Ron Paul 2008 - A Prelude To The Presidency - Page 2 - Jets Insider.com Forums

JetsCrazey · 11-20-2007, 12:30 PM

[QUOTE=parafly;2219761]JetsCrazey, you seem to be very knowledgeable on Ron Paul's stance on the issues. Can you offer any insight into his alternative fuels policy and whether or not he is willing to end America's dependence on oil?[/QUOTE]

2 words: free markets.

It is estimated that staying in the Middle East for special-interest wars will cost the American people $1 trillion in debt to China and Japan.
Ron Paul's solution? Stop policing the world (it's partly BECAUSE of the war that oil prices have gone up), take that $1 trillion that would have been taxed and then spent outside of America on wars for oil and contractors, and instead let it stay in the people's wallets. Less military spending = More wealth for the American people = a more stable dollar = stable oil prices = that money can now be used for the American market to develop cheaper alternatives to oil.

Free markets work, and Ron Paul is not a protectionist/isolationist contrary to what some claim.

BrooklynBound · 11-20-2007, 01:04 PM

[QUOTE=parafly;2219761]JetsCrazey, you seem to be very knowledgeable on Ron Paul's stance on the issues. Can you offer any insight into his alternative fuels policy and whether or not he is willing to end America's dependence on oil?[/QUOTE]

If you end all subsidies (including big oil) – you will make alternative energy sources much more expense. Gov’t interference in this field as so far given us corn-based ethanol – essentially an inefficient way to give pork to farmers

Jetdawgg · 11-20-2007, 01:06 PM

Moreover, the American developed technologies can then be SOLD to other nations for profit like they do to us now.

How's that for a complete turnabout of things?

Warfish · 11-20-2007, 01:25 PM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2219871]If you end all subsidies (including big oil) – you will make alternative energy sources much more expense. Gov’t interference in this field as so far given us corn-based ethanol – essentially an inefficient way to give pork to farmers[/QUOTE]

True.

And if you end all Subsidies, the price of a Gallon of Gasoline will rise exponentially. The cost of those subsidies will no longer be indirectly paid by all Americans, it will be paid directly at the pump by all Americans who drive or operate a motor vehicle of any kind.

Additionally, costs for shipping will skyrocket right alongside, as costs for transporting good will rise. And transportation (whom I assume you will also end subsidies for as well, right?) will change dramaticly, as both passenger railroads and airlines go bankrupt. Only profitable routes (i.e. big cities) will survive.

And of course, without Subsidies and/or Federal Grants, most Alternative Fuel research will grind to a screaching stop, unless it shows a clear and obvious potential for profit. Not environmental improvement, but profit. No money = no research.

The removal of energy subsidies is definitely an interesting idea. I wish anyone proposing that good luck in the polls. They'd need it.

JetsCrazey · 11-20-2007, 02:02 PM

There are always short-term adverse effects when you free the market.
But in the long run things always get cheaper.

Regarding ethanol, let's look at sugar which is cheaper to make than corn-based ethanol.
Americans pay 2x the price for sugar than they should in order to protect the sugar lobby, which is one of the biggest campaign-donating lobbys there is.

So it works both ways. Ultimately, though, free trade works. You can't fight the underlying forces in the market.

The American government is holding our economic development back by wasting so much of our hard-earned $$ in the Middle East.

BrooklynBound · 11-20-2007, 02:14 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2219927]True.

And if you end all Subsidies, the price of a Gallon of Gasoline will rise exponentially. The cost of those subsidies will no longer be indirectly paid by all Americans, it will be paid directly at the pump by all Americans who drive or operate a motor vehicle of any kind.

Additionally, costs for shipping will skyrocket right alongside, as costs for transporting good will rise. And transportation (whom I assume you will also end subsidies for as well, right?) will change dramaticly, as both passenger railroads and airlines go bankrupt. Only profitable routes (i.e. big cities) will survive.

And of course, without Subsidies and/or Federal Grants, most Alternative Fuel research will grind to a screaching stop, unless it shows a clear and obvious potential for profit. Not environmental improvement, but profit. No money = no research.

The removal of energy subsidies is definitely an interesting idea. I wish anyone proposing that good luck in the polls. They'd need it.[/QUOTE]

We’re paying for it anyway – however, instead of it being a “pay for use” system we have people who use very little oil subsidize those who use a lot of oil. I don’t think that’s fair. People who live in cities and don’t use much gas shouldn’t have their tax money go towards big oil IMO. I complain that big oil makes a lot of money, but they don’t need subsidies, either. They are big boys.

And I agree it is political suicide for anyone to suggest doing this. However, it’s still the right thing to do. That’s why I support Paul. He’s not changing his views in order to get elected. He’s been saying the same things for 20+ years. The point isn’t to get elected, the point is to do what’s best for the country.

MnJetFan · 11-20-2007, 02:27 PM

So what you are saying is that the US should become a isolationist country?
Right! It sounds great, but we aren't living in the 1700's any more!

Jetdawgg · 11-20-2007, 02:29 PM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2220101]So what you are saying is that the US should become a isolationist country?
Right! It sounds great, but we aren't living in the 1700's any more![/QUOTE]

Not isolationist. Just America First

BrooklynBound · 11-20-2007, 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2220101]So what you are saying is that the US should become a isolationist country?
Right! It sounds great, but we aren't living in the 1700's any more![/QUOTE]

Isolationist implies that you disagree with free trade. No candidate is more free trade than Ron Paul.

Big Blocker · 11-20-2007, 02:48 PM

You cannot pursue an environmental agenda without the involvement of the government.

The problem I have always had with libertarians is that they really are not for no government at all. Limited government sounds good in theory, and in fairness it does go back to our earliest heritage, looking at people like Jefferson and the like.

But limited government is a slippery concept in practice. What will be limited, what allowed?

That is where libertarianism loses its coherence.

MnJetFan · 11-20-2007, 02:50 PM

Isolationist has nothing to with free trade. It is pulling back from the world like you have no responsibility. Like the French, Germans and many others!

JetsCrazey · 11-20-2007, 02:59 PM

Ron Paul is not isolationist, and just because he doesn't want to police the entire world doesn't make him one.

He voted for military action in Afghanistan.
He introduced a bill for a formal declaration of War in Iraq.
His message was declare war and then go win it. Don't get involved in a police-action where it becomes a quagmire like Vietnam.

Jetdawgg · 11-20-2007, 03:27 PM

[QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2220172]Ron Paul is not isolationist, and just because he doesn't want to police the entire world doesn't make him one.

He voted for military action in Afghanistan.
He introduced a bill for a formal declaration of War in Iraq.
His message was declare war and then go win it. Don't get involved in a police-action where it becomes a quagmire like Vietnam.[/QUOTE]

Or Iraq

MnJetFan · 11-20-2007, 03:52 PM

Iraq is a whole different subject then Viet Nam!

JetsCrazey · 11-20-2007, 04:03 PM

The result of policing Iraq is turning out to be just like Vietnam...
spending taxpayer money so the special interests can get rich. Ultimately that's what it's all about.
The boogey-man will always be there, whether it be Marxists or a few jihadist thugs, War thousands of miles away is first and foremost a racket.

Jetdawgg · 11-20-2007, 04:18 PM

[url]

Warfish · 11-20-2007, 04:24 PM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2220067]The point isn’t to get elected, the point is to do what’s best for the country.[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

You really have drank the cool-aid eh? Wow.

By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but you cannot do what's best for the country if you're not elected.

SenorGato · 11-20-2007, 04:27 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2220378]:rolleyes:

You really have drank the cool-aid eh? Wow.

By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but you cannot do what's best for the country if you're not elected.[/QUOTE]

Which is why we should elect a guy like Ron Paul.

At least he seems to give a sh*t about the issues, rather than telling us about how great he was during 9/11 or flip flopping depending on whose asking the questions...

Warfish · 11-20-2007, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2220067]...however, instead of it being a “pay for use” system we have people who use very little oil subsidize those who use a lot of oil.

I don’t think that’s fair.

People who live in cities and don’t use much gas shouldn’t have their tax money go towards big oil IMO.[/QUOTE]

Oh, and I'll be happy to support this.....the day MY tax money is no longer used for Public Education, Welfare or the half dozen other worthless Federal Waste Programs I do not benifit from, take use of, or in any way interact with.

After all, we ARE interested in Fair, right? I agree 100%.

BrooklynBound · 11-20-2007, 04:50 PM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2220157]Isolationist has nothing to with free trade. It is pulling back from the world like you have no responsibility. Like the French, Germans and many others![/QUOTE]

Incorrect. Isolationist is having a non-interventionary foreign policy (military-wise) and anti-free trade

11-20-2007, 04:03 PM	#35
JetsCrazey All League Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,665	The result of policing Iraq is turning out to be just like Vietnam... spending taxpayer money so the special interests can get rich. Ultimately that's what it's all about. The boogey-man will always be there, whether it be Marxists or a few jihadist thugs, War thousands of miles away is first and foremost a racket. Last edited by JetsCrazey; 11-20-2007 at 04:07 PM.

11-20-2007, 04:18 PM	#36
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	Ron Paul: 300 [url]

11-20-2007, 12:30 PM	#21
JetsCrazey All League Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,665	[QUOTE=parafly;2219761]JetsCrazey, you seem to be very knowledgeable on Ron Paul's stance on the issues. Can you offer any insight into his alternative fuels policy and whether or not he is willing to end America's dependence on oil?[/QUOTE] 2 words: free markets. It is estimated that staying in the Middle East for special-interest wars will cost the American people $1 trillion in debt to China and Japan. Ron Paul's solution? Stop policing the world (it's partly BECAUSE of the war that oil prices have gone up), take that $1 trillion that would have been taxed and then spent outside of America on wars for oil and contractors, and instead let it stay in the people's wallets. Less military spending = More wealth for the American people = a more stable dollar = stable oil prices = that money can now be used for the American market to develop cheaper alternatives to oil. Free markets work, and Ron Paul is not a protectionist/isolationist contrary to what some claim.

11-20-2007, 01:04 PM	#22
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=parafly;2219761]JetsCrazey, you seem to be very knowledgeable on Ron Paul's stance on the issues. Can you offer any insight into his alternative fuels policy and whether or not he is willing to end America's dependence on oil?[/QUOTE] If you end all subsidies (including big oil) – you will make alternative energy sources much more expense. Gov’t interference in this field as so far given us corn-based ethanol – essentially an inefficient way to give pork to farmers

11-20-2007, 01:06 PM	#23
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	Moreover, the American developed technologies can then be SOLD to other nations for profit like they do to us now. How's that for a complete turnabout of things?

11-20-2007, 01:25 PM	#24
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2219871]If you end all subsidies (including big oil) – you will make alternative energy sources much more expense. Gov’t interference in this field as so far given us corn-based ethanol – essentially an inefficient way to give pork to farmers[/QUOTE] True. And if you end all Subsidies, the price of a Gallon of Gasoline will rise exponentially. The cost of those subsidies will no longer be indirectly paid by all Americans, it will be paid directly at the pump by all Americans who drive or operate a motor vehicle of any kind. Additionally, costs for shipping will skyrocket right alongside, as costs for transporting good will rise. And transportation (whom I assume you will also end subsidies for as well, right?) will change dramaticly, as both passenger railroads and airlines go bankrupt. Only profitable routes (i.e. big cities) will survive. And of course, without Subsidies and/or Federal Grants, most Alternative Fuel research will grind to a screaching stop, unless it shows a clear and obvious potential for profit. Not environmental improvement, but profit. No money = no research. The removal of energy subsidies is definitely an interesting idea. I wish anyone proposing that good luck in the polls. They'd need it.

11-20-2007, 02:02 PM	#25
JetsCrazey All League Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,665	There are always short-term adverse effects when you free the market. But in the long run things always get cheaper. Regarding ethanol, let's look at sugar which is cheaper to make than corn-based ethanol. Americans pay 2x the price for sugar than they should in order to protect the sugar lobby, which is one of the biggest campaign-donating lobbys there is. So it works both ways. Ultimately, though, free trade works. You can't fight the underlying forces in the market. The American government is holding our economic development back by wasting so much of our hard-earned $$ in the Middle East.

11-20-2007, 02:14 PM	#26
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=Warfish;2219927]True. And if you end all Subsidies, the price of a Gallon of Gasoline will rise exponentially. The cost of those subsidies will no longer be indirectly paid by all Americans, it will be paid directly at the pump by all Americans who drive or operate a motor vehicle of any kind. Additionally, costs for shipping will skyrocket right alongside, as costs for transporting good will rise. And transportation (whom I assume you will also end subsidies for as well, right?) will change dramaticly, as both passenger railroads and airlines go bankrupt. Only profitable routes (i.e. big cities) will survive. And of course, without Subsidies and/or Federal Grants, most Alternative Fuel research will grind to a screaching stop, unless it shows a clear and obvious potential for profit. Not environmental improvement, but profit. No money = no research. The removal of energy subsidies is definitely an interesting idea. I wish anyone proposing that good luck in the polls. They'd need it.[/QUOTE] We’re paying for it anyway – however, instead of it being a “pay for use” system we have people who use very little oil subsidize those who use a lot of oil. I don’t think that’s fair. People who live in cities and don’t use much gas shouldn’t have their tax money go towards big oil IMO. I complain that big oil makes a lot of money, but they don’t need subsidies, either. They are big boys. And I agree it is political suicide for anyone to suggest doing this. However, it’s still the right thing to do. That’s why I support Paul. He’s not changing his views in order to get elected. He’s been saying the same things for 20+ years. The point isn’t to get elected, the point is to do what’s best for the country.

11-20-2007, 02:27 PM	#27
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	So what you are saying is that the US should become a isolationist country? Right! It sounds great, but we aren't living in the 1700's any more!

11-20-2007, 02:29 PM	#28
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2220101]So what you are saying is that the US should become a isolationist country? Right! It sounds great, but we aren't living in the 1700's any more![/QUOTE] Not isolationist. Just America First

11-20-2007, 02:37 PM	#29
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2220101]So what you are saying is that the US should become a isolationist country? Right! It sounds great, but we aren't living in the 1700's any more![/QUOTE] Isolationist implies that you disagree with free trade. No candidate is more free trade than Ron Paul.

11-20-2007, 02:48 PM	#30
Big Blocker Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,689	You cannot pursue an environmental agenda without the involvement of the government. The problem I have always had with libertarians is that they really are not for no government at all. Limited government sounds good in theory, and in fairness it does go back to our earliest heritage, looking at people like Jefferson and the like. But limited government is a slippery concept in practice. What will be limited, what allowed? That is where libertarianism loses its coherence.

11-20-2007, 02:50 PM	#31
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	Isolationist has nothing to with free trade. It is pulling back from the world like you have no responsibility. Like the French, Germans and many others!

11-20-2007, 02:59 PM	#32
JetsCrazey All League Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,665	Ron Paul is not isolationist, and just because he doesn't want to police the entire world doesn't make him one. He voted for military action in Afghanistan. He introduced a bill for a formal declaration of War in Iraq. His message was declare war and then go win it. Don't get involved in a police-action where it becomes a quagmire like Vietnam.

11-20-2007, 03:27 PM	#33
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	[QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2220172]Ron Paul is not isolationist, and just because he doesn't want to police the entire world doesn't make him one. He voted for military action in Afghanistan. He introduced a bill for a formal declaration of War in Iraq. His message was declare war and then go win it. Don't get involved in a police-action where it becomes a quagmire like Vietnam.[/QUOTE] Or Iraq

11-20-2007, 03:52 PM	#34
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	Iraq is a whole different subject then Viet Nam!

11-20-2007, 04:24 PM	#37
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2220067]The point isn’t to get elected, the point is to do what’s best for the country.[/QUOTE] :rolleyes: You really have drank the cool-aid eh? Wow. By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but you cannot do what's best for the country if you're not elected.

11-20-2007, 04:27 PM	#38
SenorGato still a little buzzed. Hall Of Fame Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,281	[QUOTE=Warfish;2220378]:rolleyes: You really have drank the cool-aid eh? Wow. By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but you cannot do what's best for the country if you're not elected.[/QUOTE] Which is why we should elect a guy like Ron Paul. At least he seems to give a sh*t about the issues, rather than telling us about how great he was during 9/11 or flip flopping depending on whose asking the questions...

11-20-2007, 04:28 PM	#39
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2220067]...however, instead of it being a “pay for use” system we have people who use very little oil subsidize those who use a lot of oil. I don’t think that’s fair. People who live in cities and don’t use much gas shouldn’t have their tax money go towards big oil IMO.[/QUOTE] Oh, and I'll be happy to support this.....the day MY tax money is no longer used for Public Education, Welfare or the half dozen other worthless Federal Waste Programs I do not benifit from, take use of, or in any way interact with. After all, we ARE interested in Fair, right? I agree 100%.

11-20-2007, 04:50 PM	#40
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2220157]Isolationist has nothing to with free trade. It is pulling back from the world like you have no responsibility. Like the French, Germans and many others![/QUOTE] Incorrect. Isolationist is having a non-interventionary foreign policy (military-wise) and anti-free trade