effect for 2 full years.

Make the Federal Reserve and ADVISORY board only. Take away their power to print money.

Require that ALL legislation with funding over $1Mil be placed on line in it's entirety at least 2 weeks before it is voted on.

Require that ALL budget bills be passed by a Supermajority.

Eliminate automatic increases in spending for all government departments.

Pull out of the United Nations and close 75% of our military bases worldwide.

There are a few more but these are the ones I would start with. I'm sure I'll add more during the discussion. What would YOU do?

It is an unfortunate—and possibly fatal—sign of our times that, to paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, one man's science is another man's belly-laugh.
—L. Neil Smith

Although it's one of my favorite movies of all time, there is a certain attitude written into Twister [DVD] [Blu-ray]—a 1996 Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton film about tornado-chasers that was the first to be sold as a DVD and the last to be sold as an HD-DVD—that never fails to annoy me.

If you don't know the story, it pits a sort of lovably rag-tag gang of eccentric academic researchers with battered vehicles and equipment against the elemental forces that kill many Americans every year in the heartland, and destroy what they have labored so hard to build.

Who owns your body? I mean the physical shell your mind inhabits, and also the products MADE by that body/mind combo?? When I put it that way, does it make you think? So who does own it? To me, it is as clear as the clearest pane of glass ever made. Each and every single one of us is the SOLE owner of our body. Not Uncle Sam. Not Uncle State. Not our husband or wife. Not our children. (Hang on, don't break out the flaying knives!) So, what does this mean to the average Joe or Jane? It means that we've allowed someone to take over our physical property, and we haven't even fought them over it.

I own my body, and everything it produces. This means that taxation is theft. I kow some of you out there are yelling "Oh @!$%#!! There he goes again!" Yes, I am, and I'll keep doing it until you all get it. There is NO justification for income taxes. Nope, not for SSI, not for Medicare or Medicaid, not for Welfare, Foodstamps, subsidized Housing, Schools, police, fire, highways and roads, the military, NONE OF IT! Like it or not, argue about it all you want, NO ONE has the right to force you to buy ANYTHING you do not want to have. IF, however, you USE these things, expect to pay for them AT THE TIME OF USE. Tolls for highways. A bill from the Fire company that responds to your fire. The ambulance company that takes you to a hospital during an emergency. The hospital itself. NOTHING is free. Pay for it.

Next, I own my body, and I can do with it what I want. Drink it to death. OD on hard drugs. Have sex with whoever I want (and who wants to have it with me). Sell sex if I want to. Commit suicide if I want to. Wear a seatbelt in the car OR NOT if I want. Same for helmets on motorcycles. Of course, if these things DO cause me health problems, I pay for those, as well. Or Die. It was my choice that put me there, and My responsibility to pay for it. And if my insurance company rights a policy that cancels coverage if I refuse to wear the appropriate safety gear, I made the choice of companies. If they have a more expensive policy that will cover me if I don't, I can buy it or not, my choice.

Police are OLY to protect the rights of those incapable of doing it for themselves. Most crimes will be handled at the scene of the intended crime, at the hands of the intended victim, or the nearest bystander. Armed citizens ARE the first and most important line of defense, and we ALL have the right to possess the means to defend ourselves and our other property.

Family is the big sticking point in my list to a lot of you. There's no need for it to be, though. I, as the father of 4 great kids, and the husband of a wonderful, beautiful wife, would cheerfully lay down my life to save them. But it is NOT because they own me, it is because I have CHOSEN to. I have the right to do so, because it is MY choice (genetically, I am programmed to do so, but it is still my choice to actually DO SO).

So, where is this all leading? To the way things need to be. The government has NO right to regulate my behavior. You have no right to regulate my behavior. My family has no right to regulate my behavior. Of course, this DOES go both ways. That means that I can't violate YOUR rights any more than you can violate mine. It means that I can't damage others IN ANY PHYSICAL WAY. It means that ALL crimes are property crimes. This makes it simple to deal with crimes. Simply return your victim to the EXACT state they were in before you violated their rights, or be ostracized. Your name and likeness posted, and NO ONE sells you food, clothes, or shelter until you pay up. NEVER commit a crime that you cannot make restitution for, or there will be nowhere to go. All hands turned against you. Notice, I never mentioned prison. It is slavery, pure and simple. Therefore, it is already illegal. Besides, ninety percent of ALL crimes that have caused people to be put in jail are a direct result of violating these principles alredy. EVERY drug law is a violation of these principals. Every violent act committed during the comission of these "drug Crimes" are a direct result of the government violation of these principle CREATING this criminal activity. Just as rumrunners in the '20s, the drug cartels and gang wars of the last few decades are SOLELY the creation of the government's violation of our property rights.

Now, I'm sure many of you out there disagree with me on part or all of this. So, I'll shut up and let you have at it! maybe, amongst us all, we'll come to a conclusion or two, or maybe even change the mind of the other person. NO doubt, whatever happens, we'll all have an interesting time.

A couple of weeks ago, The Libertarian Enterprise published an article I wrote called "I Told You So", about a young Tallahassee, Florida woman who was ordered by her doctor, a state's attorney, and a judge to remain in a hospital against her will because they had all decided that the fetus she was carrying possessed more rights than she does. The action was taken despite a privacy clause in the Florida constitution that recognizes an individual right to refuse medical treatment.

PLEASE NOTE- On the Abortion issue, I (the seeder) happen to disagree with Neil on most parts, but he is dead right to the ridiculous nature of this woman's plight.