WI: Ron Paul elected President in 2008?

[arnoldcabell]

Thanks

Just think how much worse it would have been with further bank collapses with the loss of wealth in deposits and other assets. (Rendered valueless by not covered by gold?)

There will always be new banks set up on top of the ones that do collapse: that's just how the free market works.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

There will always be new banks set up on top of the ones that do collapse: that's just how the free market works.

Bit difficult to make money while most Americans are bankrupt.

 

[arnoldcabell]

Bit difficult to make money while most Americans are bankrupt.

Paul's radical tax cuts would have given most Americans more disposable income to spend in fact.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Paul's radical tax cuts would have given most Americans more disposable income to spend in fact.

Even assuming he doesn't go through with his suicidal gold standard idea, we're already running a deficit every year. Won't radical tax cuts require either sharp spending cuts or massive deficit spending?

 

[BELFAST]

Even assuming he doesn't go through with his suicidal gold standard idea, we're already running a deficit every year. Won't radical tax cuts require either sharp spending cuts or massive deficit spending?

Ron Paul is going to do cuts.
Ron Paul would only sign off a balanced budget
I never heard Ron Paul say he would go for an instant gold standard.

 

[Sicarius]

The President can’t just unilaterally cut taxes.

 

[Casting Crown]

That might be true, but the kind of radical changes he would bring would be very disruptive to the preset system.
He might be a good President but not a great one.
Great presidents were the ones like Abraham lincoln and FDR who expanded the power of the federal government.
Great in that context means big. Ron Paul is against big government.

It sounds like he's great for 'we' the people.

Definitely radical and unforseen consequences but it would be nice to live in a country that respected the sovereignty of other nations.

Plus cutting out our insane military budget he probably also exposes a lot of embezzlement.

It shouldn't be more than 10% of our GDP, it's 51% or so.

What has that done for anyone in this country?

Although he could also strengthen wealth inequality but its hard to imagine that not getting any worse.

It's supposedly the wealthiest country on Earth, but does anyone actually feel like it is?

Most of the developed world actually is developed.

This one, well developedish.

But there are so called 3rd world countries around us with better healthcare, literacy, and less homelessness.

Sure his term won't bring those about but who follows can.

Imagine actually having those funds freed up for healthcare, infrastructure development.

America is currently a bejeweled crapsack.

And no I don't believe in love it or leave it, I love its potential enough to make sure I'm here to be vocal about how dopped we truly are and vote in our elections. 🙃

He would be, interesting.

But how's he getting all that through congress?

It seems like the Republicrats Dempublicans would be blocking a lot of that.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

The President can’t just unilaterally cut taxes.

Ron Paul can. He need only run outside, hold aloft his copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and transform into ... Libertarian Lad! [ thunderclap ] unstoppable by Congress or courts! >;k

 

[BELFAST]

The President can’t just unilaterally cut taxes.

That is true.
He needs support in congress for that.

 

[BELFAST]

Ron Paul can. He need only run outside, hold aloft his copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and transform into ... Libertarian Lad! [ thunderclap ] unstoppable by Congress or courts! >;k

Ayan Rand was not a fan of Ron Paul or the libertians.

 

[NedStark]

Imagine actually having those funds freed up for healthcare, infrastructure development.

Except that those money would be wasted in tax cuts under Ron Paul.

Paul's radical tax cuts would have given most Americans more disposable income to spend in fact.

Large, wholesale tax cuts don't work. That's it, plain and simple, period.

Ron Paul is going to do cuts.

Everyone and their mother in Congress would have understood that massive cuts would have tanked the US economy and caused a Great Depression. However, Republicans ideologically loved tax cuts. The end results would be that tax cuts would have been passed without spending cuts, thus an even larger deficit - and such thing did happened IOTL under GWB.

 

[NedStark]

The 1900 Gold Standard Act in fact facilitated an economic recovery.

The economy already recovered well before 1900, thanks to new gold supply being found in Yukon and Australia. McKinley just got lucky here.

 

[NedStark]

You don't understand how much the Baldwin led government intervened to support the British economy. Through modest fiscal expansion, supporting investment projects (railways, The "Queens"), Imperial Preference), devaluation. Not full blown Keyneslanism but then UK banks didn't collapse the way US ones had up to 1932

And housebuilding. But the British economy only truly recovered after rearmament a.k.a defense spending stimulus (the very thing that Paul opposed).

Neither the economic stimulus nor Obamacar

Actually because the stimulus was not big enough. A 1.9 trillion stimulus would have worked excellently in 2009.

 

[Casting Crown]

ept that those money would be wasted in tax cuts under Ron Paul.


Large, wholesale tax cuts don't work. That's it, plain and simple, period.


Everyone and their mother in Congress would have understood that massive cuts would have tanked the US economy and caused a Great Depression. However, Republicans ideologically loved tax cuts. The end results would be that tax cuts would have been passed without spending cuts, thus an even larger deficit - and such thing did happened IOTL under GWB.

So basically America is just a polished turd anyway, but at least we won't have the highest incarceration rate anymore.

So it's a slightly more shiny polished turd.

 

[BELFAST]

Except that those money would be wasted in tax cuts under Ron Paul.

Cuts taxes would be the way Ron Paul would go or paying off the national debt.

Large, wholesale tax cuts don't work. That's it, plain and simple, period.

Do not work? That depends on what he wants tax cuts to do. I think for him taxes cuts would be part of the plan to reduce the size of the federal government.

Everyone and their mother in Congress would have understood that massive cuts would have tanked the US economy and caused a Great Depression. However, Republicans ideologically loved tax cuts. The end results would be that tax cuts would have been passed without spending cuts, thus an even larger deficit - and such thing did happened IOTL under GWB.

Ron Paul was opposed to tax cuts without spending cuts.

 

[khang lm]

How do people even imagine sustaining the gold standard with modern economics?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

How do people even imagine sustaining the gold standard with modern economics?

Dunno

Anyone know of a link to at least a quasi-academic paper that displays some understanding of economics and finance? As they are not comic book fantasy.

 

[arnoldcabell]

Even assuming he doesn't go through with his suicidal gold standard idea, we're already running a deficit every year. Won't radical tax cuts require either sharp spending cuts or massive deficit spending?

Ron Paul would cut spending sharply.

 

[arnoldcabell]

Except that those money would be wasted in tax cuts under Ron Paul.


Large, wholesale tax cuts don't work. That's it, plain and simple, period.


Everyone and their mother in Congress would have understood that massive cuts would have tanked the US economy and caused a Great Depression. However, Republicans ideologically loved tax cuts. The end results would be that tax cuts would have been passed without spending cuts, thus an even larger deficit - and such thing did happened IOTL under GWB.

Paul would have cut them for everyone, not just the wealthy.

The economy already recovered well before 1900, thanks to new gold supply being found in Yukon and Australia. McKinley just got lucky here.

Unlike the Obama adminstration, Paul would have encouraged drilling for oil in protected natural areas, securing America's energy independence further.

And housebuilding. But the British economy only truly recovered after rearmament a.k.a defense spending stimulus (the very thing that Paul opposed).


Actually because the stimulus was not big enough. A 1.9 trillion stimulus would have worked excellently in 2009.

Paul would probably have achieved a balanced budget through slashing government spending and cutting taxes similarly to Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge, two of the Tea Party Movement's favorite Presidents.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Ron Paul would cut spending sharply.

So what would people lose? Education infrastructure, no National Parks. Defence cuts mean job losses.

How much will people gaining little from tax cuts have to spend to compensate?