Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

Geoff said 9 minutes later

Yesterday's interview with my man. Unique from all interviews in that they actually allow him to speak and explain his controversial and radical ideas.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fZXWW4C2kpE

This is part one...click on the "more" tab on the right to see all 7 parts. It's probably about a half hour long, but it goes into some more detail above and beyond the usual soundbites. You may not agree with everything he says, but he is the only candidate who brings up the real serious issues that will ruin this country in the not so distant future...and that is our out-of-control spending.

I put this in the comments and do not mention the name so you don't think I'm cheaply promoting him, but most of you know I was not a political person before. He has cured my political apathy, and many other young people's because it us and our children who will reap the fallout of our political system if it continues this way. Feel free to throw your two-cents in...
Steve said about 2 hours later

Picking a candidate is going to be tough. Everybody like Ron Paul because he promises all these changes that he'd like to make. Doesn't really say how he'll change them and perhaps that's because it will be very difficult to force any significant changes without the cooperation of Congress.

Interesting calculation about the North American Union:

Our current GDP per capita (purchasing power parity = normalizes costs of goods between countries, so basically, the number is how much each person would have to spend in a typical US market) is $43,444 (4th best in the world). Canada is $35,600 (10th best in the world). Mexico is $11,249 (63rd best in the world). Those are all 2007 estimates from Wikipedia. Now, if you weigh each one of those against the population of each country, then combine them, you can figure out what the GDP per capita would be of a North American Union. That number is $35,942. The North American Union would end up about the same as where Canada sits right now, about 10th best in the world.

Now, we can also do the same calculation using GDP per capita (nominal), which is based on currency exhange rates and not cost of living based. Not that these values change much more often, as currency exchange rates are quite volatile.

The US ranks 8th, as $44,190. Canada ranks 16th, at $32,614. Mexico ranks 55th, at $8,066. Do the same combination, and you'd find that the North American Union GDP (nominal) would be $35,985. Again note that this is not the best way to look at these numbers, due to exchange rate volatility.

So basically, we would definitely drop down some, but only to the level of Canada. At the same time, it would bring over 100 million Mexicans up to Canada's standard of living. Is that such a bad thing? The big question is, once that happened, would Mexico's GDP drop because manufacturing would have to start moving out of that country due to high labor costs? Or would manufacturing just change, as Mexicans would have more money to spend on goods. Also, would more manufacturing start moving back to the States, as Mexico wouldn't be a big cost savings anymore?

Yes, these are all ideal numbers. Nothing would change overnight. Just look at the European Union for an example. I don't think the standard of living has dropped too much in western Europe, but economies in Eastern Europe certainly have improved.

While the North American Union might not be too big of a burden on the US, a worldwide union certainly would. While the US population would represent about 70% of a North American Union, it represents only about 5% of the worldwide population.
Steve said about 2 hours later

Another interesting and scary tidbit - China and India combine to account for 37% of the world's population.
Darcy said about 3 hours later

Ok Geoff, I watched the whole thing. Here is what I got from it.

He is an isolationist, he would try to remove us from the world playing field. Thinks we should be out of the UN, no NAFTA or any other treaties. He is afraid of the big bad "One World Government", not that it is going to happen any time soon.
I fail to see how being involved in the world is challenging our "National Sovereignty".

Oh, my favorite part. Not paying your taxes is a form of civil disobedience. Granted you have to pay the penalty for doing that, but go for it...mind you he hasn't done that himself.
He would abolish the IRS. He claims that we will pay for his much smaller government with tariffs and "user fees". Ok maybe that worked earlier in our history, but I personally can not see how this is feasible today.

He would remove safety nets...basically he thinks that churches and the like will pick up the slack. Ummm, there are still hungry, can't pay the bills folks even with the safety nets in place today, and the churches already pick up the slack with food banks and the like. Many have little access to health care. These are the working poor, without government aid how would they live?? They are already accepting the charity of others, to make ends meet. Is he really saying that charitable groups will take care of them, or is he saying that the poor will take care of themselves(meaning not at all--and that he doesn't give a crap about them)? Side note: our local food banks have been getting a lot more business lately as more and more people are having a hard time feeding their families.

Oh and hospitals would be run by churches again. Yup, that is what I want, that way he will get some of what he wants by default--no abortion. After all we know Catholic hospitals will not do them or any other procedure that will limit fertility.

I am sure this isn't as well thought out as I would like it to be, more a rant than anything else, but my overall impression of Ron Paul (and I did check out his website), as a result of this interview, is that he is isolationist, and a little naive if he thinks he could bring about these changes. Sorry Geoff, I gave him a listen, tried to be impartial(heck I even took notes), but he is not for me. I like that he will take on the status quo, but his platform leaves me cold. Guess I am not a libertarian.
Darcy said about 3 hours later

Now I have to go bake cookies--you know important stuff.
Geoff said about 3 hours later

Right...if you watch the interview he does say that one man alone cannot change all of these things, but growing number of people tire of the same old stuff. And this can be backed up by the money he has raised, which will be the most for a GOP candidate this quarter and he also surpassed John Kerry for the most money raised in a single day by any politician...ever. That has to say something to the fact that there are people who would stand behind him, and congress would have to listen, assuming they want to keep their jobs.

The biggest issue I have is not the IRS or our income tax, it is our spending and our gigantic debt. The fact is, we are spending more than we can...and though some may not see that a problem now, it will be a huge problem later. I mean...we do actually have to pay back these trillions of dollars we owe. Somehow, I dont think national healthcare is going to combat this, nor our foreign policy. I would love to give everyone healthcare and I would like to shut the rest of the world up and have them behave, we simply dont have the cash to do it folks.

I also didnt sign up for a socialist nation to distribute my hard earned money to illegal immigrants, lazy bottom feeders and the like. And that seems to be where we are heading. So many have become dependent on welfare theyll never get out of it. Frankly, we need to push them out of it.

I am thankful for the advent of YouTube. It has breathed life into so many young adults like myself who need to pay attention to our politicians who are slowly destroying what our "fathers" created.
Steve said about 3 hours later

"this can be backed up by the money he has raised, which will be the most for a GOP candidate this quarter and he also surpassed John Kerry for the most money raised in a single day by any politician...ever. That has to say something to the fact that there are people who would stand behind him, and congress would have to listen, assuming they want to keep their jobs."

Um, if you want to be realistic, combine the money raised by all the "normal" Republican candidates and compare it to the very different Ron Paul. Right now typical conservative Republicans have many choices of normal candidates to contribute their money to. But let's say there was just one mainstream Republican candidate vs Ron Paul, and that one Republican candidate would blow away Ron Paul's campaign contributions.

If Ron Paul were to be elected (which he won't), he would be a lame duck president, because Congress won't support any of his wild proposals. And don't kid yourself, Congress isn't going to change to work with Ron Paul.

I'm not totally for isolationism, but I'm ready to tell China to go screw off. They have such unfair trade policies it isn't even funny. I'll be voting this time around for whichever candidate is ready to stand up to unfair trade practices. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a single one that will. And no, if Ron Paul says he'll fight that, I won't vote for him. To me he just comes off as a "yes man," someone that just says what you want to hear.
Geoff said about 9 hours later

Ok, here is a link for Isolationism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Notice this comment:
Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy (Which Ron Paul claims to be) and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.

As for Paul being a Yes man....he is the furthest thing from it. Every GOP candidate will tell you we will fight terrorism and win in Iraq...what they don't tell you is how much it's going to cost you in the end....and that you will never achieve victory. You simply cannot take on the world alone. Ron stands alone on this topic and is attacked from every other candidate and most of the media for standing behind his beliefs. So no, I don't believe he is a yes man at all. He is a Constitutionalist who promotes Non-interventionism and wants power to be given to the states and local level.

As for raising money, if the media actually let Ron Paul and any other single candidate go at it, he would obliterate them. I would bet money on it...and many other like me already have. Ron Paul didn't raise 10 million this week from your typical special interests like the "normal" candidates...his median contribution was $50 from over 50,000 supporters....25,000 of them new contributers. We put a blimp in the air. Our supporters come in droves to promote Ron at every event possible. None of whom actually belong to his campaign at all. This IS real. How many other candidates have this loyal following? None. Are we crazy...maybe...maybe that is what this country needs to wake up.

He knows his stuff, especially the economy. There are many interviews from Wall Street analysts and Ronnie online....you just need to look. He gives it to us real. You may not like it, but the numbers speak for themselves. We don't generate enough income to support our foreign policy and our domestic policy. Something drastically needs to change. If you don't think so, you are ignoring our growing 9 trillion deficit (and the other trillions we owe). Who will pay for that? Maybe not you or I, but somebody will.
Geoff said about 10 hours later

Hey Steve, here is a recent Ron takes on China for you:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/36/your-taxes-subsidize-china/

GJ said about 11 hours later

Here's my $0.02, you knew it'd eventually show up.

Raising over $6M in a day with small dollar donations shows nothing other than how energized his base of supporters are. Polls show quite clearly that he does not have any statistically significant following in most states, including all of the really big states. I'd say, if he's lucky, he might win one state, maybe two, like New Hampshire and...and...ok, maybe just NH.

Our spending and gigantic debt appears to be your biggest concern, and thus attraction to Paul. Paul's approach to solving this can be summed up as follows: dissolve the federal government. I mean, seriously, that's pretty much what he wants....a model of government that was very popular in the early days of the county, where the federal government was largely powerless and the state governments ruled supreme.

So, I have to ask you, Geoff: do you understand how the USA came to become the largest economic and military force the world had ever seen in the twentieth century?

Seriously--I'd like to hear your answer. I'll save the rest of my $0.02 for later posts, as your response will likely direct mine. :)
GJ said about 12 hours later

By the way, if your views are akin to mine related to religion, please comment on this lovely Paul writing: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm
GJ said about 12 hours later

OK, here he shows us his nutjob United Nations views here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm

He seems to think that the UN will run this country unless we withdraw from the worldwide stage. That's the hallmark of a nutjob--very common among the most rightwing of the right. I bet if I look hard enough, I'll find a column of his disparaging the World Bank, too.
GJ said about 12 hours later

Here he is showing his ignorance of the cause of rising gas prices, but that doesn't stop him from making an unrelated point: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst073106.htm

In other words, he's really not a smart guy. He's a minimalist, isolationist, state's rights kind of guy, who is nostalgic for the 1830s. It didn't work so well back then, it won't work at all today.
Geoff said about 12 hours later

Paul is no atheist. You've established he is human and religious....among most Americans. I never said he was perfect, I never said he was an atheist, clearly he is not. I hate to say it, but I think every candidate would agree with Paul on the Christmas post....so I wouldn't bother bashing him on it.

Tell me the point of belonging to the UN if we don't even listen to them? So yes, why not withdraw from them.

I'm no historian expert on how we came to power, I'd like to think because of ingenuity, the promise of freedom, and hard freaking work, but I don't think we keep our power by overspending, underachieving, and imposing our will on the world. Paul's attraction is fundamental change, change in the way we think and change in the way we act.

If you, or any other candidate can possibly give me any indication of how we will manage controlling the world through force so we can protect our freedoms, without bankrupting us, I'm all ears. Until then, we either change this way of thinking, or ignore the root of the problem until it kicks us thoroughly in the bum.
Steve said about 13 hours later

"I believe that by engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogue, and seeking to change their hearts and minds, we soon will see that regime collapse."

That's a quote from Ron Paul.

Ok, sounds great. How do we do it? The Chinese people are sheltered from the outside world by their government. I know, maybe we'll smuggle leaflets in with all of our athletes when we send them to the Olympics in Shanghai. Do you remember what happened the last time the Chinese people started to stand up to their government? No, probably not, you were too young. It's called the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It's one of those key moments in life that you just never forget. Changing China is not going to be easy, if even possible. They have 4 times as many people as we do. They have a very powerful and wealthy government, thanks in a large part to us buying so much from China.

Did you know that if we want to build a plant to make cars in China, the only way we can do it is if we partner with a Chinese government controlled company? And the most stake we can have in that joint venture is 50%. Have any idea how hard it is to sell cars built here in China? Very difficult, and very expensive due to the tariffs placed on the cars. Oh, and another great thing about trying to export cars to China - their compliance requirements on certain parts of the car needs to be renewed every 30 days. Heck, it takes longer than that to ship the cars there.

We need to fight to keep manufacturing jobs here. Anyone that says anything about us changing into a "service economy" needs to be taken out and shot. Besides, the only service work that's not being outsourced to India are hospitals and McDonalds...

Geoff said about 13 hours later

It isn't our job to overturn China into a Democracy....or Iraq, or anywhere else. By setting an example as a Country, we may inspire the Chinese to someday revolt...but that will be their fight, be it bloody as most revolts are. Right now I don't think we are setting a good example, I think many people despise us. Invading their countries doesn't help.

So, after a nice conversation with GJ, I come to him or any of you with a question of my own. If this country is so powerful, yet we have so many people in our own country who are in need of economic and medical assistance, that we feel inclined to help everyone else in the world, before our own?

Until every single person in this country should be attended to, we shouldn't even consider much aid beyond it. Exception to this might be huge natural disasters and oil fields under siege :)
GJ said about 20 hours later

Quote: So, after a nice conversation with GJ, I come to him or any of you with a question of my own. If this country is so powerful, yet we have so many people in our own country who are in need of economic and medical assistance, that we feel inclined to help everyone else in the world, before our own?

That's total BS. What you mean to say is, we help people in other countries even though some of our own are still in need. Which is hilarious, coming from the guy who was telling me about bottom-feeders and how we needed to kick people off welfare. So, what you really, really, really mean is this: the government shouldn't be helping ANYONE, whether in this country or not, unless it's a really really bad problem.

Quote: We need to fight to keep manufacturing jobs here. Anyone that says anything about us changing into a "service economy" needs to be taken out and shot. Besides, the only service work that's not being outsourced to India are hospitals and McDonalds...

Steve, you could wipe out all the unfair trade practices tomorrow, and that still won't make manufacturing all that palatable here. What will? Continued fall of the dollar, and weakening of the economy. You're partially right about the service economy, except that retail is also included in that and is not being outsourced. In a pure service economy, it makes you wonder who is buying the services if there are no other jobs. I'd argue that we have certainly seen a rise in the information economy, which has helped to offset the loss of manufacturing jobs with other high-paying tech and business roles. I think we would also see a rise in biotech here, and become a world leader in it once we stop electing bible-toting presidents who think nothing of meddling with science. We do have to nail the trade practice angle, though--there is no reason to move all of our manufacturing over the border or overseas.
Geoff said about 23 hours later

You didn't answer my question. You avoided it...perhaps taking some pointers from Hilary I see?

And yes, we should kick people who abuse welfare off of it. Welfare should be a last resort IMO. If you want socialism, thats one thing, I do not. Are there any statistics out there of people currently on welfare and the success rate of people getting off welfare...some indication that this system actually does what I thought it was supposed to?

I would be interested to see a real "scientific" analysis of our welfare programs. Perhaps it would be impossible because some welfare people might be too lazy to fill out the survey as well (potshot, I know :)

My concern is more of Hilary's universal health care (I say Hilary but most Dem's have some form of this, but she is the likely front runner). I've seen our welfare system in action, Michelle was on it, and still is. Why might you ask? I mean she is on my healthplan now. I'll tell you why, she called the morons over there to tell them she no longer needs coverage. After being bounced 3x and calling 2 different numbers, here is their response:

"Oh we cannot cancel your coverage, you need to write a letter to your account representative to cancel coverage." WTF?!?!? I don't even have to write a letter in order to register to vote, but I need to write a letter to cancel welfare?!? OK, if you want these morons taking over the whole healthcare system....hold on to your hats.

Don't get me started on the whole application process...you'd find filing your taxes blindfolded and tied to a chair far more easier. :)

Ok...give me your best, I promise I wont cry.
GJ said 1 day later

Your question was: If this country is so powerful, yet we have so many people in our own country who are in need of economic and medical assistance, that we feel inclined to help everyone else in the world, before our own?

You made a claim in that question: "we feel inclined to help everyone else in the world, before our own?" I said that's BS, so I'm not going to answer a BS question. Rephrase the question without a leading falsehood and I'll be glad to answer it.
Geoff said 1 day later

Ok now you made me think...and it hurts. I'll need to get back to you on that after I throw down a few of the gal's cookies :)

I'll rephrase the question or clarify it a bit more in the near future...got some partying to do!
GJ said 2 days later

heck, we'll be home shortly. this'll be more fun in person, anyhow. Say, that neocon site Little Green Footballs has linked Ron to Vanguard folks...they are white supremacists. Won't that be a killer should that pan out?
GJ said 2 days later

Turns out, this neo-nazi link appears to be a publicity stunt by white supremacists. The "evidence" that was announced earlier looks, well, totally crappy now that I've gotten to look at it.
Geoff said 2 days later

Yeah one interviewer asked Paul about this donation of $500 from a white supremacist group. He basically said it'd be tough to screen 50,000+ donations in one day, and that he shouldn't give the money back to those idiots when he could put it to better use. Did you happen to see the brothel which endorsed Paul? That made plenty of headlines (for Paul anyway).....gotta love the media, they sure know what sells!

Now if only they'd ask him something else besides the stupid IRS and whether he'd run as an independent.

GJ said 2 days later

They ask about the independent angle because of his energized base and the fact that he cannot win the GOP primary. I think a lot of pundits view him as Ross Perot all over again--and there ARE a lot of similarities. Perot was a fiscal conservative, with simple ideas on how to reform the government, but his big issue at the time was NAFTA, which of course he wanted to ditch, while both Clinton and Bush supported it.
Geoff said 2 days later

yeah I hear you, I just wonder how many different ways he can say no. These interviewers must not pay any attention to anyone but themselves as he's been asked this question at the end of almost every debate and a few recent interviews.

That's alright...it looks like Huckabee may be poised to grab the GOP...I may then be forced to vote for Clinton assuming Paul doesn't go Indep. Or maybe I'll throw my hat in with Ralph Nater :)

GJ said 3 days later

Huckabee won't win the GOP primary. Three reasons:

1. No money
2. Willie Horton pt 2
3. The rest of the country would like a non-evangelical as president for a change.

He can correct #1 with a few early primary wins (he's like to take Iowa, for starters). He can't fix #2, and Rudy 9/11 will crucify him with it. Biggest reason for his popularity right now is that Rudy 9/11 is kinda liberal for a GOP dude, and not exactly a religious dude by any stretch.

GJ said about 18 hours later

I love how the lack of an opinion is considered to be "double-talk," or that one can hold a less than decisive opinion about a topic. Does anyone care to guess why Spitzer withdrew this multi-tier license plan? I'd say Hillary gave him a call about it.

Expect the debate to be lively tonight. Also expect Hillary to come out firing from the get-go. Obama and Edwards have gotten off easy so far, we'll see how they do once their own "interesting" positions come to light. Hillary is a very experienced pol, with a solid team. It could get very ugly for boy-wonder and the lawyer with a $400 haircut. :)

GJ said 1 day later

The most interesting thing all night was the warm reception Clinton got...and the boos that Edwards and Obama received when they tried to go after Clinton again. It may well be Game Over for the contenders.

Marc said 1 day later

It's about time politicians get booed. Politicians spend all their time mudslinging that they don't actually say what they can and are capable of accomplishing. At least Clinton has an agenda, whether everyone agrees with it or not is up to the voters.

Actually, I think Obama has done a decent job outlining his agenda, and highlighting his differences with Clinton. Edwards, not so much. Still, I think people suffering from a sucky economy will remember how good it was during the Clinton years and irrationally vote for Clinton V2.0 in the hopes that the economy will turn around. In truth, the economy will turn around when we stop spending so much money on needless warfare. The candidate who can offer the best plan to fix that issue has my vote.

Geoff said 1 day later

Yeah I'm not in favor of Edwards...I like Obama, though he has so much trouble getting started when he speaks, its funny. Biden is still my favorite...his humor alone is worth the 2 hours of garbage talk. I loved the part when Edwards said, "We aren't all perfect, I'm not perfect"...and then Biden musters out in the background, "Oh common!"

Good stuff. And as far Hilary being indecisive...I think that is exactly what we don't want in a president...especially for a topic about illegal aliens. If it was about Diamonds or Pearls, then I guess indecisive would be acceptable, but luckily Hilary knew that answer, no worries.