Goodbye Obama, Hello Ron Paul

[RLENT]

"Last week was a good week for the so-called “constitutional wing” of the Republican Party, those indomitable Ron Paul people. Sure, the next presidential election is a long way off but a recent snapshot taken by pollsters shows a surprising opening for the Texas congressman, the man who says that the Federal Reserve should be audited.

The general public is moving toward Ron Paul, even if most of them don’t even know who he is.

According to a recent Gallup poll 50 percent of all Americans don’t think Obama deserves re-election. Only 38 percent think he does, and 65 percent think that most members of Congress don’t deserve re-election. Three of four Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country (as reported in USA Today, April 1, 2010).

Meanwhile, 48 percent of Americans think that Sarah Palin is not ready to be president while 29 percent think she is.

And what gives the Ron Paul campaign an opening is how equally angry the public is with both political parties.

For the first time, a majority of the public puts both Republicans and Democrats in the unfavorable column. A pox on both of their houses. It is a complaint that Ron Paul has been making for years."

Remainder of article here:

Goodbye Obama, Hello Ron Paul

 

[layoutshooter]

OH GOODY!! Another candidate with NO military/security/intell experience. No experience running large work force. No foreign relations experience. Not qualified for the job. Another in a long chain.

 

[Pilgrim]

Although I'm still up in the air about the merits of a Ron Paul candidacy, this author blows his credibility with the following paragraph from that article:

"What makes matters worse? The rich don’t pay taxes, their political donations assure the right loopholes in congressional law. The only revenues come from the middle class workers who have seen their net worth vanish and are now hoarding every dollar they get or using it to pay back debts..."

That statement about the rich is patently false, and anyone who is even minimally informed about our tax structure knows it. For those who haven't seen the latest breakdown:

From a recent CBO report, here are effective tax rates (total taxes divided by total income) for 2005, the most recent year available:

Lowest quintile: 4.3 percent
Second quintile: 9.9 percent
Middle quintile: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile: 17.4 percent
Percentiles 81-90: 20.3 percent
Percentiles 91-95: 22.4 percent
Percentiles 96-99: 25.7 percent
Percentiles 99.0-99.5: 29.7 percent
Percentiles 99.5-99.9: 31.2 percent
Percentiles 99.9-99.99: 32.1 percent
Top 0.01 Percentile: 31.5 percent

N.B.: These figures include all federal taxes, not just income taxes.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Tax Rates of the Rich and Poor

In other words, the top 25% of all wage earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes. However, considering the rate our national debt and budget deficits are rising, the middle class and the poor will soon be paying their fair share of taxes - there is a limit to the amount the govt. can soak the rich.

 

[aristotle]

Ron Paul is so much better than what we currently have in the White House. But then, so is your local school janitor. Pretty sure Ron Paul understands military life and structure as he served in the USAF as a flight surgeon.

Ron Paul is great. So are Jim Demint, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Marsha Blackburn, Jim Talent, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin and Joe("YOU LIE") Wilson. The conservatives don't have a clear leader at present to coalesce around. The anti-Obama will emerge. We need someone with really clean hands. So, some of the aforementioned are out.

 

[garyatk]

Most of the aforementioned are also Federalists, and NOT Constitutionalists. It is time to take this country back to its roots. Ron Paul is the closest candidate in the Republican party.

In my opinion, the Republican party is a total write off.

 

[Pilgrim]

Ron Paul is so much better than what we currently have in the White House. But then, so is your local school janitor. Pretty sure Ron Paul understands military life and structure as he served in the USAF as a flight surgeon.

Ron Paul is great. So are Jim Demint, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Marsha Blackburn, Jim Talent, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin and Joe("YOU LIE") Wilson. The conservatives don't have a clear leader at present to coalesce around. The anti-Obama will emerge. We need someone with really clean hands. So, some of the aforementioned are out.

IMHO, the sleeper in that whole group is Haley Barbour. His resume is better than anyone we've seen in a long time and he's done a great job as the chief executive of Mississippi.

 

[greg334]

You know the argument of having someone from the military to be CC is not right. I mean that military service means little in the big picture, but respect for the military and the power you hold does.

 

[layoutshooter]

You know the argument of having someone from the military to be CC is not right. I mean that military service means little in the big picture, but respect for the military and the power you hold does.

Everybody keeps saying that Greg, we keep electing people without experience and they keep messing up big time. Have been for YEARS. You know what they say: "You can't keep doing the same thing every day and expect a different outcome". They also say: "For things to change you have to change."

Ron Paul not only has NO IDEA what being commander in chief would require of him, he as has no other real experience. When was the last time he ran a budget of any size?

Besides, it really makes no difference. Unless you elect an entire legislature that goes along with his ideas the entire thing is a waste of time. The president is the C-N-C but does NOT control the purse strings or domestic policy. Assuming he follows the Constitution that is.

Respect for the military helps, but it is not enough, in my opinion. We are stuck with the results of fools with no idea.

 

[RLENT]

Ron Paul not only has NO IDEA what being commander in chief would require of him, he as has no other real experience.

Entirely wrong .... he has a very good idea of what being commander in chief would require of him ..... probably better than most ..... the problem is simply that you disagree with him on what that is ....

Not that you would ever bother to look, but if one wanted to actually inform themselves (a rather novel concept for some, I'm sure) one could go to the following link and read what Dr. Paul's ideas and arguments are, in many different areas - they are voluminous:

The Ron Paul File

When was the last time he ran a budget of any size?

Ahhh ... I think he's been doing that for a number of years now .... and quite successfully .....

But I would submit the above premise, as evidenced by your asking the question, represents an utterly flawed understanding of what actually currently takes place in the United States government at the present time.

.... how much time do you really figure that any President spends, single-handedly, actually "running the budget" .... micro-managing it ?

Puuleease ..... you really aren't serious, are you ?

At this point in the evolution of our little Amerikan experiment, so much of the government bureaucracy essentially runs on "auto-pilot" (not mention the fact that often monies are earmarked to very specific things by Congress), as to make your premise above laughable, when applied to the Federal Budget as a whole .....

Further, Ron Paul - AFAIK - has been the only elected U.S. Congressman that has, repeatedly, run his office under budget ....... actually spending less than what was allocated and then returning money, year after year after year, to U.S. Treasury:

September 26, 2000 - Committee Reports Paul Returned Taxpayers' Funds Again In 1999

December 11, 2000 - Paul's Office Returns Money to the Treasury for the 4th Straight Year

July 30, 2001 - Paul Returns Unused Budget Funds to Treasury

August 12, 2002 - Paul Returns 20% of Office Budget To Treasury

March 24, 2004 - Paul Again Returns Unused Office Funds to Treasury

January 24, 2005 - Paul Returns Unused 2004 Office Funds to Treasury

January 11, 2008 - House Says Paul Again Set to Return Thousands to Treasury

June 10, 2009 - Congressman Paul Again Returns Thousands to Treasury

March 1, 2010 - Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

In my estimation, given the crowd we have had in there for at least the last five or so decades anyways, having someone that believes in and actually has a long, proven record of operating on the simple fundamental principle of spending less than what you take in, reigning in spending, and operating in a frugal manner, is far preferable to most of what other options are out there .....

Additionally, Ron Paul has experience as a representative of the people of 14th District of the state of Texas, dealing with the US Budget as a member of Congress (there's a reason why they call him "Dr. No" .... and it ain't because he's been voting yes for every spending measure that's come down the pike .... ) .... and has being doing so for years (including things which personally affect him, in terms of his own pocketbook):

February 21, 2007 - Paul Honored as "Taxpayers' Friend" for Tenth Consecutive Year

April 9, 2008 - Nation’s Largest Taxpayers Group Honors Congressman Ron Paul

February 25, 2010 - National Taxpayers Union Honors Congressman Paul

January 30, 1997 - Paul refuses to participate in "immoral" pension system

Plus his numerous and repeated votes against Congressional pay raises ... (not going to the effort to list them all)

Besides, it really makes no difference. Unless you elect an entire legislature that goes along with his ideas the entire thing is a waste of time.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I find the above viewpoint a rather sad and apathetic outlook (".... nothing can be done about it .. so why even try .....")

Such viewpoints never result in actual change of conditions for the better, because they are, in fact, self-defeating .....

Further, such a viewpoint ("Unless you elect an entire legislature") would seem to indicate an extreme unfamiliarity (I'm being polite here ) with how the political process actually works in practice ....

And perhaps you are entirely unfamiliar with the concept of the role of "The Bully Pulpit" .... and the role it has played in American politics ....

Beyond the above however, the above (your comments, as enumerated) as a political technique against a candidate, could be used as a way to induce such apathy in others ..... something that would be entirely reprehensible, and, in my opinion, morally bankrupt, when considered along with the outright lies that you have told with regard to Dr. Paul's military experience (...... can't actually win on the issues, in the realm of ideas ..... so one lies, and then attempts to convince others that a candidate one doesn't personally care for doesn't have a chance)

The president is the C-N-C but does NOT control the purse strings or domestic policy.

That's not entirely true - our system is designed as a set of checks and balances ...... the President and the Executive Branch being one of those ......

While it is true that all spending bills originate in the House, and require approval of the Senate, the President also has to sign them in order to make them law.

The President has the option to demand of the Congress that any bill that they pass isn't the pork-ridden monstrosities that we've been getting for the last however many decades ...... and to veto any bill which he believes is not in the best interests of the American people, or is against the Consitution .....

Furthermore, since it is the President and the Executive Branch which executes or implements domestic policy, he certainly has some input with regard to such policies - a factor which can be huge, in terms of exactly how those policies affect the citizens.

Still further, if the President is at loggerheads with the Legislative Branch, he has the option to involve the third branch of government, the Judiciary, thru the use of the courts, to settle matters.

Assuming he follows the Constitution that is.

For you to even posit the premise that Ron Paul would not follow the Constitution, probably tells many reading here, who are not entirely unfamiliar with Ron Paul and his record, alot more about you (and your apparent lack of knowledge and familiarity with Ron Paul, his political philosophy, his record, and what he has repeatedly said ) than what you could possibly imagine .....

It's actually kinda funny - watching you attempt to minimize Dr. Paul - because it's always the same old vague generalities (no idea, no experience, blah, blah, blah ......) ..... and never any detailed, informed debate about the merits of the actual ideas Dr. Paul espouses .... in fact, I'd be willing to bet that you would be hard-pressed to even enumerate what it is that Dr. Paul believes, or is for, or against .....

The real problem with operating in such a manner (arguing against what you don't know) is the inevitable blowback ... from those that do know and are far more familiar ....

Respect for the military helps, but it is not enough, in my opinion.

My guess is you are probably largely a single-issue sort of dood - possibly for you it all largely revolves around national defense (and possibly to a lesser extent foreign policy) ...... and if the individual in question doesn't meet your criteria in that single respect, then all bets are off ......

Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your opinion ....

We are stuck with the results of fools with no idea.

Ron Paul has plenty of ideas ..... in many, many cases, the right ideas ...... and the more he speaks - and he's extremely active in doing so, traveling and speaking constantly .... the more the American people find out about him, become familiar with his political philosophy, and apparently, they like what they are seeing ....

But it's my guess that you probably have very little idea about any of that ...... because I doubt that you have ever really read much at all of what Dr. Paul has written, or listened to much of what he has said ....

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you didn't even read the linked articles that I posted .... (because you "already know" - a condition which results when an individual substitutes his own preconceived notions in place of just simply looking and actually observing ....)

You know, ultimately, in the end, it isn't really about the specific person or individual personality at all - and, being the humble man that he is, Dr. Paul would be the first to tell anyone exactly that - it's about THE IDEAS .....

 

[AMonger]

Ron Paul is so much better than what we currently have in the White House. But then, so is your local school janitor. Pretty sure Ron Paul understands military life and structure as he served in the USAF as a flight surgeon.

Ron Paul is great. So are Jim Demint, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Marsha Blackburn, Jim Talent, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin and Joe("YOU LIE") Wilson. The conservatives don't have a clear leader at present to coalesce around. The anti-Obama will emerge. We need someone with really clean hands. So, some of the aforementioned are out.

I'm not familiar with everybody you listed, but Bachman, Gingrich, and Palin are RINO neocons, and iirc, so is Haley Barbour. In other words, no change.

 

[AMonger]

OH GOODY!! Another candidate with NO military/security/intell experience. No experience running large work force. No foreign relations experience. Not qualified for the job. Another in a long chain.

Ron Paul is a military man.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ron Paul is a military man.

Correct, Ron Paul did serve in our military and I greatly respect his service. I do not diminish it any way. He served as a doctor, has a wonderful record, and as far as I can determine, no problems while in service.

Medical work is medical work. Even in the military they are not "military".

RLENT:

Do not assume to believe you know what I read, don't read, understand or don't understand, listen too or don't listen too.
You would be far less correct than you think you are.

I agree with somethings that Ron Paul says and disagree with many things. I base that on my life experience. His ideas often don't match up with what I have learned over a lifetime. That is what I believe. Just as you believe what you believe. Yours beliefs are based on your life experiences.

Now, before you jump on that so to speak, experience INCLUDES, but is not limited to reading, listening, study, observation, training, occupational background and a host of other things that makes up a human beings life experience.

Without large veto proof majority even Ron Paul would, for the most part, be unable to do much of what he would like to see done.

I would not follow him. He does not inspire ME. You can be inspired by whom ever or what ever you like.

In reality, if he were running against Obama or any other Dumb-O-Crat, that I am aware of at this time, I would vote for him. He would then be the lessor of two evils so to speak. That is how I have always voted for the office of president. I can honestly say that I have never in my voting life voted for someone that I wanted to see in that office. I have always voted against the opposing candidate.

One issue DOOD? I am not a one issue Dood. I just have certain basics that I look for first. Until those are met, nothing else matters to me. After a candidate meets MY basics, then I move on to ALL of the other major issues that he/she/it will face.

As to Ron Paul adhering to the Constitution, I see nothing to suggest that he would not do so. What I have seen in my entire life of watching the political animal, is that what they start out as seldom seems to hold once elected.

I did not mean micro-manage a budget, I meant to run a business, government agency, state what ever. Running an office under budget or voting no on over spending is not experience.

Just a VERY MINOR example. When I had my own "shop" at the Agency, I had a budget. It was small by government standards. My annual "operating" budget was 70 million. That covered wages, electricity, maintenence etc etc. It did not include capitol expenses.

Every task my shop issued had to be accounted for. EVERY penny. I did not do that. I had staff for that. My job was to oversee the staff. I had to run that shop based on a host of requirements that included, but were not limited too, National Intelligence Tasking (handed down from the President, Congress etc) priorities within the greater intelligence community, priorities within the division that I worked in and, yes, my ideas of how the job should be accomplished. My idea of what priorities were greater or lesser. I HAD to do that. I had 211 National Level priority one targets. That was the highest level designator of priority at that time. That pri one target set was the largest in the intell community. There were not enough resources to cover them. The "C-N-C" so to speak had to determine, based on EXPERIENCE, National Directives, general community requirements, world and National current events, how to handle that mess.

The real "C-N-C" would have to have VASTLY more experience at MUCH higher levels to be able to handle the job he/she/it will be required to handle.

From MY point of view, which is as valid as the next man's, Ron Paul does not have that experience.

 

[AMonger]

Correct, Ron Paul did serve in our military and I greatly respect his service. I do not diminish it any way. He served as a doctor, has a wonderful record, and as far as I can determine, no problems while in service.

Medical work is medical work. Even in the military they are not "military". [/QUOTE

Well, that's true. Even the doctors themselves consider themselves doctors first, and only in the military as a coincidence. Generally, that is. Can't speak for all of them, even RP.

Without large veto proof majority even Ron Paul would, for the most part, be unable to do much of what he would like to see done.

To some degree, you're right. The bureaucracy is entrenched. However...something like this has to be gotten rolling at the top, like tossing a snowball off a mountain to start an avalanche. Ron Paul's the only one who will even toss the snowball, and as p***** off as people are, it will have a lot of steam at the top.

I would not follow him. He does not inspire ME. You can be inspired by whom ever or what ever you like.

This puzzles me a little. I've heard the backers of a former president (not mentioned because, still being new here, I don't know how far "keep it civil" goes) criticize RP for not being presidential, a criticism I understand, really. However, the people who I've heard say that backed a president who was far less articulate, less intelligent, and less honorable. So I'm a little puzzled when I hear people say things like that. I don't know your political allegiances, so whether or not you back the guy to whom I'm referring, I don't know. But I fail to see how RP doesn't inspire anyone to whom freedom is important.

As to Ron Paul adhering to the Constitution, I see nothing to suggest that he would not do so. What I have seen in my entire life of watching the political animal, is that what they start out as seldom seems to hold once elected.

Not only that, but we have evidence to the contrary; his record demonstrates that he'll hold the Constitution supreme above all opposition. Now THAT'S inspiring.

The real "C-N-C" would have to have VASTLY more experience at MUCH higher levels to be able to handle the job he/she/it will be required to handle.

From MY point of view, which is as valid as the next man's, Ron Paul does not have that experience.

This is indeed a weakness of RP's. Voters generally prefer to have an executive as president rather than a legislator. But then again, judging how well that preference has worked out, especially over the last few decades, maybe it's time to try something different.

 

[layoutshooter]

I say what inspires or does not inspire me. Not anyone else. I don't believe that RP has the background or understanding to keep me and my family safe. That is not to say that he could not learn, I just believe that who ever goes into that office should be ready to run on day one. Who knows what might happen, like another 9/11.

As to who I back, no one right now. I see no one that meets my idea of who should be in that office.

As stated I agree with somethings he says and disagree with others. I would never follow him into battle or a burning building. He does not inspire me as a LEADER. As a thinker, yes, not as a leader. I do not believe that he is a leader. That is not a put down, not many people are leaders. That is what we need. In my opinion anyway.

 

[Moot]

OH GOODY!! Another candidate with NO military/security/intell experience. No experience running large work force. No foreign relations experience. Not qualified for the job.

Every task my shop issued had to be accounted for. EVERY penny. I did not do that. I had staff for that.

So you're not a numbers guy. You relied on an accounting staff to count every penny. By your own criteria you were not qualified for the job. You probably relied on a janitorial staff to keep the place clean and called in a plumber to fix the plugged up toilets.

My job was to oversee the staff.

In other words you were a manager. Isn't that a defining quality for a good president? Someone with managerial skills? Someone with a broad knowledge of domestic and world affairs who will choose staff based on expertise and experience: not as payback for political favors.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes Moot, I was a manager. To become a manager in that business required years of experience. I did not get into that particular position just by hiring on. Like our presidents do. When I stepped into that job I knew the systems, I had worked all of the jobs that I was managing in one form or another. I knew the key players to a person. I had worked that "target set" for, at that time, 12 years prior to managing the resources. I knew what "micro sleeps" were on a mid shift in a darked out room that was cold. I had my ears blasted when lighting struck the antenna field. I other words, experience.

The accounting was needed, to satisfy the civilian government oversight requirements. Every collection position in the world was paid for out of some fund or another. Each position had a DHOC, "dedicated hours of collection" assigned
to it. Those hours were fixed, could not be changed unless the manager, me in that case, could justify the change to my manager. There were thousands of positions world wide. There were ten thousand or so operators. Billions of dollars worth of equipment.

My staff was hand picked. We picked people with extreme experience levels. We had the best experts we could find.
One of the greatest challenges of a manager is picking a staff, then allowing them to do their jobs, not to micro manage them. Good, strong, experienced people do not function when micro managed.

All of this for one shop. Important shop, yes very, but only one in one division, in only one group in only one agency.

One of the very first thing that I learned when I took over that shop was just how little I knew, even with all those years of experience, continuous training and mentoring. I quickly understood just how good a manager the Director of NSA would have to be.

That would be the level of experience I would like to see in a president. Our current president had zero experience with the military/budgets/executive and only minor legislative and work experience. In other words, he had an entry level background. It shows. He is far too wet behind the ears for that position.

Look up Bobby Inman. An intell expert. A career Navy. A real manager. The best that I served under in my entire career. Too old now for president but that is the type of person I would like to see run. Had Obama put him in as his top security adviser I would be sleeping much better than I do now.

Inexperience leads to poor picks, micro managing, discontent and poor leadership. We have had far too much of that over the last 60 years or so and we are paying the price for it.

 

[Moot]

My staff was hand picked. We picked people with extreme experience levels. We had the best experts we could find.
One of the greatest challenges of a manager is picking a staff, then allowing them to do their jobs, not to micro manage them. Good, strong, experienced people do not function when micro managed.

This is what I was trying to convey. Like you stated: "One of the greatest challenges of a manager is picking a staff, then allowing them to do their jobs."

 

[layoutshooter]

Here is a very brief background on Admiral Bobby Inman. Experience, both in the public and private sectors. A good manager, famous for his ability to get the very best out of his people. A leader. This would be just ONE example of the caliber of person that we need in the White House. This is the level of experience that I suggest is needed. Compare his accomplishments to that of any of the potential candidate in 2012, including the incumbent. He is a man of honor, principle and integrity. It was a great honor to work for him.


Bobby Inman was born on April 4, 1931 in Rhonesboro, http://people.famouswhy.com/bobby_inman/#United States. He is a famous retired United States admiral. Bobby has stayed on many influential posts in Intelligence Community. He stayed as director for several intelligence departments including, "Naval Intelligence", "Defense Intelligence Agency", "National Security Agency" and "Central Intelligence Agency".

He stayed as the LBJ Centennial Chair in National Policy at The University of Texas at Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs from 2001. Bobby was also the member of Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dell Computer, SBC Corporation and Massey Energy.

The next part should be a GREAT interest to many in here who think that all intelligence agencies and agents are that bad guys. This is by far the norm, not the exception.

Why is he famous?

He is famous for criticizing the Bush administration on use of warrantless domestic wiretaps and famous to be the highest-ranking former intelligence officials to criticize the program in public.

 

[LDB]

There was a movie with Michael J Fox. I never watched it so this is based on reading a review about it long ago. I believe the gist of it was that he was a mail room flunkey who fooled people into thinking he was an executive, sort of like what we got at the last election, someone with the background to be a good mail room flunkey but put in charge as the chief executive.

 

[greg334]

Leo,

the movie is called "the secert of my success.

He is famous for criticizing the Bush administration on use of warrantless domestic wiretaps and famous to be the highest-ranking former intelligence officials to criticize the program in public.

Sorry layout, I would not want him involved.

Speaking out in public to me is a compromise of his principles and breaking of the trust to keep issues within the community, not bringing it to the public for any reason. The public doesn't always understand and because it can appear to be done to damage the president and sway policy for political reasons, it looks like another mark felt.