I see that Ron Paul is quite popular among many people here on 2+2, but the threads Ive seen about him are more about his increasing popularity and how he fights for freedom and how he is something different and how he raised 5 million dollars and so on.

I would like to know more about this candidate that seem to be so radically different than the other candidates in the race, so I hope some of his supporters can help answer a few quations I have about his policies. I apologize for any poor grammar. All my information about Ron Pauls policies are from videos that were linked to in another Ron Paul-thread in this forum.

Anyways, input from those who understand Ron Pauls policies better than me would be appreciated.

1. He wants to get rid of federal income tax, which accounts for 1/3 of the total income of revenue for the federal government. He says that even with only the 2/3s of the current income the government should be able to fulfill its responsibilites properly. He says that 2/3s of the current budget is equal to 100% of the 2000-budget, so if government is able to cut spending down to the level of 2000 there is no need for income tax. My question is; is that true only dollar for dollar (income of 2007-dollars vs. output of 2000-dollars), or is that after he has adjusted for inflation and overall growth in prices?

2. He also states that he wants to eliminate inflation. If he manages to completely stop inflation, will that have any impact on the american dollar and economy in relation to the other countries in the world that will still have inflation? Or is the trade between nations not affected by the inflation-rate of the various nations?

3. He talks about not wanting to tax or regulate the internet. Is there a threat that any of the other candidates wants to tax and regulate the internet? If they do, how will they tax and regulate it? I know very little about this topic, because I was under the impression that there had been no serious attempts of taxing the internet.

4. Ron Paul wants to severely limit American military and active political presence in other countries, and rather just focus on trading with the various nations of the world. Will the US still be able to get the same deals and keep its position as an economic superpower without a more active presence throughout the world?

5. Will Ron Paul support embargos against countries like North Korea, Cuba and Iran, or is his intention to stay away completely from the politics of foreign countries and trade with anyone on a fair basis without regards of the policies of the country?

6. If the US cuts its presence around the world it is likely that other powerful nations (China, Russia and to some extent India comes to mind) will fill that void. Will the US still be able to secure as good deals as it wants when it has given up presence and location to other powerful nations that are more than willing to have powerful presences around the world?

7. Ron Paul talked about wanting to reduce the number of military bases overseas, and sending the personell home to America. If the US is at war with a foreign nation, will its ability to defend itself and to attack the enemies interests be as strong as before even without bases in Asia and Europe?

8. Ron Paul also states that the US should only allow itself to engage in war after it has been attacked first. Does that mean that he will allow an enemy that is planning to attack the US to build up its army and logistics in peace and quiet, and not intervene until the first attack on the US has occured?

I'll let the supporters respond before I point out Paul's obvious errors in many of the above.

Here's what I don't like about free market people. The internet is the perfect example to me, especially in this context. I don't support taxing the internet, however, regulating it seems happy and fine with me, mostly because of the whole net neutrality issue.

I know the free market crowd will say that any company caught favoring certain websites based off how much extra bling they give them will eventually be brought down, or make changes, based on disapproval/to protect their own bottom line. But that means I have to live thru it. I like my internet free (not cost-wise) and as untainted by corporations as possible.

So there's my beef with the free market crowd. While problems may eventually work out in the long run, I don't want to have to deal with them for the 1-5 years or so that the problems still exist.

Sorry to steal your topic for a minute there. I look forward to hearing from both supporters and those against RP (or some of his errors), such as Copernicus.

Yes, using violence can certainly make things happen faster sometimes.

I'm not even starting the "is free trade more important than free speech" topic.

And who said anything about using violence? Since when is regulation in America done thru violence?

Neither are more or less important. Not doing violence on your fellow humans is the same in both.

I like my internet to be untainted by governement do-gooders pandering to their evangelical base by banning things like gambling and naughty words and pictures.

The FCC has already ruined TV and movies with their BS regulations, I don't want that to happen on the internet next.

So you'd be happy if you couldn't access 2p2 because they didn't give extra money to your current ISP and your ISP just happened to drop all the little ones and zeros you request for this particular domain name, or the same for any poker program you use.

Legislation based on morality is pretty annoying, I'll agree with that.

He never said he could eliminate inflation. He said he wants to stop the Fed from intentionaly devaluing the currency.

Is this accurate? I thought income tax was easily over 50% of the federal revenue, and not as low as a third.

The ISP wouldn't do that, if they wanted to retain my business. If they did, I would have plenty of other options in the free market.

But suppose these aforementioned sites couldn't pay racket money to all of them and all the ones in your area stopping giving access to them?

And don't say they wouldn't do that. That's exactly why ISPs were against Net Neutrality.

The point isn't to return spending to some arbitrary year. He just said that to show how the govt has increased spending too much, in his opinion. He wants to cut taxes because he believes the govt is wasteful and gets involved in projects that it has no business being in.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

about 1 minute into that video he says that he wants government to stop printing all the money that ...."causes all the inflation"

Just a side topic: Imagine RP wins the election and Dems gain a useful majority in both houses of congress. What then? We get out of Iraq and... nothing else happens for four years because they can't agree on anything?

Right, seems like a few days ago someone posted a great thread explaining inflation and how going back to the gold standard would help combat/defeat it. It made enough sense to me, but I didn't retain it well enough to be able to explain it to someone else... like most things I learn. =/

I don't understand the question. You want to know if less military presence will stifle trade?

In the beginning of the video I linked to in my previous entry there are two quotes following each other to make a point that says that "eliminating 1/3 of the propsed 2007-budget would still leave 1,8trillion, a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000...""Does anyone seriously believe that we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?"

Stop looking for monsters under the bed. You realize that you are basically describing a conspiracy theory here, right? Why do people always assume that for-profit companies are always trying to hatch some scheme to [censored] over their customers. Free markets are really good at providing services that people want. If one ISP pisses off its customers it then opens the door for another company to take its place by providing a service that people want.

Basically I wonder if the US military and political presence throught the world does nothing to help the US secure good terms with other countries and therefore also opens up markets for the US that would otherwise be less accessible. It must also be seen in relation to what is likely to happen if another big power fills the void left by US, that maybe Russia or China can better their relations and make better deals with other nations when they do not have to compete with US for presence and power in the region and various nations. Or does the US involvement around the world nothing to ensure goodwill and mutual agreements with the various trade-partners?

I'm pretty sure he understands that there is some natural inflation with an expanding economy. But he didn't exactly have time to explain that. In televised debates you need to make some shortcuts with your speech in order to get your point across.

First of all, installing US military bases around the world is a significant factor that causes terrorism.

Second, if a war/terrorist organization does start, we have plenty of allies in every area of the world that would be more than happy to assist our military if a retaliation, or preemptive strike is justifiable.

Fair enough. You explain why ISPs would be against legislation that says they can't favor web content and websites that give them extra money and stop customer's access to websites that don't.

That's a very vague hypothetical.

low key,

What's stopping Full Tilt from rigging their games and/or stealing all the money in my account?