This house would vote Ron Paul

Con has failed to respond to most of my points, so it seems we're stuck with economics. Since the debate has really become a one-issue debate, I'll rebut my opponent point for point. "I don't understand if johnson is real or still part of that fictional scenario"The president Johnson I referred to in my trillion-dollar-analysis was the same one my opponent tried to use as evidence in round 2 - Andrew Johnson. The United States may never have defaulted, but then again they've never been in so much debt before. This is uncharted territory - and that's just the federal debt! Johnson could pick up the state debt, but can America really afford that now? I believe they can afford their own debt, but believe it or not, if you keep creating debt indefinitely you will eventually default. You need to stop the spending and save the dollar if you want to pay down the debt - and isn't that exactly what Ron Paul is proposing? "waht if president kennedy had shared that view. .. Recall what happened durring the treaty of versaille where the french and british were unwilling to compramise. .. "I could argue all of these - Kennedy had an uncompromising resolve to remove all of the missiles from Cuba, a principle he stuck to at all costs, and the treaty of Versailles hardly caused German poverty, as you will recall the USA was also in great poverty at the time, as was Great Britain. Libya is not in the Middle East, and Syria's violence is not because of a border dispute but unhappiness among their own people with the government regime. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. A compromise on fiscal policy inevitably means that, since Paul's policy is to reduce the debt, the government will be spending more money it doesn't have. That's not like the treaty of Versailles or the Cuban missile crisis - this is the American government ruining the future economic prosperity of their own country through creating more and more debt, which is going to be harder and harder to pay off because the process of creating money also creates inflation. Is that something America should be compromising about? Should America be compromising about their own constitution? Should America be compromising about their future? "This not a a ruler who has his people's interest in mind, this is a mind preoccpied with his own. "Well, Paul hasn't been elected yet. But define "people's interest," please? How is it not in people's interest to reduce the deficit, have more jobs and experience peace. I agree that all these things are in Paul's interest, but surely they benefit everybody else as well? It's not like his policy is to pay Ron Paul's debts, give Ron Paul jobs and bring peace to the house of Ron Paul. "One law in 35 year: Ron Paul wasn't a part of moving the country forward. "True (although he worked closely with Regan), but I see the last 35 years as mostly a failed opportunity. Before that, America was the fastest growing economy in the world, the number one economy in the world in terms of GDP, and one of the most equal societies in the world (although to be fair, the rest of the world was pretty unequal back then). Today America has lost all but one of those titles (highest world GDP), but they're pretty close to losing that title to China. Had they listened to Ron Paul, maybe things would have been different. "hes an advocate, not a statesman, and certaitntly not an executive"Well, if he advocates the right messages, maybe he should be an executive. The trouble with being a statesman is that a horde of congress people who believe the wrong messages can over-rule you. As a president it is more difficult to be over-ruled in that way. As an executive he can get results in a way he was unable to as a statesman. "with regards to his plans for taxes,education, federal reserve: The power to change all that lyes with congress, not the executive branch. "The same criticism could have been made of Obama - when he ran for president, he advocated big tax and educational changes, despite the fact he was already a senator. Why did he run for president? Three reasons, two of which I've made already. First, the presidency is a bully pulpit. Second, the president can veto. Third, the president can introduce legislation. In this way Obama could get through, for instance, his healthcare plan without even having the support of most of congress. If Paul were president, he could do likewise. "All their records, tranascations, even what they said during the meetings are realsed for for public record. "Wrong. The Fed is free to set the scope of their own audits because of a last-minute addition to Ron Paul's bill by the senate (see history of the bill here: . http://www.ronpaul.com...). Even the Fed's own website admits they set the scope and frequency of all of their audits: . http://www.ny.frb.org.... I ask my opponent to show us where what was said during the meetings when they gave out trillions in illegal, secret loans is available for the public record. "NOT A SINGLE TAXPAYER DOLLAR WAS SPENT"Indirectly, yes it was. By issuing more American dollars, that's a tax on the American people through a reduction in purchasing power of each US dollar. "There is control and oversight, I already specified the GAO,OIG, and an outside auditor"Who can do what - ask the federal reserve to reverse a loan they have already made? How is that even possible! ? The worst any of these boys have ever done to the fed is wag their finger and give them a stern look while Ben Bernanke chuckled to himself. "Congress doesn't have control over monetary policy, and it is designed that way. "Actually, the founding fathers designed it so that they do. Their policy was reversed at the turn of the century - but it isn't as though the economy was doing poorly up to that point. Indeed, the federal reserve has created a 97% reduction in what a dollar can buy, while under the control of congress, inflation was actually relatively stable, even during recessions. "ALL loans were paid back with interest. "Almost none of the $16 trillion of secret loans had any interest attached and almost all has never been repaid, or even partially repaid. See . http://www.unelected.org... "Solvent banks can collapse in the midst of a panic. "But when banks are solvent, there is much less chance of a panic because the banks have the money they need. The 1907 panic was primarily due to a loss of liquidity by New York banks (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), something the Fed is entirely powerless to help, and since the banks collapsed and were illiquid, that almost always means they were also insolvent (the only other alternative is that the directors all broke the law by ignoring the going concern principle, which I'm pretty sure didn't happen). "How does this all fit with Ron paul? "Ron Paul has the best policies to ensure America is restored to the great nation it should be.