Yes, finally another Ron Paul-thread

[JayTee]

You seek regulation. Show me the problem first. Saying, "Well they could possibly, one day, perhaps do this" isn't a reason. I read that YouTube uses as much bandwith today as the entire internet did in 2000. Technology has to catch up. The increased demand for bandwith has to be paid for. New infrastructure and technology has to come from somewhere. I don't need a computer science degree to know this. Where does the money come from?

All that government regulation does is retard progess. Look at history. The internet is relatively new and has flourished without regulation. That's no coincidence, imo. Let's not strangle it now.

Forcing ISPs to treat all web sites equally will force higher prices onto consumers. Higher prices that are driven from the use of a minority of users.

In closing, you want regulation, show me the market failure. Not that I think regulation is ever justified.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
All that government regulation does is retard progess. Look at history. The internet

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahahaha... The irony is delicious. I'm sure it would have been just as delicious over the DARPAnet. But carrying on..

[ QUOTE ]
You seek regulation. Show me the problem first.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem as I understood it was that ISPs were seeking legislation that would allow them to discriminate based on who paid their "protection money", or rather or not they agreed with the opinions of the site in question. That's why Net Neutrality was created, to STOP that legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
Forcing ISPs to treat all web sites equally will force higher prices onto consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is, almost word for word, the entirety of some of the commercials ISPs put out to try to bring down Net Neutrality. Others were simply, "Net Neutrality is bad. It means higher prices."

Also:

[ QUOTE ]
Forcing ISPs to treat all web sites equally will force higher prices onto consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]

ISPs already treat all web sites equally, are the prices higher now than they are now?

[ QUOTE ]
New infrastructure and technology has to come from somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the more bandwidth ISPs can provide (internet service providers.. Hey, it's right there in their name!), the more money they can make. They should be driven by that alone. Come up with better technology, make more money! It's a very simple process. The more bandwidth they have, the more they can sell. They already want and seek better technology, regardless of.. anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
I read that YouTube uses as much bandwith today as the entire internet did in 2000. Technology has to catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it caught up. Otherwise youtube would be eating all the bandwidth you'd need to be able to view this site. That's the thing about bandwidth, unlike money, they can just make more.

[ QUOTE ]
In closing, you want regulation, show me the market failure. Not that I think regulation is ever justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you just talked me right out of a need for any proof. Kudos!

[JayTee]

OK, I'll skip out on anymore specifics about internet technology, since I admittedly am not up to date on the specifics. Show the market failure and I'll concede.

[Low Key]

I don't really see a reason to, as you yourself already said:

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I think regulation is ever justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

But since I'm nice, here ya go.

Believe me, I want things to stay the way they are now, which is why I stand behind Net Neutrality.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So you'd be happy if you couldn't access 2p2 because they didn't give extra money to your current ISP and your ISP just happened to drop all the little ones and zeros you request for this particular domain name, or the same for any poker program you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be happy to get a new ISP. No big whoop.

[ QUOTE ]
Legislation based on morality is pretty annoying, I'll agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, like Universal Health Care.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
I see that Ron Paul is quite popular among many people here on 2+2, but the threads Ive seen about him are more about his increasing popularity and how he fights for freedom and how he is something different and how he raised 5 million dollars and so on.

I would like to know more about this candidate that seem to be so radically different than the other candidates in the race, so I hope some of his supporters can help answer a few quations I have about his policies. I apologize for any poor grammar. All my information about Ron Pauls policies are from videos that were linked to in another Ron Paul-thread in this forum.

Anyways, input from those who understand Ron Pauls policies better than me would be appreciated.

1. He wants to get rid of federal income tax, which accounts for 1/3 of the total income of revenue for the federal government. He says that even with only the 2/3s of the current income the government should be able to fulfill its responsibilites properly. He says that 2/3s of the current budget is equal to 100% of the 2000-budget, so if government is able to cut spending down to the level of 2000 there is no need for income tax. My question is; is that true only dollar for dollar (income of 2007-dollars vs. output of 2000-dollars), or is that after he has adjusted for inflation and overall growth in prices? <font color="blue"> This statement was dollar for dollar, but cutting spending to 2000 levels is not the point. People try to ridicule Ron Paul's "end the IRS" position because they assume if you had no IRS/income tax there would be no money for the federal government. Without the income tax there would still be a HUGE pile of money for the federal government to redistribute. Also, when you let consumers keep $900B of their money it is obviously going generate more commerce, more business profits and capital gains, more federal and state excise taxes, and more state, county and city sales taxes. The point is that eliminating the personal income tax is not nearly as hard as people have been programed to believe. </font>

2. He also states that he wants to eliminate inflation. If he manages to completely stop inflation, will that have any impact on the american dollar and economy in relation to the other countries in the world that will still have inflation? Or is the trade between nations not affected by the inflation-rate of the various nations? <font color="blue"> I'll let the economics gurus handle this one. </font>

3. He talks about not wanting to tax or regulate the internet. Is there a threat that any of the other candidates wants to tax and regulate the internet? If they do, how will they tax and regulate it? I know very little about this topic, because I was under the impression that there had been no serious attempts of taxing the internet.
<font color="blue">Somebody seems to have "regulated" internet poker as a matter of national security. </font>
4. Ron Paul wants to severely limit American military and active political presence in other countries, and rather just focus on trading with the various nations of the world. Will the US still be able to get the same deals and keep its position as an economic superpower without a more active presence throughout the world? <font color="blue">What other countries maintain military bases in other sovereign countries(much less 160)? Do the economies of Germany,Japan, or Austrailia suffer because they don't have a military presence throughout the world. These bases generate ill will, cost a fortune to operate and maintain, and many are only tolerated because we are dumping foreign aid into the host country. </font>

5. Will Ron Paul support embargos against countries like North Korea, Cuba and Iran, or is his intention to stay away completely from the politics of foreign countries and trade with anyone on a fair basis without regards of the policies of the country? <font color="blue"> Embargos kill civilians and have little real effect on dictators besides galvinizing the populous against the "evil Americans". Embargoes are an act of war and should be used as such. If congress declares war, then embargos are an option.</font>

6. If the US cuts its presence around the world it is likely that other powerful nations (China, Russia and to some extent India comes to mind) will fill that void. Will the US still be able to secure as good deals as it wants when it has given up presence and location to other powerful nations that are more than willing to have powerful presences around the world? <font color="blue"> We will always have a powerful presence. Our carrier fleets alone make our military operational around the world. Most of the bases we have in Europe and the Pacific are Cold War relics that serve no purpose. </font>

7. Ron Paul talked about wanting to reduce the number of military bases overseas, and sending the personell home to America. If the US is at war with a foreign nation, will its ability to defend itself and to attack the enemies interests be as strong as before even without bases in Asia and Europe?<font color="blue"> America is blessed by geography. Nobodies tanks are going to come rolling across the border and the oceans are very big and hard to sneak an invasion force across. Our F-14s and Tomahawk missles don't need bases. Would it possibly be more difficult for Ron Paul to call for an air strike on which ever country is doing something we don't like this week? Maybe, but he would never do this. </font>

8. Ron Paul also states that the US should only allow itself to engage in war after it has been attacked first. Does that mean that he will allow an enemy that is planning to attack the US to build up its army and logistics in peace and quiet, and not intervene until the first attack on the US has occured? <font color="blue">No real army is ever going to invade American soil. Nuclear detterence still serves a purpose. The President has the authority to protect the nation from a clear and present danger, but it has never had to be used.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you'd be happy if you couldn't access 2p2 because they didn't give extra money to your current ISP and your ISP just happened to drop all the little ones and zeros you request for this particular domain name, or the same for any poker program you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be happy to get a new ISP. No big whoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an option for everyone. Hooray for monopolies!

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
But suppose these aforementioned sites couldn't pay racket money to all of them and all the ones in your area stopping giving access to them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Then I would be more than happy to start my own ISP and steal all their customers.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a side topic: Imagine RP wins the election and Dems gain a useful majority in both houses of congress. What then? We get out of Iraq and... nothing else happens for four years because they can't agree on anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

AWESOME!

Actually they might make it legal for states to do their own thing with medicinal marijuana. Unlikely that the Dems would go for that, but possible.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you'd be happy if you couldn't access 2p2 because they didn't give extra money to your current ISP and your ISP just happened to drop all the little ones and zeros you request for this particular domain name, or the same for any poker program you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be happy to get a new ISP. No big whoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an option for everyone. Hooray for monopolies!

[/ QUOTE ]

For whom would it not be an option for? And WTF do monopolies have to do with it? It's nearly impossible for a monopoly to exist in a free market.