2007-07-06 02:34:22 · 13 answers · asked by 6th Finger 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes. But he won't win - c'mon, this country voted in Bush twice.
"If this country were smart, wouldn't you be at the top of the election polls?" - Bill Maher to Ron Paul
2007-07-06 02:36:18 · answer #1 · answered by guess 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No, he is not a sane choice, he has zero grasp of economics.
This whole mythical "middle class losing ground" argument is silly. Living conditions are so much better than they were in the 1970s - - - and people typing away on their computers arguing that they aren't look silly.
And the idea that the trade agreements were bad is also silly. He seems to think that things would cost what they do, and in turn that interest rates would be where they are, if we hadn't enjoyed the real cost savings associated with free trade, with the ability to move low-skill activities offshore. He seems to think you can have your cake and eat it too - - - yes about 3% of people who held manufacturing jobs - - about 1% of the country - now work at Wal-Mart but it's also the case that 75% of the people shop at Wal-Mart at least occasionally and also enjoy lower prices at other retail outlets because Wal-Mart forces them to cut prices. I haven't done a bottoms-up analysis but I would estimate that everyday items would cost 20% more than they do now if tariffs were at the levels they were at in the 1970s.
The analyses of whether the middle class benefited or not always miss this point - they get into number of jobs created and number of jobs lost and conclude that it's a wash - - they don't look at the fact that 80% of the jobs created are high-skill, white-collar jobs - - the disconnect being that laid-off factory workers can't get those jobs. And they don't analyze the consumer end of it - - they look at workers and consumers as different people. That's bad analysis. The reality is that everyone is both a producer and a consumer and for the 99% of us who kept our jobs, prices are about 20% lower than they otherwise would be with these interest rates (meaning the alternative scenario wouldn't be 5% CPI but 3.5% CPI and another 100 bps on the 10-year thus on everyone's mortgage rate). In other worse the purchasing power of the wages for the other 99% is a lot higher than it otherwise would have been.
2007-07-06 09:48:10 · answer #2 · answered by truthisback 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Not the only sane choice -- but he's my choice.
Just because I disagree with the others and have opposing values, doesn't make them insane.
My boss did refer to Ron Paul as insane, which kind of hurt my feelings - but she's something of a socialist. A socialist who is benefiting enormously from capitalism, typically enough.
Anyway, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense to me. That's why I send money to his compaign. If you feel he's the only sane candidate, then you should send money, too.
2007-07-06 09:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by Matthew O 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Ron Paul is an insane choice for President.
2007-07-06 09:38:00 · answer #4 · answered by Baraka 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
No. But he's in the minority. In the history of the United States there has never been such a stunning collection of buffoons. And I'm talking about both sides.
2007-07-06 09:38:40 · answer #5 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Where will you Ron Paul people turn once he loses the nomination?
2007-07-06 09:37:00 · answer #6 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Yes!
No more Bushes!
No more Clintons!
Liberty Over Liberalism!
2007-07-06 09:36:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
No, I like Barack Obama. We are entitled to our opinion, but I'll take my chances with Obama.
2007-07-06 09:37:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
yep
2007-07-06 09:41:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Him and Tancredo.
2007-07-06 09:36:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋