Ron Paul: A Man Among Boys at ABC Debate

another link on debt

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2265 a breakdown of the debt and who we owe it to.

 

OK, since this has been said, let me make my point. We owe the Chinese. The website one of you gave (the trumpet.com) put the figure at $321 billion.

Let me ask a question: If the economy of the US is about to collapse, why do the Chinese continue to invest in it? Look at the above quote and notice what they are buying. They are buying bonds, home mortgages, and t-bills. For them, these are investments. And what we owe them is interest because THEY HAVE PAID US for the investments.

Go to www.bea.gov and take a look at the figures for the US's gross national product and gross domestic product. Our economy grows each quarter at a rate of between 3 - 5%. This rate produces wealth to the tune of 100's of billions of dollars. And this is just the increase year over year; the total wealth created by our economy each year is in the 10s OF TRILLIONS!!! This amount is 10s of thousands of times more wealth than we owe China! Let me say this clearly: Our economy produces more wealth on an annual basis by 10s of thousands of times what we owe China.

Illustration: The average person who buys a Subaru from me has a payment between $350 - $450 per month. Suddenly, I get a customer who finances a car for a short term and has a payment of $1500 per month. I think, "that is too high a payment...he'll go broke trying to pay it". But, I am wrong. I look at his income and rather than being in an income bracket of $100,000 per year as with my typical customer, his income is $750,000 per year. For him, a $1500 payment is nothing. In fact, it is less painful for him to pay $1500 even though it is higher, than the $450 payment for my $100,000 customer. The US in the $750,000 earner. While the billions owed to China sounds like alot, it is a small amount compared to the size of our economy and the wealth our nation produces. This is manageable debt.

Do we owe China billions? Yes. But THEY invested here because they know that our economy is strong. They marvel at the TRILLIONS of dollars in wealth our economy produces and they want to invest here to make money for themselves and to learn how to make their own economy prosperous. This is a good thing because their investment in our economy produces wealth for us.

You guys are not taking all of these facts together. You are looking at one aspect of what is happening and you are being led into false ideas by conspiracy theorists like Ron Paul.

 

Feel free to think this,but you and I both plan for the future,and to think that the globalists don't is foolhardy.

 

Yeah, Poncho, I don't know if Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist or not, so if it makes you happy, I'll take it back. However, his followers on this board seem to be into conspiracies and they seem to make arguments based upon narrowly selected and incomplete facts, such as, "we owe China money therefore our nation is teetering on the brink of financial collapse." It just isn't so.

 

BTID said

But Michigan's situation is an exception. The rest of the states are not on the brink of receivership, and Michagan's problems are not the result of the Chinese.

So, since our private enterprise jobs in America are leaving and going to government jobs in China, are you suggesting that the government of the US take over business so that can be run as well as the Chinese? Are you suggesting that private markets are doomed to failure and government control is needed to fix them?

 

Can you tell me the difference between Jimmy Carter's foreign policy and Ron Paul's? I can't distinguish the two.

 

Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, as well as U.S foreign policy in general since World War II, has been one of approving of the idea of "forward defense", meaning that we are willing to go outside of our own territory to confront perceived threats to our national security. Examples: Korea, Vietnam, Barbados, Panama, Afghanistan(1980), Iraq(1991), Bosnia.

What the neo-cons convinced President Bush to do was to go beyond "forward defense" into pre-emptive war(or "forward offense") which meant that we attack other countries even though they are not a viable threat to our national security at the present moment or for the foreseeable future.

I understand Ron Paul's foreign policy to not be one that cares much for the idea of "foreward defense". I disagree with his position as I support the idea of "forward defense" within reason but, unlike some folks in another thread, I am not going to attack his character over a policy disagreement.

 

Jimmy Carter had a foriegn policy. Whether it was "his own" or not is irrelavent. He had one. It is impossible to be president and not have one even if the one you have is by default. Based upon Ron Paul's statements, I cannot see how he would have reacted any differently in the foreign policies crises that Carter faced than Carted reacted. Please, address my question. What is the difference between Ron Paul's foreign policy and the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter. I can't see in any practical way how they differ.

 

If it's any consolation, I support Paul and don't believe in a single conspiracy. In fact, I even doubt that there will be a one world government, anti-christ, or rapture.

 

Isnt Ron Paul that wants to pull all of our troops out of everywhere? As a Navy man, that idea is not the brightest.

 

I'm also a Navy man.

Why do we need troops in Germany ? Greece ? Wouldn't they be of better use on our borders ?

 

Maybe you could help me out, Carpo. Who was the last US President who followed constitutional priciples in the conduct of foreign policy?

 

Stratigic Placment comes to mind. We may not need troops IN Greece for anything that has to do with Greece, but we may need them there to reach other points in that part of the world quicker than if they were all here.

A lot of equipment and troops used in hot spots around the world were placed in areas close by those hot spots years before they were used, but because they were already there the response time went from days to hours.

 

We have troops in Greece, Germany, and other European countries as a result of treaties we made in the aftermath of WWII. In the early 20th century we were dragged into a European conflict (World War I). After that war, which we won, we withdrew back to the US. Within 25 years we were dragged into another European war; World War II. Since then, we have maintained troops on that continent. And since then, close to 55 years, there has been no European war except in eastern Europe where we do not have troops. So the US has done the world a favor by using our military might to keep peace and tranquility in Europe. I think this is a fine and worthy use of American military power and I only support presidential candidates who understand history and plan to continue the practice. I think that a candidate like Ron Paul who favors bringing all American troops in Europe back home does not understand history and I oppose him. HIs plans would ultimately bring about another war in Europe, probably nuclear in nature, that would eventually cost more American lives than the first two European wars combined.

 

This question is so stupid as to not warrant an answer......:tonofbricks: