What if Ron Paul were the President of the US

[Empire of Vlissingen]

A balanced budget would mean that the debt will lower and if the debt decreases the interest payments decrease so that you can spend that extra money on something like education or infrastructure.

The interest payments are directly tied to the treasury bond rates...which as they stand are very, very low. It would take years to reap any benefits. Slashing the budget would decrease economic growth and result in far more downsides than positives.

And you actually think that, after all that is done, they would invest in education? Paul would rather privatise education than do that.

Paul could give tax benefits for the use of private education.

A deficit is a tax to future generations - Ron Paul.
The young people will have to pay the debt with higher taxes and reduced government.

[Kelinfort]

The interest payments are directly tied to the treasury bond rates...which as they stand are very, very low. It would take years to reap any benefits. Slashing the budget would decrease economic growth and result in far more downsides than positives.

And you actually think that, after all that is done, they would invest in education? Paul would rather privatise education than do that.

Paul could give tax benefits for the use of private education.

A deficit is a tax to future generations - Ron Paul.
The young people will have to pay the debt with higher taxes and reduced government.

Uh, not if the deficits are managed wisely and taxes equitable. I mean, seriously, how does the UK, Japan, or Norway handle their welfare states? Through minimising deficits, producing natural resources, and through reasonable taxation.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

The USA government would save billions on pointless wars which could be invested in education and healthcare or in lowering the deficit to invest later and lower taxes.

Pointless? We got rid of Saddam and the Taliban.

Saddam was at least better than IS.
The Taliban is not gone it's just not in power anymore.

[Kincoboh]

The interest payments are directly tied to the treasury bond rates...which as they stand are very, very low. It would take years to reap any benefits. Slashing the budget would decrease economic growth and result in far more downsides than positives.

And you actually think that, after all that is done, they would invest in education? Paul would rather privatise education than do that.

Paul could give tax benefits for the use of private education.

A deficit is a tax to future generations - Ron Paul.
The young people will have to pay the debt with higher taxes and reduced government.

Tax benefits? That's like throwing pennies at students.
You know what also is a tax on future generations? The current system of exploitation of the natural world and workers in developing countries.
The fact that Paul does not address ANY structural problems with the current neoliberal system, and instead wants to further entrench it, shows me that he is not to be taken seriously, despite his slightly less authoritarian social ideas.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Pointless? We got rid of Saddam and the Taliban.

Saddam was at least better than IS.
The Taliban is not gone it's just not in power anymore.

doesn't mean we should gut our army, the whole reason the Iraq war went wrong was because it was lead by conservative idealists, it doesn't prove the "american intervention = bad" mentality in any way.

[Cabana]

Saddam was at least better than IS.
The Taliban is not gone it's just not in power anymore.

doesn't mean we should gut our army, the whole reason the Iraq war went wrong was because it was lead by conservative idealists, it doesn't prove the "american intervention = bad" mentality in any way.

I agree, we've overthrown several dictatorships in policing actions.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

doesn't mean we should gut our army, the whole reason the Iraq war went wrong was because it was lead by conservative idealists, it doesn't prove the "american intervention = bad" mentality in any way.

I agree, we've overthrown several dictatorships in policing actions.

But I don't think America's role should be to spread democracy, but rather to ensure human rights in other countries. As proved by the current Isis situation and a lot of other things you can't simply install a democracy in a country and expect it to work fine, for a democracy to function the population of the country in question has to be educated. What we should have done with Iraq was to force Saddam to rule his country in a western fashion, ensure civil rights, and educate his populace.

[Southern Test Islands]

At best, central government in the US would grind to a halt. At worst... total collapse of the USA as we know it.

[Distruzio]

The USA government would save billions on pointless wars which could be invested in education and healthcare or in lowering the deficit to invest later and lower taxes.

Pointless? We got rid of Saddam and the Taliban.

Pointless. Our stated aim was to eliminate Al Qaeda and find WMDs.

Isis is doing a much better job than we did.

Because we failed. Our wars with them were pointless in that we did not achieve our stated aims.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

When ever I look at this site I can realy see that Americans are brainwashed by their biased media.

If Ron Paul were President, the pointless intervention in the middle east will end the western intervention makes things worse because we don't know enough about the countries we "liberate".

He would balance the budget and get rid of income taxes which is possible if you cut spending on the military which you will do if you end the pointless wars.

Ron Paul would work on free market treaties with for example the EU.

Ron Paul would get rid of the Patriot act which was unconstitutional it was basically repealing the 4th ammmendment.

For a comparisson a country like Switzerland which remains neutral has a higher standard of living and an average higher income.

America can still influence the world but in a peacefull way instead of bombing the middle east which creates more hatred and which will lead in more radical muslims becoming Terrorists.

I'll bite
>complains about brainwashed americans
>believes the president balances the country's budget
gr8 b8 m8

[Kincoboh]

I'll bite
>complains about brainwashed americans
>believes the president balances the country's budget
gr8 b8 m8

I've been noticing I am starting to agree more and more with Tea Partiers... that's when you know the world is going to hell!

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

I'll bite
>complains about brainwashed americans
>believes the president balances the country's budget
gr8 b8 m8

I've been noticing I am starting to agree more and more with Tea Partiers... that's when you know the world is going to hell!

I wouldn't consider myself a teapartier, but I did vote Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 so maybe I am.

[Firsthome]

Paul could give tax benefits for the use of private education.

A deficit is a tax to future generations - Ron Paul.
The young people will have to pay the debt with higher taxes and reduced government.

Tax benefits? That's like throwing pennies at students.
You know what also is a tax on future generations? The current system of exploitation of the natural world and workers in developing countries.
The fact that Paul does not address ANY structural problems with the current neoliberal system, and instead wants to further entrench it, shows me that he is not to be taken seriously, despite his slightly less authoritarian social ideas.

sadly, the goverment is anything but Central down Socially and Monetarily Left

[Kincoboh]

Tax benefits? That's like throwing pennies at students.
You know what also is a tax on future generations? The current system of exploitation of the natural world and workers in developing countries.
The fact that Paul does not address ANY structural problems with the current neoliberal system, and instead wants to further entrench it, shows me that he is not to be taken seriously, despite his slightly less authoritarian social ideas.

sadly, the goverment is anything but Central down Socially and Monetarily Left

I really hate how Americans have redefined words like liberal and libertarian. Liberalism and neoliberalism have historically nothing to do with the left. American liberalism can be better defined as social democracy. Neoliberalism is about as right as you can get without going into fascism.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Tax benefits? That's like throwing pennies at students.
You know what also is a tax on future generations? The current system of exploitation of the natural world and workers in developing countries.
The fact that Paul does not address ANY structural problems with the current neoliberal system, and instead wants to further entrench it, shows me that he is not to be taken seriously, despite his slightly less authoritarian social ideas.

sadly, the goverment is anything but Central down Socially and Monetarily Left

your definition of monetarily left is very right

[Tierra Prime]

The happening would have finally happened.

[Atlanticatia]

A deficit is a tax to future generations - Ron Paul.
The young people will have to pay the debt with higher taxes and reduced government.

Not really. As deficits decline as the economy improves and revenue rises, debt as a % of GDP will fall, and interest payments on the debt will fall as a % of GDP. There's no need to "pay down the debt". Running huge deficits year-after-year during boom times consistently is not a good thing, but a few large deficits during bad economic times when interest rates are low are hardly a problem.

[Olerand]

sadly, the goverment is anything but Central down Socially and Monetarily Left

I really hate how Americans have redefined words like liberal and libertarian. Liberalism and neoliberalism have historically nothing to do with the left. American liberalism can be better defined as social democracy. Neoliberalism is about as right as you can get without going into fascism.

Uhm, no. No it cannot.

Also no.

[Kincoboh]

I really hate how Americans have redefined words like liberal and libertarian. Liberalism and neoliberalism have historically nothing to do with the left. American liberalism can be better defined as social democracy. Neoliberalism is about as right as you can get without going into fascism.

Uhm, no. No it cannot.

Also no.

Yes, an American liberal is pretty much a social democrat.

Neoliberalism is exploitation - it is just a different form of authoritarianism to the detriment of people worldwide, and to the environment, all in the name of profit.

In theory, neoliberalism is about loosening regulations, lower taxes and free trade, but in practice it just has formed a sort of neofeudal system.

I'll concede that comparing neoliberalism to fascism is a bit extreme, though.

[Len Hyet]

When ever I look at this site I can realy see that Americans are brainwashed by their biased media.

If Ron Paul were President, the pointless intervention in the middle east will end the western intervention makes things worse because we don't know enough about the countries we "liberate".

He would balance the budget and get rid of income taxes which is possible if you cut spending on the military which you will do if you end the pointless wars.

Ron Paul would work on free market treaties with for example the EU.

Ron Paul would get rid of the Patriot act which was unconstitutional it was basically repealing the 4th ammmendment.

For a comparisson a country like Switzerland which remains neutral has a higher standard of living and an average higher income.

America can still influence the world but in a peacefull way instead of bombing the middle east which creates more hatred and which will lead in more radical muslims becoming Terrorists.

Ahem.

To wit

NO. GOD NO. DEAR GOD NO. PLEASE GOD NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. HOLY SATAN'S TESTICLES OF FIRE NO. NO. NO. A HUNDRED TIMES NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO. A MILLION TIMES NO. JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST NO. I WOULD LITERALLY RATHER HAVE MY NUTS SET ON FIRE, THROWN INTO A PIT FILLED WITH MENTALLY RETARDED BEARS WHO WOULD TAKE A MONTH TO EAT ME.

*cough*

[Olerand]

Yes, an American liberal is pretty much a social democrat.

Neoliberalism is exploitation - it is just a different form of authoritarianism to the detriment of people worldwide, and to the environment, all in the name of profit.

In theory, neoliberalism is about loosening regulations, lower taxes and free trade, but in practice it just has formed a sort of neofeudal system.

I'll concede that comparing neoliberalism to fascism is a bit extreme, though.

Um, being a social democrat, from a country with actual social democrats, voting, or previously voting, for a social democratic party; and having visited America, conversed with a lot of liberals, visited the regional or local or whatever headquarters of the Democratic Party; I reiterate, no they are not.

Sure, if that's how you want to see it, but neoliberalism is not the closest thing to fascism the Right can come up with.

[Kincoboh]

Yes, an American liberal is pretty much a social democrat.

Neoliberalism is exploitation - it is just a different form of authoritarianism to the detriment of people worldwide, and to the environment, all in the name of profit.

In theory, neoliberalism is about loosening regulations, lower taxes and free trade, but in practice it just has formed a sort of neofeudal system.

I'll concede that comparing neoliberalism to fascism is a bit extreme, though.

Um, being a social democrat, from a country with actual social democrats, voting, or previously voting, for a social democratic party; and having visited America, conversed with a lot of liberals, visited the regional or local or whatever headquarters of the Democratic Party; I reiterate, no they are not.

Sure, if that's how you want to see it, but neoliberalism is not the closest thing to fascism the Right can come up with.

What would it be then? I don't think the Democratic Party is actually american liberal, as they've drifted far to the right recently. They're more of third way centrism. But A-liberalism seems to be in the same camp as social democrats. I could be completely wrong though. Maybe I'm thinking of progressivism? The two seem to be used synonymously in American politics.

And about neoliberalism... I apologize for being hyperbolic.

[Olerand]

What would it be then? I don't think the Democratic Party is actually american liberal, as they've drifted far to the right recently. They're more of third way centrism. But A-liberalism seems to be in the same camp as social democrats. I could be completely wrong though. Maybe I'm thinking of progressivism? The two seem to be used synonymously in American politics.

And about neoliberalism... I apologize for being hyperbolic.

American liberalism is certainly not social democracy. American liberalism, as exemplified by the "left-wing", and maybe some of the center, of the Democratic Party, is social liberalism.
Liberalism with a social touch.
Not to be confused with liberalism socially. Which is liberalism in regards to social issues, as social issues are defined in English speaking countries.

In France, social denotes workers' rights, retirement etc. Societal denotes gay marriage, euthanasia etc.

Progressivism is essentially the same, to me. Progressivism in Europe is about societal issues, not economic or social issues, only.

[The balkens]

When ever I look at this site I can realy see that Americans are brainwashed by their biased media.

If Ron Paul were President, the pointless intervention in the middle east will end the western intervention makes things worse because we don't know enough about the countries we "liberate".

He would balance the budget and get rid of income taxes which is possible if you cut spending on the military which you will do if you end the pointless wars.

Ron Paul would work on free market treaties with for example the EU.

Ron Paul would get rid of the Patriot act which was unconstitutional it was basically repealing the 4th ammmendment.

For a comparisson a country like Switzerland which remains neutral has a higher standard of living and an average higher income.

America can still influence the world but in a peacefull way instead of bombing the middle east which creates more hatred and which will lead in more radical muslims becoming Terrorists.

Ahem.

To wit

NO. GOD NO. DEAR GOD NO. PLEASE GOD NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. HOLY SATAN'S TESTICLES OF FIRE NO. NO. NO. A HUNDRED TIMES NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO. A MILLION TIMES NO. JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST NO. I WOULD LITERALLY RATHER HAVE MY NUTS SET ON FIRE, THROWN INTO A PIT FILLED WITH MENTALLY RETARDED BEARS WHO WOULD TAKE A MONTH TO EAT ME.

*cough*

'Calm down lenny, not like any of the Paul family will become president.

[Kincoboh]

What would it be then? I don't think the Democratic Party is actually american liberal, as they've drifted far to the right recently. They're more of third way centrism. But A-liberalism seems to be in the same camp as social democrats. I could be completely wrong though. Maybe I'm thinking of progressivism? The two seem to be used synonymously in American politics.

And about neoliberalism... I apologize for being hyperbolic.

American liberalism is certainly not social democracy. American liberalism, as exemplified by the "left-wing", and maybe some of the center, of the Democratic Party, is social liberalism.
Liberalism with a social touch.
Not to be confused with liberalism socially. Which is liberalism in regards to social issues, as social issues are defined in English speaking countries.

In France, social denotes workers' rights, retirement etc. Societal denotes gay marriage, euthanasia etc.

Progressivism is essentially the same, to me. Progressivism in Europe is about societal issues, not economic or social issues, only.

I dunno, in Vermont, they have a state party called the Vermont Progressive Party that would most certainly be considered social democratic to me.