Ron Paul 08

Post Reply New Topic

What they want is as much money as possible to line their already bursting pockets. They don't give a damn about people with various problems. There should be support for people who are having trouble due to illnesses and injuries, socialised healthcare, and a whole lot of things. I think that a national sales tax would probably be the best answer, when combined with a fair income tax system. Greed should not prevail over compassion.

Higher interest rates would promote savings, probably more than eliminating the income tax. Probably the government should stop taxing interest income--interest income is so small as it is.

Instead of saving, people are putting their money in the stock market, hoping that stock prices will keep going up.

Isn’t it kind of a chicken and egg problem? On the global scale there is correlation between the two, but you can’t really say which adjust to the other. Increasing production increases demand only to a certain point beyond which there will be devaluation of the product. At that point the seller needs to figure out a way to increase demand.


I’ll plead ignorance here. I’m not really sure how important savings is vs. loans. I just get the impression that loans are more important. I mean people are willing to pay outrageous amounts of interest these days.


Yea, the only way to do it is gradually. Things done too suddenly are destabilizing.

Ok, fine, to get at this more seriously. Consumption is a function of GDP and taxes. GDP also means gross domestic product, so therefore income is also a production function based upon capital and labor. Therefore, if capital increases, GDP will increase as there are more inputs, which means that consumption will increase as it is a function of GDP, and therefore supply pushes demand. You are speaking of the specific instance, which is unimportant, certainly a car dealership will sometimes have too many cars to sell and have to cut prices, but an economy with a bundle of goods containing all goods with production increasing at a rate where prices can adjust? No, there is not a problem there.

Savings leads to loans. If nobody saved then there would be nothing to loan. Part of the issue that you aren't recognizing is that even though a lot of people are taking out loans, we also have foreigners who own our currency who are lending it which is how our trade deficit sort of figures in.

Well, yes, cutting capital gains taxes and things like that would promote savings as well, but we are analyzing one change at a time.

The stock market IS savings. The stock market is an investment into a corporation which will use this money to create capital which will then be used to produce products and thus it promotes economic growth. The stock market is not some economic sinkhole, government bonds are the sinkhole by crowding out other investments.

No, savings accounts are savings. When you buy a share of stock, you are buying it from another shareholder -- not from the corporation. The corporation isn't using this money. You've just bought a piece of the company, which will give occasionally you money in the form of dividends.

I like most of Ron Paul's ideas, however, he needs to change his policy on abortion.

Fo those of you who don't undersytand why abortion rights are important, read the book "Freakonomics" or better yet, go visit Romania, and see firsthand what hapens when you outlaw abortion.

Abortion is a grey issue, there is no clear right or wrong it depends on your perspective. There are pros and cons either way.
You can look at abortion as ending a life before it begins, but then at the same time you have to ask yourself if it's born of worthy parents, or worthy living accomodations (will the child live comfortably or will they live in crime and poverty?).... Another reason for being pro abortion is the state of the world. But, then you can always say too that by being anti-abortion your giving the child a chance to make their own decision as to rather they wanna live here or not.
Like I said, it's a grey issue, there is no clear right or wrong.

Why should he change his stance? When it comes to abortion he himself doesn't like abortion because he delivered over 2,000 babies into this world. It's his own personal opinion that he has said he does not wish to impose on everyone and thinks it should be left up to the states to decide.

He doesn't believe it's a government issue. I don't think he should change his own opinion on abortion to suit other's beliefs. That's what others do enough as it is just to get the vote and in the process looking like scammers.

No, savings accounts are a type of savings and stock investment is another. I know about stock investment, but yes, the company is using the money. The entire stock market is just simply a means of investment, just where companies control how much you can invest into them. When you buy a stock, you aren't necessarily doing anything but if a lot of people buy stock and there is a lot of demand for stock then more will happen. The company is using the money from their stock, which is why it is a piece of the company, and the stock market is simply a way that corporations finance themselves.


There is academic dispute on the correctness of Steven Levitt's ideas on abortion with some economists actually arguing that abortion really increases the crime rate. One estimate by economists Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz is that all else held equal, abortion increases murder by 7%. Not only that but the demographics for the purported abortion induced change in crime are wrong as the older generation dropped off in crime and the post-Roe generation had a higher crime rate than the group born a few years earlier. I dunno, I am not trying to argue anything to be honest, but I have a contrarian streak and a book by an opponent of Steven Levitt.

Wow, appeals to authority and everything.

Just a question: how many of you have stocks, business loans, or ever had to worry about estate taxes? Anyone with a stock portfolio, and the like? And do you make enough in interest to worry about taxes on it?

Just wondering.

He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is the position of all pro-life candidates. Leaving it up to the states amounts to outlawing abortion in much of the country.

I find it strange that a Libertarian would want (state) governments to decide, instead of leaving it up to the individual.

I know but it'd take a massive army..

I don't want to be negative.

You never know, he might just be that surprise winner. Most of the others look like lying crooks.

I hope so. Has anyone else picked up on how other candidates are starting to say things Ron Paul would say? It makes those candidates look even more like lying crooks.

I don't feel that women should be forced to carry a child but also people that think it's such an easy process and no damage is done aren't informed.

There are many times when women are pressured by their boyfriends to go through with an abortion. The woman does it and then has nightmares while the male rests comfortably at night.

Females aren't given the full story. I feel that people have been hushing the issues of the negatives of abortion mentally and physically. Once your cervix is dilated, there is no turning back.

Women grieve over it too. People claim it's just a clump of cells, it's not a lifeform, it's an it. Sorry but I don't buy that.

Even with all of that and having had experience with friends who went through an abortion, ended up leaving their boyfriends, having strong aversions to the sound of vaccuums, having a traumatic experience that they didn't know would occur...women have the right but also keep in mind this.

Unlike the 70's, we have so many birth control options. We have not only over the counter options but we have the patch, the pill, the shot, and if a condom breaks, we have the morning after pill. We have way more options than prior.

I knew a girl once who was raped by her father when she was 12. He had her get an abortion. I don't know what ever came of that or if he ever got caught.

Planned Parenthood has a don't ask don't tell policy even though in such cases as possible rape, they don't call authorities. It would decrease their sales if they did that.

(edited to add more)

I didn't get to the point.

I think abortion is rushed seeing as you have such little time to make up your mind. Abortion is a tricky topic considering life situations occur where people feel it's the only option at that time.

Not all women go into it not knowing it could be traumatic experience. Those women have made up their own minds and weren't pressured by their family, friends or significant others and know for them at that moment it is the right thing to do.

I still don't feel this is the place of the federal government and also you aren't going to like this one bit but the first amendment has been violated when the decision was reached to take prayer out of school.

People often recite half of the freedom of religion amendment to suit their agenda. It clearly states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

When children are told they cannot pray in school, it is unconstituional and teachers and principals feel the need to silence those who do want to pray because it's the message of no prayer at all instead of teachers shall not lead the class into prayer which was the original intent of the new anti-religion in class rules.

I don't think it's right or American for that matter to let one religion or anti-religion prevail over all. If people want to pray, let them. Teachers are people too. If they want to pray let them. If someone in school does not want to pray, let that person do what it is they want to do instead...so long as it isn't hurting the class of course.

This is and has taught a form of intolerance. Just because this form of intolerance is led by an atheist doesn't mean it's not intolerance. Christians can be intolerant as well. They shouldn't get all their wishes placed on others either. In America, the real intent behind the first amendment and religion has been twisted.

The intent was to keep our country from becoming like the intolerant kings of the past who persecuted those who didn't abide by their religion. This is why it says congress shall not pass no laws. We are not to exclude other religions from being American. This is what the government should abide by. If citizens have their little religious wars, that's something else entirely. The government has no right to pass laws prohibiting someone's practice of religion.

If you are muslim, you should be able to practice your religion, if you are wiccan same deal, if you are satanic, if you are atheist you can practice your non belief, if you are christian, if you are buddhist, Kaballah, I hate scientology but even scientology

Lines have to be drawn though. If your practice revolves around stepping over boundaries involving hurting others, that is not okay.

Last edited by Kitsy on 02 Dec 2007, 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.