• I have just received an excellent dvd/documentary its called AGENDA.

    Its a fascinating look at Socialism, its people & groups that have successfully targeted America.

    November 25, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.

  • Continuing from last post……..
    This is what America needs to do.

    1) “Place a Transaction Tax on Wall Street, ranging from 1-2% of each amount in a transaction with 5% on firms who ship American jobs overseas. Second, have 5-15% across the board cut of each governmental department, which I might add save $1.5 Trillion.”

    2) Ban the income tax on those making fewer than $300,000 with a 3% sales tax (minus Food and Clothing) and 17% flat tax on those making over $ 300,000. The $300,000 rule applies to the Transaction Act

    3) De-globalize the economy by ending NAFTA, CAFTA, and remove membership from the WTO.

    4)Audit, Amend, or end the Federal Reserve.

    5)Open trade with Cuba.

    6) Reinstate the GLASS-Steagall act, which Texas former Good ole Boy Senator Phil Graham and President Clinton dismantled in 1999.

    7) Sell unused Federal land to Nevada, UATH and, and energy companies. To pay down the national debt.

    November 25, 2011 at 7:24 p.m.

  • Tafoer

    How can you call anyone a Socialist or even a Liberal, when you can’t even tell the difference from a “balanced approach” and Socialism? BS.Spotter, whom I considered a friend, knows I am not a liberal. To people like yourself, Tafoer always chest beat to the wind, but refuse to offer up any idea worthwhile. If you think I am receiving my “marching orders” from the Democratic Party, then you are sadly and foolishly mistaken.
    While you sitting on your behind and rehashing and respiting the so-called Gospel according to Sean Hannity and 1200 WOAI hate talk, I used my time as serious minded American to write to the President and others about adopting my ideas over economy . What have you done Tafoer? I know what you have done and this is NOTHING !!!
    A Balanced Approach from me isn’t some dumb Socialist nightmare you dreamt up. A Balanced Approach by me, Write-in aka J. Williams, is ideological neutral, impartial, and even Middle-of-the-road!!!!!!
    If I were in change, my own take is that government should shed the political and to do the governing; with a real mixture of personalities/ideas to prevent overreaching and under reaching of government. President George Washington’s Cabinet is the type of cabinet I am looking for and not the cabinets of today with Ivy League Elitists, Wall Street punks, and Political hacks looking for favors.


    November 25, 2011 at 7:07 p.m.

  • JLordTree.
    Sounds like you listen to Sean Hannity too much.

    November 25, 2011 at 6:23 p.m.

  • "legislating" should have been "governing"

    November 24, 2011 at 11:12 p.m.

  • I would vote for Ron Paul. I feel that I can govern myself, so I am drawn to candidates who don't focus on legislating me. =P =P =P

    and a =P

    November 24, 2011 at 10:38 p.m.

  • It's really not going to matter who gets elected President, unless somthing changes in congress.
    Americans have always seemed to realize that they cannot elect all one party and let them have complete control, and it has worked up until this time. Has there ever been a time that members of congress have been so unwilling to compromise?

    November 24, 2011 at 5:09 p.m.

  • Vet43, your comment is funny as heck... When BO was elected the Dems and Socialist fell into step like cows at a milking contest. I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, he's really not a very honest person.

    November 24, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.

  • The only thing Pon Paul is going to do is punk the repub's after he becomes GOP primary road kill. Dudes gonna run independent and finish off these right-wingers who hijacked the GOP. He's nothing more than Obamas trump card, and the funny thing is that's he's in the middle of the GOP deck of cards.

    All the spin and sophomoric "Obuma" name calling won't amount to a hill of beans. You people have cooked your goose.

    November 24, 2011 at 1:51 p.m.

  • It is scary but I agree with Mr. Paul about 10% of the time. The other 90% sounds like he would like to return to 1780 when we had approx. 12 million people. The world in so much more complicated and simple solutions are out of the question. Also, does anybody really think that a majority of Congress would fall in step with him? If we think we have grid lock now I believe the clocks would stop.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.

  • Freetinker, thanks for sharing that with us :)

    November 24, 2011 at 12:05 p.m.

  • I woul never vote for him!

    November 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.

  • Tax the rich more is to me totally unconstitutional as well as morally repugnant. If they want to give more...well that is their business, but anything other than a flat percentage for each citizen is repugnant. If a millionaire is taxed at twenty percent and I am also, they are putting more than I am. Why penalize a millionaire for being successful? Jealousy? If we do and they are taxed twice as much as me, then lets give them extra votes. Equal taxation for equal representation. Btw not including Corp in this logic. Just living breathing humyns.

    November 24, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.

  • The term "balanced approach" is a current Liberal Socialist Democrat talking point. It's a code phrase for tax the rich!

    November 24, 2011 at 7:44 a.m.

  • BS. Spotter.
    You asked a good question. I am not sure how to answer the last one question. I do have concerns over spending and borrowing by the government. Who will do what is necessary…..NO ONE. That’s right BS Spotter. No one.
    The problem is that is there is not a balanced approach to solve the issues. This is why I told someone, I think it was Mike, that an equally mixed cabinet would solve the problem. There is too many alliances and coalitions in each political party including the Greens and the Libertarians that discourages anyone to cross the ideological line.
    Ron Paul’s cabinet would be around his ideas and his ideology alone.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:07 p.m.

  • Pilot.

    Should be what? Go ahead and say it. It’ll just add to the list of the things you say.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:49 p.m.

  • “And the vast majority of the current deficit is being spent to keep us out of W's depression and you know it.”

    Actually I didn’t know it. I thought it was being spent to expand the government and create a socialist welfare state, kind of a fundamental transformation if you will.

    But I'll admit about one trillion was spent for the purpose of reducing unemployment, by the tried and true method of throwing money out of helicopters – that worked pretty well don’t yah think?

    I am using the same data you are, exactly the same, just presenting it a little differently. DubYa’s big deficit for 2008 was in large part due to TARP funding. A good portion of that money was paid back to Obuma. Where did it go – tossed out of more helicopters I bet. Anyway Obuma’s deficits should be larger and Dubya’s a little smaller by that amount.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:15 p.m.

  • GOP_LoveChild.

    Thank you for saying that. Rollinstone is just spinning the truth here. When will some people be honest on here? I’ll never know. Ronald Reagan gained more debt than Barack Obama. I bet if this was the other way around, then people like Rollinstone would find a way to make excuses for Reagan.

    November 23, 2011 at 9 p.m.

  • my whole family loves Dr. Paul, but they're all smart so maybe that says something.

    November 23, 2011 at 5:25 p.m.

  • It's dollars in vs dollars out, just like your family's budget.
    You don't spend more than you bring in, plain and simple.
    Spin it with the GDP all you wish but the deficit remains.
    And it's a Reagan legacy.

    The data is from the Congressional Budget Office - facts, not spin.

    And the vast majority of the current deficit is being spent to keep us out of W's depression and you know it.

    November 23, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    November 23, 2011 at 4:33 p.m.

  • The average "deficits" for each administration as a percent of GDP.

    Reagan ............. 5.2
    Pa Bush ............ 6.2
    Clinton ............. 2.7
    DubYa .............. 4.3
    Obuma ........... 11.3

    The data in the Wikipedia link was presented in a way to confuse the reader by summing percentages over the years so the longer a president served the worse the numbers look - what a crock. As can be seen Obuma shines above all the rest - thanks a lot :(

    November 23, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.

  • "Do you have any concerns about the sustainability of current government spending/borrowing"

    BS: Nothing current about this spending/borrowing?

    I’ve been concerned about this since Reagan started this and it continued through W’s disastrous presidency. The only exception was Clinton. And if anyone was following Paul back in the 80s they would know he was against this 30 years ago. A little late for Ron Paul to save the day.

    Too many are buying the B.S. blaming Obama for “this spending/borrowing”. While I have serious issues with Obama’s economics policies and spending, he has kept up us out of a depression and the unemployment is only 2% higher than W left it. Also, the Stock market isn’t at W’s 6500.

    People won’t realize what Paul’s economic policies mean until our nursing home residents end up on the streets and Victoria resembles Calcutta.

    Where was everyone when the Republicans took this country down the tubes with of current government spending/borrowing? And yes, the dems are just as responsible for being Reagan’s lemmings and allow this.

    See National debt by U.S. presidential terms:

    November 23, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.

  • So he is going to have the same oversight of government if elected as he did with a newsletter with his name and endorsement for at least two years. And sorry not really sold on his equality stance with his 2011 comments on the property rights regarding the civil rights act.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:09 a.m.

  • JLordtree,

    I guess you didn't get the memo when that was settled in 2008. Paul admitted to & apologized for not having editorial control of the ghostwritten newsletters in question. He accepted "moral responsibility" for them despite not agreeing with what they said. After all you've heard from him, do you genuinely think those were his words? The words in those newsletters grossly contradict the platform he promotes daily. Barking up this tree is intellectually lazy.

    If the head of the Austin chapter of the NAACP can see through this, why can't you?

    NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul & Racism:

    Black People for Ron Paul:

    I wouldn't be supporting him today if I had one iota of doubt about Paul's stance on equality.

    November 23, 2011 at 8:57 a.m.

  • Writein / GOP_LoveChild,

    Do you have any concerns about the sustainability of current government spending/borrowing? If so, who else will do what's necessary to correct our course? (I'm not talking about just balancing the budget at current levels.) If not, please explain.

    November 23, 2011 at 8:19 a.m.

  • What is there to explain? Ron Paul platform is similar to President Cleveland’s. It was dishearten for a President to ignore the plight of the farmers during that year’s drought. It was also dishearten for a president to disrespect the American vets with his funding.

    November 23, 2011 at 12:56 a.m.

  • Riverboat.

    Are you implying I am Marxist?

    November 23, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.

  • Nope, this dude will take America where Stalin's 5 year economic programs took Russia.

    November 22, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.

  • Should check out some of his newsletters from the nineties.

    November 22, 2011 at 4:45 p.m.

  • I will not vote for Ron Paul. We do not need to go back to Glover Cleveland's America.

    November 22, 2011 at 4:29 p.m.