[Video] Ron Paul hosts CNBC's Squawk Box - Monday April 23, 2012

[LibertyIn08]

Wow. It's nice to be reminded why this is the only politician I've ever truly idolized. Rand is not a suitable heir to the Ron Paul revolution. The other day when Rand was on Alex Jones he showed his true colors by mentioning a flat tax and saying that because it collects different amounts of tax from people (at the same rate) it is progressive but I think he intentionally said that because he knows that many neoconservatives like a flat tax. The flat tax is immoral because it would be raising rates on the poor but many republicans embrace conservatism not because of an understanding of monetary policy or true compassion but because of the 'us against them' mentality and a dislike for the people they see as poor. Rand is either off base on monetary policies or being intentionally disingenuous because he cares more about the GOP or power than the ideas his father believes in.

You realize the proposed Hall-Rabushka flat tax has an exemption for all income below 33,800 USD, correct? It doesn't impact the rates the poor pay at all. (By the way, using your logic, ending any welfare program would likewise be immoral as it is an effective increase in the amount of net tax paid by poor individuals into the federal government. But I'm sure you don't object to that, do you?)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/simple-low-fair-and-honest-a-tea-party-tax-code/

 

[unknown]

I <3 Ron Paul.

I dont even know if America deserves this man as President. No doubt we need him but Im pretty sure we dont deserve him. We f*cked up.

 

[TimeForChange]

"He sure makes you think that Congressman Paul." was my favorite quote of the segment. Was right after discussing blowback. Just need more Americans thinking for themselves.

 

[unknown]

"He sure makes you think that Congressman Paul." was my favorite quote of the segment. Was right after discussing blowback. Just need more Americans thinking for themselves.

Yah that was cool.

Seems to me like so many of these establishment types want to back him but are holding back for some odd reason.

 

[jbauer]

You're NEVER going to find someone to replace Ron. My fear is we have this ignited revolution but don't have someone to take it through to fruition. I'm not sure Rand is the guy. I think he might be? Anyone who takes this beyond what it is today has huge shoes to fill. Admittedly they will never live up to expectations, but the same could be said for Ron. Do you actually believe he could enact all the positions he says he's for? The one thing that gives me solaces is that whomever the next person is, they'll be held to the same standards of as Ron even if they don't have the 30 year track record to look back upon.

Wow. It's nice to be reminded why this is the only politician I've ever truly idolized. Rand is not a suitable heir to the Ron Paul revolution. The other day when Rand was on Alex Jones he showed his true colors by mentioning a flat tax and saying that because it collects different amounts of tax from people (at the same rate) it is progressive but I think he intentionally said that because he knows that many neoconservatives like a flat tax. The flat tax is immoral because it would be raising rates on the poor but many republicans embrace conservatism not because of an understanding of monetary policy or true compassion but because of the 'us against them' mentality and a dislike for the people they see as poor. Rand is either off base on monetary policies or being intentionally disingenuous because he cares more about the GOP or power than the ideas his father believes in.

 

[tremendoustie]

You're NEVER going to find someone to replace Ron. My fear is we have this ignited revolution but don't have someone to take it through to fruition. I'm not sure Rand is the guy. I think he might be? Anyone who takes this beyond what it is today has huge shoes to fill. Admittedly they will never live up to expectations, but the same could be said for Ron. Do you actually believe he could enact all the positions he says he's for? The one thing that gives me solaces is that whomever the next person is, they'll be held to the same standards of as Ron even if they don't have the 30 year track record to look back upon.

It won't, and shouldn't, be one person.

We all need to get involved at all levels of government, as well as education, jury nullification, issue advocacy, well chosen and wisely done civil disobedience, agorism, etc.

There are huge things happening right here in my home state.

Those waiting for one national leader to get behind (not saying you are), are missing out.

 

[jbauer]

No, I'm not saying we need one leader. One person can't change the world. If we're to change it, it will take a collective effort from everyone. What I am saying is no matter who becomes the next tourch bearer, they have huge shoes to fill. Whether thats Rand or not who knows but ultimately we'll need someone to run for President in 16.....I'd much prefer it was Ron but I'm not sure thats realistic.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yah that was cool.

Seems to me like so many of these establishment types want to back him but are holding back for some odd reason.

A lot of things Ron speaks about are counter-intuitives, for example the government "doing nothing" when there's an economic downturn. This kind of stuff flies in the face of years of government school teachings these people have been brain-washed with since birth.

 

[Aldanga]

It won't, and shouldn't, be one person.

We all need to get involved at all levels of government, as well as education, jury nullification, issue advocacy, well chosen and wisely done civil disobedience, agorism, etc.

There are huge things happening right here in my home state.

Those waiting for one national leader to get behind (not saying you are), are missing out.

This. We are Ron Paul.

 

[jcarcinogen]

You realize the proposed Hall-Rabushka flat tax has an exemption for all income below 33,800 USD, correct? It doesn't impact the rates the poor pay at all. (By the way, using your logic, ending any welfare program would likewise be immoral as it is an effective increase in the amount of net tax paid by poor individuals into the federal government. But I'm sure you don't object to that, do you?)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/simple-low-fair-and-honest-a-tea-party-tax-code/

I've heard Rand Paul talk about 10% on personal income and 17% Corporate, I didn't know he endorsed a specific Flat Tax bill... Some freedomworks article from Glenn Beck's site isn't going to distract me from the fact the Corporate welfare (whether it be corn subsidies we both agree on or the 'defense' contracts you love) and the cost of tyranny has higher priority to me than the people that have become dependent on the state to eat.

Besides, a minimum level like that causes the same problems as a progressive rate. It will encourage income to not be reported or laundered as something else to avoid the tax. Why is a flat tax even a proper response to the President talking about increasing taxes when the problem is spending? Rand is using the 'fair' part of the argument because neoconservatives like to cite the fact that ~50% of Americans don't pay income tax and thats why they think the flat tax is 'fair'. But if there is an exemption like that near the median income level that changes a lot. I never hear that on Fox.

 

[Noblegeorge]

Yeah he was really on top of his game....loved that he explained blowback again. Its been awhile since he talked about it and it is such a powerful and logical argument that anyone can understand. The presenter was virtually powerless to argue. Also great discussion of monetary policy. Actually he did great in every segment.

 

[harikaried]

Ron Paul Flix has all the segments in one for the OP to update:

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/04/ron-paul-as-guest-host-on-cnbc-apr-23-2012/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG2uDf2F3cA

 

[jbauer]

Going back the gold standard in my opinion is a hard stance to take and likely gets laughed at in a lot of circles. It's impractical now. You can't take a flawed currency like we have and completley turn it on its head. You only get to do that if the currency imploads on itself (which its doing).

I'd love to see a asset based currency but that ship has sailed on the dollar. If we have to start over on a new currency (which we probably will have to do in the near future) then we can talk about asset based currency. Until then its only a pie in the sky type idea.

 

[wgadget]

You may <3 Ron Paul, but I ♥ him.

 

[harikaried]

You can't take a flawed currency like we have and completley turn it on its head.

And as Ron Paul explained on the show, that's not what he's trying to do immediately either. He wants competition of currency, and naturally the Federal Reserve and its notes will become irrelevant as people naturally transition to sound money.

 

[Danan]

Going back the gold standard in my opinion is a hard stance to take and likely gets laughed at in a lot of circles. It's impractical now. You can't take a flawed currency like we have and completley turn it on its head. You only get to do that if the currency imploads on itself (which its doing).

I'd love to see a asset based currency but that ship has sailed on the dollar. If we have to start over on a new currency (which we probably will have to do in the near future) then we can talk about asset based currency. Until then its only a pie in the sky type idea.

Ron knows that pretty well, believe me. There are probably very few other guys who spent so much time on thinking about this issue.

That's why he talks about competing currencies and ending legal tender laws (a Hayek concept). If a competing (gold backed) money is well recieved by the people the FED would have to be more responsable (= less inflation) if it wants it's notes to be widely used.

He also says that he knows that it's impossible to shut the FED down tomorrow. But it's important to get the idea out there so that the people see the alternative should the fiat-dollar crash eventually. And he can't be very specific about his plans on television since viewers don't tend to have a huge attention span. So it's probably the best to say "I'm for a gold standard!" and to let those who want to know it more precisely research his specific plans.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

That was awesome! Ron Paul needs his own tv show.

Loved that he did his "role of government" spiel.

 

[Danan]

You beat me to it.

And as Ron Paul explained on the show, that's not what he's trying to do immediately either. He wants competition of currency, and naturally the Federal Reserve and its notes will become irrelevant as people naturally transition to sound money.

Or it would at least put some pressure on the FED to be more responsable and thus be a weak "quasi gold standard".

 

[jbauer]

I'd love a competing currency, but if you came out with an asset backed currency. Even if you called it a competing currency the reign of the dollar would be over. Arguing for a competing currency is a waste of time in my opinion. People don’t want to change (well unless they bought Obama). Our population is comfortable with dollars. They’re comfortable with shopping, banking, houses, all the things that make up a net worth of a voter. To change a monetary system is anything but comfortable.

Trust me, I know the pitfalls of the bad system we have now. In an idealistic world an asset backed currency would be great. So would several other things that Paul wants. But we also have to grip ourselves in reality.

I guess since I don’t see even a remote chance of getting a competing currency, I think I’d find better battles to pick like going after an audited and transparent FED.

 

[Working Poor]

very nice