Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

It would handicap the con side unnecessarily. We have two arguments each, we'll let the voters decide the rest. (though the pro has forfeited a round, I will ask the voters not to consider that as a voting issue I will ask the voters to disregard the definition of Keynesian economics, it is so completely judgmental in its definition. It even puts quotation marks around the word 'economics' as if to say the Keynesian method is masquerading as 'economics', when infact its mere religion? pseudo science? I couldn't say. even its most starch opponents are willing to give their opposing ideologies proper definitions. Before I begin dismantling this fairy tell of the libertarian utopia, I will ask the voters to note that my opponents arguments are plagiarized, in some places word for word, from peter scheiff. (you can see for yourself here . http://www.europac.net...) Reading through these contentions, I can not help but think what a relief from the problems we face in government. Its euphoric. Like a drug. Our economic woes would not be if ONLY politicians would understand these contentions, why does doesn't anybody else take these seriously? They seem like the remedy to all our present day ills. It is for this reason I believe Congressman Paul has such a strong following amongst the youth, it provides the answers to (almost) everything government without having to have any of deep knowledge of it. (A few years back the 'illumanti" was as popular for the same reason, it allowed people to skip all the boring 'learning' and say they knew more)But I digress. These ideas have already been a part of this nations history. Every single one mentioned. These ideas didn't pan out. That why their no longer with us. We've tried them and didn't like them. Its analogous to communism, though the two couldn't be more different, in that it sounds amazing in theory but troublesome in practice. 1. My opponent would see to to it that we "Establish sound fiscal policy " how he plans to incur a surplus is not mentioned, just that he would. "cut a trillion dollars" 23% military 24% health care 23% pensions(. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...)Where I ask. This government must cut spending, but to cut that much that quickly would mean a change in Political policy. One your holding back, In order for that argument to stand it necessarily follows that you indicate either where your cutting the spending or what the immediate change in policy would be because of it. An example, This economic plan drastically changes the role and size of our military. The United States military is returned to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century, a small domestic force. essentially a national guard. This is not something that should be glossed over, Your disregarding everything we learned in 20th century! There is a reason this country went from having a national guard to standing army, to whit: Sh%t happens. Your economic plan puts us on the footing of Japan. In contrast, President Obama has outlined a plan to cut $4 trillion over the next 12 years(1) You'll notice that alot more money than the $1 trillion you proposed, The difference is the time frame. Over 12 years will allow for there to be responsible cuts, slow transitions, and a forecast that business can see coming from a mile away. Business does not operate well in chaotic environments, It thrives in stable ones. 2. Monetary policy: This entire section is filled with baseless claims about the evils of central banks. First, The federal reserve releases minutes of their sessions of every word spoken including financial records. Many of these are available on the website, Federalreserve. gov, I would encourage you to look for yourself. There is one program of that that the federal runs that is not published on the website, that is because the program inherently asks for confidentiality. Its a program in which banks can get an emergency loan from the Fed in confidence. These transactions are not published for the simple reason that if bank of America was seen taking an emergency loan from the fed, other banks would stop lending to Bank of America thinking they were in dire in straits. In turn consumers would lose confidence and there would be a run on the bank. We will see a collapse of Bank of America, and other banks in turn, over a loss of confidence that had no real bearing on the solvency of the bank. Publishing that information would be stupid since it runs counter to its purpose. The Federal Reserve is already audited except for that aspect. Ending the federal reserve. Well, the united states has already done that. Twice. (First national bank, second national bank) The gold standard. We've already done that. If you would like to examine the effects of ending the central bank, just look at the series of panics that occurred after President Jackson allowed the second national bank to expire. Panics are tremendously inefficient. For one, they threaten the collapse of otherwise solvent banks, which in turn threaten to stall all other economic activity until the 'free market' is allowed to burn the entire forest and allow for the grass to grow once again. The panic of 1907 is a perfect real life example of how simple misunderstandings threaten to launch an entire country into a depression. That year there was no real reason to plunge into a depression: industry was booming, this the heyday of American manufacturing. However,through frivolous investments a single banker he was able to cause a run on the banks and a panic that threaten to collapse the entire house of cards, rendering millions of peoples savings void. Not mention it would have stalled industry for years to come, waiting on American banks to resurrect themselves to be enough to lend out capital. again. Meanwhile American capitalist, entrepreneurs, inventors, captain of industry, would have flocked to more stable environments to conduct business. The impacts of this are self evident. does America want to return to the chaotic period following the end of the second national; bank? no we do not. It was not profitable. Furthermore, After the panic bankers got together and asked the government to form a central bank so that panics like these wouldn't threaten the fate of the country again. So you see, the Federal Reserve is a response from the free market. The government did not push this upon the free market, bankers came to the government and asked for it. The Austrian school of economics champions the wisdom of the free market, Well what follows is the federal reserve. It is what the free market has chosen. The minimum wage, unemployment, regulations: that I say "The Jungle" by upton Sinclair. Or dickens if you prefer. The libertarians argue that the market will on its own improve conditions. Well, we have seen that it infact doesn't. You have yet to prove one example where this has worked. Singapore? are you kidding, the quality of life there is so atrocious that I can not fathom the thought of Americans living it. I would cite china as an example of a country without a minimum wage and horrible conditions, but I don't have too: America a rich history to draw upon. Case in point to all three: Triangle waist t-shirt factory. It was the lack of regulations that allowed so many woman be be burned in a fire. It allowed children to work in dangerous factories, for entire families to work through 12hours shifts, endure mutilations of their limbs, and still not have enough to feed themselves. We are not returning to this. 1. (. http://articles.cnn.com...)