Cutting the astronomical level of debt may not work because they spent so much in the first place. I feel like you were being misleading in your statement.
Let me defend Zippy a bit, even though I don't know him (or any of ya'll) except via here on RPF.
I think Zippy is very educated about and interested in economics and does his best to present the 'status quo' version of events without trying to too much to defend it.
As far as I can tell he is being very informed, skeptical and rational in his viewpoint, which I appreciate greatly. I don't claim to know his 'true' motivations or beliefs but nothing I've ever read of his indicates he is trying to be deceitful in his point of view or disrespectful to Ron Paul's ideas, and I appreciate that. I enjoy the opinions of those who may or may not necessarily agree with me but who have more knowledge about a subject than I, economics in this case; Zippy and Steve Douglas are two here who I've encountered who I readily admit as to being more educated about economics than I am (there are others of course). While I very much get the impression that Steve Douglas is an open Ron Paul supporter I'm sometimes not quite sure about Zippy, but neither have I seen anything that leads me to believe Zippy really isn't, I just am not sure.
But Zippy to me represents the mindset that most well-educated non-Paul supporters may have, namely that the financial system needs serious reform but not necessarily a complete restructuring on a scale that Ron Paul and most of us would like to see. Perhaps they are uncertain about the unintended consenquences of such drastic reform, perhaps they disagree philosophically with some aspect of Austrian economics, or perhaps they simply understand and have been able themselves to prosper under the current system and so don't want such a drastic change, I don't pretend to know. But I get absolutely no impression that most well-educated non-Paul supporters are 'evil' or 'in on the corruption' or are 'pro-banker' or whatever, and that goes for Zippy as well. If anything he represents the type of person that can be convinced of the benefits of Ron Paul's economic ideas (namely ending the FED and massive decreases in government spending and regulation) if only there were enough evidence showing that the economy would be better off should the USA adopt them.
Similarly, I respect Ivash who, unlike Zippy (to my knowledge) has come out and said he isn't a Ron Paul supporter but is a Republican who appreciates the politics of the Ron Paul campaign and who would (to my knowledge) potentially support Ron Paul should he overcome the GOP establishment mindset and actually win the nomination. I guess you could say they (in my mind) fall into the category of the 'loyal opposition', that is someone whose overall all objectives might not be so different than my own (a better world with more benefits for everyone) but who differ over how we should get there.
Of course I could be completely wrong and there could simply be the motivation of an anti-Paul person seeking to spread FUD but I do not get that impression from Zippy (or Ivash) although I do distinctly detect this from others. Note I don't really 'study' this, these are just impressions I get from my reading and communicating with my fellow RPF members. I don't pretend to have seen everything that anyone else here on RPF except me has written, heck I've forgotten much of what I have written myself.
Anyway, everyone is of course free to and should come to their own conclusions about the motivations of folks here, obviously any of us who bother to post and post frequently have some sort of vested interest in Ron Paul's campaign, but I don't think everyone who isn't an obvious gung-ho Ron Paul supporter is automatically here on RPF to derail the Ron Paul campaign either (indeed there are some obvious gung-ho Ron Paul supporters who seem to me to do more harm than good with their posts, some I have little doubt are being deceptive as to their true motivations). I just really like being able to communicate with people who have different beliefs than I do when they are actually contributing to me learning more about my own. That is I never really learn anything new when I only talk to those who agree with me, I learn more when I talk to those who disagree with me and have very good arguments for their positions and am required to defend them with equally valid arguments in order to engage in real debate.
I know you and I have had some sharp exchanges but I don't doubt you are a genuine Ron Paul supporter. I attribute it more to the fact that how we are communicating is inherently clumsy and (at least to me) lends itself to magnifying differences since (to me) I tend to want to debate more than to simply be a 'me-too'er' when I post. I think most disagreements many of us have are actually minor and many would be resolved with a few minutes of face to face conversation.
A little hyperbolic don't you think?
