This house would vote Ron Paul

I understand the scenairo i9s illustratign how how big a trillion dollars is. I don't understand if johnson is real or still part of that fictional scenario, there are two presidents named johsnon(lyndon and andrew) Either way it doesn't affect what i'm about to say, but if you could clear that up i'm be much obliged. The united states has never defaulted on his debt. it has never missed a payment, no president in history has ever suggested doing so. The sitatuion where johnson pays .75 cents on the dollar as a 'compramise' is so fallicious it honestly bears no merit. Your talking about a defualt. As if a guy reasonable enough to compramise on an issue is rudderless and therefore sussipatble to relquishing his reason to every demand and request. Are you seriously saying this? by your response, it seems you accepteed and gladly so, the defintion of ron pauls approach to polocu: never waivers, nver gives in. You want sombody who doesn't compramise? -waht if president kennedy had shared that view, imagine the cuban missle crisis with a president whos unwilling to barge? you'll recall that we avoided NUCLEAR war by compramising with the russians so that everyone could save face and wake up alive the next morning. (russia would remove its milles from cuba, and the U. S. would remove its jupiter missles from turkey) -Recall what happened durring the treaty of versaille where the french and british were unwilling to compramise. We got a treaty that that marched us back into a World War 30 years later. It set the stage for a humilated and empoverised peoplet to adopt a extreme alterantive: a tyrannical dictator who nearly completeed his extermination of a people. A failure in policy because the britsh and the french were unwilling to compramise with the germans, with wilson. -even today, we fight in libya and worry about syria because at versaille the eroupean powers ignored T. E. lawerence's(of arabia) plea to let the middle east establish its own borders. The sectarian violence, the racial tension, the constant war is all a result of the treaty where nobody wanted to compramise. how can you say that comramise makes a man weak or stupid? You see the stuborness in man as a viture, to forgo progress to satsify his own idelodely. This not a a ruler who has his people's interest in mind, this is a mind preoccpied with his own. Now ron paul has shown in 35 years in congresss that he is unwilling to give ground to make real progress. you say congress put us in this situation and its a good thing he was not a part of it? the united states is the largest economy in the world and even with our current predicament were stil doing very well, if he can't take blame for the problems in todays america then he take credit for its progress either. One law in 35 year: Ron Paul wasn't a part of moving the country forward. Ron paul started his term in 1979, since then he has to no mesurable effect prevented us, steered us clear, from the problems we face today. it doesn't matter if he good ideas. Its not his job to lecture the country for the sake of a lecture, it doesn't matter if hes right; as a congressman his job is to get results. He has been in congress almost as long as President obama has been alive and still can not as statesmen change policy. hes an advocate, not a statesman, and certaitntly not an executive how does a supporter reconsile this? furthermore, with regards to his plans for taxes,education, federal reserve: The power to change all that lyes with congress, not the executive branch. If Ron Paul wants to see lower taxes he is in the branch of goverment that can do that. How is it logical to vote for a man who wants to leave his job, where he can change tax policy, to vote him into a job where he can't? The president can't make these laws in fact all he can do is veto laws. Ron paul can not sit at the helm of the presidency and change tax law, or the federal reserve, he ALREADY sits in a position to those things and can't. its illogical. The things he wants to do are lye within the relm of congress, not the exectuive branhc, how does this make any sense? The Fed See what i mean about a dead horse. \ I feel like my statement was largely ignored your making 3 claims are outright false: 1. All finical records are realeased, even the ones that were supposed to be lent in confidence were realesed, it is fully audited not by one, but by three different auditors. All their records, tranascations, even what they said during the meetings are realsed for for public record. 2. NOT A SINGLE TAXPAYER DOLLAR WAS SPENT 3. There is control and oversight, I already specified the GAO,OIG, and an outside auditor(currently Deloitte and Touche) to say nothing of the president appoitning the members and congress calling on the fed chair to testify(35 times in 2008) Congress doesn't have control over monetary policy, and it is designed that way. An indepent Fed is the best way to ensure long term goals are not snagged by short term political objectives(Which by the way did occur when congress set monetary policy) Those loans made to banks had to meet criteria, as i said, and ALL loans were paid back with interest. ( to the treasury) And it is a misunderstanding of economics to say that these banks should just make safer bets; Solvent banks can collapse in the midst of a panic. The panic of 1907 is a great example of the near collapse of banks that had no bearing on their solvency. If these banks are allowed to collapse, as ron paul would have advocated, millions americans savings, 401ks, pensions, would dissapear. As if that wasn't bad enough, commerce would come to a screeching halt as the finicial insituition that survived the meltdown would rebuild themselves(waiting forr the fire to complety destroy the forest before a seed can grow) If you think its quaint to start again, keep in mind that while we're waiting years(the depression toook 10years for example) the rest of the world is floursing. Our inventors and entrpunors would flock to othere stable countries where CAPITAL was still being lent to start their business, to build their inventions. America falls behind, and all for what? We bailed out the banks, not because we particualy lik bankers, but because it is benifical for americans and the country on a simply cost-benifit anylisis. How does this all fit with Ron paul?