Forum Post: Ron Paul Supporters: Please read
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 2:58 p.m. EST by anotherone773
(734)
from Carlyle, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is not a political rally. If you want to rally for a candidate do it elsewhere. We have no interest in your propaganda here.
We are here to fix our nation, not elect the next failure for president. Do you think Ron Paul can change the nation? If you do you are pretty naive. A president is pretty powerless without congress. Sure they do a few things. But in the current system it gets you nowhere.
The change that needs to be made is congress and the president need to be in the pocket of the people. We must force the president, any president as it does not matter, and congress to do as the people want. The system is broken you are trying to give a paint job to a broken car.
Worry about fixing the system and thus regaining control over all of congress and the WH not about electing another puppet to the WH.
Ron Paul is the only canidate who is not a puppet.
I agree. His campaign isn't supported by banksters, like Obama and Romney.
I realize that OWS is not about the election. We have to fix the system. But Ron Paul is the only one running for president who has tried to fix the system. I would rather see him as president than just a congressman.
it is ironic that the one guy who has been making these claims for 30 years is being thrown under the bus by the OWS...
Agreed. They threaten to ban you if you even mention his name on the LiveStream chat site. Or if you mention, End the Fed. For this reason, I am very confused what this movement is really all about. The 1% clearly do not want RP to even get media attention. But having the OWS movement ban him is highly suspicious in my mind.
So, you can only speak out and promote change if it's the MoveOn.org approved method? Nice going, #OWS, you've let yourself be hijacked.
Yup...many of comments have been deleted. Its time people woke up. Either elect a constitutionalist or change the constitution. None of us have a voice at the Federal Level anymore, give the power back to the states where we can at least be heard.
I don't want a counter-revolution/protest, but I really wish more of the libertarian-leaning OWSers were the ones we saw on TV. It's not going to happen, though, because showing radically left-leaning protesters is an effective tactic for the MSM to make OWS look radical and out of touch with the majority of the country.
In essence, the extreme leftists are playing right into WallStreet's hands, thanks in no small part to the unions and MoveOn.org trying to co-opt and hijack the momentum for their own ends.
I guess I have a problem with you speaking for everyone (your use of the collective "we"). I am an extreme left anticiv progressive, and I would vote for Paul - primarily because he is the ONLY one who would end US military intervention - and I cannot see ANY issue more important than saving the lives of innocent human beings who are being murdered every single day to ensure OUR lifestyle. I don't even care about the rest of the issues - this one issue enough is enough. Of course, this is also the primary reason he will NEVER - NEEEEVVVVEEERRRRR be elected, even if he wins a majority vote. The ruling elite are not going to allow anyone to stop them from profiting from the murder of poor people all over this planet. Period.
Anyway, I feel like you should speak for yourself.
You missed the point. The point is these RP supporters are spamming the forum with their campaign slogans and RP platform. They are politically advertising.They are propagandist/trolls.
I speak for the 99% that care about solving the problem not the ones that seem to think this is a great place to spam the RP platform constantly. You see no one else doing this . Not even Obama supporters do this. Rarely do i see an Obama support start slinging campaign platform crap. But with RP it is a constant onslaught of RP worship.
It doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with RP. What matters is RP supporters are using this to advertise RP. That is NOT the function of this movement.
You are so wrong. Nobody is running around with Ron Paul signs. Ron Paul has not inserted himself into the movement - unlike Democratic congress people who HAVE shown up to speak. Unlike MoveOn.org who has gone on teevee trying to own this movement, which one of the founders of this movement has written about. RP supporters are part of the 99% and we want these fucking wars ended. We want the banksters totally separated from our money, like the casinos they are. We were the protesters on Wall Street when the 2008 bailout went down. We want the police state ended. We've been advocating these things for years. None of this is "propaganda". These are facts. You claim you want to this country returned to what it was when it was founded. Just who do think has been the LONE advocate for the constitution, in congress, for all these years? That's why we support him - because he supports We the People and our rights.
Yeah but somethings need to be kept. He wants to get rid of things we really need. That is my problem with him. He answer to everything is get rid of it. I want to fix things not just get rid of things. Hell a 12 year old can say " Fed is causing problems lets get rid of it!". It is simple minded. How about instead we make things useful.
The constitution gives the federal government very limited authority, reserving the rest to the People and the States. That was done because the founders believed in local control. Ron Paul is speaking of the federal government when he speaks of cutting. He believes in the constitution and letting the People and States govern themselves. If you read the constitution you'll have a better understanding.
Ive read the constitution several times. But things where a lot simpler back in the 1700s. Much has changed in the world since then. Which is why they allowed us to make amendments. The states gave up a lot of their rights in favor of being able to leach off the federal govt.
If we went back to strict constitutionalism, Cali and Texas would probably collapse right away and i am not for sure but IL is probably in poor shape as well. IL wasnt a mess until we got a Blagovich( sp?) Texas has been in bad shape for a few years i think and Cali has been a mess since i can remember.
Plus they only had 13 states back then and everyone wanted their state to be governed mostly locally. So really the "fed" served more as an alliance. But we have been away from that for so long and the states are so use to depending on each other and the fed, that going back to something like that would be unrealistic and weaken us.
If they want to give the states back some power then repeal the 17th amendment and call it good.
The states don't leech off of the federal govt. The federal govt does the leeching and it is the federal govt that has usurped the people's sovereignty and the states authority. The federal govt gets it money from the people residing in the states.
Just because our government has become so rotten and corrupt, by not obeying the constitution, is no reason not to restore it. It's the ignoring of the constitution that's caused the problems.
The states don't leech off of the federal govt. The federal govt does the leeching and it is the federal govt that has usurped the people's sovereignty and the states authority. The federal govt gets it money from the people residing in the states.
Just because our government has become so rotten and corrupt, by not obeying the constitution, is no reason not to restore it. It's the ignoring of the constitution that's caused the problems.
You really dont know how the govt works do you? http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe-election-politics/802116-how-much-does-your-state-get-federal-government.html
The second one kind of explains the first one a little better.
By the way it gets its money for federal programs such as defense. Also you do not hear any states complaining about the federal/state relationship except maybe Texas.
Ok - agreed. I guess I haven't noticed it much.
Oh, and I used to be a liberal democrat because I didn't know what I was talking about. Caucused in the state of Iowa for Obama, and then I truly educated myself and I sure as hell didn't vote for him!
Don't be scared to evolve your opinions, just educate yourself before you open your mouth.
I agree not to allow this to be co-opted by any specific agenda. Unfortunately it looks like it may already be getting close to that. I have faith in people to lead themselves. People like to use RP as a reference because he teaches people about economics and the reasons why we are in this mess. I agree people should spread the message and not the campaign at these rallies... however; those calling for socialism and violence or re-election of the current administration are doing the same thing. What of ending the wars? What of deregulating small businesses so they can hire people again or even open? A person regulating should not be counted as a job, it's a bureaucrat doing what his puppet master tells him. I do wish occupy would focus more on the cause of the problems then asking to have the sytem flattened so that all are equal income based and not equal oppurtunity based. Corporations are not the evil ones, large corporations are successful because they have a good product. Now what the CEO of that corporation does with power and wealth is another story entirely. Politicians are bought and paid for, but they still get elected because no one valiantly calls them on their ish! So THE PEOPLE gotta step up their game, which I believe is what occupy is about, checkin these people in on their bull.
Point- Lets end these wars and stop allowing these jerks to rape our economy.
While i agree with most of your points, i think you are getting the wrong impression.
Some want to change the system such as Zeitgeists and the socialist/communist. But they are a minority and so far are mostly peaceful and respectful which is more than i can say for the rest of us.
I personally want to keep our current system but i want to fix it so it works as effectively as it did when it was created. For example the politicians have added a lot of laws and BS to the "books". Obamacare was like 900 pages. the founding fathers put a whole govt on like two pages.
I dont think we should just slash programs because that is not effective. What we need to do is clean them up so they work properly.
I will use immigration as an example here because i have a lot of experience with it. It is costly even for an american, very time consuming and very frustrating. It is full of unnecessary BS and paperwork that serves no purpose but to over complicate it. I am not surprised illegals do not use it.
The same goes for IRS. It is overcomplicated and not very effective. I am not a supporter of a flat tax. I think you should pay more ( percent wise) in taxes based on your income because you can afford to pay more and obviously you are benefiting more than a poor person. But the system is ridiculous. I also think everyone should pay at least a little bit in income taxes( if you have income). Even if it is only 1% for the first $2500 or something. And people should not get back more than they paid in.
The main thing RP has pushed for is a Constitutional Government RUN according tot he Constitution. Aren't you pushing for that as well?
Not the way he wants to do it, no.
Oh really? Have you read any of his books? I have. Have you heard him speak? I have. Have you followed his congressional career with great interest? I have.
Go look at some the HR's he has proposed and get back to me
Same goes for Obama supporters.
I agree 110% and any other candidates and their supporters can be added to that. We are here because politicians are useless unless we can control all politicians and make them represent us like was intended.
We should not be discussing or pushing politicians but discussing problems and how to fix them.
Right, so if you opening support a candidate, you are not allowed a voice within OWS.
Nice job on alienating the 99%.
Oh please. Their is a difference between supporting a candidate and spamming "RON PAUL ........" In every post then making 1/2 dozen new post a day about how great Ron Paul is.
RP supporters that i am talking about arent even discussing issues because their answer to everything is "RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Yeah I'm just about sick of seeing all this Ron Paul shit to. Austrian school economics are already in practice in the wonderful country of Somalia. It has a very small government but for some reason the people there arent very happy. I guess they dont love freedom.
The size of govt doesnt really matter. People have the whole politician view of things. If we have a domestic problem, we either throw more money at it to fix it or we throw less. The amount of funding does not fix anything. Govt should be one size and one size only and that should be the size it is most effective.
The problem is our govt is not effective because they write 900 page laws for one thing when the founding fathers wrote a whole govt on about two sheets of paper.
I don't agree with the original post but it's time for RP supporters be part of the movement rather than the other way around. I'm libertarian and support RP too but the fact is most people are not as libertarian as I am. I think that we Paulites are driving everybody nuts, here at OWS, after being here a couple weeks and talking to people.
ron paul is a problem, not a solution. hes a global warming denier and a capitalist tool
Enough with the Ron Paul worship. He's not a messiah
Thank you anotherone773 I have been reading the RP string and have been trying to put into words what I am feeling. You have made my points perfectly. We are at a point in time where the government in DC has become superfluous. It really does not matter who you vote for. The control has shifted from Washington. I think I can better spend my time and get better results with this movement, than trying to get another flunky elected president.
congress has spent the last 200 years giving its power away to the executive, not vice versa...maybe having congress actually do the job it was intended to do would be a start....this is exactly one of the things Ron Paul has been advocating for...
Oh yeah , presidents declaring "police action" so they dont have to get a declaration of war is really taking all the power from congress. That is why Obama gets every bill passed into law.... oh wait he doesnt.
I have no idea what you are talking about
The only power that the president steals from congress is "declaration of war". President's use "police action" in the place of declaration of war to circumvent needing congresses approval.
I never mentioned anything about congressional power being stolen by the executive.
the Military industrial complex was put together after the US participation in the first world war 1918
the president spoke to steal and weapons factories in a private board members
there has been conclusion to fund the weapons industry ever since
true, but humanity is a warring species. profiting from it, like it or not, made the United States the largest most powerful economy in world history. So, there is some merit to the concept
The USA as a whole don't profit from wars. The people who own the federal reserve bank certainly do.
I thought that was Britten due to controlling trade with it's navy.
By the end of WWI, the economic shift to the United States was well underway. The British and the French still controlled the oil money in the middle east, but they also needed the money from the United States to prop up the empires. By the end of WWII, The United States was the only one standing. The British could no longer control the middle east despite its efforts in the U.N. The Suez crisis was the final shift in the power vacuum. The United States sided with the Soviets, essentially sealing the fate of the British and the French in the region. This opened the door for a bipolar hegemonic shift in world governance. The Soviets believed they could eventually shift the narrative away from U.S. capitalism. Unfortunately for them, they treated their Muslims worse than the United States did...the biggest example of this was the Soviet relationship with Gamal Nassar in Egypt. Despite Nassar's socialist leanings, the Soviet Union could never foster that into any strategic gamesmanship with the U.S., because they never gave him any reason to trust them more than the states. Post War Middle East diplomacy is something I studied in college quite a bit. One of my fav topics, but I won't bore you anymore than I already have.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/#comment-148206
what was the Suez crisis ?
the short version...1956, Nassar threatened to nationalize the Suez Canal, which was being jointly operated previously by the Egypt and Tripartite(Britain, France and Israel). In response, The Israelis, backed by the tripartite began a war to force Nassar out of power and return the Suez to its previous ownership. The war was a military disaster for Egypt and its arab backers (mostly Syria and Jordan). However, Eisenhower refused to get involved militarily and through financial pressure and diplomacy(imagine that?) forced the issue into the UN. where the Soviets and the U.S. backed an end to the conflict. The canal remained int he hands of the Egyptians, though natianlization attempts were futile. Israel's power increased. France and the US were never the same. Some argue that Vietnam involvement was a gift to restore US/French relations...yada yada yada...the crisis is way more involved than this, but you get the idea
are trade ships blocked and/or taxed when passing through the Suez?
no, Egypt is bound to a treaty signed in the 19th century that provides free access to all necessary sea craft to pass through the canal...there is a toll, I have no idea what that amounts to however..
The president has the power of veto, and 100% control of the Executive branch. They can end the war on drugs overnight. Bring the troops home overnight. Pardon all non-violent drug offenders who are in prison. etc. It is an important office for liberty, and in the wrong hands is a powerful tool for corruption, until the day we bring the fedgov back to a Constitutional level as the founders intended
Vetos can be overridden.
end the Fed ! End fractional reserve banking
heres my opinion and im quite forever.the only politician running right now who isnt flip floppy new or non consistant is ron paul.I know he may not be hottest on some things but he realy represents about 75 percent of what i believe and thats alot more than any other person.If you dont like him fine fine but hes better for us in a sence than anyone else atm
lets see: ending the military and prison industrial complex, ending the illegal war on drugs, ending the police state, returning to basic human rights of freedom to be left alone....those are probably more important than monetary issues and are issues constitutional libertarians and hard leftists can agree on.
Like it or not, this movement is full of Ron Paul supporters. We are 100% committed to ending these damn wars and getting rid of the Nazi police state. We want the Fed ended and the currency of the United States taken away from a private corporation (the Fed) and returned to We the People, under the control of congress, as our constitution mandates. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has fought against the wars, the police state, the bailouts, and the looting of the American people.
I agree that this movement should be non partisan. I would never dream of attending any Occupy protests with a Ron Paul sign. I don't know one RP supporter who would. We respect the non partisan platform and we hate the two party left/right false paradigm. That said, we will keep talking about the issues. It just so happens that Ron Paul has been the champion of what we care about for a very long time. It's only natural that his name comes up.
As Ralph Nader has pointed out, Paul supporters and progressives have a lot in common. That's why Dennis Kucinich, another good man, has praised Ron Paul and vise versa. We are going to have to come together on what we agree on and try to help each other on the issues that we disagree on.
This movement is made up of liberals, libertarians, union folks, anarchists, and all sorts of people. It's a GOOD thing.
The problem with that is, "ending the fed" and essentially destroying the US Dollar is not something the actual 99% would go for.
Ron Paul supporters are also crying out for less regulation of banks. Guess what, that's exactly what banks want. So you are essentially backing the bankers on their greatest pursuit in politics.
Ron Paul is a principled guy and a good congressman but some of his core principles are not inline with OWS, such as giving the banks even more power.
No, ending the Fed would mean that we have a nationally owned (rather than private) currency, just as the constitution mandates. The value of our currency would rise because it would decrease debt.
Ron Paul supporters want banks separated from government. Institutions like Goldman Sachs are gambling houses. They have no business being backstopped by American taxpayers. Cut them loose like the casinos they are. Do you worry about Las Vegas? No, because they aren't backed up by We the People. It was just announced today that the Fed is backstopping 154 TRILLION of JP Morgan and Bank of America derivatives (gambling bets). This is how the Fed redistributes OUR wealth to the moneyed class.
So you don't want any deposits you make to any bank to be insured by the government? You'd prefer to hand your money to a bank that has no rules restricting it's operation, and just hope they don't tank themselves before you get it back?
Do you even understand what you're asking for when you say these things?
You're the one who doesn't understand. Nobody is saying that savings and checking deposits shouldn't be insured. This is about derivatives which are gambling bets.
This might you help you understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb_R1-PqRrw
Right, but you'd like them to be completely unregulated, which means they can gamble with your money all they want in the derivatives market.
The Federal Reserve itself isn't gambling in the derivatives market, it's the big banks, and they can do it because it's unregulated.
you separate the 'investment' banks that gamble from the retail banks where your deposit is. i like ron paul
That's how it used to be. Then through deregulation, they were allowed to join together.
Then maybe before you blindly put your money into a bank, you would research what they invest in. Hrrrm...there is a novel idea, understand the product you are purchasing.
No, I want them SEPARATED from government and our money, as the constitution mandates. The Fed is a clearing house for the cabal and it loots us to pay them. I don't give a shit if they gamble, as long as they aren't bankrolled by We the People.
And this is where I dismiss the OWS as a farce. You cry for change, and dismiss the only candidate who represents that change. Do your research instead of running your mouths about things you know nothing about. I'm actually surprised more of you don't support Ron Paul. Instead you call for Obama's re-election. He has not and will not change anything. He represents the global elites. He doesn't care about any of you until he needs to be re-elected. Wake up fools
This is awesome! The logical thinkers will prevail. Sorry Hauzer, but the consensus here is that we want something bigger than just another corruptible person as our president. Obama? I don't think many here are calling for his re-election. That is a rumor Rush Limbaugh conspires to spread. Alex Jones has an entertaining show, but his support for Ron Paul among other opinions makes me question if he is manipulated. Is he just another useful idiot? Democracy Now! is the only show i trust. By the way, name calling only diminishes your opinion.
whether there is a fundamental backing of Obama's re-election within the OWS is really beside the point. The vast majority of people standing in the park, if they could have voted last time, voted for Obama. It is very easy to assume, despite the rhetoric, most of these people will vote for him again, if they choose to vote at all...Which, makes the movement less effective because the guy in power has taken more money from Wall St than any man in history, and his entire economic team has been in bed with bankers since day one. There is absolutely no proof Obama agrees with these protests other than that he says he does (in principle)..Unfortunately, he is using the movement as a means to an end, his own personal achievement. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, it is also highly suspect that this movement decided to set up shop on Wall St, and refuses to protest the White House in any fashion. Just from an observational view, it is easily arguable that if McCain had won the last election and this economy was still in the doldrums we face today, this protest would not be abbreviated OWS, the letters would be OWH.
Ron Paul represents feudalism, and the hyper acceleration of problems we are actively fighting against.
You are terribly misguided. Ron Paul is grossly misunderstood partly due to his own communication. Read Friedrich Hayeks Road to Serfdom which goes into the details of what Liberty actually means and how someone like Hitler , due to peoples demand for Socialism, had a chance to rise to power. It is true that the Libertarians in the United States fail miserably to communicate the very indept analysis someone like Hayek has given about all forms of collectivism. Friedrich Hayeks predictions have materialized not just during the 1930-40's and the rise of Hitler but are materializing today in America as well. I am not saying we have a Hitler today but we do have the individual liberties as described in the Bill of Rights eroding like there is no tomorrow.
Please watch this vid and notice the hypocrisy and the ONE PARTY system that is forever expanding government power, not for the better of the Individual.
I AM NOT MOVING - Short Film - Occupy Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMdz9A&feature=channel_video_title
Wow, don't you think that all of these problems have 'hyper accelerated' under Obama, and under Bush before him?
He and Bernie Sanders are the ONLY members of Congress who refuse corporate money. Can you say the same about any other candidates?
I can't possibly understand why you were downvoted. 100% accurate.
Thanks. I don't know how this voting comments works, but I couldn't help but notice that the two 'top comments' are both blatant distortions written by Ron Paul haters.
Again... I don't "hate" Ron Paul... and just because I disagree with his strict states rights policy doesn't mean I have not "done the research." Just because someone "does the research", it does not mean they are going to agree with you.
P.S. States rights vs federal rights will be an American debate until the end of time, get used to it.
It's not HIS strict state rights policy, it is the Constitution which restricts the federal government only to powers enumerated. Not to allow for the creation of all these agencies manned by the unelected, unaccountable, and corrupt.
The constitution is dogma? Why did we eliminate the 3/5ths rule?
The constitution was created by individuals whose heads would explode by even attempting to understand our problems.
Don't put words in my mouth; I never said the Constitution was dogma. I argued that Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.
And if you have so much contempt for the Constitution, then harness enough political power to have a Constitutional Convention and change it, or throw it out completely.
But to have a Constitution for our country, which is supposed to be the law of the land, and then blatantly disregard it, is nothing short of reckless and a recipe for tyranny. Bush was no less adherent to the Constitution than is Obama. Both of them have robbed the American people of many liberties through executive order.
Do you agree with the Patriot Act? It is blatantly anti-Constitutional.
As well, why do you think the president, Congress, and members of our armed forces all swear to uphold the Constitution?
"Do you agree with the Patriot Act? It is blatantly anti-Constitutional"
Are you comparing the patriot act (a blatant disregard for citizen's privacy) to ending federal spending on education and infrastructure? I am all for keeping a close eye on federal power, but what you have presented is a false choice: Tyranny or states rights.
So you're a cafeteria Constitutionalist? When it comes to free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, then - you like that part of the Constitution.
But when it comes to states having control and responsibility over their own bridges, roads, schools, education systems (education & infrastructure), you think we should throw out the 10th amendment: The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The states are much more responsive to the people, and also much more likely to know what type of system will work for their state. Do you think North Dakota and Texas need the same blanket kind of infrastructure dictated by the federal government? Also, do you think the California school board wants to have standards that are tailored to say, New Hampshire?
It makes no sense. And the feds waste a crapload of our money doing all of these things that they have no right or jurisdiction to do.
Ok... as I said... this is a 200 year old tired debate that states rights (frankly) have lost over and over again. I respect your opinion, but this is where I sign off!
Peace and love
Really, Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve Bank,which is a private Bank owned by the 1 percent. recently he got a Partial audit of the FED that showed They had created 16 Trillon dollar and loaned it to banks ,corporations and foriegn government. He wants to bring American troops back immediately from all war zones. He want to not interfere with other countries, and stop being the world police. He has had the same consistant view for 30 years in congress.
I can't take anyone seriously who calls for a return to the gold standard. This in and of itself tells me that he doesn't understand economics and money as an arbitrary value indicator, and scares the hell out of me!
It's not feudalism. In a feudal system, the landowner owns all the means of production and has the slaves use it to produce goods, which the landowner then redistributes as he sees fit. If anything, socialism sounds like a feudal system.
In the system Ron Paul advocates, individuals have more liberty to own their lives and property without the government playing the part of the wealthy landowner.
Ron Paul's strategy would not "hyper accelerate" the problems you and I have with our country. Having a strong central government ALWAYS plays into the hand of the power elite. The idea is to delegate more decisions to the states. That way, influence is more localized. It's easier for a citizen, like you or I, to influence a local or state official than a federal official. It's also a lot harder for the 1% to control 50 semi-autonomous regions than to take over the single point of failure in DC.
Look, for the last several decades, we've tried to fix our woes by growing the government, but only in the ways we like. It's simply not been working, as should be evident to everyone who is pissed off enough to be part of this protest.
I am someone who voted very liberal up to this year, supported Obama vehemently, and convinced my apathetic friends, family, and neighbors to get out and vote for change. After seeing what my efforts have wrought, I regret it. I helped elect a carbon-copy of what I hated.
Here's the #1 tricky thing about understanding Ron Paul. He's somewhat tricky to pin down, because he opposes a lot of federal laws that sound like good ideas. The thing is, he generally ends up opposing those things because he wants it to be a states' rights issue, not a federal mandate. He recognized that people in the other 49 states may not know what is best for yours, so why should they all be able to force their ideas onto you and your state?
The most refreshing thing about Ron Paul isn't his consistency, his real commitment to change, his devoting to ending wars (abroad and at home, like the war on drugs) or his very real understanding of our economy. It's the fact that he detests the idea of legislating morality. He may be a devout Christian, but he doesn't want that to dictate policy.
Unless you live in Utah where one group has held power for so long that if they think for an instant they will loose power they simply change all the rules to fit there needs....in wich case there is no power of the people to change local or state law.
Then you can move out of Utah. It's your right to pick up and leave if you hate your state.
Every disillusioned American has darkly jokes about moving to Canada or Finland or wherever... but what if you could get that change by moving to Nevada? or Colorado? or Wyoming? When you can get that change in socio-political climate by hoping into a UHaul for a day, you will see one of 2 things happen:
1) A corrupt state will become a barren wasteland with no citizens to drain, or 2) the corrupt will loose too much economic support due to the brain-drain and topple.
Not enough money to leave or i would have a long time ago. Unemployed with 3 children my entire family is here. If i leave the area the majority of the support base that i need to keep a roof over my head is gone. Sure i would find a job easier in another state, but for the net 3 to 6 months i would be homeless 10 years ago before marriage i would have, and should have if i knew then what i do now. I have a wife and 3 children who rely on me to place food on the table and a roof over there head. That doesn't mean im not looking out of state though, but finding a job that is good enough to cover the moving costs of packing up a whole family and moving out of state along with some kind of grantee that in 6 months i wont be crawling back here is near impossible.
Which is why this anti-federal system would work for you. If you stop letting the top-heavy government dictate their financial decisions on Utah, you might not be unemployed.
As for your family, do they all love the overbearing Utah power elite? Or would they move with you?
I say:
Down with the defeatist attitude! That's the true opiate of the masses! You can change your situation, if you abandon your comfort zone and embrace a real, radical change! The problems we have now can't be solved with tweaks and iterations! We need a sweeping change, and so do you! WAKE UP and TAKE CHARGE OF YOUR LIFE! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR!?
No they would not. The majority of my family has lived here for the last 200 years, and there is no way all 180 members of my family would pick up and leave. My wife, and 3 children would...my father might...my mother would not, and no one else in my family would.
As for the federal government in Utah them being overbearing is a GOOD thing. it keeps the Utah elite from completely bending us over and shoving the proverbial wooden stick where ever they like.
As for your family, they sound like they have made their decision, and both you and them have to live with the negative consequences (namely, a state government you dislike).
Being bound to a plot of land is hardly a virtue I admire. Land, houses, etc. are just things. Places and possessions are not as important as family. But your family's willingness to cling to their land is not a reason to accept tyranny, or to expect someone in Ohio or New York or Florida to abide by laws based on your preferences. It's time for an era where people are responsible for themselves, and take action when they are unhappy instead of waiting on the Nanny State to fix it for them.
Spoiler alert: they won't.
It sounds like the people of your state need to get off of their asses and do something about it, or it only really bothers a small minority of the population. I'm not from your area, so I don't know the situation.
However, this moping sense of hopelessness and dependence on the federal government is exactly what Wall Street wants you to feel. If you feel powerless, you will have no power to challenge them. If you feel like the only solution to the problems of your life are for Big Brother to watch over you, then they have already won.
Break your bonds! Wake up and take on some responsibility for effecting change!
Marxism is feudalism...The state controls all the land, all the means of production, and the "slaves" use it to produce goods. The difference is the landowner gives the slave the impression that everyone is getting the same slice of the pie.
And it's a matter of time before "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." gets thrown out.
I am going to post that to my Twitter, that is awesome, great job!!!
what are you fighting against, exactly? I'm a libertarian and I've been fighting against fascist bankers, health insurance cos., big pharma,etc. We probably have that in common and can fight it together, increasing the odds of success. If you want to alienate the right, your numbers will be small and your chances will be small. It certainly won't be 99%
I am fighting against corporate influence on government that allows companies to take a tax bailout, then turn around and actively lobby against the tax payer. I am fighting against the "institutionalized-theft tax" known as the SEC. I am against the high-financial elites who took insane risks on house money, then held America hostage with "too big to fail" propaganda.
I am not trying to alienate anyone, and welcome voters from the whole political spectrum. I just have my beefs with Ron Paul, and have a few close Paulite friends whom I actively debate.
OK then we agree. I think a lot of us are leary that we won't be able to accomplish this because of hijacking of the movement by partisan groups
This highlights a very common thread that I walked a few months ago myself.
As a devout liberal, I was informed that I was actually a libertarian in liberal clothing.
Every. Single. Point. that you were fighting against is nearly lock-step in line with Ron Paul style libertarianism.
Seriously, take a bit of time out of your day and do some serious, open minded research.
Libertarians fight the same thing Hello. You have more in common with us than you can possibly know.
if you want 99% with you then you'll have some Ron Paulites. If you want a smaller percentage then alienate the libertarians.
I disagree with RP economics... not RP supporters involved with the movement. Did I ever tell the Paulites to leave?
I didn't hear you say that but I would like this movement to succeed and partisan bickering is only going to make that number go down. I'm not sure if I should be here anymore to tell the truth.
He's just wildly naive. No mainstream economist takes any of the Austrian ones seriously. Real libertarianism leads to an island of hate.
So the guys who predicted this whole mess shouldn't be taken seriously? In 2003 Ron Paul was talking about the housing bubble and EXACTLY what would happen during the collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6V8N8Um9Q4
So was Dean Baker.
How has the Keynesian system worked so far? What kind of shape is our economy in?
Do you think a debt-based economy works?
It doesn't work when you add 2 wars and tax cuts in the mix. Never in the keynesian system did it say to cut taxes while engaged in multiple wars. Nice try though.
Right on! Don't forget Medicare D- we would be in a recession without the housing crisis
So you think we should continue Bush's wars and also go into Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and now Uganda (and yes, we are already engaged in all of these countries)? Obama took us into these countries.
Is it okay to fight these wars if we repeal Bush's tax cuts?
War is based on debt. The bankers and the military contractors make a ton of money with us fighting all of these worthless wars.
I didn't say we should be in those wars, I was simply pointing out that your attempt to discredit keynesian economics was based on a flawed premise.
It's based on flawed, fake currency that robs us of prosperity, independence, a way of being able to save for the future, small business stability, and it represents a hidden tax.
Once the Euro fails in the coming weeks and the dollar will follow suit (either in weeks or months - at the most, a year) what will average Americans do once hyperinflation sets in, and a loaf of bread costs $75?
Have you read about the Weimar Republic?
OWS is quite civilized and nonviolent at this point. Have you been watching the protest riots in Greece? We have more debt to GDP than Greece does. Do you think OWS will remain civilized, or do you think it will turn violent?
It works in a recession. It has to, since we need to pump demand into the economy. We need massive government stimulus until the economy rights.
Keynes was very against one kind of debt--trade debt. Our debt with China is killing us.
Seems like it has worked to keep us in a 'recession' for the better part of 10 years.
Dumping demand in to an economy only works when you haven't exported all of the family-feeding middle class manufacturing jobs.
If people don't have jobs, they'll only be able to buy cheap crap from China for so long.
That's what green energy is all about. That would create a vast new manufacturing base.
Green energy is a step in the right direction, but it is not a panacea. Today story about Chinese storming solar panel plant because it is killing all of the fish - these solar panel plants are quite polluting.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/10/chinese-factory-riots-show-solar-isnt-always-sustainable/ I think industrial hemp is an incredible idea. It has numerous industrial uses and is renewable. It is far superior to cotton and paper pulp as a fiber, it can be used to lesson our dependence on oil.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/let-our-farmers-grow-hemp.html
Read Bill Mckibben, he is on point on this issue.
Sprawl is another issue.
We've not been implementing Keynes. Deficit spending to cut taxes on the wealthy while funding two wars during a financial upswing/boom, then crying debt/deficits while cutting even more taxes and minimal stimulus in a recession/bust is not Keynes. It's closer to Reaganomics. Keynes was about a balanced budget across cycles, only going into deficit spending on the recession side, then paying it off (or even saving some into a "rainy day" fund) on the boom side.
Your point on China is well taken. We need well-regulated trade that benefits society, not just multinationals and the Chinese economy. The Chinese economy's growth rate is ridiculously high. They can afford to have it slowed while ours is protected from the free fall we're in. Unfortunately that's free trade heresy in our neoliberal orthodoxy.
Well, our brave leaders have been racking up incredible deficit spending, all the while we are now waging war in 7 countries. Brilliant.
Agreed, this "Ron Paul Revolution" people talk about would in reality be one of the wildest COUNTER-revolutions the world has ever seen. The blindfolded and over-zealous reactionaries would turn the clock back on decades, if not a century or more, of social progress. Obama's been terrible, so was Clinton, the Bushes, and Reagan, but the last person I'd personally support is Paul, and its a shame since he's dead-on on a few issues.
Have the Paulites been antagonizing you? I know they can cross the line because I'm a Ron Paul fan. I'm trying to figure out, though why we are not uniting on the stuff we can agree on. I can bash socialism and liberalism all day, but I'll keep it to myself in order to accomplish something, here.
if he is dead on a few issues why dont u try read his books or read about the other issues and his ideas. I wouldnt rely on the msm for information about him cause they either black him out or twist his words.I think he scares them bc he is against the status quo.
I support Ron Paul efforts to end the wars
Agreed
i dont trust any politicians. my grandfather was a bootlegger and every one of them can be bought. i watched it first hand for myself as a kid. absolute power corrupts absolutely. i dont have the answers but i can tell u this. out of all the people running for office ron paul is the closest to the right one.
Well put.
Bill Hicks would never have supported Ron Paul
Yes, exactly my analysis. Neo-feudalism. It's all presented in such idealistic and logical terms, and sounds so righteous on hot-button issues like war, that the fact that it benefits and fuels the oligarchy/1% is just lost on many of his well-intentioned but fanatical followers.
I very much admire his stance on foreign policy, especially being one of the only outspoken politicians against the war in Iraq after 5+ years of "support our troops or get out" politics. But his hardcore states-rights stance puts out my flame in a hurry.
why do the states rights put your flame out?
because it leaves the less productive states with the burden of underfunded education and infrastructure. "If you don't like your state, then leave" is not an option for many of us.
It destroys the social ladder for those unfortunate enough to be born in a South Dakota or Alabama, while provides an elevator to success for those of us (me included) lucky enough to be born in a wealth producing state.
On the bright side... instead of companies outsourcing to China... they'll just be outsourced to... Iowa?
why would it destroy peoples lives if their own state was able to make laws that are helpful for it?
Would you rather we keep being micromanaged by an inept, non-representative, far away and non-responsive Washington?
Do you think the federal government is doing a good job of managing California?
How about the feds busting all of the medical marijuana dispensaries when the Californians decided that it should be legal within their state?
"How about the feds busting all of the medical marijuana dispensaries when the Californians decided that it should be legal within their state?"
We actually voted down the legalization of pot.
No, that was recreational use of pot, not medical use.
You didn't answer the other questions.
Proposition 19 in California was one of the BIGGEST farces of legislation I've ever read. It's a good thing it wasn't approved, and I imagine that anyone involved in the industry was against it. It would have been likely to force the shutdown of all the privately owned dispenseries in California, and created a new industry for the state to own and regulate. The real title of the legislation was Cultivate, Regulate and Tax Marijuana Act (or something like that). Then it went on to define all the penalties for possession over the stated legal amount (one ounce I believe). I know this, and I don't even live in California.
But the argument is about States rights, and state's sovereignty. It's written very specifically in the Constitution. And just look at what the Federal Government has done to effectively bankrupt this country. It has grown to epic proportions, and can't even figure out how to cut off one of it's 57 heads.
I'm all for legalization, and now that 50% of the country agrees, society can implement society's shared values. Your fundamentalist state sovereignty position would mean slavery or at least continued segregation in the South. There's meant to be a balance. We have not achieved it entirely but your solution is untenable. We're bankrupt in the public AND private sectors because of neoliberalism, and states' rights wouldn't solve that. We need a federal government that stands up to trading partners, but states wouldn't have the muscle even if they wanted to.
There should be legalization just based on the history of cannabis alone. But i'm not for legalization and government control/ taxation in no way. It was taken from us, and then we beg for it back? That's fundamentally flawed. Even Timothy Leary challenged it on a Supreme Court Level in 1969, and the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was repealed on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. So why is it still prohibited? That I don't understand, but what I understand very well is that the history of marijuana is shrouded in lies, and collusion on the suppression of the cannabis industry went all the way to the highest levels of government.
As for states rights, i'm not arguing with you about this. I do not know enough about foreign policy and trade agreements to have this conversation, but i do now that the federal government needs to shrink. Perhaps eliminating the DEA would be a good start, or a large portion of the organization anyway.
If that is true, and the corporations run the government, why isn't Ron Paul already President?
because campaign contributors throw money at candidates that actually have a chance of making it out of the primaries?
OK, so then the corporations really don't run government? Because Ron Paul would be best for the corporations right? But he's not President. So then it must be some other group that runs it. Right?
corporations influence the electable... It's not prudent to throw a 50 million dollars at a candidate who isn't likely to be elected...
But hey, Ron Paul's support is growing faster then I've ever imagined.... lets put a pin in this topic until 2016?
The corporations vehemently oppose Ron Paul. He's practically blacked out in the MainStream Media (much like OWS).
His policies would cripple their bottomless piggy banks, namely the Federal Reserve and taxpayer money.
The simple fact that he's being ignored in the MSM should merit you doing some digging to see what his positions really are, and not what the groupthink from MoveOn.org tells you.
You are terribly misinformed if that's what you think.
I would say the same about you! Productive talk.
You could say that, yes, but, you would be wrong again. If you want production why don't you start by researching what you want to talk about before you speak. Have you been to college? High school? Did they fail you as well?
You're an idiot
I seriously doubt that Ron Paul would get elected. If by some twisted humor of the Universe he did become elected, we would then actually have a sort of evolutionary system of population control. Gone would be the elderly, the infirm and those with illness would die on the streets. In the feudal system of Ron Paul the strong would prevail. A sort of dog eat dog society. Wow, just think of it ....a road warrior society where grandma is the first to go.
"just think of it ....a road warrior society where grandma is the first to go."
Excellent imagery.
You have no clue as to what these people advocate. You should read up on anarchism. Ron Paul is a tool.
"And this is where I dismiss the OWS as a farce. You cry for change, and dismiss the only candidate who represents that change" - Please all candidates represent some kind of change.
"Do your research instead of running your mouths about things you know nothing about." - I did my research. RP is a moron. He may be an honest moron but he is still a moron.
"Instead you call for Obama's re-election. He has not and will not change anything." - TBH i am thinking about leaving this board because it has became nothing but RP fanboys. I am glad we have alternate boards to discuss the real issues. I keep hearing bout these imaginary Obama supporters but all i see are RP supporters spewing constant propaganda.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I think there are some viable points from all ideologies -- but nothing can be fixed until the people are represented in government again.
But, in the case of Ron Paul supporters, they believe that one of the fixes required is power decentralization and thus it makes sense that they would espouse this here.
The problem with all ideologies is that they tend to forget about the "human factor", whether that ideology is libertarianism, communism or feudalism.
Every solution to our problems will have to be pragmatic.
Like you, I agree with the overall thesis of this post. Even if Ron Paul was a super duper smart guy with great presidential capacities (a premise I don't subscribe to), he wouldn't make any difference with a congress like this.
They should go on the ideas not on the man. Their are a very few things from each candidate i agree with. But that doesnt matter because we know just because they campaign on it doesnt mean its going to happen. Even if they truly mean everything they say that is just not how our govt works atm. And that is what we need to focus on fixing.
Totally agree!
Remember that the point of the Republic was to separate from the monarch. Our congress and the branches of government exist in order to keep checks and balances, and to ensure that the president will never have the amount of power that a majesty would. With that said, I agree that we must fix the system we have, but the thought of a true revolution is quite terrifying.
The issue with Wall Street is the banks. So, number one is to see where the issue is. Audit the federal government. The more tax money we give the government the more control we give the government. Corporations should not be protected under the First Amendment, and our social programs are scams.
Audit the Fed, bring home the troops, place social services where they are truly and fairly needed, make lobbyists scarce and take the power of regulation from them, and allow people the right to rule their own tax money... AKA lower taxes and reduce programs.
There are several things that should be done. I find it interesting that this post has nothing but politician bashing, but no real suggestions.
And by the way, RP will only receive payment equal to that of the average American, which is $39,000. He is not racist, he is not ramming religion down our throats, and he wants you to keep the money you make. He also said in the past he would choose Kucinich as a VP. So, really, the answer is fixing government by choosing the appropriate representative to represent your states and districts, and certainly to lead the country. All we should be discussing are the people in congress who allowed the banks to gain this much power.
We audited the fed. It didn't make headlines because it was all pretty boring stuff. You should inform yourself.
My problem with Paul is that he wants further deregulation of the markets and that is exactly what the bankers want too.
We partially audited the Fed, and found large amounts of money given to foreign banks.
Correction: A small amount of money was given and received back many times which adds up to a big scary meaningless number.
"our social programs are scams"- Because they are not properly done. Social programs would work fine if they were properly done. But they are not. And the politicians answer to fixing problems is either to take money away from it or give it more money. Neither of which fix anything.
"I find it interesting that this post has nothing but politician bashing, but no real suggestions. "- This post was not intended to put forth ideas on how to fix the country. It was intended to get the RP supporters to shut up about how RP is the second coming of Jesus, so we could concentrate on fixing problems.
"And by the way, RP will only receive payment equal to that of the average American, which is $39,000. He is not racist, he is not ramming religion down our throats, and he wants you to keep the money you make. He also said in the past he would choose Kucinich as a VP. So, really, the answer is fixing government by choosing the appropriate representative to represent your states and districts, and certainly to lead the country. All we should be discussing are the people in congress who allowed the banks to gain this much power." - Always have to slide that propaganda in there. That is EXACTLY what i am talking about.
If you think politicians that you think you elect do what you want if you elect the right one just because that is what they are suppose to do you are pretty naive and the reason we are in this situation right now. Because if i elect "X" he is going to make things better! We been saying that for 30 years and for 30 years it has changed....for the worse.
I said nothing of "second to Jesus" nor would I ever. I'm nondenominational. I look at this as simple economics. I'm just trying to clear up a lot of the sound byte crap that comes out of everyone's mouth about all the politicians. I'm concerned about how to solve the problems. No other politician wants the troops to come home with the same immediacy. Bringing the troops home means bringing the money home. Plus, once we remove our presence from other countries peace will come sooner. Americans aren't disliked because of democracy, our system is disliked because we infringe on the cultures and lands of others with our presence.
I am not naive at all. I will repeat, I caucused for Obama. I really took time to assess every candidate. And I choose RP. That's not naivety. That's an educated decision.
Again, if we bring home our troops/money from pointless offensive aggression than we have the money to support the programs and services we have- I call them "scams" because they have so many earmarks attached to many of them as they change and continue to take our money. Lobbyist benefit from too much, and bailouts clearly don't work.
So, anotherone773, I ask you, in a peaceful debate, who you support, what you suggest, and why.
1.Take citizenship away from corporations.
Bingo. As much as I like Ron Paul as a candidate I do not think one person can make a difference. The system is completely broken and needs a complete rethinking from scratch. This is symptom of complete breakdown of both Monetary and Political system. I hope US will yet again be the beacon for the whole world as unfortunately this same broken system has spread across the world. Good Luck & Prepare for the Longest Fight of your & our life times.
NEED 3,000 MORE SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO REVERSE CITIZENS UNITED BY OCTOBER 26. PLEASE SIGN. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/reverse-scotus-ruling-citizens-united-v-fec-constitutional-amendment-supporting-hjres78/vWTGSMJX
Knowledge is power -- Arm yourself learn the truth about the Fed start here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41402
Knowledge is power -- Arm yourself learn the truth about the Fed start here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41402
You're exactly correct. You can change the players all you want, but so long as the rules of the game remain the same, it won't make a damn difference.
It's the rules of the game that must be changed first. Washington is broken and must be fixed, but not by those on the inside, but by us.
You can't just go bunching politicians together. If change is going to come through this movement its going to come from the HOUSE and the SENATE as a joint passed bipartisan resolution. If not... we revolt.
David Howell Petraeus officially announced as Occupy Wall street Presidential Candidate.
It goes a bit further than removing the money from the process,. the elected representatives need to go as well,. why seed our power to a proxy,. direct continuous voting on the major issues., with neutral people to implement them.
Usually you paint a car while it's torn apart if it's going to be painted. I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.
No you dont. I know of no body shop that does this.
Then you don't know much about cars. It's easy to paint when it's just a shell. That's why they have specific devices to move the shell around. First you paint it all (including engine bay and underbody) and then you drop the engine in, and then put the interior togethor. Welcome to the world of classic restoration/hot rod cars.
That may be how you paint "special" cars, but normal cars are painted already assembled.
Also no. I worked in a truck assembly plant. The entire bed and all body panels are dipped in an initial coating, and paint is sprayed, while the suspension and engine are put together separately on a bare frame. 99% of paint jobs are done before an engine is in a car. The only time is in special cases when a car is repainted with not much other body work being done.
This is completely off topic. The point was instead of fixing the machine they give it a new paint job and act like they changed something. So this whole discussion is pointless.
Not really, it's still a relevant metaphor. You have to start by getting the right president in to change congress as well.
Plus I was just giving you a hard time man, ha.
Body shops do paint the parts on the car by the way. I have a friend that owns one.
Yeah I know, I have a lot of friends with shops. I'm big into cars myself.
We are also here to fix our nation.
A president can instantly end the wars. A President can veto legislation forcing Congress to meet a level of agreement that is extraordinarily rare.
Simply because past Presidents have been unwilling to use their veto does not mean it does not exist.
Ending a war isnt as ease as saying we quit we are going home. Presidents usually do not have to use a veto. The threat of veto usually is enough to get congress to change a bill. However, if you have a lone wolf in the WH. Congress will just ignore him and if you dont you have politics as usual.
Besides Paul isnt fixing a nation he is just deleting stuff he thinks is broken. That is like cutting off my hand because i broke a finger.
From my point of view its more akin to cutting out cancer - its not supposed to be there in the first place.
The commander in chief can issue an order to all personnel to withdraw. They can then figure out how to do it. Congress only controls funding - the President issues orders.
Paul is an idiot.
Great post. Well said.
Yes the president we elect does matter and it has to be the one with the right president!! Who do you think your fooling???!!! We the real people know the current President sucks and did go to Congress to give Trillions of money to Big Banks and Corporations and Auto industries to Bail them out and Congress approved it along with the Democrate party and the Republican party. There was one person who didn't approve or vote for it RON PAUL!!! He is the only true honest presidental canidate that CARES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Yes the president we elect does matter and it has to be the one with the right president!! Who do you think your fooling???!!! We the real people know the current President sucks and did go to Congress to give Trillions of money to Big Banks and Corporations and Auto industries to Bail them out and Congress approved it along with the Democrate party and the Republican party. There was one person who didn't approve or vote for it RON PAUL!!! He is the only true honest presidental canidate that CARES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Wiki Occupy Wall Street
http://www.wikioccupywallst.org
United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .
Who in the hell do you want to be your president in January 2013? I hope it isn't Obama! He's part of the problem, and yes he answers to the the fat cat Wall Street bums!
Whichever one bends to the will of OWS and only does whatever they are told by the people... like elected officials are suppose to do
Correct and the President has to work with Congress and trust me he will work to pass Republicans' agenda. George W. Bush all over again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s&feature=relmfu
Where is Ross Perot these days?
I don't know if any of you recall his campaign in 1992, he was going to do the job for free, set up electronic town halls and do away with the lobbiest plagued congress and senate.
He wanted to give the government back to it's people.....
I suspect accomplishing this would be far easier for all the people, than just one man.
I think we need to create a "new" ideology. It means that we should list all the virtues and ideas that are true and representative of the people. Which is why OWS doesn't support Ron Paul. Ron Paul has some good ideas, but we shouldn't be looking for someone that is "close" or "less corrupt" than the other politicians. We need to create something "new" and these new ideas will come from scratch and ideas that are proven. Once we create this "new" idea or ideology then we find someone who represents that. We can't create this ideas and then hope the "least evil representative" will change the system for us. Hence, why Ron Paul can't be supported. NO more HOPE instead lets get true, critically examined and proven ideas to represent us.
WHY DONT WE DO SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL!!! THE 99% of us need to come together and attack these big corporations together--- ONE by ONE... Lets for example take Exxon-Mobile and the millions and billions they earn at our expense. LET US ALL-- ALL 99% of US pick just one day and not drive our cars/trucks/mode of transportation. ONE DAY!!!! ONE DAY that the BIG GREEDY CORPORATION cannot get back in earnings will make a huge difference-- they will lose millions --- SEND THE MESSAGE (LOUD and CLEAR). THIS is just for STARTERS-- we can attack one corporation at a time-- have good clear focus and a good clear strategy to attack
in answer to the OP: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate in any party that has said outright: "I will use an executive order to bring the troops home immediately and end the wars."
That reason alone is enough to support him, whether or not you disagree with anything else he says. Because, everyone in the world is sick of the USA waging war on anyone it wants to, whenever it wants to, just to line the pockets of CEOs, Banks, and Politicians.
WHY DONT WE DO SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL!!! THE 99% of us need to come together and attack these big corporations together--- ONE by ONE... Lets for example take Exxon-Mobile and the millions and billions they earn at our expense. LET US ALL-- ALL 99% of US pick just one day and not drive our cars/trucks/mode of transportation. ONE DAY!!!! ONE DAY that the BIG GREEDY CORPORATION cannot get back in earnings will make a huge difference-- they will lose millions --- SEND THE MESSAGE (LOUD and CLEAR). THIS is just for STARTERS-- we can attack one corporation at a time-- have good clear focus and a good clear strategy to attack
WHY DONT WE DO SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL!!! THE 99% of us need to come together and attack these big corporations together--- ONE by ONE... Lets for example take Exxon-Mobile and the millions and billions they earn at our expense. LET US ALL-- ALL 99% of US pick just one day and not drive our cars/trucks/mode of transportation. ONE DAY!!!! ONE DAY that the BIG GREEDY CORPORATION cannot get back in earnings will make a huge difference-- they will lose millions --- SEND THE MESSAGE (LOUD and CLEAR). THIS is just for STARTERS-- we can attack one corporation at a time-- have good clear focus and a good clear strategy to attack
republicans vote yes on jobs bill
meet me @ 11 Wall St. on 11/11/11 6am
meet me @ 11 Wall St. on 11/11/11 6am
If you are saying that congress needs to change, than yu are saying this is a political rally. What need to change is everything...and there is only one person in either party that will do it.
If Ron Paul didn't exist, the libertarians would still have the shared grievance with Wall Street today that OWS does.
Since he does exist, libertarians have a highly visible personality to point to.
It would be a delight if the progressives had a highly visible figure to hold up these days. Will one emerge?
I highly agree with the original poster that this needs to transcend any one political personality.
Peace,
Ron Paul 2012! =)
During the gold standard people were aware that this was not a good thing either. Before that there was a gold and silver standard and this worked fine. There was interest free money printed by the government and this worked! Then the banks got their clutches on the whole moneysystem and made the governments borrow money at interest from them! It used to be the governments who made the money, not the banks! Now it is the banks making the money and selling it to the government at interest while the government can very well print its own but refuses to do so. Today the debate over who should create the national money supply is rarely heard, mainly because few people even realize it is an issue.
Politicians and economists, along with everybody else, simply assume that money is created by the government, and that the "inflation" everybody complains about is caused by an out-of-control government running the dollar printing presses.
Today, Federal Reserve Notes and U.S. dollar loans dominate the economy of the world; but this international currency is not money issued by the American people or their government. It is money created and lent by a private cartel of international bankers, and this cartel has the United States itself hopelessly entangled in a web of debt.
When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.
The government can take back the money-issuing power from the banks. Make em do it!
NO WAR http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/
good luck with that one...I'd get armed in the meantime
The President CAN be quite a force for change but not through Congress. Rather it can be done through proper use of the microphone. That's his/her greatest tool and with the right type of person in there the microphone can be used to help rally people, share solutions, encourage people, etc. If SHARED the microphone can be used to give other people a voice as well. If used by someone with some nerve, it could be used to reveal truths that have up to this point been covered up.
I'm not saying that Ron Paul would be doing it. I know I would be, but I'm not saying that I'm the best person in the world either. I wish someone else would step up to the plate who's better so I could just support them but until them I'm willing.
The President isn't supposed to be the "legislator-in-chief" although that's what it seems people think the role is. Let's stop that mode of thinking.
we need politicians like Ron Paul. but one is not enough. We can not beat wallstreet through politicians, because all of them are already bought out. There are very limited options for what we as Americans can do, one of which, is to get the word out and/or protest. We are not crazy for believing in an uncorrupted system, and we must attack this system in place with hard cutting activism.
Ron is prepping the country for his son...there are many things I do not agree with about Rand Paul, but listening to him from a political science perspective, he come across as someone who increasingly has a solid argument for his principles, like them or not...
Well said.
yeah the Ron Paul worship is getting out of hand
TO ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS Will you Ron Paul people please go hang out with the Tea Party where you properly belong? OCCUPY WALL STREET IS A LEFT-WING MOVEMENT, or haven’t you notice? Just look around. For one thing, our signs aren’t misspelled. Wouldn’t you feel more comfortable among fellow right-wing extremist? Don’t you find yourself agreeing more often with Sara Palin than us? Our message is not exact, but I'm sure it doesn't admit the view that the billionaires are an oppressed minority who should be taxed even less and given even more freedom to screw us. Sure, getting rid of the Fed sounds cool-- if you're talking about nationalizing the banks under the auspices of truly democratic government. However, Occupy Wall Street surely rejects the right-wing extremist sentiments that you hold in common with your fellow "Libertarians" like the Koch Brothers, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, and the Cato Institute. Why don't you take your "Austrian” economics" (aka "Reaganomics," "Supply-Side economics," and "trickle-down theory.") to Somalia where there's no government and your Randian privateer heroes (known there as "war-lords") richly abound. You appear well financed, but sorry, we're not Tea Party dupes who you can convince to vote against our interest. We don't believe the best solution to every problem is for the government to do nothing, or if it is doing something, to stop doing it. We range from moderate Obama supporters to anarcho-communist. We don’t believe money should ever talk in government and that a moral society should tax its rich to help provide healthcare, education, housing, and social security for all its people. That‘s a big enough tent, indeed. But if we let the likes of you in, we cancel out whole the meaning of our movement. It would be like the American Revolutionaries including Tories in their movement. Why bother with a movement at all if it has such a broad meaning that it means nothing at all. Face it, if you can’t believe that we must make sure everyone has at least a shitty apartment before one person can own 10 mansions, then you just don’t belong among us.
I am sure you would prefer rename us “Occupy the Fed“and leave references to Wall Street out of it altogether. You would have us protest all regulations of the Banks and demand that we go back halcyon times of the 1840s. Perhaps we could get Rush Limbaugh, a true economic Libertarian, to address our crowd. We can become the new darlings of Fox News.
You guys are like wolves in sheep's clothing in our ranks, attacking our low-information members, and trying to co-opt our thunder. You disguise yourself as anti-establishment leftist, and then spew out rightist propaganda that makes Richard Nixon look like Karl Marx. Libertarians are always trying to sponge off the Leftist cool. But you are not cool. You're just of Republican wannabe hipsters who smoke an occasional joint to look cool. Admit it. You call the Billionaire criminals who‘ve been screwing us for 30 years "job creators," and you always end up voting Republican. (Ron Paul is a Republican!) This may not be a partisan movement, but please know that Republicans are the antithesis of everything we’re about. Sorry. We're the 99% and we want the Greedy 1% to pay. Call us class warriors if you must, but the Koch Brothers our not on our side and either are you. I don’t see how we can get along. As far as I’m concerned, you guys are well-financed counter-demonstrators. I hereby out you for all to see. Hear this OCCUPY. KEEP LEFT. NO RIGHT TURN.
I stopped reading as: "OCCUPY WALL STREET IS A LEFT-WING MOVEMENT"
No it is not. If you think it is, you are a MoveOn.org hijacker. GTFO.
OWS is not about left or right. YOU are injecting your LOYALTIES to a FAILED GOVERNMENT that GOT US INTO THIS MESS.
WAKE UP!
The left and the far-right agree that it is not the role of government to legislate morality. Abortion rights? Gay rights? Drug laws? both take pretty similar stances. I voted for Obama; I consider myself a libertarian--and a socialist, and a liberal. No party really reflects what I think is right and good. I like to think that regardless of the details this movement truly is about what's right, good, just and fair. All that said, I self-identify as a libertarian and I assume there are others like me. I understand your frustration but I certainly feel that I belong here.
I LOLd:
"You guys are like wolves in sheep's clothing in our ranks, attacking our low-information members, and trying to co-opt our thunder. You disguise yourself as anti-establishment leftist, and then spew out rightist propaganda that makes Richard Nixon look like Karl Marx. Libertarians are always trying to sponge off the Leftist cool. But you are not cool. You're just of Republican wannabe hipsters who smoke an occasional joint to look cool. Admit it."
Yes, Libertarians are republicans who want to smoke pot, is a quote I've heard somewhere before. lol.
the biggest problem in your philosophy is that you somehow think taxing the income of the rich is going to provide stability for everyone else..300,000 millionaires cannot fix the problems you wish to remedy. The rich will stay rich(JUST LESS SO), the poor stay poor. Raising the income tax levels of billionaires is pointless...Billionaires have no need to ever collect income ever again, they can live off the interest on their assets or they can move overseas, in essence they have options. One could raise the capital gains taxes, but those rates aren't pegged to asset levels. Thus, anyone who plans to take profit(that's everyone) from their IRA's, 401s, 403s, or an equities purchase, etc. will be penalized at the same rate as a billionaire. Thus, one has done nothing more than stick it to the middle and upper middle class(the comfortable) once again. The other option is the confiscation of assets, which has a legal term...Theft. Unless of course you are a Marxist and then you would be fine with that. Unfortunately, once you've confiscated all the assets of the wealthy, you still can't pay all the debts, and now you have no entities left to operate the private sector to prop up the social safety net. Unlike old communist regimes, this country cannot gravitate in that direction because we no longer have an industrial or manufacturing base large enough to operate the state. The days of widget assembly lines may work in China at .38 cents an hour, but the left wants to raise the minimum wage here to a living wage (whatever that is), which means those jobs never come back anyway. Not to mention that increasing minimum wage rates quite quickly loses effectiveness because the market compensates for that with increases in inflation. This means the new rate provides the earner with no more buying power than they had previously; and has a detrimental effect on businesses who can't afford to pay another employee the new rate, thus hiring does not increase, and more than likely, decreases. Which, of course leads to more strain on the system. Furthermore, the environmental left has stymied our energy sector, thus we cannot utilize to any real degree, the coal and natural gas resources this country was graced with. So, unless we throw out all the environmental regulations the left seems so happy to enforce, we wouldn't even have access to the 2 main revenue makers this economy would have left.. now what?
the biggest problem in your philosophy is that you somehow think taxing the income of the rich is going to provide stability for everyone else..300,000 millionaires cannot fix the problems you wish to remedy. The rich will stay rich(JUST LESS SO), the poor stay poor. Raising the income tax levels of billionaires is pointless...Billionaires have no need to ever collect income ever again, they can live off the interest on their assets or they can move overseas, in essence they have options. One could raise the capital gains taxes, but those rates aren't pegged to asset levels. Thus, anyone who plans to take profit(that's everyone) from their IRA's, 401s, 403s, or an equities purchase, etc. will be penalized at the same rate as a billionaire. Thus, one has done nothing more than stick it to the middle and upper middle class(the comfortable) once again. The other option is the confiscation of assets, which has a legal term...Theft. Unless of course you are a Marxist and then you would be fine with that. Unfortunately, once you've confiscated all the assets of the wealthy, you still can't pay all the debts, and now you have no entities left to operate the private sector to prop up the social safety net. Unlike old communist regimes, this country cannot gravitate in that direction because we no longer have an industrial or manufacturing base large enough to operate the state. The days of widget assembly lines may work in China at .38 cents an hour, but the left wants to raise the minimum wage here to a living wage (whatever that is), which means those jobs never come back anyway. Not to mention that increasing minimum wage rates quite quickly loses effectiveness because the market compensates for that with increases in inflation. This means the new rate provides the earner with no more buying power than they had previously; and has a detrimental effect on businesses who can't afford to pay another employee the new rate, thus hiring does not increase, and more than likely, decreases. Which, of course leads to more strain on the system. Furthermore, the environmental left has stymied our energy sector, thus we cannot utilize to any real degree, the coal and natural gas resources this country was graced with. So, unless we throw out all the environmental regulations the left seems so happy to enforce, we wouldn't even have access to the 2 main revenue makers this economy would have left.. now what?
Because we the people who occupy america and wall street and wherever else we are elect presidents and congress people, we have the power to change the establishment. just because you were conned into believing obama doesnt mean that you are a bad person, it just means you wanted a change. i dare you to read dr. pauls views and then i dare you to understand what powers the establishment and then i dare you to join the revolution that will get us as a nation back to work so we can occupy a job and not the street
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-cain-occupy-wall-street-20111018,0,2312176.story
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66320.html
Credit Unions are not for profit financial institutions. They are not owned by shareholders to make profit, they serve their depositors. They offer lower rate Loans, credit card and High interests on deposits. They generally pay their employees more as well. They can create money in the form of debt just like regular banks.(fractional reserve system). Cheaper car, school, and home loans. You can save yourself money, while taking away profits from wall street. There is a cost to Passive ownership. Cut that out and it benefits everyone but the super rich, who make all of their money through passive ownership. please Spread awareness with the following links to your friends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union http://www.findacreditunion.com/ <-----this will list all the credit unions near you.
this does not seem to be an informed group - i think ron paul is off base and the gold standard is not going to solve any problems but you are all name calling etc. the fed and fiat money is not the problem - democractic control of the money supply might be! read "debt the first 5000 years" or ron hudson or even go back to the populism of the 1890's. do some research on how many panics we had on the gold standard. come on people - let's move this in a better direction! we need to educate ourselves and others - soon.
Do you think it's better to have a debt-based economy where the Feds can keep printing the U.S. dollar forever?
If you disagree with a gold standard, what do you propose backing the currency with? Resources? Units of Labor? Commodities?
Did you know that historically every fiat currency has always reverted to its inherent value, which is zero?
The other thing is - every failing Empire has always devalued its currency and what it does is degrade everyone's standard of living (Rome, the Byzantine empire, the Weimar Republic). It also leads to war because it impoverishes the people.
http://www.shtfplan.com/precious-metals/why-bankers-governments-and-the-media-hate-gold_08302011
i still think the whole fiat currency thing is misguided - money is debt - an iou that is passed from person to person - who gets hurt by inflation?? the bond holders primarily - they are the ones screaming to hold down inflation. my mortgage payment got cheaper each year during the inflation of the 70's.the inflation we have seen in the last 100y years is astounding and yet we are richer!
the weimar republic deliberately inflated it's currency to get rid of it's war debt - the fed does not print dollars and as i said before you need to look at what the populist movement said about money or read graeber or hudson - do not just repeat the lines you hear about fiat currency - educate yourself
Our currency is created via loans from the Federal Reserve. Our government actually pays interest on new currency, since it comes directly from the Federal Reserve.
This only makes sense once you realize that the Federal Reserve is actually a private bank, owned by a small group of wealthy bankers (both foreign and national). It is not a federal institution. It is not a part of our government.
agreed, although when you buy your pizza with your credit card there is more money in the system and when you pay the debt off at the end of the month there is less - not sure about the interest part unless you mean that the banks park the excess reserves in treasuries??
the whole point is that the interest doesn't exist. The banks have to sell yet more loans and increase the money supply for people to cover the loans. That's why inflation exists with fractional reserve banking. What we are seeing now is what happens when you try to expand something exponentially indefinitely (i.e system crash)
i am not saying we should personally have crazy amounts of debt or as a country but inflation is not the problem now and neither is debt. jobs and the economy are the problem and an economy that will create a sustainable life for us all. that is a long term problem. nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking and credit and debt - depends how it is used. as i said look at the populist debates on money and credit - they worked it all out 120 years ago
you mean, they worked out how to rig it 120 years ago. ;)
It's quite simple really. Money is created from loans. The new money decreases the value of the old money. The loans are charged interest. The only way to repay the interest is for more money to be created, through more loans.
Just have a look at the graph of M3 money supply over time vs national debt over time to see how they are virtually the same.
The more money there is, the more debt there is. The more debt there is, the more money there is.
The banks know this, and use it to manipulate people.
the populists were dirt poor western farmers denied credit by j p morgan and the eastern banks - they could not buy seed to plant crops in the spring and starved as a result - they educated themselves about the money system and very nearly took power is the united states - fyi that is largely what the wizard of oz is about
do you know what the populist movement in the united states was and what they proposed about money and credit? one of the problems was that the population was growing and the money supply was not! no question that the banks are working this system to their benefit - banking should be under democratic control then we would probably not be having this discussion. brecht said - "which is the greater crime - to rob a bank or to own one?"
banking and money are irrelevant institutions due to the internet and global communication systems.
We have all the tools we need to distribute the necesseties of life, and luxuries too, and money and profit stand in the way, with banks and politicians strangling all the wealth out of the people and into their own pockets.
do you plan on going back to the stone age - how do you run a modern society without money even the amish in western ny need money - to pay taxes at least - what do you have in mind?
we still need money - and we need to understand how it works in society - we do not need the elite sucking the wealth out of the rest of us but we do need a banking system of some sort
what exactly do we need money for?
Please name something useful that money does, that can't be done without money.
We should have money that congress controls via spending and taxation. Not debt or asset backed - just money. When we overspend we have immediate inflation.
Please read Title 12 Chapter 3 of the federal law. The Fed is an agency of the US Government operating with powers vested by the Legislative and Executive branches. The Governing Board of the Fed is appointed by the president subject to approval by Congress. The Governing Board DOES take input from the private banks, just like the FCC and FDA take input from the private organizations THEY oversee.
A handful of banks own the FED wake up
I offer facts, and you offer.... nothing. Typical for this crowd.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/
Enjoy!
Doesn't refute Rico's response... IMHO
Right. I quote, "Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate."
The Federal Reserve Board DEFINES the policy of the Federal Reserve system. It is an ARM of the US Government set up to REGULATE the member banks who actually pay FEES to the US Government in exchange for the services they receive. What part of this don't you understand ? The FCC also provides services to, accepts fees from, and takes council from companies IT regulates. So does the FDA. Why are you singling out the Federal Reserve from all the OTHER regulatory agencies run by the US Government ?
People are upset that 1% of the US population holds so much wealth. Who are these 1%? They are Banks and Corporations that are paying million dollar bonuses because of the fractional reserve banking system. They are loaned money that otherwise would not exist to invest in investments that they would otherwise stay away from and make money off the risk...and when the risk does not pay off, they are simply loaned more money. Meanwhile my grandmother who has saved all her life has to watch her food prices go up, medicine prices go up, and her savings taxed to nothing through inflation all caused by the Fed and all to profit the banksters. They lost nothing in they're bad investments.. we lost everything. The FDA and FCC can be handled in a different protest.
I'm sorry for your grandmother's state, but your statement "we lost everything" is simly incorrect. From my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/ ...
Referencing http://tinyurl.com/CensusEconomicData median / mean household income is $50,046 / $68,259, our median / mean family income is $60,609 / $79,338, and 84.5% of us have health insurance (!).
Referencing http://tinyurl.com/CensusHousingData 65.1% of us own our homes while only 34.9% rent. The median value of owner-occupied residences is $179,000, down from a peak of $197,500 in 2008 (only 10% loss). Of the owner occupied homes, only 67.8% have a mortgage, and their median monthly cost is $1496 per month ($17,952 per year). 32.2% of owner occupied homes (21% of all housing !) are owned free and clear with a median monthly cost of $432 ($5,184 per year). The 34.9% of us that rent incur a median month cost of $855 ($10,200 per year).
Referencing http://tinyurl.com/CensusHomeHistory , the percentage of Americans owning their own homes (65.1%) remains greater than any period from 1900 – 1990, and is down only 0.9% from 2000 levels. Furthermore, the value of those homes has only fallen about 10% since the peak in 2008. These figures hardly describe complete collapse. In addition, with 84.5% covered by health insurance, we are hardly suffering from an crisis in health care coverage. Finally, the healthy difference between American income and housing costs in 2011 provides some indication of or substantial level of disposable income. Unfortunately, we've been irresponsible with our income.
Referencing http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/ we see that Americans spent not only their disposable income, but started borrowing at unprecedented levels starting in 2000 to buy foreign made goods. By 2008, fully 20% of disposable income was going toward household debt payments to pay for all those foreign goods. Our purchase of foreign goods produced a trade deficit that averaged 714 billion per year between 2005 and 2008, or $2.1 trillion in total cash outflow over a three year period ( http://tinyurl.com/CensusTradeData ).
The good news/bad news is that Americans finally decided their debt was too high, and they've being spending much of their disposable income to retire that debt. Per http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/ we see that, in only 3 years, Americans have reduced their debt as a portion of income to levels (11%) we haven't seen since 1995 ! That's good, but it also means they are not spending as much of their income buying products, and that creates a problem in the economy.
The MYTH that America is suffering underlies MUCH we OWS supporters say, but it's simply not true. We spent all our money and borrowed even more to buy foreign goods. We also had a LOT of people playing amateur investor buying houses they couldn't afford hoping to turn them for a quick profit. WE made all these decisions, and now we're in a recession. There are always SOME people who suffer in a recession, but even in THIS one, they are a MINORITY. We OWS supporters do NOT speak for 99%, we speak for about 10% at best. The sooner we tone back the rhetoric that pisses off the 90% and focus on how to help the 10%, the better !
Rico- “we lost everything” I admit this might have been a bit of rhetoric as I get caught up in the moment. However the fact remains the same. When the gamble went wrong they got bailed out. The people that suffer are the ones sitting on the sidelines who did nothing but played by the rules, who all of a sudden watched their home prices plummet because of the foreclosures in their neighborhood, who cannot sell their home to downsize into retirement to cut their bills and who are at the same time watching their savings dwindle to inflation which is caused by further lending. Food costs increase, energy costs increase, tuition, healthcare, the essentials. Rico, what use is it to have an individual increase in savings if that savings buying power is further reduced everyday because of our monetary policy. In fact we cannot save anymore, we are forced to invest in Wall Street just to keep up with inflation. Rico, what would you like to see changed?
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson
The US Treasury prints treasury bonds. These have a face value and stated interest rate. Big banks buy these bonds at treasury auctions. Money goes to US Treasury for government programs.
So, how do we create money for the bank to use?
Federal reserve buys bonds from a bank. The Fed transfers money to the bank in exchange for the treasury bond. Where did that money come from? The Fed creates it out of nothing. New Fed money is always exchanged for debt.
All dollars are loaned into existence.
"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Putting It Simply (1984)
The Fed has the power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" vested by Congress. All YOU are describing is ONE way they coin the money and put it into circulation through the banking system. They ALSO coin money by "buying" Treasuries issued by the US Government. Thus, newly created money is created BOTH by injecting capital into the banking system for LENDING and by injecting capital into the Government for SPENDING.
This money being CREATED by the Fed is INDEED "fiat" money, and printing more of it reduces the value of ALL currency in circulation. They can ALSO remove money by NOT buying Treasuries (thus letting free markets drive up the cost of borrowing) AND by raising the Discount Window Rate (which has the effect of making banks maintain their full reserve requirement) which has a remarkable effect on the money supply.
Both the expansion and contraction of the currency affects it value, and BOTH actions fall under the "... and regulate the value thereof" powers of Congress under Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. These powers are vested in the Federal Reserve by Congress (just like the IRS, FCC, etc).
P.S. We ALSO regulated the value of our currency back when we used gold and silver. Back then, the debate was how MUCH of the gold and silver we held was put into circulation. We, as a Nation, used to debate this hotly; Farmers tended to want loose money to help them pay their debts and investors tended to want tight money so the value of their holdings weren't reduced. As a Nation, we are in massive debt, and the Fed is currently pursuing a loose money policy to facilitate retirement of that debt. I myself just refinanced a mortgage for a net savings of over $200 a month !
I just wanted to add that PART of the confusion regarding the Federal Reserve and this "creation of money out of thin air" is because people don't understand what money IS.
Money is just a TOKEN used to facilitate commerce. Imagine I have some excess milk but need wheat. WITHOUT money, I have to find someone who has excess wheat and wants milk. WITH money, i need only "sell" my milk to someone who wants it then "buy" some wheat from someone who has some excess. It's pretty OBVIOUS how using TOKENS to represent value dramatically expands the number of exchanges that are possible and thus expands commerce.
The TOKENS we use to facilitate commerce have no INTRINSIC value beyond what they can buy. Gold is only ONE thing that they can buy, and it's pretty limited in quantity. Thus, someone COULD collect large amounts of gold and strangle off all commerce even though very few people even WANT gold. This HAS happened in the past. Why should my ability to buy wheat or sell milk be restricted by the value SOME people attach to a completely UNRELATED commodity? It's silly.
The VALUE of these TOKENS we call money is defined purely by what they will buy on aggregate, and we need sufficient tokens in circulation to facilitate the volume of commerce they support. One reason we have printed so much money is because we DECIDED against the advice of our economists to provide the world's reserve currency, so we have been forced to print sufficient tokens to support the entire WORLD'S commerce. Because of the Triffin Dilemma (Google it), we are less free to regulate our currency for the sole good of the US without negative impact on the international economy. We have recently been pursuing our OWN self interest (QE1 and 2), and that has the world clamoring for a non-dollar reserve currency. The SDR's being issued by the IMF appear to be the favorite. These are essentially the "Bancor" notes first proposed by the economists who were overruled by the USA at the Bretton Woods conference.
Inflating your way out of debt would only work if you ignore all the problems inflation causes. Look at the Weimar republic. How did hyper inflating out of their war debt work out?
Inflation destroys savings, plain and simple. If we want people to be responsible, we need more savings and less debt.
Yep, and Americans are retiring household debt at an astonishing rate. Note, by the way, the value of the dollar on the international exchange remains strong.
That's a hilarious pair of statements.
1) Americans are losing their homes at an astonishing rate.
2) valuing a dollar against other fiat currencies is really no indication of how strong it is. That's only relative to a lot of other countries that are currently just as fucked as us.
That doesn't address the fact that a widget costing $20 in 1970 would cost $116.95 today. If you saved $20 to buy a widget, you need a loan for $96.95 to buy that widget. That widget is representative of your standard of living.
Please consult the FACTS at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/ . You will see that Americans racked up a boatload of debt starting around 2003 with a peak of 20% in 2008. Over the past 3 years, they have REDUCED debt as a portion of income to the level it was at in 1995 (11%).
I LOVE these stories about what a dollar would buy "back when." I have every product in my home that my parents had in theirs AND have a good number they never even imagined might come to be. Furthermore, even those products I have that they ALSO had are MUCH more capable. They had a 13" color TV. I have a 50" LCD panel. They had NO ability to record their TV, I have High Definition Tivo. The car I drive today lasts longer, requires less maintenance, uses less gas, pollutes less, and is packed with gadgets like GPS, self-parking, satellite radio, MP3 players, etc. I can't think of a SINGLE product from the 70's that I would even BUY today, REGARDLESS of cost !
What is it EXACTLY about the 1970's that makes you want to go back there ?
Finally, you CAN'T dismiss the value of the dollar on international markets when virtually EVERY PRODUCT on our store shelves is IMPORTED ! Silliness.
You are ignoring the simple fact that a private bank like the Fed buying bonds to inject currency into our economy means that currency is introduced with interest being paid to the Fed on those bonds. The revenue to pay that interest is coming from the US taxpayer's wallet.
Why should it be that way? Why should our government give up it's Constitutionally mandated power to a private corporation owned by the same cabal of banksters you clearly hate if you are on this website? Why give them more power?
I don't hate bankers, I hate what SOME of them did.
The Federal Reserve is NOT private. Did you go look at Title 12 Chapter 3 or are you simply not interested in letting facts interfere with your cherished opinions ?
As for "us" paying interest to the Fed, I assume you DO know that the Fed usually returns money to the US Government right? The interest they earn is deposited into the Taxpayer's account.
You CLEARLY don't understand the Federal Reserve. When people don't understand something, they get fearful and suspicious. The remedy is knowledge.
I sympathize with the frustration many people in OWS feel, and I support many of the ideas I hear, but I cannot and will not support people advocating positions based on fear, suspicion, and hatred rather than fact. I don't think I'm alone in this.
They have a mandated 6% dividend. I wonder how much they got for printing 16 trillion in 2008.
"the fed does not print dollars" ?!
Do you even understand what QE 2, QE 3 are? Maybe you should follow your own advice - educate yourself.
Also - do you think we're not in debt? Do you believe our government won't do the same thing to get rid of our deficit to China?
where are those dollars?? i can't find them can you - banks make money by giving loans - credit cards etc - it will not surprise me if we inflate our way out of the debt - i would if i could. yes i know about qe1and 2 - the money is sitting in the banks and in treasuries - along with their bad loans but that is not the point - we are facing the same debate that the populists struggled with - check it out!
The problem with the money problem is:
1) People buy everything now on credit. This causes artificial demand, which causes prices to go up which causes inflation.
2) Banks loan money they do not have. The govt has to print enough money to cover all debt. Debt and credit is created out of thin air, but not by the fed its created by banks. The fed just makes enough cash to cover all debts.
To fix this banks need to be heavily regulated and people need to stop buying stuff on credit.It would drop the price of everything by at least 1/3.
That is just like the story for the new Iphone. In 3 days they sold 4M iphones! And people cant figure out why we are in this mess. STOP BUYING STUFF YOU DONT NEED! You are making it worse.
yes, production for use and not for profit is a great idea but we are a long way from that so the question for now is what to do - now! if everyone stopped buying stuff the economy would collapse - that's not good - we need to transition to an economy that will create jobs by making things that we need like clean energy and food that is grown without oil!
I agree with #2, but asking this country to go cold turkey on credit is improbable and impracticable. It would take a weening off of which would take a few years as people got their financial house in order. Which would require full employment at a living wage. You're putting the cart (card? :) ) before the horse.
I also agree on "stop buying stuff you don't need" - but it is not for you to decide what some people need. I did buy a new iPhone as my old one was 3 years old and almost dead. So I needed a new one. From the data I saw on this (which is part of my job to stay informed about) most people who bought the new phones were similar to me. They skipped the last model or two and were holding out for this release. Hence the large number. And don't say we could have bought a cheaper phone, that's like Cain's insistence that his tax plan would work if the 99% shopped exclusively at Goodwill.
I agree but i did it. I started out in life with a lot of debt and full of must haves. I am 33 now and i own my own house, even though it isnt the best house in the neighborhood. When i say own i mean i have the deed in hand, no mortgage. I own my truck which is older but still runs good( though it starting to rust on the bottom) . I use to have a bunch of credit cards. I have none now. I have a debit card which i use often but since that is tied to money i actually have and not to a line of credit its not contributing to the debt/credit problem.
It took me a while to get that way. You have to be determined and learn to live within your means. Its best to ween yourself off it slowly, instead of trying to quit cold turkey. That way you can accustom yourself to living on your income. The first thing someone should do is quit buying things they dont need. Dont buy a new phone cause their is one out. You dont need one if yours works fine( and if it doesnt and it only a year or two old you need to take better care of your stuff). Reigning in spending is the first step and the hardest for most people. It wasnt that hard for me cause i am a tightwad. I like to see money sitting in a bank account or in my wallet so i dont spend it unless i really need too.
Second get rid of the credit cards. Those are nothing but money sinks. If you feel you need to keep one just for a while then keep the one with the lowest limit and/or interest rate. Cut the rest up and close your accounts. Eventually ween yourself off those as well.
Third get rid of vehicle payments. Pay off what you have now and drive it awhile. When it starts to become unreliable THEN buy a new( or newer used one). Try to save cash for one. When you pay yours off take 1/2 of the payment you were making and put it in a new savings account. Use this for car repairs and/or buying a different vehicle when yours gets to expensive to maintain.
House payments are the hardest. Cut other places and try to make double payments on your house or even pay extra on it. It should lower both the overall interest you pay and the time you need to pay it off. You could start out with putting the extra you would pay in a new savings. When it hits about $5000-$10000 (depending on your income and cost of living where you live) You can start paying more on the house. Use the savings as an emergency fund for house repairs( NOT upgrades). You can also just keep this account going and use it to pay off your house completely when you get enough money in the account. Then you have a house paid for and equity that is equal to the loan value of the house which could be used in a dire emergency.
Lots of ways to be money smart and debt free. Just have to think about it and apply them. I could literally write a book on this.
I totally agree that it's possible on an individual level. What I meant was getting everyone in this country to come around to actually implement such a turn-around will take time. And also means them having a job that pays a living wage. Saying "pay off your credit cards" is good, but when you're barely making enough to feed and shelter yourself (and your family, if you have one) it gets a bit more complicated. Remember: we're gainfully employed, and that makes us part of the lucky ones. Personally, I'm a freelancer, so I make my own way, but I never forget how lucky I am every time I get a gig.
I have also managed to get my life almost debt-free. I was there a few years ago, but then a major illness entered the picture and then I was back to massive debt. But I'm working at it and it's going back down, and I expect to be back to black in a year or so. No car, and no house, but I live in NYC, so that's not uncommon.
Writing a book on your experience is a great idea. There's a really good one that helped me back when I was despondent about my debt called "How to Get Out of Debt, Stay Out of Debt While Living Prosperously", $6 paperback, and it changed my life. But there is definitely room for another book on the subject, especially cast in the current climate of OWS and the changing future. Get on that! :)
It requires some effort. But cutting up the cards and closing the accounts solve the problem of adding to it. You still have to pay the debt off. Or you can file bankruptcy and all credit cards debt is wiped without having to pay it back.
If you make the min payment on a credit card it will take about 30 years to pay it off depending on how much is on it.Making double or triple payments on just one card will help a lot. Their are many ways you can cut back in life.
If you live in NYC for example not having cable helps. Go to the store and buy a digital antenna and watch over the air tv. Then watch any other shows on the pc that you want to see. You do not need the fastest inet connections. Especially since providers sell shared bandwidth so you are not guaranteed those speeds anyway. The cheapest one in a major city should be about 5 MB/sec. I run a 2MB max connection and i can stream a normal movie or show just fine when it works right.
Cellphones are another money sink. I own a 3 year old Motorola Rapture. Works great, no apps, has Inet but i dont pay a package, i bought the lowest text package for $5 and i keep a close eye on it and almost never go over. I run 1400 family minutes for 2 phones which is plenty.
I use my phone to talk to people and i refuse to have conversations in text message because its stupid to do so. I have no apps or ring tones. I spend $120/month for two phones with insurance and i could spend a lot less if they had a smaller voice package that was family.
If use a cell phone like a cell phone instead of a mini computer/stereo/game console you can save a lot of money. Always little things you can change in life to save money somewhere to put it elsewhere.
And being debt free is great. I coasted through the recession despite only having a two person income of about $800 a month most of it. Granted i live in the country and not NYC, but still when you can live cheaper, it becomes much easier to live in hard times.
The money system is not the root of the problem with Wall St.
The problem is the way the banks behave and conduct business. That is what needs to be reigned in.
Seriously nobody outside of a relatively small group of the 300 million Americans gives the slightest shit about the Fed when it's Chase or Wells Fargo or JP Morgan taking their house away.
The Fed is owned by Chase, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan.
If that's true - why have Cain and Perry finally been forced to admit that the Fed should be audited? In 2008, noone was talking about the Fed. It wasn't on anyone's radar screen.
If only a handful of obscure Americans were concerned about the Fed, they would ignore it completely.
People are fine to have the Fed regulated heavier.
What? Why are we paying interest to a private bank to print our own currency?
Central banking is used for much more than to print currency.
Well then, why are we allowing them to keep our interest artificially low so that savers are punished, and debt is encouraged?
Also, why are they handing out $trillions in loans to foreign banks no thanks to the last disastrous bailout??
"Well then, why are we allowing them to keep our interest artificially low so that savers are punished, and debt is encouraged?"
I'm not qualified to comment on that one.
"Also, why are they handing out $trillions in loans to foreign banks no thanks to the last disastrous bailout??"
That is a wonderful question that I don't have the answer to. My problem is, from what I understand, the benefits of a federal reserve far outweigh its disadvantages. Furthermore, any economist I've seen/read has dismissed going back to the gold standard as impractical (at best).
With that being said, I am not here to apologize for the federal reserve, and would fully support a movement pushing congress to audit it more than once every century.
The gold standard is totally unrealistic. But there are other alternatives. The FED can be public owned and operated by the treasury department with oversight from congress. Their operations can be made public record.
As it is now, it is a privately held corporation that is not required to share its books. This gives them way too much power. There are endless conspiracy theories, such as, they systematically create bubbles that pop and allows insiders to consolidate vast amounts of wealth. Even if this is all bunk, it doesn't mean it is not possible for it to be done. It seems it is very naive to allow this arrangement to continue assuming its all on the level.
That said, if they do audit the FED, even if they go as far as to make it public, I would not stop protesting inequality.
You never answered the real heart of the question about the federal reserve, which is this: WHY would we as American citizens tolerate a private banking institution printing our own money and charging us for it?
Did you know that JFK planned to eliminate Federal Reserve fiat currency and have us start printing our own money? I'm sure you know what happened to him. Also, Lincoln - same thing. Started printing U.S. greenbacks to undercut the bankers. Let's see - he got shot, too.
"When you want to have a real discussion, then get back to me. Until then - have a good one." I was thinking the same thing.
I was baiting? Do you read what you post?
"Did you know that JFK planned to eliminate Federal Reserve fiat currency and have us start printing our own money? I'm sure you know what happened to him. Also, Lincoln - same thing. Started printing U.S. greenbacks to undercut the bankers. Let's see - he got shot, too."
You were suggesting conspiracy.
When you want to have a real discussion, then get back to me. Until then - have a good one.
I did answer your question, vaguely of course : "My problem is, from what I understand, the benefits of a federal reserve far outweigh its disadvantages."
Are you suggesting a conspiracy?
Thanks for the bait, I already ate dinner, so I'll pass.
JFK was the last real champion of the American people who understood that it was not in our best interest to let a private banking institution control our money supply and to have fiat currency.
The only reason why it's tolerated now (and increasingly less) is because most people are too ignorant to understand how money works.
Why would you pay a private institution to do something that we should be doing for free, ourselves? (Figured I would try one last time)
Which is basically what i said.
Use a credit union! They are not for profit financial institution. They will pay you higher interest rates. They will also charge you less for Loans.
Well now hold on a minute here... easy financing drove up the market value on homes. Many people were selling, buying up, and literally doubling their income by spending off the equity. It was a very prosperous time. I knew people who moved as many as a dozen times, and always at a profit.
if you look at stagnant wage growth and decline of the middle class it has been since 1971 - nixon shock and closing of the gold window. koinkydink?
we have had less panics under the fed but they have been more extreme - depression, stagflation, huge housing bubble - what happened to the central planning that was supposed to save us from busts? it appears to be creating even larger false booms for us to suffer even greater busts. we could have expected less panics as time went on anyway because of technology - we can forecast demand better than ever, we have just in time inventory management, we have production lines that can quickly switch from one product to the next, etc.
the fed may not be as benign as you think.
not sure if anyone thinks the fed is benign - they are a tool of the large banks - that is the way it was designed. we had the most stable economy under the bretton woods accords - no currency speculation! before the fed we had terrible boom and bust years and financial panics - look at the economic history of the 1800's - look at the populist movement and what they were trying to do
and we have had even greater ones with the depression and this bubble, which is likely the greatest misallocations of resources in history. and as noted we should only expect panics now less frequently than before because we are able to use technology so much more intelligently to manage resources.
Dumb
The gold standard is antiquated and will not keep up with the economies of today.
These people will never ever convince the majority of the American people to essentially burn every last Dollar on Earth in favor of going to a system that nobody can say for sure would even function properly.
if you dont have a something Physical to back up your money you get artificial bubbles like the housing, dot com and now our dollar bubble, most people dont realize this but people like Peter Schifff ( predicted 2008 crash ) said that we are past the point of no return for our dollar to completely collapse we are due to see the biggest trasnfer of wealth yet.
he recoments buying gold and silver to hedge against hyperinflation
if you want to understand how money and credit works you need to read someone other than peter schiff - read debt the first 5000 years or michael hudson
I hear this over and over.
Bubbles are created because every now and then a large part of the population buys into the crazy idea that "you can't lose money in <fill in the blank>" The Dutch Tulip Panic, Spain's South American Land bubble, and the French Louisiana Land bubble are but three of the many well known panics that occurred under the gold standard.
You are ALSO buying into the notion that money has intrinsic value apart from the commerce it supports. Money is just a TOKEN. Imagine I have some excess milk and want some wheat. WITHOUT money, I have to find someone who both has extra wheat and wants some milk. WITH money, I can "sell" my milk to ANYONE who wants it then "buy" some wheat from ANYONE who has some. The TOKEN we call "money" is simply a temporary repository of value, nothing more.
Gold is but ONE of many THOUSANDS of goods people might buy. If gold is used as the standard, then someone who accumulates a LOT of it (as some have in the past) can stall ALL commerce even though FEW even WANT gold.
"Money" is just a TOKEN for the temporary storage of value between transactions. There must be a sufficient QUANTITY of these tokens to facilitate commerce, but they don't DEFINE the value of the goods and services exchanged. Quite the contrary, the goods and services exchanged define the value of the Token !
We can debate monetary (and fiscal) policy all day long, but all these people who think there is a magic "fix" in gold simply don't understand what money IS !
What am I supposed to do, pay my cell phone bill with gold coins?
I'm not sure what you are [confused|snarking] about.
If you buy up gold now to hedge against inflation, you simply sell metals for a much larger number of greenbacks to buy things if the greenback is the only currency your vendor accepts.
If you adopt a gold standard (or similar commodity-backing) then you can just use greenback dollars like you do today without the fear of inflation making them totally worthless (like what has happened to every empire with fiat currency).
Yes
lol
U can get an app for the iPhone, you hold a gold coin up to it, it disappears and your bill is paid.
if we start doing that more often, we may have something
So, our current system is working super well, eh?
You don't need to set fire to greenbacks. You peg the current value to the value of gold, silver, whatever. Then, it won't keep fluctuating on the whim of a private, central bank.
The main issues with the current system have little to do with the actual type of currency.
I'm not talking about doing away with paper dollars and exchanging lumps of metals at the market...
I'm saying we should do what we did before the 70s: peg the value of the USD to a precious metal.
That is a big factor in our current system. Extreme inflation has eroded savings, forcing the middle class to take on larger debts to maintain their standard of living.
Extreme inflation? What? Cite your sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg
Those are point-in-time numbers. Since 1970, the dollar has suffered a cumulative rate of inflation of ~485%
So, a $20 widget in 1970 costs $116.95 in 2011.
So, if you put enough of your savings in a bank in 1970 to buy a widget, you need to borrow $96.95 now to buy it.
Nice try, though. You almost looked like you have valid data.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
That's pretty normal man, that's what happens when an economy grows.
"Corruption is politics is normal. That's what happens when governments grow. "
That's how you sound.
You are effectively admitting I am right. We have had enormous inflation that has made savings worthless.
In order to make savings worth it you have to keep adding to it. That's the whole idea behind "saving up".
If we had the same amount of dollars in circulation and it was worth a lot less now, sure, get pissed. But we don't. We have a lot more in circulation. And when it's working properly, people aren't making $.50 an hour, they're making a hell of a lot more than that.
I am effective admitting that you haven't thought this through and your energy is being wasted.
agreed
I dont have a long paragraph to write because I couldnt agree with you any more. Promises Promises hope change blah blah blah just fix the issues!!!
George Soros is Obama's puppet Master. Once again Obama makes fools of his supporters. This is Soro's rally.
yes but it would take education for people to see that and if they were educated they be turning their backs on Obama and allying themselves with Dr.Paul
Yeah because i see Obama supporters constantly spamming this forum with Support Obama! [/sarcasm]
Seriously the Ron Paul comments outnumber the Obama ones by at least 4 to 1.
If you are here and you support any candidate because you think they can change something you are not paying close enough attention to the real problem. Changing presidents wont fix it.
That would make this a Libertarian Movement. Is that what you are implying?
Now you are making assumptions. This is a politically neutral movement.
4 to 1 sounds like Ron Paul supporters make up the majority of this movement. Dr.Paul has been calling for the Ron Paul revolution for years calling for most of the same changes OWS wants. Do you think this is new? Ron Paul is the clear choice to achieve political change which we need to be effective. To say" This is a politically neutral movement" is to admit you are wasting your time. Why are we here if not to change to political landscape? To end the Fed? Shrink the size of government? give the power of the constitution back to the people? Politically neutral HA. Nothing will be accomplished if we were politically neutral do you think we're hurting wall street by being out here? Do you think the 1% can give a shit about us being out here? Do you think the president or congress cares? No because we have yet to put pressure on anyone. No offense anotherone773 you sound like a young kid full of ideas but not a clue what to do with them. Change requires action , a clear objective, and a clear end game. OWS has none without Ron Paul.
No, that is an assumption. I see 4 people campaigning for RP for every 1, i see campaigning for Obama. In order for your statement to be true everyone would either have to support RP or Obama.
See then you go into pushing RP agenda onto people. Youre not debating issues your pushing an agenda, one that isnt even yours.
IF you think the rest of us are going to vote for RP because you worship him all you RP supporters are doing is make everyone else dislike him. Youre like a bunch of fanatics. Thats all you can talk about is how RP can do this and that. Why dont you just tell us he is god?
"No offense anotherone773 you sound like a young kid full of ideas " - I sound like a young kid because i live in reality? Seems like you got the same hope and change bug that took over in 2008.
Putting RP in the WH house changes nothing. You have to be able to control congress. The WH is a non factor. In fact you can completely circumvent the WH if you control enough of congress.
I think you really need to study how the US govt works and a little history as well. You are changing nothing by changing presidents. All you are doing is handing the corporations a different tool. Soon as they figure out how to use it to their advantage they will.
Your point is understood but on the same token the majority of the populace thinks that OWS supporters are fanatical,dirty hippies, that are too lazy to work, and only want hand outs.... As we know this is not true. You say that Dr.Pauls supporters are trying to "push" their ideals on other people. But how do you think it looks when a bunch of people are sitting in the streets protesting or marching down a bridge? To the uneducated they may feel as if they are fanatical people who are pushing their ideals on others. Again not so. What you must understand is that Ron Paul supporters have been fighting for the ideas which Ron Paul represents for decades not just one election. This was the whole point of the video i wanted you to watch( i know the rhetoric was a bit cheesy) but my only request was for you to look at the dates on the recorded video. If you would have made it that far into the video you would see that Dr.Paul predicted the housing bubble in 01 it didnt burst until 08. He also stood up against the patriot act when everyone was so panicked by 9/11 that no one dare question thing that were suppose to "make us safe". He also warned us that when we went into Iraq that we were entering a state of perpetual war, Another prediction that has come true. This does not make him a"God" hardly but it does make him honest. He is an idea whos time has come. Like him as a candidate or not his principals aren't his own they are that of the constitution always 100% of the time I challenge you to find him voting differently or making demands that are outside what are forefathers would want. So having only said that to help you understand where his followers are coming from.It is not Dr.Paul they are fanatical about it is the return of the country to the people the way it was suppose to be,or at least the first step in that direction. So forgive us if we are loud and boisterous but we love America and have spent too many years watching it slip away from us. Also for you to say that a president changes nothing is insain study your history my friend. Great leaders and great ideas change everything. By simply putting Dr.Paul in the WH after all the establishments attempt to marginalize him will send a message to them letting them know "we are not sheep to be herded we are intelligent we know are rights and we demand that they be respected". Congressmen will fallow suite not wanting to loose a re election one by one they will begin to tout themselves self proclaimed champions of the constitution.... Like Dr.Paul or not you have to at least see what we're trying to accomplish which are many of the same goals as the OWS movement thats why his supporters are so vocal here because they feel like they're among friends or at least should be. How about you what do you believe? Id like to know what the youth of the day are thinking given the current state of affairs(assuming your young that is) Please calm down we are all on the same side us vs. them no need for anger brother/sister. We are all feeling the pain.
Exactly. I do not support Obama, and I'm not pushing anyone to vote for him. I also do not support Paul nor the eventual Republican candidate, which is what lot of the Obama-bashing seems to be geared towards, so I fight it. You won't find me campaigning for Obama and I think that's true of many other progressives here.
How on earth is this a political neutral movement? That means all that is happening is protesting. That's it. If you want something done, do it yourself. Find a solution. The idea that this has nothing to do with politics is simply people are actually embarrassed that their Obama doesn't make the cut. He just moved troops into Africa and is amping up the pressure with Iran. We are paying $12 million a day in Afghanastan alone. And this isn't a political movement?
Politically neutral= not right or left wing.
That's called "non-partisan." You really need to read up on what you're trying to say.
No i meant politically neutral just like i said. Its easier to understand. I know what it means. I just choose not to use the term. It sounds overly political.
So this movement wants no political change?
that is not what politically neutral means.
Excuse me, but bullshit. Unless you are planning an overthrow of the government, the only way you bring about change is getting you candidate into office.
Which is it then:
Violent Overthrow
Political Candidate
No political agenda
NO its not. that is corporate propaganda on how to get change. All you have to do is make the sitting politicians work for you. Currently all politicians are traitors. They are suppose to represent the people. They do not they represent the guy with the check. This is treason against the people of the US, who own this country.
We need to make the politicians listen to us. You can do this through peaceful protest if you have enough supporters that agree with you.
Right. So you are pushing issues not candidates. What issues? Libertarian Issues, or Socialist issues? Bigger Government or Smaller government?
At the end of the day, an agenda is an agenda, unless you can define it narrowly enough that it should have broad spectrum support.
The Tea Party, for instance, has a very narrowly defined mission.
All issues. Everyone has their own issues which is fine. We can debate the issues and come to a consensus on what to do about what issues or what we would like to see changed. Advertising RP is not doing that. That is spreading propaganda and campaigning.
Where you planning on providing a reason why it is propaganda? After all, we are talking issues, not candidates, and Dr. Paul presents compelling evidence based arguments. Why propaganda?
1) You are still pushing someone elses ideology. You are using their arguments. You are not speaking for yourself just parroting what you were told. That is propaganda.
2) You cannot make one reply without referring in some way to RP.
So if someone advocates for all of Ron Pauls ideology, using explanations provided by Dr. Paul, without specifically pushing RP for President, is that legitimate, or is it "Propaganda".
Propaganda
Interesting. So if I regurgitate the ideology of Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Newton, or Franklin, it is propaganda because it is not my own.
Newsflash. Ideas have merit all their own, regardless of who thought of them.
RON PAUL 2012
Sorry anotherone773 this is about inclusiveness of the 99%. Don't let your crowded elitism suppress the growth of a movement. You seem not to understand that this movement was stemmed in part by Ron Paul supporters who are protesting the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul has been consistent throughout his career. You need to check yourself.
This movement is not about Ron Paul nor closing the Fed.
I'm not saying it is. But to exclude someone simply for following a particular politician is silly. Speak with these people find common grounds and find things to agree on. It's not their fault for needing someone to follow. And yes.. if you don't agree on closing the Fed you have idea whose funding all the money for these banks.
Thanks for allowing open conversation, this seems to be a very objective movement
How are you going to change congress by standing outside of a bank holding signs with your powerless friends? Ron paul wants to reduce the size of the government- maybe it makes sense for you to vote for him since the president actually has some power in this country? Do you get it now????
The president has very little power. Especially without support of congress. If he has no congressional support he will change almost nothing.
Because when you have enough friends you are not powerless.
Yes the president we elect does matter and it has to be the one with the right president!! Who do you think your fooling???!!! We the real people know the current President sucks and did go to Congress to give Trillions of money to Big Banks and and Auto industries to Bail them out and Congress approved it along with the Democrate party and the Republican party. There was one person who didn't approve or vote for it RON PAUL!!! He is the only true honest presidental canidate that CARES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Ron Paul has already changed the political dialogue in this country. He is a people's candidate and the greatest victory over the corrupt powers in this country would be for the people to use our Constitutional process of election to get him in the White House. The fact that the media ignores him is a hint to the threat that he poses to the powers that be. Please listen to what he has to say and think about it a bit.
Yup! I agree with your statement: The change that needs to be made is congress and the president need to be in the pocket of the people.
The "Mob Rules" But not there... yet!
The Big banks own and control the Fed. If your against big banking, end the Fed and the politicians will work for us again.
Ron Paul supporters: Real patriots buy Made in USA and nthey support the American people and jobs, not "communist" China
I have never really bought into the conspiracy theories about illiminati, bilderbergs, etc...but, there does seem to be a continually increasing ring of truth to the arguments. The Euro is failing, most currencies are pegging themselves to the fledgling dollar to keep inflation in check (the big complaint about China), the middle east is digressing from cold war remnant despots into militaristic uneducated Islamic states...I do not envision a one world currency, but a system of three does hold wait.. The USA, Germany and China will eventually divvy up the pot..
I do not support Ron Paul or any Republican or Democrat currently seeking the Presidency. It is threads like this that divert attention away from meaningful discussion.
I disagree. The most important thing we can do is discuss the politics of our government.
Change is coming. However, change takes time. Even if you assume there will be a massive overthrown of the government, which leader do you want in the meantime? Someone weakening the federal government and bringing the suicidal, depressed troops back home to their families, or a president that assassinates citizens via confidential legal doctrine, or illegally detains whistleblowers like Bradley Manning?
that's fine, but like it or not, one of these guys is going to be president..
Ron Paul movement: the far left and the far right collide it has to be called republican because it is wrong like they always are!!!!!!
Because we the people who occupy america and wall street and wherever else we are elect presidents and congress people, we have the power to change the establishment. just because you were conned into believing obama doesnt mean that you are a bad person, it just means you wanted a change. i dare you to read dr. pauls views and then i dare you to understand what powers the establishment and then i dare you to join the revolution that will get us as a nation back to work so we can occupy a job and not the street
" just because you were conned into believing obama"- That is an assumption. I didnt vote last election because i really didnt care for the candidates. Obama to me at the time seemed full of a lot of change but i didnt see him turning the world around. I would of probably supported Clinton had she of really ran. Dont know though.
"i dare you to read dr. pauls views" -I nearly have them memorized. the RP worshipers here have made sure of that.
"i dare you to understand what powers the establishment" - the establishment is a stupid term. I know what powers the govt.
"i dare you to join the revolution that will get us as a nation back to work so we can occupy a job and not the street" - I am in the revolution just not Ron Pauls revolution of "DELETE DELETE DELETE. Ok problems solved!"
Thank you! I have been receiving private messages form the Paul fans & it's REALLY ANNOYING
Excellent thread.
ron paul people don't care if you vote for ron paul. ron probably doesn't even care. he wants you to consider and share his ideas. i thought ideas were what OWS was about?
I thought OWS was about limiting the power and influence of Wall St.
For people that do not care they sure so spend a lot of time campaigning here. I almost never see an obama supporter campaign here, Romney and Perry....never. It is ONLY RP to be honest i think it is a few trolls that are using a handful of accounts because they all say the exact same thing and they all defend RP religiously.
what would romney or perry people say? or for that matter, obama? who cares what they say - by action all are corporatists. what are they going to say - rick perry is so anti-corporate welfare than he took 80k in agricultural subsidies! obama is so anti-corporate that he continued financial bailouts and coddling and let big pharma and health insurance write much of his reform bill! hardly.
If you read the healthcare reform bill-like i did, you would be surprised at how well thought it is. It is definitely for the people. It has things in there like requiring nursing homes to publish the amount of negative episodes it has had, complaints it has. It really was impressive. It's very long, but really takes into account all aspects of healthcare. You would be amazed if you read some of the healthcare law-before this bill. It's all geared towards insurance companies making money.
as if mandating people by their product isn't? the real problem with care is that far more goes through insurance than it should. much of this behavior is because of the tie of employment to health insurance. obamacare establishes a new exchange, and the hope is that small businesses actually stop providing insurance, merely give their employees money, and have them shop for it on the exchange - in a market. markets are good - but this is those people that get dumped, and not all. and is complexity on top of the existing health care industrial complex - the question should be, why is health care tied to employment anyway? they myth told is because of "free markets" - which simply don't exist in health care. what business would choose to manage this anyway? the real answer is a tax exemption made during ww2 wage freezes caused this marriage of hc and employment. if they wanted people to shop in markets and sever this marriage, they'd merely need to repeal the tax law. why not do that??? other obamacare mandates include going to electronic medical records - but a large reason more practices haven't migrated to this today is by government requirements to keep everything on paper as well. why not just get rid of that, and let the industry migrate to digital records - just as every other industry has done since the 80s?
LMAO.
Freedom of speech much?
Everyone wants a larger discussion (all except for your viewpoints).
Priceless.
Giving viewpoints is different then the constant propaganda i have seen. Give view points on problem. Not RP with do this and RP will do that and RP will do this. That is not a viewpoint or a discussion. That is propaganda BS by RP worshippers.
If RP supporters want to hang here then they need to worry about fixing the nation and not campaigning.
Educate yourself and you will agree with Dr.Pauls supporters..... Here is some entry level knowledge for you listen to what is being said and look at the dates on the videos...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1ym7S3F3w
Take your propaganda and .....SHOVE IT. Seriously it is old.
My apologies no propaganda just trying to spread knowledge. I realize now that it is impossible to make someone want to learn about a particular subject. I understand you may feel attacked by the overwhelming majority of Ron Paul supporters in this movement and that is not right. There are many philosophies in this movement all of them should be respected. Like it or not Ron Paul supporters make up a large percentage of this movement as do anarchists, progressives and the like . We need to work together for common good not fight. If you ever have any questions about the constitution, why we need to rid ourselves of the fed, or even why so many people across the nation are jumping on board a campaign you dont fully understand please feel free to PM me. We will save the debate for our foes....... Go in peace and thank you for supporting the movement....Much respect to you.
We dont need to get rid of the fed. People blame inflation on the fed. And its not the fed that is the problem. The fed needs to be fixed but their is a bigger problem causing inflation.
I strongly disagree.... Please site what you feel is a bigger problem than the fed.
First, people buy stuff on credit. Buying stuff in this manner creates artificial demand which increases prices( housing bubble anyone). It does this because you take possession of something that is not paid for. This demand causes the price to go up( high demand= higher price). This is a cause of inflation.
Second, banks are allowed to literally loan money they do not have. They basically create debt and credit out of thin air. You will never see a bank that says " Im sorry we cant do this loan because we are out of money" wont happen.
The fed reserve prints money so it can cover all debts.So it has to create new money to add to the system every time banks create new credit and debt. This makes money more worthless, AKA inflation.
You could reign this greatly by capping what debt can be created and thus putting a limit on how much a bank can lend in regards to its assets.
The problem is not the fed, the problem is the banks and fractional reserve banking. I am not saying we should do away with fractional reserve banking only that it needs to be gone over and redone. Commercial banks pretty much get free reign on banking because of how they play the banking system to create money. Basically they use " sleight of hand" to magically create more money.
OK now we're getting some where. Great point by the way and I agree. But the only thing that you must realize is that the banks have to fallow strict guidelines which states what their reserve asset to debt ratio must be. This is highly regulated and although banks increase their money supply by a process called the money multiplier. Their money is ultimately created by a process of borrowing and lending. The Federal reserve regulates these banks so it controls the amount of debt each bank can incur by determining the capital adequacy ratio. However since the Federal Reserve makes its money based on how much it loans to private banks why would they ever want to cut them off.
RP is as grassroots as it gets. He rejected the social security plan he was offered in congress when he began 35 years ago. He isn't propaganda. This is the first election I have seen in him where is given fair airplay... and Jon Stewart still claims he is getting media blacked out!! We aren't campaigning... but anotherone773, I don't see any bright ideas comin from you!
I know liberals hate it but Ron Paul is here to stay and this movement is going to be a part of the much larger R3voLution. If you believe other wise you should find somewhere to preach your message of bad economic theory, big government and less freedom. I don't understand, Its like people want to point and pick out the parts of the Constitution that suits them and throw out the rest.
Yes the president we elect does matter and it has to be the one with the right president!! Who do you think your fooling???!!! We the real people know the current President sucks and did go to Congress to give Trillions of money to Big Banks and and Auto industries to Bail them out and Congress approved it along with the Democrate party and the Republican party. There was one person who didn't approve or vote for it RON PAUL!!! He is the only true honest presidental canidate that CARES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Who you elect does not matter, 30 years of recent political history has proven that. The only thing that matters is if the people control the person that is elected.
In case you guys didn't know, cutting the federal reserve and asking Ben Bernanke were the ORIGINAL demands of Occupy/Anonymous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO3lnIC4bCE
Some of you are f'n clueless
Do you think it's okay for the Obama supporters to rally for him? I've seen plenty of people expressing support for Obama.
Ron Paul wants supporters?...well maybe the correct question is, when will Ron Paul show support for us?...THE PEOPLE. He has yet to show signs of supporting the diverse people of occupy wall street. He holds firmly to his political views without listening to the PEOPLE. BIG mistake. I do agree with a lot of his points as I'm sure the rest of the 99% does too. But his problem is that he's a political figure which we just can't trust especially since him and his campaign crew, don't SUPPORT occupy wall street. He just "agrees" to some protest signs. Shame Ron Paul.
What's the difference between supporting and agreeing that you are looking for? What do you want, an appearance? donation? I don't understand what you think is missing.
As for distrusting him b/c he is a politician: you haven't paid attention to him, have you? The MSM blacks him out like they do OWS because his platform would hurt their corporate overlords. He doesn't take Wall Street money. Most importantly, he has been 100% consistent with his ideological beliefs for 30 years.
30 years. No waffling. That's conviction that won't promise something then change his mind after the election like Obama did.
I admit out of all politicians he is the best fit. However, you have to understand that we can't trust any political figure at this moment. Not until the political and economic system gets fixed first from all the corruption.
Incredible claims require incredible proof. I find it incredible that you claim a man with 30 years of consistency and no Wall Street bailout-bought lobbyist money is a bought congressman like all the rest.
What happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
And you still haven't addressed the question I asked:
What do you mean by "when will Ron Paul show support for us? [...] He holds firmly to his political views without listening to the PEOPLE. [...] him(sic) and his campaign crew, don't SUPPORT occupy wall street"?
This is not the job for any one man. This is the JOB of THE PEOPLE as our forefathers envisioned it.
Our forefathers wrote our Constitution, which created the office of the President. It also vested the power to create currency in Congress.
What job is not the job for one man? POTUS is the job for one man. You aren't making any sense.
Our forefathers were part of THE PEOPLE. Hence...
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What part of that you don't understand?
You aren't making any sense. The POTUS is obviously one of the people of the USA. He's also the head of the Executive branch of the government, as defined by the founding fathers in the Constitution, whose preamble you are quoting. What's your point?
You must have not watched:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_P3pxze5w
I watched the version without the stupid backing music when it was on the front of reddit. He's right.
You are still not answering me! What are you asking of Ron Paul that he isn't doing? You answer questions like a well heeled politician.
I have already answered that question. He doesn't support the PEOPLE. He supports his "well heeled political" views.
His views are that of liberty. He wants the people of the USA to stop being victimized by corporatism by a government run by corrupt politicians. The answer he proposes isn't to try to keep tweaking and iterating on a failed model. He'd rather break down the overwhelming power the government has with regard to the private business sector.
It's a start and in that, I value his courage and commitment, believe me. I just think that he doesn't have to be in office to achieve that goal. We the people can do this together. He should be down at wall street at least showing his support.
He needs to spend every bit of effort he can to win the candidacy. And, while ideally the population at large can accomplish these goals eventually, having a president sympathetic to those goals would be so invaluable. Why wouldn't you want that instead of a Wall Street darling, like Obama or Romney?
In what way do you think he is not supporting the people? Do you want increased liberty, or increased handouts?
If the former, Paul's your guy. If the latter... you deserve the Fox News criticism you receive.
No one is asking for handouts, and you are silly for even making that assumption. I agree in ending the FED but this country needs much more than just that.
And I don't want our country to give out handouts. I don't think most protesters want them, either, but you have to admit there's always a few in every crowd (unfortunately).
I also agree that this country needs more than just ending the Fed. We do, however, absolutely need to end the fed. That's of paramount importance.
Just ending the FED. Doesn't eliminate the fact that its replacement won't also get corrupted. Same thing happened with Washington Mutal, what did they do...they closed the company and restarted under a different name....
I agree also but we must also first and foremost ensure that something similar doesn't ever happen again. Otherwise it would just be a trick of hands and the FED would just get hand swapped with another name. Oldest trick in the book.
So, do you think Ron Paul would put forth 30 years of effort to minimize the federal government and destroy the fed, only to reinstitute a central bank by another name?
Who says I think Ron Paul would do such a thing? I actually like Ron Paul. I just don't think any one person holds the answers to the solution. No one man can do it, therefore THE PEOPLE are called up to the podium. :)
Power to the People! ♥
As I said I went down to his campaign personally and they confirmed to me that they have NOTHING to do with the PEOPLE at OccupyWallStreet. Total bullshit.
Care to explain what you mean by this?
What are you expecting that they aren't doing?
you forgot the: Brought to you by the committee to Reelect Barack Obama
The Obama shills are rife throughout this forum, telling everyone this isn't a political demonstration. Oh the comedy.
I rarely see an obama support mention something. I have seen it once today. But i have seen four Ron Paul Supporters pushing his agenda and website in the same period of time.
I get on to people about both. This is not to campaign for you candidate. The reason people are here is because all candidates suck and we have to go outside the system.
Are you kidding me? Anyone who points out the FACT Obama is in bed with Wall St. gets shouted down by his minions.
Its not political speech you want to get off the forum, its political speech you disagree with.
There are also anti-semetic nut jobs posting zeitgeist, tin-foil hat, nonsense. What is your point? This is an open forum with no moderator.
Very true. Now reconcile the rampant nut jobs with the calls for direct democracy and you'll know why the public at large is laughing.
You're right, all political movements are narrow minded with absolutely no chance of outliers.
"They see me trolllllinnnnn..."
Many folks here are / were once progressives. I don't see many of them pushing for a political agenda so much as wanting an open discussion for a larger goal that more people can get on board with.
Whats naive is thinking you can change the country without Ron Paul. His supporters have a clear objective and if you educated yourself about him you'd realize that his ideal are very similar to what the 99% is fighting for. Not only does he what to eliminate the Fed and return us to sound money but he has in 30 yrs never voted against what the constitution would indicate or changed his message. The same constitution that allows us to protest and gives us power to change our government peacefully. He is being blacked out by the media, more so than OWS, because he is a bigger threat than OWS to the establishment. You say "A president is pretty powerless without congress" First of all electing Ron Paul would send tremors through congress as a clear sign that the political landscape has vastly changed and they better get on board or be voted out. Second of all what is OWS doing to influence congress or change anything for that matter? Cool we all got together to show the world we're pissed off now what? No clear plan, no clear objective what do you think is going to come of this without organization? Ron Paul is a revolution so its no wonder so many OWS people support Ron Paul and if took his supporters out of this movement itd be cut in half. I am also appalled that some people claiming OWS are supporting Obama? That is insain."we want a revolution but also the status quo at the same time?" Those sheeple will go along with anything. The rest of OWS needs to get on board with Dr.Paul so that we can actually accomplish something out of this revolution. I dont know about you but I didnt take time off work to sleep in a tent surrounded by people who lack basic hygiene to accomplish nothing Dr.Paul 2012 his ideas have planted the seed to spark this revolution years ago lets see them through.
"Whats naive is thinking you can change the country without Ron Paul." - that has to be the dumbest thing i have ever read on this board. And i immediately stopped reading after that. You lose all credibility when you post something so naive and idiotic. We need RP to change the country? Are you that seriously warped in the head? I can tell you really dont belong here that you are just here to advertise. Troll.
Not so it is not your movement to dictate who belongs and who doesn't it is the peoples movement and a lot of them feel Ron Paul is the solution. Please refrain from name calling it makes you sound ignorant and we all know that is not the case. You have found your way to this movement that is enough for me. Ill stand beside you and get tear gassed by the pigs any day. But please respect the beliefs of the RP supporters as they should respect yours.
The ones i see including you are not respecting anything. All you RP supporters are doing is going around telling everyone how great RP is. Youre preaching RP like he is some kind of god. Its annoying and unproductive.
Yep.
Freedom you are exactly right. And for those RP haters, notice that 71% of the overseas troops overwhelmingly support him. All the other candidates combined cannot reach that magnitude.
He takes us back to the age of intellectual freedom, not the suppression of dreaming.
I don't think Ron Paul influences the Congress any more than he influences himself. And, when his name is mentioned in most circles, the response is, who that weirdo. And for popularity, he has his fan club, and that's pretty much it. He doesn't even have a long shot at winning the repug nomination where he's more welcomed then anywhere else. Frankly, as long as I remember him being around he has been an interesting oddity but no one has ever seen him going far. But he is sure worth an occasional laugh.
If you pay attention you will actually find the opposite his has won straw polls such as CA and TX values by a landslid. He has also come in a close second in important battle ground states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. The news marginalizes him which is probably where you get your oddity accretions from. The fact is the same people have used scare tactics to convince us that it was necessary to fight two illegal wars and bail out the big financial institutions. If you would allow yourself to objectively research the facts you will see that he is truly the only candidate who is looking out for Americas best interests by fallowing the constitution to the letter of the law and demanding the end to the Fed as does OWS.
If you pay attention you will actually find the opposite his has won straw polls such as CA and TX values by a landslid. He has also come in a close second in important battle ground states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. The news marginalizes him which is probably where you get your oddity accretions from. The fact is the same people have used scare tactics to convince us that it was necessary to fight two illegal wars and bail out the big financial institutions. If you would allow yourself to objectively research the facts you will see that he is truly the only candidate who is looking out for Americas best interests by fallowing the constitution to the letter of the law and demanding the end to the Fed as does OWS.
Don't get me wrong, some things he's done I have been advocating myself. He voted against the patriot act, and he's against the torture that the repugs are hyped up on. He was against all the crazy wars. He would legalize weed. But then, he would allow prayer in schools, I'm against that brainwash.
But, I can't in my imagination ever seeing him get the repug nod for president. They don't like his war on drugs or the dismantling of our Military_industrial complex. But by God the Pentagon has one whooping big budget, we spend trillions on our military. The rest of the world together doesn't spend as much.
Very true but the repugs or the dems dont like our movement either and as many may agree I can care less what the establishment wants. He is a man whos ideas time has come and whether he gets elected or the OWS movement succeeds or not I will support both because they both, to me, stand for freeing ourselves from our oppressors. I think America is waking up and we are education ourselves and ignoring the corporate media.
Or we may see the same Political Bull crap we have seen for the past Thirty years from Both Parties. Ps. The President has no Power over the making of laws.
But you wont if you educated yourself about Dr.Paul youd see that he is unlike the other corporate fed media blitzed candidate. He is the only one calling for and end to the fed and the war. He stood up to the initial implementation of this unconstitutional war off the gate he voted against the patriot act and any other piece of legislation that hasn't coincided with the constitution100% of the time. He isn't pandering lie to the public he doesn't vote for what he wants he is a champion of the constitution and consults it with every political decision he makes.
I do not like "Doctor" Paul. He represents the same garbage we have seen for the past Two Hundred years! Rich, White, Men. Through-out our history. One Group has had power in our country. Our House isn't representing us correctly Most states including my own have a majority of, Rich, Married, White, Male, who also is Christian.
And believe me, I have done research on this.
it doesnt matter if you like the "doctor" Paul or not if you have done your research you will find that Dr.Ron Paul is in fact a licensed physician from Duke university. After which time he became a flight surgion in Vietnam from 1963 to 1968 upon his return he practiced as an OBGYN until 1976 and in that time delivered over 4000 babies. Like him or not the all the soldiers whos lives he's, saved, all the woman he has fought to help and protect, and all the babies he has delivered would appreciate it if you would please recognize his earned title. Your assumptions and dislike for Dr. Paul seem to be based more on race,sex,and religion than fact. Please we ask that you keep your racists views to yourself it is not something the movement or myself condones or appreciates.
This isn't Racist it is Statistical Fact. We do need change, but not from the same crap that got us in this mess in the first place.
Ron Paul is no where near the same as candidates before if you would read about him you would see how revolutionary he is..... But I am curious what do you suggest we do to resolve our current problems? I eagerly await your incite. Peace.
We look deep into the past. Find out what Other nations and Civilizations did wrong. We need to look past the Two major Political parties and find a Third on or a Fourth one. Our system would work better with Multiple parties.
And People said the Same thing about Obama. I still think that Obama is a Better man and a President then Ron Paul can ever hope to be.
Well you have to ask your self what defines a better man? Is it honesty and integrity? Or is it smooth talk and lies? Dr.Ron Paul is touted , even by his opponents as one of the only honest me in Washington. In over 30yrs in politics you cannot catch him in a single lie nor does he deviate from his position. Obama cant seem to go 6months without getting caught in a lie. Obama is a political actor and a good one at that. If you want great speeches that fill you full of hope with no delivery the he is your man. But if you want honest straight talk by a man of action the Ron Paul is your man. As far as looking deep into our history to find the answers that I agree with which is why Dr.Ron Pauls position is that of the constitution. He fallows it to the letter of the law and never once voted or made a political decision that deviates from what the constitution indicates should be done.Also in history was a smooth talker that wooed the people with his eloquent speeches and convinced them he was a beacon of hope and would bring their country back to greatness. He filled them with national pride and people, such as yourself, wouldn't hear of anything negative that his opponents would warm them about. His man was Adolf Hitler one of the great orators of that time( now in no way am I saying Obama is like Hitler I am just saying usually the smooth talkers are the ones to be very cautious of in politics,in life,and in business) Also you want multiple parties what do you think Ron Paul is he is a libertarian and has ran on a third party ticket in the past but due to the flawed two party system he is forced to run republican so he can have a chance. Look at his views hes not on par with what typical republican views are. I believe that if studied the facts with an open mind you'd see why a increasing majority of the OWS movement supports Dr.Ron Paul and shuns Obama. Look I wanted Obama to do well too. But not only did he lie but Obama has taken more money from wall street than any candidate EVER. It is a cold hard truth that Obama is wall street. Although I am merely defending my position not telling you who to vote for I feel that if you truly understand and support the position of OWS movement Obama would be the furthest from a electable candidates as it gets.
Obama is better? That's laughable. He has drove us financially into oblivion in less than three years, started wars without congressional approval, given taxpayer money to failing corporations, appointed corrupted officials who now stand trial, may very well have been elected through voter fraud, and the list goes on. Ron Paul has the most consistent and honest record of any candidate, and quite possibly nearly every politician! He's voted against everything that has hurt our country and wants nothing more than to end these expensive and pointless wars, bring our troops home, cut spending by $1 trillion, and balance the budget by 2015. He has also never opted into the abusive congressional pension plan and has sworn to cut the presidential salary by 90%! Furthermore, he has never once excepted donations from lobbyists, special interest groups or corporations. If that doesn't speak for itself, then so help us if people with your idea of a good president vote in 2012!
The President has no power over making law? What is "Obamacare" it's a law that was put together by the president and his staff. These days Congress is just a hurdle the president has to jump to get his way. It's no longer the three equal branches of government my friend. Our government is broken.
No actually Obamacare is a twisted birth child of what Should have been. If you read the original Document it is nothing like what should have been. Then it gets to the house, and it is twisted, then when it gets to the senate, it is no longer the original Document.
No law ever is but that's not the point. You said that the president has no power over policy. That is untrue.