Official Rand Paul For President Thread

[timwakefield 68]

He's not predicting the current economic downturn, he's predicting that within a couple years, without a serious commitment to controlling debt, that the country will face a fiscal crisis on the level of Greece. Basically, we have about 3-5 years to turn this thing around. Each year that we wait makes the choices harder. Within a decade, there will be no good choices but to start throwing seniors off of SS and Medicare. That's what he's predicting. Anyone who has honestly looked at the numbers comes to the same conclusion, yet politicians keep fiddling while Rome burns.

Fair enough, but "most predictable economic crisis in our history" still doesn't do it for me as a description. "Worst economic crisis in our history" would perhaps be more descriptive.

[Spademan 94]

Ron Paul

The US is already ranked in the 20's in science and math./Ron Paul

[Balloon guy 158]

Ron Paul

The US is already ranked in the 20's in science and math./Ron Paul

NOW I can vote for him.

[Spademan 94]

NOW I can vote for him.

Heh.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Fair enough, but "most predictable economic crisis in our history" still doesn't do it for me as a description. "Worst economic crisis in our history" would perhaps be more descriptive.

Do you mean descriptive in sort of a changing what he means kind of way?

[timwakefield 68]

Do you mean descriptive in sort of a changing what he means kind of way?

Yes. I didn't say I was making any sense.

[CaneBrain 95]

Ron Paul

The US is already ranked in the 20's in science and math./Ron Paul

I didn't know this. Sigh.

[brvheart 1,752]

I didn't know this. Sigh.

It won't matter. He's a strict constitutionalist.

[timwakefield 68]

Remember how this horrible economic depression was largely caused by banking deregulation? Isn't Rand Paul totally totally totally in favor of deregulation across the board? Serious question, please explain if I am mistaken.

[Balloon guy 158]

Remember how this horrible economic depression was largely caused by banking deregulation? Isn't Rand Paul totally totally totally in favor of deregulation across the board? Serious question, please explain if I am mistaken.

This would be a really bad explanation.I'm sure El Guapo will explain it better but this came about because rating agencies suck and let themselves get pushed around by the finance companies, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and the rest are thieves, and AIG is run by complete and total idiots without the common sense to not stand in the rain.And greed.Which is indirectly all Algore's fault. Or Barney Frank. Either one.

[CaneBrain 95]

this came about because rating agencies suck and let themselves get pushed around by the finance companies,

which might not have happened if some sort of regulatory oversight applied to said agencies and finance companies. "good point", BG.**the quotation marks denote sarcasm

[hblask 1]

Remember how this horrible economic depression was largely caused by banking deregulation? Isn't Rand Paul totally totally totally in favor of deregulation across the board? Serious question, please explain if I am mistaken.

Corporate cronyism <> deregulation.Rand Paul is for sensible regulation that isn't just handouts to campaign contributors, which is what Obama's "reform" was. I guess it's reform if you take money from you opponents contributors and give them to yours, but neither is moral or sensible.

[hblask 1]

This would be a really bad explanation.I'm sure El Guapo will explain it better but this came about because rating agencies suck and let themselves get pushed around by the finance companies, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and the rest are thieves, and AIG is run by complete and total idiots without the common sense to not stand in the rain.And greed.Which is indirectly all Algore's fault. Or Barney Frank. Either one.

The movie "Inside Job" was briefly free online, and I watched the first half of it. It does a pretty good job of describing what caused the crisis, but the movie is sooooo slanted it's hard to watch. Every minute or so they need to flash a SCARY SALARY on the screen. After the first 4 or 5 of them I started picturing them saying it like this:There were a lot of factors, but basically, it was capital cronyism again. Regulators looked the other way on behalf of powerful special interests, while the so-called "deregulation" really just gave big banks more power and the right to socialize losses and privatize gains. It was a failure up and down the food chain.Greedy bankers are supposed to be greedy, so they did their job perfectly -- by using the rules to their advantage. Regulators are supposed to be protecting us -- and they failed by using the system to their advantage.The other thing that pissed me off about the movie was that they were making Barney Frank look like a hero, when really he and Dodd were two of the primary villains in the whole thing. It's all well-documented, I'm not sure why the movie decided to make him look like a hero.I still have the movie on a browser tab, I'll try to finish it. Even with its flaws, it's still worth watching for the useful information in it.

[timwakefield 68]

Corporate cronyism <> deregulation.

Nobody in the political world would come out in favor of "corporate cronyism." It's a pretty easy thing to be against.Rand Paul had a famously controversial set of interviews during his campaign last year where he said he doesn't favor federal laws against racial segregation in private businesses, such as restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. He made it very clear that he was in favor of the Civil Rights Act, but that he was not in favor of the clause that desegregated private eateries and such. Your answer about corporate cronyism kind of avoided my question. Rand Paul is all about smaller government and less government intrusion in the private sector, is he not?

[hblask 1]

Nobody in the political world would come out in favor of "corporate cronyism." It's a pretty easy thing to be against.Rand Paul had a famously controversial set of interviews during his campaign last year where he said he doesn't favor federal laws against racial segregation in private businesses, such as restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. He made it very clear that he was in favor of the Civil Rights Act, but that he was not in favor of the clause that desegregated private eateries and such. Your answer about corporate cronyism kind of avoided my question. Rand Paul is all about smaller government and less government intrusion in the private sector, is he not?

Less government <> no government. I kind of get tired of explaining that to people. Do you really need me to cover it again? It seems like such an obvious point.

[timwakefield 68]

Less government <> no government. I kind of get tired of explaining that to people. Do you really need me to cover it again? It seems like such an obvious point.

Yes, it's obvious that less government is not the same thing as no government. Again, that doesn't address my question. If the current financial crisis could have been averted by instituting more government oversight, shouldn't it worry us that Rand Paul is all about less government oversight across the board?The answer that he's gonna cut the fat and make sure all the important regulatory commissions work perfectly and efficiently is a ridiculous non-answer, so please don't say that. Also I'm almost certain Paul said during his campaign that he wanted federal regulatory commissions to have far less power than they do now.

[hblask 1]

Yes, it's obvious that less government is not the same thing as no government. Again, that doesn't address my question. If the current financial crisis could have been averted by instituting more government oversight, shouldn't it worry us that Rand Paul is all about less government oversight across the board?The answer that he's gonna cut the fat and make sure all the important regulatory commissions work perfectly and efficiently is a ridiculous non-answer, so please don't say that. Also I'm almost certain Paul said during his campaign that he wanted federal regulatory commissions to have far less power than they do now.

There's no reason to believe that more government insight would've prevented the financial crisis. The number of financial regulators was already at an all time high. You are making the classic "if it fails, do more of it" argument. There is a very good reason why more rules means worse results. Simple rules are easily enforced. Complex rules are not. Simple rules let a few scofflaws slip through the cracks. Complex rules are **created** by scofflaws and **breed** scofflaws. It encourages them and draws them in. When your rights go up for sale, they will go to the highest bidder, and that's likely not you and me.The best system is simple, easily understood rules adjudicated by a jury of peers. Once you start getting rules written by corporate insiders, rules so complex that only a few people understand them, you might as well just give up and turn the government over to the corporations -- and that is essentially what happened and is the heart of the fiscal crisis.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

There's no reason to believe that more government insight would've prevented the financial crisis. The number of financial regulators was already at an all time high. You are making the classic "if it fails, do more of it" argument. There is a very good reason why more rules means worse results. Simple rules are easily enforced. Complex rules are not. Simple rules let a few scofflaws slip through the cracks. Complex rules are **created** by scofflaws and **breed** scofflaws. It encourages them and draws them in. When your rights go up for sale, they will go to the highest bidder, and that's likely not you and me.The best system is simple, easily understood rules adjudicated by a jury of peers. Once you start getting rules written by corporate insiders, rules so complex that only a few people understand them, you might as well just give up and turn the government over to the corporations -- and that is essentially what happened and is the heart of the fiscal crisis.

Well in the case of the financial crisis stonger regulation would have gone a long way to avoiding the disaster.Canada's banks didn't have problems and remained profitable. The main reasons why were much closer and stricter regulation that meant the Canadian banks didn't get exposed the same way and also the fact that the Canadian banks had more strict capital requirements so that they can't leverage their business as much.

[hblask 1]

Well in the case of the financial crisis stonger regulation would have gone a long way to avoiding the disaster.Canada's banks didn't have problems and remained profitable. The main reasons why were much closer and stricter regulation that meant the Canadian banks didn't get exposed the same way and also the fact that the Canadian banks had more strict capital requirements so that they can't leverage their business as much.

Canada has also never had a political goal of trying to get unworthy buyers into homes with the govt picking up the risk -- a key factor in our meltdown.It's about *correct* regulation, not more regulation. The US probably has *more* regulations than Canada, and definitely more regulators. But if the rules are terrible, you are going to get terrible results, whether you have 100 or 100,000 pages of rules. We have too many rules in the US, and the ones we have are written by and for the people they are supposed to control. Canada may have *tougher* rules, but they I bet there are fewer, and I bet they are more sensible -- as in the case of not making "homes to people with bad credit" a national goal. We have a couple hundred years of history now, we know what *doesn't* work. It will probably take a couple hundred more to figure out what *does*. But socializing risk and privatizing gains has been our biggest problem for the last 75 years here in the US. And the infamous Obama reforms just locked more of that into place, on a larger scale. We are so screwed unless that law gets repealed.

[timwakefield 68]

The best system is simple, easily understood rules adjudicated by a jury of peers. Once you start getting rules written by corporate insiders, rules so complex that only a few people understand them, you might as well just give up and turn the government over to the corporations -- and that is essentially what happened and is the heart of the fiscal crisis.

This seems like a very simplistic argument and it also does not seem to reflect what Rand Paul says. I mean yeah, of course everything would be great if the rules were simple. But they're not, because they have to cover such an enormous amount of possibilities and potentialities. Rand Paul thought people were giving BP too much shit.

, and the host (eventually) does a fine job of explaining why. 'Why does it always have to be somebody's fault? Accidents happen.' Fine, but his 2 examples are clearly preventable "accidents" and clearly somebody was at fault in each. It's idiotic.

[Moneyball16 0]

I didn't know this. Sigh.

This is very disappointing indeed. People that don't seem to know the difference between scientific theory and the layman's definition of theory really have no business discussing the Theory of Evolution, but then again maybe more creationists understand the difference than I give them credit for and choose to try to apply the layman's definition to discredit Evolution anyways.I know that the Pauls may not be part of the creationist movement, but either way, aggressive creationists cause me great distress. Such a large part of the religious population around the world thinking they have a better idea of what should be taught in science classrooms than Biologists and Scientists in general is very concerning. Hopefully understanding and obeying the First Amendment is a greater priority to Ron and Rand Paul and other true libertarians who don't believe in Evolution.

[SilentSnow 1]

The other thing that pissed me off about the movie was that they were making Barney Frank look like a hero, when really he and Dodd were two of the primary villains in the whole thing. It's all well-documented, I'm not sure why the movie decided to make him look like a hero.

According to who?According to wikipedia fox news and the republicans are complete liars and Frank was one of the few people who tried to stop the problem.Watch O'Reilly throw a temper tantrum here. Apparently Republicans get really angry when you confront them with facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unj-kcGOe5I

[Balloon guy 158]

According to who?According to wikipedia fox news and the republicans are complete liars and Frank was one of the few people who tried to stop the problem.Watch O'Reilly throw a temper tantrum here. Apparently Republicans get really angry when you confront them with facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unj-kcGOe5I

I am amazed at how a functioning adult can buy into this complete broad brushing of the right without a single hiccup in their conscience.Fox News is always lying, republicans are always lying, democrats are trying hard but sometimes get misled by republicans.I would bet 80% of the republican friends I have are leery of the republicans. But most of my democrat friends are so busy hating the right that they are completely blind to how bad their own party screws the country daily.

[SilentSnow 1]

I am amazed at how a functioning adult can buy into this complete broad brushing of the right without a single hiccup in their conscience.Fox News is always lying, republicans are always lying, democrats are trying hard but sometimes get misled by republicans.I would bet 80% of the republican friends I have are leery of the republicans. But most of my democrat friends are so busy hating the right that they are completely blind to how bad their own party screws the country daily.

Way to completely misrepresent what someone says, again. Clearly I am talking about this specific instance, not republicans in general. But as for Fox, they are unbelievably cynical and corrupt. Are they wrong about everything? No. But all they are is a propaganda channel with zero interest in representing the truth. They lie so often it would be difficult to even begin to list them all. Your republican friends should be leery of them since the Republican party has been hijacked by extremists who have zero interest in a factual discussion. I am not a democrat. In general I think that they rarely follow their principles and are fairly incompetent. But given a party that is incompetent vs one actively trying to destroy the country, I am going to tend to side with the incompetent one.

[El Guapo 8]

Your republican friends should be leery of them since the Republican party has been hijacked by extremists who have zero interest in a factual discussion.

Who's painting with the broad brush now? Are you blind to the fact that most people are upset with the republican party because they have been acting like the democratic party?