Help me defeat this guys argument against Ron Paul

[Jusenkyo]

Thanks for the help guys. I have no idea what some people are thinking sometimes. He was claiming everything I mentioned dealing with iraq, housing, inflation, oil was all "easily predicted." 20/20 hindsight is fantastic. Here is what he posted and my response. "The occupy movement wants more goverment regulation on banks higher taxes on the top 1 percent, and more spending on socal programs like education, and infastructure. The tea party wants to lower taxes on the top 1 percent, remove all goverment regulation of banks and business anc cut federal spending on infastructure and education
They don't have allot in common. So when ron wants to audit the fed, and go after banks but cut back on the laws that regulate them he is just talking out of both sides of his mouth its funny he even disagees with him self at times. Hey may have some valid points at times but the rest is nonsense As far as predicting things. Im not sure he predictid the war with Iraq but you dont have to be super smart to know that continued unrest in that part of the world will leat to problems that we get involved in. rising oil prices are nothing new and everyone already knows this so saying you are predictin it is nonsense. The housing bubble bursting also no big news anyone watching the markets over the last 20 years knows that at some time with home prices growing faster than income and more homes being built than are needed in the market will lead to oversupply and a collapse in price its econ 101. Inflation always comes after a recession because prices are catching up to what they droped back during the recession also no surprise. and we have a recession every 8 to 15 years so predictint it is also nothing amazeing. The things i listed are things most americans and our politicians already know. So how did ron paul predict them?? I have some predictions lets see if they are correct. The sun will come up tomorrow, for at least the next 3-5 years the labor market and business in the usa will improve, Our deficit will grow more slowly in the coming years as the econoemy improves and the number of people receiving benifits drops, North korea and Iran will still be problem areas during the next decade and eith one or both may require us to at some time take military action. Now does this make me Yoda or Presidential Material???

Here is what a said.There is nothing inconsistent with eliminating the Fed and eliminating the government bailouts of the banks and at the same time eliminating government interference in the business of banks. On the one hand, Ron Paul opposes giving banks special benefits - like bailouts and free Fed money - and on the other hand he opposes government interfering with banking business. Perfectly consistent. Bottom line, get government out of the economy. It is the other candidates that are inconsistent - talking about the free market in one breath and supporting bailouts with another. Occupy and the Tea Party were both born from opposition to TARP, they may have different means to reach their goal but it doesn't mean they do not want the same thing. A good leader who isn't so quick to demonize would see that. As for your 20/20 hindsight said issues, you seem to forget it was believed the Iraq War would cost only about 2 billion, the oil would pay for the war, we would find WMD's, we would be hailed as liberators and an occupation wouldn't be necessary. Paul was called crazy for arguing against this. The housing market was supposed to "correct" itself in 2006. In 2001 certain congressman argued the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing new money for banks to lend out based on
regulation passed down from the federal government and at the same time messing with interest rates would cause a housing frenzy which would drive up costs and
eventually lead to a bust. He also knew that once that collapse came, that the government-agencies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would be bailed out. He was again
called crazy for arguing against a correction and claiming a bust would occur.

As you can see I took one of the comments posted here earlier. Thanks again!

[The Gold Standard]

2 Untrue points:
1. Banks would have far tougher regulations under Ron Paul's true free market
2. Ron would lower taxes for everyone. And while reducing the deficit.

Untrue because you said they are? That's just because you don't understand how they can be true.

If banks are not given access to bailouts and are bankrupt and charged with fraud when they can't redeem customer deposits, that is a much stricter regulator than what we have now, where they steal trillions of dollars and the punishment they get is untold trillions of dollars in bailouts. I don't see how anyone can argue that point.

And anyone who would cut spending is lowering taxes for everyone. Revenues really don't even matter. Every penny the government spends has to be taxed now, taxed later, or printed, which everyone pays for. Even if someone got in there and didn't cut a single tax rate, but cut $1 trillion in spending, they would be lowering everyone's taxes.

[enoch150]

[onlyrp]

Hello, I have been a huge supporter of Ron Paul since first hearing him debate in 07. I have roamed this board in the past reading articles but never had a
need to post anything, until now. I have been in an argument with this guy about Ron Paul "talking nonsense" and claiming to be a hypocrite when dealing
with the tea party & occupy movements. I have tried all the basic arguments like how RP predicted the Iraq war, housing bubble burst, inflation, oil price
increases, ect... I have also attempted to argue the roots of Occupy with its opposition to the bank bailout and Tea party with its opposition to excessive
government spending are the same. I was hoping you guys could give me some help with how to respond to his last message.

"The occupy movement wants more goverment regulation on banks higher taxes on the top 1 percent, and more spending on socal programs like education, and infastructure. The tea party wants to lower taxes on the top 1 percent, remove all goverment regulation of banks and business anc cut federal spending on infastructure and education
They don't have allot in common. So when ron wants to audit the fed, and go after banks but cut back on the laws that regulate them he is just talking out of both sides of his mouth its funny he even disagees with him self at times. Hey may have some valid points at times but the rest is nonsense"

Thanks for any help, maybe with a sound argument I may be able to convert this guy.

If prohibiting the government from bailing out banks is called "regulation", then yes, I want them, big and heavy (hell, with force too)

[MooCowzRock]

Epic chart, dude, lays it out very simply

[Athan]

"The occupy movement wants more goverment regulation on banks higher taxes on the top 1 percent, and more spending on socal programs like education, and infastructure. The tea party wants to lower taxes on the top 1 percent, remove all goverment regulation of banks and business anc cut federal spending on infastructure and education
They don't have allot in common. So when ron wants to audit the fed, and go after banks but cut back on the laws that regulate them he is just talking out of both sides of his mouth its funny he even disagees with him self at times. Hey may have some valid points at times but the rest is nonsense"

Thanks for any help, maybe with a sound argument I may be able to convert this guy.

The fundamental problem this guy here has is that he doesn't understand Ron Paul's position. Like, at ALL. Not even a semblance of what he has said regarding them. If he clearly was talking out of both sides of his mouth as this guy claims, Jon Stewart and Stephen Cobert would have had a FIELD day with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul was pro-tea party because they were going after the bail-outs of the banks that were taking part in the derivatives and bad housing market stocks. Ron has stated FREQUENTLY these large thieves should have gone bankrupt when their gambling was over. The teaocons who have taken over the teaparty do not agree with Ron Paul and only want republicans back in power which is likely what this guy is familiar with. Their lack of support for Paul is evident that he is more focused on the Fed, honest money, and DC corruption.

Paul is NOT talking up the Occupy movement because they are promoting socialist agendas. He has simply stated that their fustration is by and large warrented and is good that they are getting mad at the inequity. He simply feels they are not going after the culprits at DC, the Fed, and the lobbyist.

The guy isn't giving you a coherent argument because he is not informed on Paul outside of what he is told by GE, I mean the media.

[camp_steveo]

What he is ignoring is that Dr Paul says that the free market is the most burdensome of all regulations. It is where there are no bailouts, and bankruptcy is what happens to failures.

As a side note, tell him that Paul believes that the court system and property rights is where many problems with industries, such as pollution, should be resolved.

[camp_steveo]

Does he think the banks pretty much own Congress? I'm assuming yes.

Then what could possibly lead him to the conclusion that having Congress - that is owned by banks - regulate the banking industry is a good idea?

this is a good point to get him to start thinking.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Thanks for the help guys. I have no idea what some people are thinking sometimes. He was claiming everything I mentioned dealing with iraq, housing, inflation, oil was all "easily predicted." 20/20 hindsight is fantastic. Here is what he posted and my response. "The occupy movement wants more goverment regulation on banks higher taxes on the top 1 percent, and more spending on socal programs like education, and infastructure. The tea party wants to lower taxes on the top 1 percent, remove all goverment regulation of banks and business anc cut federal spending on infastructure and education
They don't have allot in common. So when ron wants to audit the fed, and go after banks but cut back on the laws that regulate them he is just talking out of both sides of his mouth its funny he even disagees with him self at times. Hey may have some valid points at times but the rest is nonsense As far as predicting things. Im not sure he predictid the war with Iraq but you dont have to be super smart to know that continued unrest in that part of the world will leat to problems that we get involved in. rising oil prices are nothing new and everyone already knows this so saying you are predictin it is nonsense. The housing bubble bursting also no big news anyone watching the markets over the last 20 years knows that at some time with home prices growing faster than income and more homes being built than are needed in the market will lead to oversupply and a collapse in price its econ 101. Inflation always comes after a recession because prices are catching up to what they droped back during the recession also no surprise. and we have a recession every 8 to 15 years so predictint it is also nothing amazeing. The things i listed are things most americans and our politicians already know. So how did ron paul predict them?? I have some predictions lets see if they are correct. The sun will come up tomorrow, for at least the next 3-5 years the labor market and business in the usa will improve, Our deficit will grow more slowly in the coming years as the econoemy improves and the number of people receiving benifits drops, North korea and Iran will still be problem areas during the next decade and eith one or both may require us to at some time take military action. Now does this make me Yoda or Presidential Material???

Here is what a said.There is nothing inconsistent with eliminating the Fed and eliminating the government bailouts of the banks and at the same time eliminating government interference in the business of banks. On the one hand, Ron Paul opposes giving banks special benefits - like bailouts and free Fed money - and on the other hand he opposes government interfering with banking business. Perfectly consistent. Bottom line, get government out of the economy. It is the other candidates that are inconsistent - talking about the free market in one breath and supporting bailouts with another. Occupy and the Tea Party were both born from opposition to TARP, they may have different means to reach their goal but it doesn't mean they do not want the same thing. A good leader who isn't so quick to demonize would see that. As for your 20/20 hindsight said issues, you seem to forget it was believed the Iraq War would cost only about 2 billion, the oil would pay for the war, we would find WMD's, we would be hailed as liberators and an occupation wouldn't be necessary. Paul was called crazy for arguing against this. The housing market was supposed to "correct" itself in 2006. In 2001 certain congressman argued the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing new money for banks to lend out based on
regulation passed down from the federal government and at the same time messing with interest rates would cause a housing frenzy which would drive up costs and
eventually lead to a bust. He also knew that once that collapse came, that the government-agencies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would be bailed out. He was again
called crazy for arguing against a correction and claiming a bust would occur.

As you can see I took one of the comments posted here earlier. Thanks again!

Ok debating economics socialists/communists class-warfarists turns out to be an exercise in futility, most of the time, although I do get into such conversations but they can be very annoying

So I could get into economics of things but I'd prefer not to. I think one thing that would definitely resonate with commies with regards to free markets is that "corporate personhood" is NOT part of the free market

Ok, "corporate personhood" is the "regulation" that government has created to protect people running the corporations, this law recognizes corporations as "legal person" so when a corporation goes bankrupt, only those assets which are tied to this so called "legal person" will be used to pay off the debt obligations of that company & all the people running that company, who ran it into the ground get to go scotfree while the creditors are left with the bag & of course, if the company is big enough & has enough lobbying power then it gets bailed out

Now, under a free market, people have right to life, liberty & property & INDIVIDUAL responsibility is encouraged so there's no room for "corporate personhood" or "legal person" because they aren't really people & can't take responsibility so Ron Paul would like to repeal "corporate personhood" which means if a business goes bankrupt then people running that business are held PERSONALLY LIABLE for all the losses & their PERSONAL PROPERTY will be seized to pay of the losses.

Right now, banks & such makes huge profits while everything is going up & they get handsome salaries & bonuses & so on & that's why they take the kind of risks they do because they know they'll get to keep all the profits but won't have to bear the losses! Repealing "corporate personhood" means that they can't do this anymore because their PERSONAL ASSETS will be seized to pay off the obligations of the company which means they won't take the kind of risks they do & even if they fail, THERE WOULD BE NO BAILOUTS since all the people running the company would be held responsible. Now, THIS is free market, baby!

How many candidates or politicians out there who believe that corporations should NOT be a "person" & that people running the thing should be liable, it certainly isn't Obama, he completely owned by big banks & corporations, he got millions from Goldman Sachs & Morgan & others & he repaid their faith by bailing out their asses; there's no candidate out their who wants to take on the corporations in such a radical way - ONLY Ron Paul








And since he thinks predicting the collapse & everything was so "easy" then why were all the other members in the government & elsewhere as well as King Bernanke sleeping on the issue & telling everyone that "economy is fine", etc until the whole thing actually came down?

Moreover, yes, the original "tea-parties" were organized for Ron Paul but since that time it has been taken over by other Neo-Conservative establishment groups & now "tea-party" has no specific identity as such, it's a hodge-podge of social-conservatives, debt-hawks, religious-fundamentalists, libertarians & what not so it's not like people in the tea-party actually agree on all the issues, they have their differences which I'm sure is true of OWS as well

And saying Ron wants to reduce taxes on top 1% is complete mischaracterization of his position, he wants to reduce taxes on EVERYONE, he just doesn't believe that government is wise enough to manage everything & take all that money from people, most of that money ends up in the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats & their buddies anyway while some crum is thrown at the poor people to make them keep voting for the politicians that are sucking dry the whole of America

So far are "regulations" go, where does he think all the angels are? They are surely not to be found in the government! In fact, government is one of the most corrupt entities out there so expecting them to "regulate" businesses is like asking cat to guard the milk.......& the result should be known already, the big businesses lobby & fund politicians & their campaign (Obama is the biggest example of it) & then in turn, government makes "regulations" that favor the big businesses while killing the smaller ones so his belief in the government to "regulate" everything perfectly is foolish

Fruther, it was the "regulations" that caused the crisis, it was the "regulations" like Community Reinvestment Act that FORCED banks to make loans to unsound borrowers, it's the government that has created Freddie & Fannie which also dealt in unsound loans, it was the government that created FDIC which ensures bailouts at the expense of the people, having FDIC in place is like saying to banks - go gamble your money, if you make profits, you can keep'em & if you make losses them we'll bail you out - And last but not least, Fed is the creation of the government, it kept interest too low offering very cheap loans which increased the moneysupply, leading to massive price-rise which eventually had to fall & it did so clearly government can hardly be the solution he believes it to be, in fact it's the government's power & corruption that leads to such mess, simply eliminating "corporate personhood" & thereby allowing free market would do more to end corporatism & the spurious partnership between government & businesses

I'd say, don't waste too much time on converting commies, they're economically illiterate & detest prosperity so unless you're absolutely surrounded by Democrats or something I'd say go for Independents & Republicans, they should be a little easier to convert

And if thinks everything is going to be hunky-dory in a couple of years then think again, US is now the MOST INDEBTED NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD & if the debt isn't cut quickly then US will go the way of Greece & there'd no bailouts from other nations because the whole world's economic system based on paper-money is coming to an end Here's a nice video on Fed & nature of money






And some very nice responses by "bluesc" & "enoch150" so make use of them

Does he think the banks pretty much own Congress? I'm assuming yes.

Then what could possibly lead him to the conclusion that having Congress - that is owned by banks - regulate the banking industry is a good idea?

++++++++++1

It's ridiculous how stupid can be to not recognize things even though they're staring them in the face

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1

/You must spread some reputation around before giving it to enoch150 again/

[Madison320]

Ron Paul wants to get to the root cause of the problem. The Fed gives free money to banks. The banks to stupid things with their free money. Trying to regulate the banks from doing stupid things with their free money won't do any good. To solve the problem the Fed has to stop giving out free money. That's the root cause.