Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

Short-term foolishness.Like Cash for Clunkers.
Just a Dr.Feelgood band-aid to help lower income toadies feel
like this Administration is helping them out.
It's little more than old-fashioned graft.
Give Lower income folk a chance to better themself or save money
by better managing their incomes.Wall-Mart is THE Best friend
a lower income person has.

 

New Ron Paul ad....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D58v4eiUuI"]New Ron Paul TV Ad - "The One Who Can Beat Obama" - YouTube[/ame]

 

There's much more to it than you're making it.
Anyway, the lower down you go the more people usually spend, so if you really think that its that simple as spending makes jobs then you should give tax cuts to people who still pay taxes but are still way below the rich.

 

People who currently make enough to pay taxes are also well enough that they don't need more tax cuts. You don't seem to get that. Those people are in no way poor. They aren't rich either and I'm sure they're struggling to get by. But they are not where spending should be targeted. They are likely to put at least some of that money into a savings account. We want none of the money given going into a savings account. The money shouldn't go to middle class. It should go directly to the poor.

That money gets spent right away and winds up in the hands of the middle class anyway. Giving it to the bottom of the barrel poor makes sure the money touches every class. Not just one or two like giving it in a broad middle class tax cut.

 

Gotta admit. He's stepped up his game this time.

 

I believe he thinks people should be free from quotas and forced integration.
I noticed that in USA black people are living in Socialism and white people are in Capitalism, fighting for survival. Blacks are given some quotas, by Affirmative action and mass media constantly favoring them as a race, like give them this, give them that, because they where slaves.

 

As someone who has done this sort of thing for a living, let me say that a factually superior response is worth far less than a political response.

 

Facts, honesty, logic, and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee in Washington. You do not win elections with facts or logic or being correct. You win elections by being political and saying the things that must be said to activate the demographic groups needed to win while not pissing off opposition groups enough to get them to turn out to vote against you. Being factually correct or posing a logical solution to problems will not ever win you an election. People are not logical, they do not understand the issues, and you'll never be able to educate them enough to win.

If you're trying to counter gut reactions with logical arguments, you're going to lose, because once people get into an emotional mindset for an election, they're not going to get out of that mindset until the election is over. It's just not going to happen. If you cannot win the gut reaction crowd, you will not win a presidential election. Even if you're popular among the 10% who give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about politics, you're not going to make sense among the rest of the voting population if you don't target those visceral emotional responses.

Ron Paul cannot, and will not do that. And as a consequence, he will not win. The sad fact is that anyone capable of winning an election in the US isn't someone that Ron Paul or his followers would want to win.

The thing about the fourth estate is that they really don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about left v. right or politics except in as much as they can make people scared and get them separated into definable marketable segments. They are only interested in politics because they can use it as a cheap way to grab viewers and sell ad time. The media doesn't like Ron Paul because almost no one is afraid of Ron Paul. They see him at worst as the crazy old uncle you'd never trust with a position of authority, not someone who stands a chance of winning and destroying America. Despite the fact that his policies would be utterly disastrous, people know he's got no chance of winning, so they're not afraid. The news media would much rather have Rick Perry as the candidate because Rick Perry worries left-leaning voters, which will prompt them to tune into the news to get updates on the horse race, which means the news networks can sell ad time.

Ron Paul's positions do make him unelectable, but his bigger problem is the way he presents his positions, which turn off far more people than the positions themselves do. Even among the people who do not disagree with him, he loses voters because of how he presents his positions. But even his positions make him unelectable. He's a soft target. It would be tremendously simple to run a campaign against Paul--just trot out every stupid statement he's made that, without context, sounds mind-numbingly dumb. That's the thing about politicians who stand for complex positions--10 second sound bites make them sound really stupid.

 

You don't make wealth by spending you make wealth by producing things. If you think that spending is all that matters then the point is that if tax cuts are given to any one set of people the fall in demand isn't going to be so epic that it's going to destroy all these jobs and result in rioting in the streets, there can't be a shortfall in demand if the market is left to do its own thing, it simply cannot because it will adjust to the new situation.

 

I only have one disagreement with your post. Ron Pauls positions .. they might be disasterous to this country.. they might not. Its not a certainty that they would be negative considering what is happening now. I gotta believe that his policies arent set in stone and that he would be willing to change some things for the public good. He does seem to be the only candidate with the good of the country as his priority. I think he would act accordingly.

But I sadly must concede to your logic. I do see that without investigation and knowledge.. Ron Paul does sound simple minded... to the simpleminded. Its actually a depressing point to acknowledge

If I was a bettin man.. I would put my money on Rick Perry.. its his election to lose.. considering the clowns he is running against... and we will have 4 more years of Obama/Bush style government.

 

Spending encourages production.

 

Who decides where the spending should go? The people, the Corporations or the Government?

What if the Currency gets devalued and the country faces a Weimar Republic repeat of the Mark?

What if you have no more money or you're in debt?

What if you decide to continue borrowing will the Bill Collectors finally come or will the Land of Fairies of Elves appear and make all of the Bill Collectors go away?

 

Mmm, good to see such an advanced economic model at work.

 

I pretty much agree with you, but keep in mind that getting Paul in the WH isn't the objective here. The better he does, the more the media has to discuss him and the wider his audience becomes. He was out of the race fairly early-on 4 years ago, but take a look around at all the accomplishments of that campaign.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx3xdi7zYaM"]Fox News Contributor Juan Williams Discussing Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

Now consider what he could accomplish after this campaign.
He almost certainly won't be the President, but he *can* transform politics enough to make it possible for someone who thinks like him to become the President 4 years from now.

 

Unfortunately, he has to win the nomination first.

 

I get why dissatisfied Dems might vote for him, but what is it about Romney that you think will attract Libs, Inds, and TEA partiers?

 

hmmm...he invited Johnson into the race. I suspect he might be trying to get him some name recognition.

Johnson is pro-choice (if that is what you mean by "more radical" - to a R). I think they would complement one another beautifully.

Paul (personally supports right to life) and Johnson (personally supports choice) yet neither believes it is the Fed's business to make this decision -- and that is the point to be learned. That's what smaller govt means....not, my side uses the govt for my issues, your side uses the govt for your issues.

Paul has the principles; Johnson has the executive experience.

To me this employs the age-old tactic of choosing a candidate from the North/south and a running mate from the South/north. It has worked for a great many campaigns.

A Paul-Johnson ticket would be virtually impossible for O to beat in the general.

 

Not a chance in hell BUT it blows my mind that Bachmann is ahead of Paul. Seriously.

 

Independents are likely to vote for him, if they're tired of Obama's big government policies. Tea partiers would vote Republican if they were running Charlie Manson. Libs? Libertarians aren't too happy with big government, either. Liberals are not happy with Obama not being as liberal as his detractors said he would be, but they wouldn't vote Republican if the Democrats were the party of Charlie Manson.

It's the independents and moderates who determine elections.

 

Good thing there is absolutely no chance of that happening, ever. You've heard of Ramen noodles and rice, yes? Well, they're quite plentiful and dirt cheap. No need to worry about mass starvation. It's not even a remote possibility.

 

Put the money away? You mean into banks where it increases the amount of loanable funds and drives down interest rates without causing inflation?

 

Indeed! Savings are an insurance policy against all sorts of unforeseen events like job loss and illness. Having an indemnity against those things increases consumer and investor confidence and provides people with the means to withstand "rainy days". Just think of how much better off the economy would be if people had had more savings when the economy collapsed!

 

While you are correct that people aren't going to starve, that doesn't rebut the main point. Which is that poor and desperate people with no source of income and no entity capable of helping them through their tough times, are going to cause a great deal of social unrest. It is why there were riots in the UK, and it is why social unrest was exponentially greater in the US, UK, Europe, and the rest of the "developed" world prior to the introduction of social safety nets. When government is not addressing the needs of poor and desperate people, they will not only create social unrest, but they will tend to turn towards more radical political solutions. It is not a coincidence that the introduction of the modern welfare state, also brought about the end of communism, revolutionary socialism, fascism, etc as legitimate political movements. When people are not desperate, those ideologies seem like terrible ideas. When they are desperate, they are willing to try anything. Hopefully we don't get back to that point in our history. We tried the whole no social safety nets thing in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it was a MASSIVE FAILURE. We don't need to try it again, because the results will unsurprisingly be the same.

 

Then why did the economic recovery in WWII correspond with historically high savings rates?

Totally false. It increases the supply of loanable funds and drives down interest rates.

Higher savings means higher debts!? Unreal...

 

Their lack of income and wealth is mostly attributable to an authoritarian central government.

Again, the plight of the poor during the 19th and 20th centuries was due to authoritarian central government using its police powers to confer benefits upon special interests and quell private unionization efforts. Throughout history, the scourge of humanity has almost always been an authoritarian central government violating people's rights at the behest of special interests or misguided moralists. Your "cure" is just more poison. The only time humans have seen consistent increases in their standard of living and happiness has been when power was radically decentralized.